Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Every Thing Else Board
Government subsidies on cattle
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jogeephus" data-source="post: 997681" data-attributes="member: 4362"><p>Hoss, are you sure the University of Tennessee wrote that and not Timothy Geithner? It sort sounds like the same reasoning for printing more money to me. And these jobs, how many of these jobs were temporary government jobs created to hand out this money? I know several people who got these type jobs. Problem is once the money is played out the beaurcacy is in place and these people are absorbed into the system and taxes have to go up to pay their salaries cause the original money is gone and we all know that once a government job created it is never done away with.</p><p></p><p>Lets also keep in mind the allotments were GIVEN to the farmer. As for tobacco being bad and the fault of the tobacco company, didn't we have a Surgeon General during this time and didn't he say it was safe. And where was the FDA? So I don't think its right to villainize the tobacco companies when they actually created lots of real and high paying jobs. The irony is, here, the tobacco farmers who received the money are still growing tobacco but on a much larger scale but now they are basically working under contract with one of the few remaining tobacco companies. About like chicken farming now.</p><p></p><p>Also, just consider the beaurcratic cost of handing out a dollar is three dollars and when a person receives these monies they have to claim it on their tax return as income so it only stands to reason they will show improved profits. Just consider the cost of an "improved water tank" for cattle. This might cost you $1000 out of pocket which you can deduct on your taxes. The same tank with government help will cost the taxpayer $1500 ($3 x 500) and the landowner $500 but then the landowner will have to claim the $500 as additional income and pay $180 in taxes so it really cost him $680 so as I see it the only person benifitting is DotGov.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jogeephus, post: 997681, member: 4362"] Hoss, are you sure the University of Tennessee wrote that and not Timothy Geithner? It sort sounds like the same reasoning for printing more money to me. And these jobs, how many of these jobs were temporary government jobs created to hand out this money? I know several people who got these type jobs. Problem is once the money is played out the beaurcacy is in place and these people are absorbed into the system and taxes have to go up to pay their salaries cause the original money is gone and we all know that once a government job created it is never done away with. Lets also keep in mind the allotments were GIVEN to the farmer. As for tobacco being bad and the fault of the tobacco company, didn't we have a Surgeon General during this time and didn't he say it was safe. And where was the FDA? So I don't think its right to villainize the tobacco companies when they actually created lots of real and high paying jobs. The irony is, here, the tobacco farmers who received the money are still growing tobacco but on a much larger scale but now they are basically working under contract with one of the few remaining tobacco companies. About like chicken farming now. Also, just consider the beaurcratic cost of handing out a dollar is three dollars and when a person receives these monies they have to claim it on their tax return as income so it only stands to reason they will show improved profits. Just consider the cost of an "improved water tank" for cattle. This might cost you $1000 out of pocket which you can deduct on your taxes. The same tank with government help will cost the taxpayer $1500 ($3 x 500) and the landowner $500 but then the landowner will have to claim the $500 as additional income and pay $180 in taxes so it really cost him $680 so as I see it the only person benifitting is DotGov. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Every Thing Else Board
Government subsidies on cattle
Top