Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, being above average is "rich"? That explains much of your argument.
As you suggest, there are "part-time" farmers who have other jobs because they cannot financially afford otherwise.
I am not sure why you relate poor to hillbilly. I am hillbilly and not poor, not rich (well maybe by your standard) but not poor.
I said two things
1. They arent poor
and
2. Some of the biggest houses Ive ever seen were sitting on farms
I never once said all farmers are rich, however any farm big enough to be commercially viable (these are the farms that are largely responsible for feeding the US), are at least at a life style that is more comfortable than their "civilian" counterparts.
Those farms which have "farmers" who depend on other income, are largely not viable at all, and are little more than sustenance or "farmers market" farms. These farms have very little impact on the price of tea in china.
If you have a commercially viable operation, farming is a great gig, no questions about it.
2. Some of the biggest houses Ive ever seen were sitting on farms
I never once said all farmers are rich, however any farm big enough to be commercially viable (these are the farms that are largely responsible for feeding the US), are at least at a life style that is more comfortable than their "civilian" counterparts.
Those farms which have "farmers" who depend on other income, are largely not viable at all, and are little more than sustenance or "farmers market" farms. These farms have very little impact on the price of tea in china.
If you have a commercially viable operation, farming is a great gig, no questions about it.
Well, you did say that farmers who had no other source of income were poor and were most likely hillbillly. I asked why you equated the two.
Our relative's farm is just over 100 acres and produced less than $50,000 annually for a family of 5. The primary crops were corn and soy beans, with a few cattle.
I agree, these farms are becoming less and less, but these are the farmers I was referring to.
Since Republicans are clamoring for cutting spending, would it not make sense to create a law for every state to keep most if not all their federal taxes collected?
Where federal taxes are raised and spent
SOME American states receive more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes; others receive less. Over twenty years these fiscal transfers can add up to a sizeable sum. From 1990 to 2009, the federal government spent $1.44 trillion in Virginia but collected less than $850 billion in taxes, a gap of over $590 billion. But relative to the size of its economy, Virginia derived a smaller benefit from America's fiscal union than states like New Mexico, Mississippi and West Virginia, where the 20-year transfer exceeded 200% of their annual GDP. Transfers to Puerto Rico, which is a US territory not a fully incorporated state, exceeded 290%. Where did these transfers come from? New York transferred over $950 billion to the rest of America's fiscal union from 1990 to 2009. But relative to the size of its economy, Delaware made the biggest contribution, equivalent to more than twice its 2009 GDP. These calculations are based on tax figures provided by the Internal Revenue Service (which used to bracket Washington, DC, with Maryland) and federal spending numbers provided by the Census Bureau, which ignores spending on international programmes and interest payments.
Not "sneering" at anything. But these people clearly have almost no bearing on anything in the larger sense of the word. They are a minority of farms, and their crops are a fraction of the total crops on the market.
Family farmer John on his 1 to 2 acres has little to no impact on "keeping the US fed" or on commodity prices in general.
Smaller family farms tend to be more along the lines of 60-80 acres where I live.
They generally grow niche crops since you can barely break even on mainstream crops like corn or soybeans unless you have a bigger scale.
So a lot of these places grow organic or alternative type crops like say....pumpkins.
Well, you did say that farmers who had no other source of income were poor and were most likely hillbillly. I asked why you equated the two.
Our relative's farm is just over 100 acres and produced less than $50,000 annually for a family of 5. The primary crops were corn and soy beans, with a few cattle.
I agree, these farms are becoming less and less, but these are the farmers I was referring to.
Thats a viable farm though. They might be slightly less than the median for farms, but are still right around the US median, not bad at all.
The term "hillbilly" was just a generalization. Clearly any type of person can own/run a non viable residential farm, and not have another source of income. I just imagine a person running one of these as the "Jedd Clampet" type. Chances are most people in this situation are one or more of the following
1. So far out in the country that there are no other available income sources
2. Lack the skills to obtain other income sources
3. Are "survivalist" types who are comfortable living in poverty in exchange for a certain amount of control over their own destiny.
Nothing wrong with any of that, just the image I automatically think of, right or wrong, is a Jedd Clampet type.
Status:
"Democracies tend to decline into despotism. (Aristotle)"
(set 14 days ago)
Location: Berwick, Penna.
16,233 posts, read 11,471,136 times
Reputation: 20864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Family farmer John on his 1 to 2 acres has little to no impact on "keeping the US fed" or on commodity prices in general.
Most "displaced" (cash crop only w/outside income sources) run more in the range of 100-320 acres. many midwestern states (Ohio, Indiana, Michigan) follow this pattern for much of their farm acreage, and the numbers add up.
I notice that you are an accountant. I have an additional 12 credits myself (all tax-related) in addition to my B S in Business, and ran a sideline tax prep business for over 20 years. In that time, I never saw a sideline farm loss disallowed by the IRS.
It should also be noted that no single economic trend has done more to rener the family farm "not commercially viable" than the increasing mandate for farm labor to be covered by various social insurance programs. That might be politically popular -- even justified -- but the people affected are more financially astute than the "hillbilly survivalists" depicted in your posts.
Thats a viable farm though. They might be slightly less than the median for farms, but are still right around the US median, not bad at all.
The term "hillbilly" was just a generalization. Clearly any type of person can own/run a non viable residential farm, and not have another source of income. I just imagine a person running one of these as the "Jedd Clampet" type. Chances are most people in this situation are one or more of the following
1. So far out in the country that there are no other available income sources
2. Lack the skills to obtain other income sources
3. Are "survivalist" types who are comfortable living in poverty in exchange for a certain amount of control over their own destiny.
Nothing wrong with any of that, just the image I automatically think of, right or wrong, is a Jedd Clampet type.
No offense was taken by the use of the term Hillbilly as I am one, however, not all are poor. Some of us live in environs outside the farm these days. I will say that we are considered "citified" and a little on the soft side by our farming relatives who are the toughest and hardest working people I know.
My relatives had the skills needed for their occupation. If they had chosen another occupation, I have no reason to believe they could not have acquired other skills to be successful. In other words, I don't think there were "trapped" into being farmers.
We are way off topic here but I appreciate your clarification.
Why do most conservative states take more from the USA than they give back?
Why is it that so many republicans complain and moan about moochers and makers when most of the conservative states take more money from the federal government than they give back??? How can republicans possibly reconcile this? And yet most of the democratic states give more back to the government than they take.
Because blue states and Texas are dumb enough to support them. You know if someone offered to subsidize your lifestyle you would take it just like most people would
Another reason why we should split up. the usefullness of America as it is has reached the point of being detrimental
Because blue states and Texas are dumb enough to support them. You know if someone offered to subsidize your lifestyle you would take it just like most people would
Another reason why we should split up. the usefullness of America as it is has reached the point of being detrimental
If the federal government were reduced to only the roles it's supposed to have, we wouldn't have this problem.
It's both funny and sad that the group of people who whine and complain about "blue states supporting red states" is exactly the same group that DEMANDS a larger federal government. Where the F do they think that will lead us? Do they ever use their heads?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do most conservative states take more from the USA than they give back?
