How absurd! If a significant percentage of “farmers” only collected government payments for their unfarmed, fallow farmland, there would be a huge food shortage.
A few facts, in case you’re interested (Fyi - I inherited my father’s farm last year - a farm that has been in the family for nearly 100 years, so I’m speaking from experience, NOT snippets that one can read on some obscure website and not bother to research):
- Over 75% of the Farm Bill is for the Food Stamp Program (which in no way benefits me).
- Fewer than 25% of farms produce gross revenues over $50,000 per year.
- The number of farms in this country has declined from 6.8 million in 1935 to around 2 million today - if it was so lucrative (income for no work), wouldn’t the number be increasing, like the number of people receiving food stamps is?
- I receive $95 per acre (taxable) from the government for not farming land that is susceptible to erosion - there are qualifying criteria. This allows the land to become more stable through the development of the root system of the grasses that I am required to plant and maintain throughout the 10 year program (the land cannot just be abandoned, as you suggest), and it reduces (slightly) the amount of tilled farmland, which helps support the crop prices. Incidentally, I could make more by farming the land.
- The best farmland in this area sells for up to $12,000 per acre, but ours is not prime, so let’s say it’s worth $5,000 per acre.
- Ignoring taxes and the cost of equipment and fuel to maintain this land (which are not insignificant), my return on this land is less than 3.0% per year.
- If my goal was to live the easy life on government payments, I could live better by selling the land and investing the money at a higher rate than 3.0%.
Thus, to even suggest that anyone would invest in farmland to abandon it and just receive government payments is illogical and uninformed.
The truth is that people are investing in farmland as a hedge against inflation and as a safety net in case the economy continues to worsen.
Since you are so against any hint of others receiving government assistance, I assume you have given up all of your government support (i.e., tax deductions)???
“If a significant percentage of ‘farmers’ only collected government payments for their unfarmed, fallow farmland, there would be a huge food shortage.”
You need to brush up on Keynesian economics. Shortages are the deliberate design of various government programs, since ceteris paribus price goes up when supply goes down. And for some reason that I’ve never been able to understand higher prices are supposed to be good for the economy as a whole because they’re good for a certain politically connected block of producers.
“Since you are so against any hint of others receiving government assistance, I assume you have given up all of your government support (i.e., tax deductions)???”
We may not like how the state attempts social engineering through the tax code, and in a perfect world the laws would apply equally. However, tax deductions are not “government support.” Even if the next guy doesn’t get the same break, all that’s happening is you’re keeping more of your own money. That’s self-support.
Are you saying that the government no longer pays farmers to not grow crops on certain portions of their land???
60 Minutes had a story on it a few years back. Apparently some of the land that qualifies for these government payments as long as they remain fallow were grandfathered in years ago by the DOA and are paid as long as no crops are grown on them. People in New York were buying up these plots as investments.
One farmer sold to an investor in New York a section of land that had been so grandfathered in. He grew crops all around it, assuring that it remained fallow so that the investor/owner could collect his government payments.