Quote:
Originally Posted by Cedars
Unfair to all? Sorry, but if my government wants to spend my tax money supporting USA farmers, corps or not, I think thats a fine use of my tax money. Better than the tax money spent shipping textile jobs overseas, or jobs to china, or india, or mexico, or japan, etc.
|
It occured to me that you may not understand "Fair cop" a British/Australian slang term
"[it's a] fair cop" is when you've been justly caught out
Quote:
fair cop
something that is deserved
|
Australians Abroad - Dictionary
You certainly make a convincing argument.; yet the US is pilloried all the time here for subsidies.
EG
United States of America Farming Subsidies - 05/05/2005 - NSW Parliament
I will have to have another look at it.
The Australian subsides at the moment are exceptionally high due to the drought and The Farmer's political party being in power (until now). We are not really producing a lot. For example-Almost no rice will be grown this year and the biggest beef farm in the world will close down shortly-no water.
There is virtually no Farm subsides in NZ and a very small import tariff for
some countries.
The figures for US subsides seem very "rubbery" and hard to tie down
EG
Quote:
June 28, 2007
A major farm bill being debated in Congress gives policymakers a good opportunity to cut costly subsidy programs. Farm subsidies cost taxpayers up to $35 billion annually and tie farmers in a knot of unproductive regulations.
|
That same article claims
Quote:
» Farm subsidies transfer the earnings of average taxpaying families to well-off farm businesses. In 2005, the average income of farm households was $79,965, or 26 percent higher than the $63,344 average for all U.S. households. Farm subsidies are welfare for the well-to-do -- even millionaire farmland owners such as David Rockefeller and Edgar Bronfman receive farm subsidies.
» Although politicians love to discuss the plight of small farmers, the vast majority of farm subsidies go to the largest farms. In recent years, the biggest 10 percent of farm businesses have received 72 percent of farm subsidies, according to the Environmental Working Group.
» Farm subsidies damage the economy. In most industries, market prices balance supply and demand and encourage efficient production. But Congress short-circuits market mechanisms in agriculture. Farm programs cause overproduction, the overuse of marginal farmland, land price inflation and excess borrowing by farm businesses.
» Farm programs are prone to fraud and scandal. The Government Accountability Office found that improper farm payments amount to as much as $500 million each year. Since 2000, the government has paid $1.3 billion in subsidies to people who own "farmland" that is not even used for farming. The government also frequently distributes disaster payments to farmers who don't need them and often didn't even ask for them.
» Farm subsidies are a serious hurdle to progress on global trade agreements that could help productive U.S. exporters. Agricultural trade barriers also damage U.S. security and global stability because they hinder the ability of poor countries to achieve stronger economic growth.
» Farm programs damage the environment. Subsidy programs and trade barriers draw marginal farmland into production and encourage the overuse of fertilizers. Lands that might otherwise be used for parks, forests or wetlands get locked into farm use. Florida sugar cane cultivation, for example, causes substantial damage to the Everglades, yet it thrives only because of import protections.
» Some farm programs raise food prices and hurt consumers directly. Federal controls on the dairy industry raise milk prices to consumers. Controls on the sugar industry raise U.S. sugar prices to about twice the world level, pushing up consumer costs for breakfast cereals, chocolate and other food products.
» If farm subsidies ended, U.S. agriculture would continue to thrive. Farms would adjust, planting different crops and diversifying their sources of income. A stronger and more innovative agriculture industry would emerge, as occurred in New Zealand after it repealed all its farm subsidies in 1984.
» Farm households have more stable finances today and are better able to deal with a free market in agriculture than the past. Many farm households earn the bulk of their income from non-farm sources. Federal data shows that only 38 percent of farm households have farming as their primary occupation.
» Substantial cuts to farm subsidies would save taxpayers money and reduce the federal budget deficit. Ongoing deficit spending on farm subsidies and other programs is causing large amounts of debt to be foisted on the next generation.
|
Another "rubbery" figure
Quote:
During the past twenty years, farm programs have cost America's non-farm households a cumulative $1.7 trillion.
. . .
According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), America's farm programs transfer about $40 billion a year from consumers, firms, and taxpayers to a small group of farmers.
Tariffs and quotas on imported sugar, rice, and dairy products force American families to pay about $10 billion a year above what they would pay at world prices.
This tax hits poor families especially hard because they spend a higher share of their budget on food. Artificially high prices also punish food-processing industries, forcing confectioners and others to relocate abroad.
|
This is from an interesting "on-line" debate pro and con
Should the United States Cut Its Farm Subsidies? | Cato's Center for Trade Policy Studies
I am not convinced that the Africa problem is just poor infrastructure and corruption though- although they have to be a part of the mix
EG
EU farm subsidies keep Africa poor: Britain - World - theage.com.au
Quote:
"We cannot any longer ignore what people in the poorest countries will see as our hypocrisy of developed country protectionism," he said. "We should be opening our markets and removing trade-distorting subsidies and, in particular, doing more to urgently tackle the waste of the Common Agricultural Policy by now setting a date for the end of export subsidies."
Under the policy, EU farmers receive subsidies to produce and export surplus crops, driving down world commodity prices and thereby harming the economies of nations whose prosperity depends on a thriving agricultural sector.
|
Quote:
|
Better than the tax money spent shipping textile jobs overseas, or jobs to china, or india, or mexico, or japan, etc
|
How does tax money do that?
You might enjoy this
de motivational poster
View All Demotivators®
