Odds and Ends

Duck hunting in California topics include: California duck hunting trips, the past hunting seasons, and share information about California duck hunting guides.

Moderators: #1wingnut, duckman2000, PinTeal

Re: Odds and Ends

Postby Mallards Only » Wed Feb 12, 2014 5:25 pm

slowshooter wrote:
Mallards Only wrote:
LeakyW8ers wrote:
Mallards Only wrote:By paying only 25% instead of 50% or more that others pay you are effectively taking money from the govt. as you are not giving it to them in the first place.


No, I am NOT taking money from the government because it wasn't theirs to begin with. You fail again. I can't take something from someone that was not theirs to begin with. You have an issue with the tax tables, take it up with the IRS, as John Q. Public has no say in what tax bracket they end up in, other than trying to better themselves through hard work, promotion or searches for a new job that pays more. The tax rate is not a valid argument.

However, these subsidies ARE taking money from every taxpayer and redistributing it to farmers, just like they redistribute to other welfare recipients, and the DOD, and the Education System, etc..

Show me someone who actually pays 50% tax rate, and I'll show you someone who has no clue on how to properly fill out tax forms. You think people like Bill Gates, heck even ol' Butta Boom, pays 50% in taxes? No Farmer is paying 50% in taxes either because they get to claim depreciation, losses, etc. If a farmer is paying 50% in taxes, he needs to quit doing his own taxes and head on down to H&R Block and get someone competent to do their taxes for them. $0.52 per mile putting on 100,000 miles in a couple years ring a bell? That's a tax credit of $26,000/year just for mileage, PLUS the depreciation on that pickup.

And my money was MINE to begin with but that doesn't stop the IRS from claiming it belongs to them. That's a ridiculous argument. Next time Obama wants > 50% of my AGI, I'll tell him "NO, it's mine. Leaky said so." Do us all a favor and try that.


The win goes to house Leaky.

That's funny. You're the only one who thinks so. Of course you're so full of yourself(among other things) that you fail to recognize it.
Mallards Only
hunter
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:49 pm
Location: Chico, CA


Re: Odds and Ends

Postby slowshooter » Wed Feb 12, 2014 5:41 pm

Mallards Only wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
Mallards Only wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
Mallards Only wrote:many rice farmers(especially the smaller ones) will not be willing to take the risk and will farm something else or will sell their land to orchard developers.


Boo effen hoo.

If a crack-a-lackin' hooker can't make money on her knees - she has to make money on her back. If money sucking farmers can't adapt better than a streetwalker - they need to go out of business.

Classy as usual. I dare you to tell one of them that to their face. You talk big on here but I guarantee you wouldn't have much of a face left if you did. They work harder than you ever have or will.


I don't know... I've talked to a few hookers in my day. While I have never been a customer of a hooker or been beaten by one, I can't comment to their ability to kick butt - but I certainly will acknowledge your evident insider point of view as to how hardworking they are.

Guess that makes you a pimp then. Who else would talk to so many hookers and have an insider's view of how hardworking they are?


And you talk about other's reading comprehension? LOL! :lol3:

I show you... The pimp hand! *Whappity whap whap!*
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Odds and Ends

Postby slowshooter » Wed Feb 12, 2014 5:44 pm

Mallards Only wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
Mallards Only wrote:
LeakyW8ers wrote:
Mallards Only wrote:By paying only 25% instead of 50% or more that others pay you are effectively taking money from the govt. as you are not giving it to them in the first place.


No, I am NOT taking money from the government because it wasn't theirs to begin with. You fail again. I can't take something from someone that was not theirs to begin with. You have an issue with the tax tables, take it up with the IRS, as John Q. Public has no say in what tax bracket they end up in, other than trying to better themselves through hard work, promotion or searches for a new job that pays more. The tax rate is not a valid argument.

However, these subsidies ARE taking money from every taxpayer and redistributing it to farmers, just like they redistribute to other welfare recipients, and the DOD, and the Education System, etc..

Show me someone who actually pays 50% tax rate, and I'll show you someone who has no clue on how to properly fill out tax forms. You think people like Bill Gates, heck even ol' Butta Boom, pays 50% in taxes? No Farmer is paying 50% in taxes either because they get to claim depreciation, losses, etc. If a farmer is paying 50% in taxes, he needs to quit doing his own taxes and head on down to H&R Block and get someone competent to do their taxes for them. $0.52 per mile putting on 100,000 miles in a couple years ring a bell? That's a tax credit of $26,000/year just for mileage, PLUS the depreciation on that pickup.

And my money was MINE to begin with but that doesn't stop the IRS from claiming it belongs to them. That's a ridiculous argument. Next time Obama wants > 50% of my AGI, I'll tell him "NO, it's mine. Leaky said so." Do us all a favor and try that.


The win goes to house Leaky.

That's funny. You're the only one who thinks so. Of course you're so full of yourself (among other things) that you fail to recognize it.


I can't help being smarter than you. Sort of like you can't stop yourself from being part of a taxpayer ripoff scheme.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Odds and Ends

Postby LeakyW8ers » Wed Feb 12, 2014 5:44 pm

Mallards Only wrote:
LeakyW8ers wrote:
Mallards Only wrote:By paying only 25% instead of 50% or more that others pay you are effectively taking money from the govt. as you are not giving it to them in the first place.


No, I am NOT taking money from the government because it wasn't theirs to begin with. You fail again. I can't take something from someone that was not theirs to begin with. You have an issue with the tax tables, take it up with the IRS, as John Q. Public has no say in what tax bracket they end up in, other than trying to better themselves through hard work, promotion or searches for a new job that pays more. The tax rate is not a valid argument.

However, these subsidies ARE taking money from every taxpayer and redistributing it to farmers, just like they redistribute to other welfare recipients, and the DOD, and the Education System, etc..

Show me someone who actually pays 50% tax rate, and I'll show you someone who has no clue on how to properly fill out tax forms. You think people like Bill Gates, heck even ol' Butta Boom, pays 50% in taxes? No Farmer is paying 50% in taxes either because they get to claim depreciation, losses, etc. If a farmer is paying 50% in taxes, he needs to quit doing his own taxes and head on down to H&R Block and get someone competent to do their taxes for them. $0.52 per mile putting on 100,000 miles in a couple years ring a bell? That's a tax credit of $26,000/year just for mileage, PLUS the depreciation on that pickup.


And my money was MINE to begin with but that doesn't stop the IRS from claiming it belongs to them. That's a ridiculous argument. Next time Obama wants > 50% of my AGI, I'll tell him "NO, it's mine. Leaky said so." Do us all a favor and try that.


Did I say the IRS does not claim my money? But what they cannot do is claim more than the Romper Room tax tables directly from the agencies that COLLECT THE TAXES says they can. Your logic is immensely flawed.

Mallards Only wrote:Well, which is it? Are these farmers making millions of dollars or not? If they are, then they're paying upwards of 53% back in taxes because I guarantee you there are not enough deductions to offset all that alleged income.
Here are the true tax tables, rather than the Romper Room ones that Leaky provided:

http://taxes.about.com/od/Federal-Incom ... r-2014.htm

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2013 ... n-america/


So the IRS and the California Franchise Tax Board, you know, those agencies that COLLECT THE TAXES, are Romper Room? You really do need to check your facts. The tax tables I posted are what you pay based on your taxable income. Don't like those figures? Well, the IRs and the FTB are where you can lodge your complaint. The actual numbers from the actual agencies do not lie. But apparently you have an issue with being honest with yourself and others.

Good luck with THAT.

If they don't have the deductions then they 1)own no equipment, 2)have 0 operating costs. Frankly, they cannot be the ones actually farming the land. Tax bills are high at tax time for farmers who do not make estimated tax payments during the year. That tax bill can get pretty steep if estimated tax payments aren't made. But 50% is ludicrous based on the real tax tables from the IRS and FTB, unless they are pulling in major 6 figure numbers for taxable income.
If at first you don't succeed, maybe skydiving isn't for you.

California Waterfowl Association Life Member
Ducks Unlimited Member
National Rifle Association Member
User avatar
LeakyW8ers
hunter
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:49 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Odds and Ends

Postby marsh-mello » Wed Feb 12, 2014 5:59 pm

Nabs wrote:
Your hypothetical 500 acre farm of Med grain rice. According to the UC Davis Ag extension link you provided, the total operating costs (per acre) for growing rice in the Sacramento Valley is ~$1,100.00. That’s the TOTAL OPERATING COST…The total cost out of the farmers pocket, from laying seed to harvest, paying for all labor (including his own hours), equipment, taxes, fees, water, everything. The UCD link makes quite a few assumptions and states those assumptions in their synopsis. Not all of which I agree with, but they probably know more about farming rice than either of us ever will, so I’ll stipulate to their assumptions.


Then add land rents and non-cash overhead and the table ends at 1606 total cost per acre, and 500 times 1606 equals 803,000.


Well you can't add land rent AND property taxes it usually is one or the other as often I hear them both being touted and then not separated in another part of the discussion. In addition the land value can and is often inflated by the value of these payments one is able to receive.
Last edited by marsh-mello on Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 554
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Odds and Ends

Postby marsh-mello » Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:09 pm

Another issue which is lost in the justification is that many farms do not take subsidies. Just like the earlier gentleman posted where his father and grandfather have never taken payments and have farmed for many years.

OVER 70% of the subsidies actually go to large corporate farms so simply trying to justify this spending and not see the cooperate nature of supporting agribusiness is somewhat myopic to the real benefactors. I believe somewhere I read that 62% of farms do not receive subsidies so it is possible and there are examples of many folks out there who are making it without hogging at the trough.

This is a extremely interesting link and identifies who is fleecing the government through these programs and provides some additional perspective. It also includes farm subsidies along with other corporate entities even including comparisons to welfare.

http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-sp ... tatistics/

"Whenever corporate welfare is presented to voters, it always sounds like a pretty reasonable, well-intended idea. Politicians say that they’re stimulating the economy or helping struggling industries or creating jobs or funding important research. But when you steal money from the paychecks of working people, you hurt the economy by reducing their ability to buy the things they want or need. This decrease in demand damages other industries and puts people out of work.

Most of the pigs at the government trough are among the biggest companies in America."

Farm Subsidies
However, the largest fraction of corporate welfare spending, about 40%, went through the Department of Agriculture, most of it in the form of farm subsidies. (Edwards, Corporate Welfare, 2003) Well, that sounds OK. Someone’s got to help struggling family farms stay afloat, right? But in reality, farm subsidies actually tilt the cotton field in favor of the largest industrial farming operations. When it comes to deciding how to dole out the money, the agricultural subsidy system utilizes a process that is essentially the opposite of that used in the social welfare system’s welfare system. In the corporate welfare system, the more money and assets you have, the more government assistance you get. Conversely, social welfare programs are set up so that the more money and assets you have, the less government assistance you get. The result is that the absolute largest 7% of corporate farming operations receive 45% of all subsidies. (Edwards, Downsizing the Federal Government, 2004) So instead of protecting family farms, these subsidies actually enhance the ability of large industrial operations to shut them out of the market.
Last edited by marsh-mello on Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:19 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 554
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Odds and Ends

Postby High Sierras » Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:11 pm

Nabs wrote:
Your hypothetical 500 acre farm of Med grain rice. According to the UC Davis Ag extension link you provided, the total operating costs (per acre) for growing rice in the Sacramento Valley is ~$1,100.00. That’s the TOTAL OPERATING COST…The total cost out of the farmers pocket, from laying seed to harvest, paying for all labor (including his own hours), equipment, taxes, fees, water, everything. The UCD link makes quite a few assumptions and states those assumptions in their synopsis. Not all of which I agree with, but they probably know more about farming rice than either of us ever will, so I’ll stipulate to their assumptions.

Then add land rents and non-cash overhead and the table ends at 1606 total cost per acre, and 500 times 1606 equals 803,000.

Of course, UCD's model assumes they only "own" 200 acres and LEASE the remaining 640 acres for UC Davis' hypothetical 840 acre operation... one of the assumptions I'm not so sure I agree with. If they 'own' their 500 acre farm, that drops right back down to ~$1,100 an acre, more or less.

Just for giggles, I thought I'd look for a more recent cost per acre, and found the "USA Rice Federation" 2012/2013 almanac...
http://www.usarice.com/doclib/188/217/6563.pdf
USA Rice Federation wrote: "...While rice prices have only marginally increased over the past five years, the cost of producing rice has skyrocketed over 40 percent in the same time period, rising from $680 per acre in 2007 to $968 in 2011. This may be another contributing factor to the decrease in total acres of rice planted over the previous five years..."

So if you use the $986 per acre, it's even less than the US Davis' number... so we're back down to about half of your $803k number. But both the UC Davis cost (assuming the farmer owns the majority of their farm property) and the USA Rice Federation number are closer to $500k than your $803k.

The other side of the coin?

USA Rice Federation wrote: "...Season year average prices for rice have increased slightly since 2007. Long-grain prices have increased $1 per hundredweight (CWT), rising from $12.40 in 2007 to $13.40 in 2011 and averaging $12.92 over that five-year period. Medium- and short-grain prices have seen a slightly higher increase of $1.90 per CWT. Since 2007 but have also been more volatile due to a steep increase in 2008 to $24.80 and subsequent decrease to $16.50 over the past three years, averaging $18.62 over the 2007–2011 time period."

So let's throw out the banner year of 2008, when that 500 acre farm would have made slightly over a million bucks in gross revenues. Using the 2007-2011 average price per CWT of $18.62, and keeping the USDA production rate of 85 CWT/ Acre, that 500 acre farm now grosses... $791,350. Holey Moley. No wonder you say the $100k they get in agri-welfare is paltry... it's downright pocket lint for this hypothetical rice farmer.

Now let's split the assumed cost to plant that 500 acre farm... My figs say more like $500K, you say $800K. Call it $650k, something we could argue about till the ducks return and not reach a concensus. That means the poor destitute farmer is only raking in $141 thousand dollars in pure profit a year. So much for my earlier number of $45k a year.

Another factoid straight from the USA Rice Federation 2012/13 Almanac:

USA Rice Federation wrote: As the USA Rice PAC sets its goals for the 2013–2014 election cycle, all segments of the industry are being asked to continue their commitment to a strong political presence in Washington, DC. Building on the momentum established over the past 10 years, USA Rice PAC must undertake new and creative fundraising techniques and a peer-to-peer campaign within the industry to grow PAC resources. The future of the USA Rice PAC depends on continued member support and engagement.

Contributions to Democratic Leadership PACs $8,000
Contributions to Republican Leadership PACS $31,000
Contributions to Republican Members $159,500
Contributions to Democratic Members $49,481


Net total spent by the USA Rice Federation PAC to buy politicians in 2012... nearly a quarter million dollars. A paltry sum indeed.

The bottom line, rice is big business, will always be big business. There will always be profits in it, and there will always be boatloads of corporate welfare paid out to the guys buying the politicians and thier influence, courtesy of the American Taxpayer.



Don't like to hear it called corporate welfare??? Then just wave your hands about and scream a little louder about how much hard work growing rice is and how we all just don't get it... you might be able to drown out your own conciousness if you yell loud enough or tell the same lies often enough.ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 654
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: Odds and Ends

Postby Nabs » Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:23 pm

Really???? are you that ignorant? The paper used an 80% land rented and a 20% owned, and both property taxes (on owned property) and land rents (on rented lands) were averaged across all farmed acres as to a do an average cost per acre.


High Sierra simply found a number that suited his agenda and stopped looking. in your posting and making 141,000 in profits, the landowner would still come out ahead leasing his ground for 350$per acre for a guaranteed income of 175,000 dollars.

I will agree that the cost to put rice in is somewhere between 950 and 1150 an acre, the cost to lease that land is somewhere between 300 and 500 per acre. The lease cost is either the amount you pay the landowner to farm the land or the amount of money the landowner does not take from someone else in lieu of putting the work in themselves. Unless you want to begrudge the landowner for recognizing a profit on his owned property.

BTW: MM if you ever edit inside a quote and attribute it to me again you will be very very sorry.
User avatar
Nabs
hunter
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:35 pm

Re: Odds and Ends

Postby marsh-mello » Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:33 pm

Nabs wrote:BTW: MM if you ever edit inside a quote and attribute it to me again you will be very very sorry.


Whatever I FIFY people do it all the time...if you can't see the humor or the irony in it then get a life.

Are you threatening me or what, Please do tell, just how am I going to be very very sorry? Sounds like it over something as silly as this discussion?
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 554
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Odds and Ends

Postby Nabs » Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:39 pm

marsh-mello wrote:
Nabs wrote:BTW: MM if you ever edit inside a quote and attribute it to me again you will be very very sorry.


Whatever I FIFY people do it all the time...if you can't see the humor or the irony in it then get a life.

Are you threatening me or what, sounds like it over something as silly as this discussion?


It is one thing to put FIFY and everyone chuckles about it, it is another thing to put something I did not say in a quote without everyone finding it funny and a lot of people unwilling to even read this whole trainwreck of a thread.
User avatar
Nabs
hunter
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:35 pm

Re: Odds and Ends

Postby Nabs » Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:42 pm

The last 3 years with global market prices for rice

http://www.ers.usda.gov/ersDownloadHand ... table5.xls

No where near the 18.xx cwt mark.
User avatar
Nabs
hunter
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:35 pm

Re: Odds and Ends

Postby marsh-mello » Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:43 pm

Nabs wrote:
marsh-mello wrote:
Nabs wrote:BTW: MM if you ever edit inside a quote and attribute it to me again you will be very very sorry.


Whatever I FIFY people do it all the time...if you can't see the humor or the irony in it then get a life.

Are you threatening me or what, sounds like it over something as silly as this discussion?


It is one thing to put FIFY and everyone chuckles about it, it is another thing to put something I did not say in a quote without everyone finding it funny and a lot of people unwilling to even read this whole trainwreck of a thread.


Oh I think everyone but you DOES find it funny...I did FIFY, I will try and make my satire more obvious in the future.

Here are some current US rice prices todays as well as a year ago, beings that's where we sell and produce most of our rice.....prices vary according to the type. I imagine "global" rice prices are even more widely variable and in poorer countries they can get by with a lower standard of living hence a lower base price?

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/ams/LSWRICE.pdf
Last edited by marsh-mello on Wed Feb 12, 2014 7:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 554
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Odds and Ends

Postby slowshooter » Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:54 pm

Don't know about you guys but watching train wrecks is fun. :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Odds and Ends

Postby marsh-mello » Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:56 pm

slowshooter wrote:Don't know about you guys but watching train wrecks is fun. :lol3:


At 6000+ views I would say this is a commuter train wreck... :lol3:
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 554
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Odds and Ends

Postby Nabs » Wed Feb 12, 2014 7:00 pm

MM your link shows no prices for California rough rice. which is as close as you can get to what the farmer is paid.
User avatar
Nabs
hunter
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:35 pm

Re: Odds and Ends

Postby slowshooter » Wed Feb 12, 2014 7:00 pm

marsh-mello wrote:
slowshooter wrote:Don't know about you guys but watching train wrecks is fun. :lol3:


At 6000+ views I would say this is a commuter train wreck... :lol3:



LOL! And all because one guy "conducts" himself badly. :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Odds and Ends

Postby marsh-mello » Wed Feb 12, 2014 7:03 pm

Nabs wrote:MM your link shows no prices for California rough rice. which is as close as you can get to what the farmer is paid.


Well this is certainly not just a California issue is it? Besides the Davis "study" is just a paper tiger anyway with many admitted assumptions and then we agree there is the real world. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

The 2013/14 season-average farm price (SAFP) range for U.S. long-grain rice was revised to $15.10-$15.70 from $14.80-$15.80 a month earlier, with the midpoint up 10 cents. The combined medium- and short-grain 2013/14 U.S. SAFP range was revised to $17.20-$17.80 per cwt from $16.30-$17.30 per cwt, an increase in the mid-point of 70 cents. - See more at: http://agfax.com/2014/02/12/rice-outloo ... qGxg8.dpuf
Last edited by marsh-mello on Wed Feb 12, 2014 7:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 554
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Odds and Ends

Postby marsh-mello » Wed Feb 12, 2014 7:06 pm

slowshooter wrote:
marsh-mello wrote:
slowshooter wrote:Don't know about you guys but watching train wrecks is fun. :lol3:


At 6000+ views I would say this is a commuter train wreck... :lol3:



LOL! And all because one guy "conducts" himself badly. :lol3:


You're very "punny" :lol3: :lol3: ....
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 554
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Odds and Ends

Postby High Sierras » Wed Feb 12, 2014 7:48 pm

slowshooter wrote:Don't know about you guys but watching train wrecks is fun. :lol3:


Let me guess... Gomez Addams was your favorite member of the Addams Family, right?
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 654
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: Odds and Ends

Postby slowshooter » Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:10 pm

High Sierras wrote:
slowshooter wrote:Don't know about you guys but watching train wrecks is fun. :lol3:


Let me guess... Gomez Addams was your favorite member of the Addams Family, right?


Morticia.... Because Carolyn Jones was HAWWWT.

Come to think of it so was Yvonne DeCarlo....

That said I liked the trains wrecks as much as Gomez.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Odds and Ends

Postby Mallards Only » Thu Feb 13, 2014 7:47 am

slowshooter wrote:
Mallards Only wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
Mallards Only wrote:
LeakyW8ers wrote:
Mallards Only wrote:By paying only 25% instead of 50% or more that others pay you are effectively taking money from the govt. as you are not giving it to them in the first place.


No, I am NOT taking money from the government because it wasn't theirs to begin with. You fail again. I can't take something from someone that was not theirs to begin with. You have an issue with the tax tables, take it up with the IRS, as John Q. Public has no say in what tax bracket they end up in, other than trying to better themselves through hard work, promotion or searches for a new job that pays more. The tax rate is not a valid argument.

However, these subsidies ARE taking money from every taxpayer and redistributing it to farmers, just like they redistribute to other welfare recipients, and the DOD, and the Education System, etc..

Show me someone who actually pays 50% tax rate, and I'll show you someone who has no clue on how to properly fill out tax forms. You think people like Bill Gates, heck even ol' Butta Boom, pays 50% in taxes? No Farmer is paying 50% in taxes either because they get to claim depreciation, losses, etc. If a farmer is paying 50% in taxes, he needs to quit doing his own taxes and head on down to H&R Block and get someone competent to do their taxes for them. $0.52 per mile putting on 100,000 miles in a couple years ring a bell? That's a tax credit of $26,000/year just for mileage, PLUS the depreciation on that pickup.

And my money was MINE to begin with but that doesn't stop the IRS from claiming it belongs to them. That's a ridiculous argument. Next time Obama wants > 50% of my AGI, I'll tell him "NO, it's mine. Leaky said so." Do us all a favor and try that.


The win goes to house Leaky.

That's funny. You're the only one who thinks so. Of course you're so full of yourself (among other things) that you fail to recognize it.


I can't help being smarter than you. Sort of like you can't stop yourself from being part of a taxpayer ripoff scheme.

Care to have an IQ test competition? Loser stops posting on these forums forever?
Mallards Only
hunter
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:49 pm
Location: Chico, CA

Re: Odds and Ends

Postby Mallards Only » Thu Feb 13, 2014 8:20 am

High Sierras wrote:
Nabs wrote:
Your hypothetical 500 acre farm of Med grain rice. According to the UC Davis Ag extension link you provided, the total operating costs (per acre) for growing rice in the Sacramento Valley is ~$1,100.00. That’s the TOTAL OPERATING COST…The total cost out of the farmers pocket, from laying seed to harvest, paying for all labor (including his own hours), equipment, taxes, fees, water, everything. The UCD link makes quite a few assumptions and states those assumptions in their synopsis. Not all of which I agree with, but they probably know more about farming rice than either of us ever will, so I’ll stipulate to their assumptions.

Then add land rents and non-cash overhead and the table ends at 1606 total cost per acre, and 500 times 1606 equals 803,000.

Of course, UCD's model assumes they only "own" 200 acres and LEASE the remaining 640 acres for UC Davis' hypothetical 840 acre operation... one of the assumptions I'm not so sure I agree with. If they 'own' their 500 acre farm, that drops right back down to ~$1,100 an acre, more or less.

Just for giggles, I thought I'd look for a more recent cost per acre, and found the "USA Rice Federation" 2012/2013 almanac...
http://www.usarice.com/doclib/188/217/6563.pdf
USA Rice Federation wrote: "...While rice prices have only marginally increased over the past five years, the cost of producing rice has skyrocketed over 40 percent in the same time period, rising from $680 per acre in 2007 to $968 in 2011. This may be another contributing factor to the decrease in total acres of rice planted over the previous five years..."

So if you use the $986 per acre, it's even less than the US Davis' number... so we're back down to about half of your $803k number. But both the UC Davis cost (assuming the farmer owns the majority of their farm property) and the USA Rice Federation number are closer to $500k than your $803k.

The other side of the coin?

USA Rice Federation wrote: "...Season year average prices for rice have increased slightly since 2007. Long-grain prices have increased $1 per hundredweight (CWT), rising from $12.40 in 2007 to $13.40 in 2011 and averaging $12.92 over that five-year period. Medium- and short-grain prices have seen a slightly higher increase of $1.90 per CWT. Since 2007 but have also been more volatile due to a steep increase in 2008 to $24.80 and subsequent decrease to $16.50 over the past three years, averaging $18.62 over the 2007–2011 time period."

So let's throw out the banner year of 2008, when that 500 acre farm would have made slightly over a million bucks in gross revenues. Using the 2007-2011 average price per CWT of $18.62, and keeping the USDA production rate of 85 CWT/ Acre, that 500 acre farm now grosses... $791,350. Holey Moley. No wonder you say the $100k they get in agri-welfare is paltry... it's downright pocket lint for this hypothetical rice farmer.

Now let's split the assumed cost to plant that 500 acre farm... My figs say more like $500K, you say $800K. Call it $650k, something we could argue about till the ducks return and not reach a concensus. That means the poor destitute farmer is only raking in $141 thousand dollars in pure profit a year. So much for my earlier number of $45k a year.

Another factoid straight from the USA Rice Federation 2012/13 Almanac:

USA Rice Federation wrote: As the USA Rice PAC sets its goals for the 2013–2014 election cycle, all segments of the industry are being asked to continue their commitment to a strong political presence in Washington, DC. Building on the momentum established over the past 10 years, USA Rice PAC must undertake new and creative fundraising techniques and a peer-to-peer campaign within the industry to grow PAC resources. The future of the USA Rice PAC depends on continued member support and engagement.

Contributions to Democratic Leadership PACs $8,000
Contributions to Republican Leadership PACS $31,000
Contributions to Republican Members $159,500
Contributions to Democratic Members $49,481


Net total spent by the USA Rice Federation PAC to buy politicians in 2012... nearly a quarter million dollars. A paltry sum indeed.

The bottom line, rice is big business, will always be big business. There will always be profits in it, and there will always be boatloads of corporate welfare paid out to the guys buying the politicians and thier influence, courtesy of the American Taxpayer.



Don't like to hear it called corporate welfare??? Then just wave your hands about and scream a little louder about how much hard work growing rice is and how we all just don't get it... you might be able to drown out your own conciousness if you yell loud enough or tell the same lies often enough.ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage

I'm not even sure why I'm continuing to post on this thread because it's like arguing with DB over gun control. Some people don't get and never will. You can try to sway the argument with all your fictitious and slanted "studies" that you've pulled from some dark hole on the internet but the UCD studies are unbiased and while they do make some assumptions, are fairly accurate. You should probably stick to engineering because your grasp of farming and land ownership is lacking. Just because someone owns the land they farm does not mean there are no expenses associated with that ownership. It's called property taxes and loan interest(not to mention the loan capital even though it's a substantial annual expense, but we won't include that as hopefully they get they back if they ever sell). Show me the figures that the US Rice Fed used to calculate the costs. Did they include labor, land-associated costs, equipment costs? I doubt it but, as usual, you scour the internet to find figures to try and justify your case no matter how misleading or inaccurate they might be. I provided a comprehensive study that looked at ALL the associated costs which is about as current as you'll find. As for your figures on rice prices, do you really think farmers see all that money? Of course you do because you really know nothing about farming. There are drying and storage fees which are taken out of that, Rice Commission fees, and other fees which bring down the actual amount that the farmer actually receives. What you also don't comprehend is that averages are just that, averages. That means that some years prices fall well below the average. That is what the Direct and counter-cyclical payments were designed for. They kicked in when the price dropped below a certain threshold so the farmer didn't lose his farm, his equipment, and his *** when the government manipulated the market so bad that the price fell below his profit margin.
You want to pull obscure studies and statistics from the internet with your Google search engine? Here's one for you.

http://work.chron.com/much-money-farmer ... -3185.html

I tell you what...why don't you, MM, and SS spend a week in the life of a rice farmer. Then, you might have half an inkling of what farming is REALLY like. Until then, I'm done trying to educate the ignorant who have their preconceived ideas and agendas that are completely simplistic and unrealistic. It's like watching Fox News when they have Democratic strategists on to "defend" their position. Their defense is either so far off base from reality or they just completely sidestep the question altogether because it's indefensible and they know it(or maybe they're as ignorant as you three and they don't know it).
Mallards Only
hunter
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:49 pm
Location: Chico, CA

Re: Odds and Ends

Postby Mallards Only » Thu Feb 13, 2014 8:28 am

LeakyW8ers wrote:
Mallards Only wrote:
LeakyW8ers wrote:
Mallards Only wrote:By paying only 25% instead of 50% or more that others pay you are effectively taking money from the govt. as you are not giving it to them in the first place.


No, I am NOT taking money from the government because it wasn't theirs to begin with. You fail again. I can't take something from someone that was not theirs to begin with. You have an issue with the tax tables, take it up with the IRS, as John Q. Public has no say in what tax bracket they end up in, other than trying to better themselves through hard work, promotion or searches for a new job that pays more. The tax rate is not a valid argument.

However, these subsidies ARE taking money from every taxpayer and redistributing it to farmers, just like they redistribute to other welfare recipients, and the DOD, and the Education System, etc..

Show me someone who actually pays 50% tax rate, and I'll show you someone who has no clue on how to properly fill out tax forms. You think people like Bill Gates, heck even ol' Butta Boom, pays 50% in taxes? No Farmer is paying 50% in taxes either because they get to claim depreciation, losses, etc. If a farmer is paying 50% in taxes, he needs to quit doing his own taxes and head on down to H&R Block and get someone competent to do their taxes for them. $0.52 per mile putting on 100,000 miles in a couple years ring a bell? That's a tax credit of $26,000/year just for mileage, PLUS the depreciation on that pickup.


And my money was MINE to begin with but that doesn't stop the IRS from claiming it belongs to them. That's a ridiculous argument. Next time Obama wants > 50% of my AGI, I'll tell him "NO, it's mine. Leaky said so." Do us all a favor and try that.


Did I say the IRS does not claim my money? But what they cannot do is claim more than the Romper Room tax tables directly from the agencies that COLLECT THE TAXES says they can. Your logic is immensely flawed.

Mallards Only wrote:Well, which is it? Are these farmers making millions of dollars or not? If they are, then they're paying upwards of 53% back in taxes because I guarantee you there are not enough deductions to offset all that alleged income.
Here are the true tax tables, rather than the Romper Room ones that Leaky provided:

http://taxes.about.com/od/Federal-Incom ... r-2014.htm

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2013 ... n-america/


So the IRS and the California Franchise Tax Board, you know, those agencies that COLLECT THE TAXES, are Romper Room? You really do need to check your facts. The tax tables I posted are what you pay based on your taxable income. Don't like those figures? Well, the IRs and the FTB are where you can lodge your complaint. The actual numbers from the actual agencies do not lie. But apparently you have an issue with being honest with yourself and others.

Good luck with THAT.

If they don't have the deductions then they 1)own no equipment, 2)have 0 operating costs. Frankly, they cannot be the ones actually farming the land. Tax bills are high at tax time for farmers who do not make estimated tax payments during the year. That tax bill can get pretty steep if estimated tax payments aren't made. But 50% is ludicrous based on the real tax tables from the IRS and FTB, unless they are pulling in major 6 figure numbers for taxable income.

The "tax table" that you provided is not from the IRS or the FTB. The ones I provided are. Even those on your side of the argument that know anything about taxes disagree with the validity of that table. Your simple mind can't seem to grasp the fact that somehow you feel entitled to keep more of your money than someone in a higher tax bracket even though both may work just as hard and one likely works harder. Do you use the services that taxes pay for less than someone who pays more? NO. That's a form of welfare just the same.
Mallards Only
hunter
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:49 pm
Location: Chico, CA

Re: Odds and Ends

Postby LeakyW8ers » Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:18 am

LeakyW8ers wrote:Here is the Federal Tax Tables: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

Here is the CA FTB tax rates for 2013: https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2013_California_Tax_Rates_and_Exemptions.shtml



Mallards Only wrote:The "tax table" that you provided is not from the IRS or the FTB. The ones I provided are. Even those on your side of the argument that know anything about taxes disagree with the validity of that table.


Apparently that high IQ you are claiming to have still does not provide you with the ability to read. I linked DIRECTLY to the IRS and FTB websites. YOU, however, DID NOT.

Mallards Only wrote:Your simple mind can't seem to grasp the fact that somehow you feel entitled to keep more of your money than someone in a higher tax bracket even though both may work just as hard and one likely works harder. Do you use the services that taxes pay for less than someone who pays more? NO. That's a form of welfare just the same.


OK, so you are admitting to being a welfare queen then too. Good to know you're as much of a leach as the rest of us then. So your rationale, if I get this correct, is that since farmers pay more into the tax system because as you claim, they are paying 50% of their income back in taxes, they are entitled to the subsidies? So they don't need the money, but they are entitled to it? Got it. How very left wing of you to think so. Talk about a liberal poster child.

Hey everyone, entitlements all around! Mallards Only says so!
If at first you don't succeed, maybe skydiving isn't for you.

California Waterfowl Association Life Member
Ducks Unlimited Member
National Rifle Association Member
User avatar
LeakyW8ers
hunter
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:49 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Odds and Ends

Postby High Sierras » Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:53 am

Mallards Only wrote:
High Sierras wrote:
Nabs wrote:
Your hypothetical 500 acre farm of Med grain rice. According to the UC Davis Ag extension link you provided, the total operating costs (per acre) for growing rice in the Sacramento Valley is ~$1,100.00. That’s the TOTAL OPERATING COST…The total cost out of the farmers pocket, from laying seed to harvest, paying for all labor (including his own hours), equipment, taxes, fees, water, everything. The UCD link makes quite a few assumptions and states those assumptions in their synopsis. Not all of which I agree with, but they probably know more about farming rice than either of us ever will, so I’ll stipulate to their assumptions.

Then add land rents and non-cash overhead and the table ends at 1606 total cost per acre, and 500 times 1606 equals 803,000.

Of course, UCD's model assumes they only "own" 200 acres and LEASE the remaining 640 acres for UC Davis' hypothetical 840 acre operation... one of the assumptions I'm not so sure I agree with. If they 'own' their 500 acre farm, that drops right back down to ~$1,100 an acre, more or less.

Just for giggles, I thought I'd look for a more recent cost per acre, and found the "USA Rice Federation" 2012/2013 almanac...
http://www.usarice.com/doclib/188/217/6563.pdf
USA Rice Federation wrote: "...While rice prices have only marginally increased over the past five years, the cost of producing rice has skyrocketed over 40 percent in the same time period, rising from $680 per acre in 2007 to $968 in 2011. This may be another contributing factor to the decrease in total acres of rice planted over the previous five years..."

So if you use the $986 per acre, it's even less than the US Davis' number... so we're back down to about half of your $803k number. But both the UC Davis cost (assuming the farmer owns the majority of their farm property) and the USA Rice Federation number are closer to $500k than your $803k.
The other side of the coin?
USA Rice Federation wrote: "...Season year average prices for rice have increased slightly since 2007. Long-grain prices have increased $1 per hundredweight (CWT), rising from $12.40 in 2007 to $13.40 in 2011 and averaging $12.92 over that five-year period. Medium- and short-grain prices have seen a slightly higher increase of $1.90 per CWT. Since 2007 but have also been more volatile due to a steep increase in 2008 to $24.80 and subsequent decrease to $16.50 over the past three years, averaging $18.62 over the 2007–2011 time period."

So let's throw out the banner year of 2008, when that 500 acre farm would have made slightly over a million bucks in gross revenues. Using the 2007-2011 average price per CWT of $18.62, and keeping the USDA production rate of 85 CWT/ Acre, that 500 acre farm now grosses... $791,350. Holey Moley. No wonder you say the $100k they get in agri-welfare is paltry... it's downright pocket lint for this hypothetical rice farmer.

Now let's split the assumed cost to plant that 500 acre farm... My figs say more like $500K, you say $800K. Call it $650k, something we could argue about till the ducks return and not reach a concensus. That means the poor destitute farmer is only raking in $141 thousand dollars in pure profit a year. So much for my earlier number of $45k a year.

Another factoid straight from the USA Rice Federation 2012/13 Almanac:
USA Rice Federation wrote: As the USA Rice PAC sets its goals for the 2013–2014 election cycle, all segments of the industry are being asked to continue their commitment to a strong political presence in Washington, DC. Building on the momentum established over the past 10 years, USA Rice PAC must undertake new and creative fundraising techniques and a peer-to-peer campaign within the industry to grow PAC resources. The future of the USA Rice PAC depends on continued member support and engagement.

Contributions to Democratic Leadership PACs $8,000
Contributions to Republican Leadership PACS $31,000
Contributions to Republican Members $159,500
Contributions to Democratic Members $49,481

Net total spent by the USA Rice Federation PAC to buy politicians in 2012... nearly a quarter million dollars. A paltry sum indeed.

The bottom line, rice is big business, will always be big business. There will always be profits in it, and there will always be boatloads of corporate welfare paid out to the guys buying the politicians and their influence, courtesy of the American Taxpayer.

Don't like to hear it called corporate welfare??? Then just wave your hands about and scream a little louder about how much hard work growing rice is and how we all just don't get it... you might be able to drown out your own conciousness if you yell loud enough or tell the same lies often enough.
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage

I'm not even sure why I'm continuing to post on this thread because it's like arguing with DB over gun control.
Probably because like Slow said, you're somehow vested in keeping the gravy train rolling through Maxwell. Or you feel a need to look like an internet rockstar. Or you don't have much of a life. Take your pick.
Mallards Only wrote:Some people don't get and never will. You can try to sway the argument with all your fictitious and slanted "studies" that you've pulled from some dark hole on the internet but the UCD studies are unbiased and while they do make some assumptions, are fairly accurate. You should probably stick to engineering because your grasp of farming and land ownership is lacking. Just because someone owns the land they farm does not mean there are no expenses associated with that ownership. It's called property taxes and loan interest(not to mention the loan capital even though it's a substantial annual expense, but we won't include that as hopefully they get they back if they ever sell).

I absolutely agree that land costs money. And the UC Davis article covered land cost, including property taxes and mortgage payments. Too bad you missed that little factoid, you would have avoided looking like a booger eater.
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
Keep yelling and waving your hands about. Someday someone will buy into your nonsense.
Mallards Only wrote: Show me the figures that the US Rice Fed used to calculate the costs. Did they include labor, land-associated costs, equipment costs? I doubt it but, as usual, you scour the internet to find figures to try and justify your case no matter how misleading or inaccurate they might be. I provided a comprehensive study that looked at ALL the associated costs which is about as current as you'll find.

Fine. Use either the UC Davis total cost of production or the USA Rice Fed total cost of production… I don't care. They’re both about the same. Too bad you didn’t see that either, second chance you had to avoid looking like a booger eater. Missed that chance as well.
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage

Mallards Only wrote: As for your figures on rice prices, do you really think farmers see all that money? Of course you do because you really know nothing about farming. There are drying and storage fees which are taken out of that, Rice Commission fees, and other fees which bring down the actual amount that the farmer actually receives. What you also don't comprehend is that averages are just that, averages. That means that some years prices fall well below the average. That is what the Direct and counter-cyclical payments were designed for. They kicked in when the price dropped below a certain threshold so the farmer didn't lose his farm, his equipment, and his *** when the government manipulated the market so bad that the price fell below his profit margin.
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Oh, wait, there's a big chunk up you left nostril. Mmmmmmm... sticky!
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
Keep trying... it's almost working.
Mallards Only wrote: You want to pull obscure studies and statistics from the internet with your Google search engine? Here's one for you.
http://work.chron.com/much-money-farmer ... -3185.html
I tell you what...why don't you, MM, and SS spend a week in the life of a rice farmer. Then, you might have half an inkling of what farming is REALLY like. Until then, I'm done trying to educate the ignorant who have their preconceived ideas and agendas that are completely simplistic and unrealistic. It's like watching Fox News when they have Democratic strategists on to "defend" their position. Their defense is either so far off base from reality or they just completely sidestep the question altogether because it's indefensible and they know it (or maybe they're as ignorant as you three and they don't know it).

And if you really think those rice farmers are so incompetent at growing rice that they couldn't survive without their slice of government cheese, you have blinders on. On the bright side, those blinders don't seem to block your fingers from making it into your nose!ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 654
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

PreviousNext

Return to California Duck Hunting

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests