They also benefit the American public through food stability and land access initiatives.
"monopolies and wealth consolidation are good for you, trust us"
Not quite how that works.
exactly how that works.
state-sanctioned monopolies on food production and land access.
No. The deal is if we give you money the public gets access. It's a willing seller willing buyer arrangement.
who's paying?
Explain please. I thought farm subsidies were to protect over-production and, as a result, keep the price for goods artificially inflated.
My family used to have a non-working farm for years. Gov't gave us money to NOT plant any crops. It wasn't much if I recall correctly. Maybe enough to cover the property taxes.
I'm admittedly ignorant on the debate of farm subsidies.
Not relevant. We're discussing the specific policy as it applies to the real world, not the theoretical world in which no one should be forced to pay taxes.
In the world in which we currently exists, it's a willing seller, willing buyer situation.
how are you defining "willing" and "buyer"?
basically, the payout scales up by how much acreage you have in farrow.
so if my mom put her 500 acres in CRP, it would basically pay the property tax.
if she had 5k acres, she'd be making a huge profit.
T
The Big Guy
Guest
M
member 1013
Guest
@Filthy you just got an invitation to the harsh reality of the real world suckah!
Is he wrong?
Our farm was definitely in the 500 acre range.
We covered it.
Mentioning it on MLK Day - which he didn't - would have been wrong.
Farms are not obligated to be involved. Government offers money, farms accept. Farms would be the seller and government the buyer.
is it applied equally, or is the tax base under-represented in the payment of benefits?
"government" is what we call the things we do together.
EDIT - and are you talking about both subsidies and land access?
I'm sorry, but I don't follow the lineup questioning. Can i ask you to clarify?
are the people who are paying the taxes the people who are getting the payout, or is it a "take from the poor, give to the rich" arrangement?
Partly the first, but the second doesn't really play. It's similar to what happens with national parks. Except instead of the land being held in trust for the public use, it's rented from the land owners.
so lots of poor people in Chicago are paying rent to rich land barons in Idaho.
They also have access to that land. As I pointed out earlier, we're not discussing the mechanism of taxation, we're discussing this particular application of government spending. As far as it goes, it's much better than most. I also can't tell you with certainty that there isn't similar initiatives occuring in Illinois.