# New data sheds light on farm subsidy payments



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Jun 11, 3:47 PM EDT

New data sheds light on farm subsidy payments

By SAM HANANEL 
Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) -- From Texas billionaires to Washington lobbyists, it's no secret that wealthy people can get federal farm subsidies.

But now, for the first time, new Agriculture Department data makes it easier to see exactly who benefits from the nation's generous farm subsidy program.

Instead of having to sift through a complex web of corporations, partnerships and other business entities, the USDA has assigned a specific dollar amount to the individuals behind the businesses.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said the new data could affect farm bill negotiations this year as lawmakers consider reducing direct payments to farmers.

"It's going to be harder than ever before to defend the status quo," he said. "I think the defenders of big payments, their position is going to be severely weakened."

The Environmental Working Group, a public interest group that has long pushed for more equitable distribution of farm subsidies, has compiled the data and will post it online for users beginning Tuesday.

EWG president Ken Cook said he hopes the new information will help spur reforms as Congress and the Bush administration consider what a new multibillion-dollar farm bill should look like.

"It really does raise the question why shouldn't we at least impose some sort of reasonable test of means before we disperse all this money," Cook said.

The database includes about 358,000 beneficiaries who received $9.8 billion in crop subsidy benefits between 2003 and 2005.

That includes Texas oil billionaire Lee M. Bass, who qualified to receive $242,787 in subsidies from 2003-2005. Former NBA star Scottie Pippen received $78,945 over the same period in conservation subsidies for land he controls in Arkansas. And Washington uber-lobbyist Gerald Cassidy got $10,540 for maintaining a portion of his Dorchester County, Md., farm as wetlands.

The current farm bill, which expires Sept. 30, limits farmers to $360,000 in subsidies per year, but that ceiling is filled with loopholes that allow many farms to exceed it.

The Bush administration has proposed closing the loopholes and halting subsidies to anyone making more than $200,000 in adjusted gross income. Last month, Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, introduced legislation that would cap individual farm payments at $250,000.

Those changes would target people like Maurice Wilder, a Clearwater, Fla., developer listed on the new EWG database as the nation's top beneficiary of farm payments in 2005, the most recent year for which information is available.

Wilder received nearly $1.8 million in farm subsidy benefits that year, according to the database. He owns a corporation worth $400 million and controls about 180,000 acres of farm and ranch land in more than a half dozen states.

"I don't think they should change farm subsidies for sure," Wilder said. "Suppose a farmer was doing $500,000 in business and if he lost $200,000, then he wouldn't be entitled to any government money. I think that's wrong."

The new data released by USDA was compiled at the request of Congress and obtained by EWG and several media organizations under the Freedom of Information Act.

According to EWG's analysis of the new data, just 10 percent of farmers received 66 percent of federal farm payments from 2002-2005. But those figures don't trouble everyone.

"That's probably in the same proportion as the food they produce," said House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn. "That's the way it's designed to work. I have more concern about landowners who are not farmers getting payments."

It's not just wealthy individuals who get farm subsidies - state governments are reaping the benefits too. In Arkansas, for example, EWG ranks the state's Department of Correction as the top subsidy beneficiary, pulling in nearly $2.3 million from 2003-2005. The University of Illinois is first in Illinois, with nearly $1.3 million in payments for the three-year period.

But James Bost, farm administrator for the Arkansas Department of Correction, defended the subsidies.

"What we do benefits every farmer in the state of Arkansas as well as every other taxpayer," Bost said.

Former Texas Rep. Charlie Stenholm, a longtime supporter of farm programs, was the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee before he left Congress in 2005. He now works as a Washington lobbyist and was the city's top beneficiary of farm subsidies from 2003 through 2005.

Stenholm, who received payments totaling $168,626 for farming wheat and cotton with his son on his Texas farm, says EWG has in the past organized its data in a misleading way to prove a point.

"Most American people do not support farm subsidies," Stenholm said. "Anything you can do to make them look as bad as they possibly can works to your advantage."

Still, he said, he believes Congress is moving toward a reduction in direct payments, which are not based on current crop production or prices. Harkin supports this approach, and many members believe it would free up money for other programs.

---

Should be interesting.


----------



## bandman (Feb 13, 2006)

How bout them Braves.... :huh: 
:lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think capping it would be very good. It would favor the small North Dakota farmer that works the land, and not the big boys who work the system. Besides if you need to pull more than ¼ million from the taxpayers pocket are you really a successful farmer/businessman? I can't see a ¼ million dollar cap hurting North Dakota farmers. As a matter of fact if it is capped that may relieve some of the competition from corporations. There are many ways to look at these caps. Thanks for that update.

I know, I know, that is a bit of a liberal attitude. What makes a farmer from North Dakota more entitled to subsidies than anyone else who is in farming? I suppose I shouldn't discriminate against the rich. A millionaire farmer from Texas should not be discriminated against while a lesser farmer in North Dakota is given a thums up. Still I like the caps. If you can't make it with ¼ million of taxpayer money you should be doing something else. When the corporations pull in millions per year they are not just mining the land (pulling all value from it), they are mining my pockets.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

That's right, lets punish the rich again.



> That's probably in the same proportion as the food they produce," said House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn. "That's the way it's designed to work. I


At least Peterson got it right!!!!


----------



## brianb (Dec 27, 2005)

> That's right, lets punish the rich again.


Yep, by taking their tax dollars to redistribute their EARNED wealth to landowners through an archaic, complicated, and outdated system of "programs".

[/b]


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

g/o said:


> That's right, lets punish the rich again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's why in my second paragraph I backed off some from my first paragraph. My first paragraph was emotion for the small farmer. I realize I was being biased so backed away some. From a purely capitalistic point of view I suppose a billion dollar industry has as much right to support price as a small farmer. Still, I can't turn my back on the little guy, but I don't want to keep giving tax welfare dollars to the corporations either. As you can see I have mixed ideas about this.

I wouldn't call a farming operation that collects millions a successful operation, I would call it a welfare recipient. Like the one at Walhalla you think is successful. The scenario I really find despicable is a poor fellow in town just scraping a living is paying taxes to people who suck in millions of tax dollars. Then when this guy goes out and asks to hunt their CRP they run him off because he hasn't enough money to hunt the land that his tax dollars pays them for. I am at the point where I may support yanking all ag support and say let them make it on their own or sink. What makes them better than the guy who works for a salary. Are we all equal, or are some more equal?

I want to be supportive, but I sure am getting sick of these landowners rights and pay to hunt. I have the right to vote for someone who will yank all support. If my taxes then go down by 20 percent I will have enough money to pay to hunt. Yes, I think ag welfare does take 20 percent of the nations taxes. I know it cost as much as the military everyone complains about. I can't find another army to protect me, but I can get food cheaper from Canada and Mexico.


----------



## bandman (Feb 13, 2006)

Can you remove this thread from the sports forum??


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Sorry, I just used the posts since last visit option and didn't even notice it was in the sports form. That must not be Nancy P. up to bat in your avitar.


----------



## bandman (Feb 13, 2006)

:rollin: :rollin:


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

Plainsman ,

Sick of landowners rights? hmmmmmmmmmmm...... The right to own private property is the cornerstone of a free society . I agree we can't find another army to protect us . But do you really want the "cheaper food" from Canada and Mexico? How about the shipments of fruit and vegitables from China that were rejected last month because they were irrigated with human sewage, but hey it was cheaper. Is cheaper better? Ever try and buy a straight 2 X 4 at Menards? its cheaper lumber. We need a safe reliable as well as cheap source of food and only the AMERICAN FARMER can provide it. I pay alot! in taxes and if only 20% goes to the farmer I'm getting a good deal. Up until last year I was a good sized farmer, I gave up the farming and went all cattle, ( less risk) . As a good sized farmer / rancher I would have to agree with putting a cap on the subsidies. I feel $250,000 is too high! ( yes a farmer saying you are giving me too much $$) I believe it should be cut in 1/2 if not more. This would even the playing field for the family farm. What is the definition of a FAMILY FARM? In my opinoin if you have a hired man you are not a family farm . As a cattleman I now recieve nothing in subidies, so please keep that in mind.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I should reword that. I'm not sick of landowner rights, I am sick of hearing people whine about it's their right to do this, do that, shaft others etc. We are over a barrel, because they do have their rights. The only leverage we have is to say "ok, make it on your own". We taxpayers have our rights also. Everyone should think about April 15 when they see a posted sign. I see posted signs on pasture and I think maybe the guy wants to protect his cows. I see posted signs on nice hay land and I think maybe the fellow and his son hunt, or maybe the owner has a gratis license. I see posted signs on fallow fields and I think "JERK ALERT". These people must just hate other people. It's no loss because nothing lives on black dirt, but why would they post it? Vindictive, spiteful, I don't know. The reasons I can think of are not good, but maybe someone can give me a good reason. 
Some countries provide food as safe as ours. I find the politics of this very hypocritical. We try to stop beef from Canada because a cow or two has mad cow disease. We have had one or two, but we are trying to force Japan into buying our beef. This has to be the epitome of hypocrisy. 


> As a cattleman I now receive nothing in subidies, so please keep that in mind.


I think that's right, but I am unsure. If you are out west where federal land is leased to ranchers at a fraction of the value I would consider that a subsidy. It must be hard for ranchers paying for their own land to compete with them. If you one your own your being hurt by that more than the taxpayers. Good luck to you. 
As far as a cap I would reluctantly be for it. I understand preserving the small farms. At the same time I don't like my bias against those that make a lot of money, but if they make it at taxpayers expense then I can live with my bias.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

angus I agree with you!! I have travelled the same path as you for many years. My whole operation was livestock, never used any government programs as I feed everything I raised. The only government check I recieved was the last pay check from the Army,and then I had been drafted.

If you qualify for a government program under the law,what the hell is the difference from someone using a Federal grant,Federal employment,or any government approved program if you do it legally?
I pay taxes on the 15 of April,pay land taxes,personell prerpty taxs and ect.

If you think property right s are a waste been to any government office and see how you are treated and the work ethic?

Has anyone ever thought about the liabilty there is when people come onto your property? Yes that is what insurance is for but who pays the cost of it the land owner.

I guess if someone uses a Federal loan to build thier home every tax pay is entitled to use the bathroom when driving by. If you are a tax payer when driving by an army base you should have the right to stop in and take a tank for a spin because on April 15th you paid for it.

If farming it that easy and that profitable go farm. I guess on April 15th it gives you the right just stop at the first one you come to and go plant

Remmber angus if you make any money as a rancher or farm,paid your taxes on it, it wasn't because you were a good operator or you that worked eveyday, it was because there was a federal program you used and there for it is you oblegation to provide ever other tax pays a place to play.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

280IM, I may be wrong, but I think in North Dakota if you charge a person to hunt you are liable for what happens on your land, but if you do not charge you are not liable. It depends on whether you consider yourself a business in that area or not.



> If you think property right s are a waste been to any government office and see how you are treated and the work ethic?


Yes, I have been into dozens of them. Like everyone else there are good ones and there are bad ones. If your treated badly maybe it's because they are so used to people cheating and violating regulations. If you were lied to as often as them and expected to believe it you wouldn't be to happy either. Remember the Forrest Service employee who's house was firebombed out in Idaho (1970's I think) because he tried to enforce grazing pressure and the number of cows allowed by lease contract. They pay for 100 cows and put 200 cows in the leased pasture (public land).



> I guess if someone uses a Federal loan to build thier home every tax pay is entitled to use the bathroom when driving by. If you are a tax payer when driving by an army base you should have the right to stop in and take a tank for a spin because on April 15th you paid for it.


Your examples are foolish. You know what I mean. The money that they do nothing for. Like the PIK (Payment in Kind) back in the 1980's. (I use that because I haven't kept current). They paid farmers not to plant. So you were paid to do nothing. Don't give me some line, that is what it was for --- for doing nothing. It was an environmentally disastrous move on Regans's part. Every farmer though "boy there will be a shortage this year" so they went out and broke up prairie around here and planted. So there was a record harvest that year and prices were low. Then they whined about it. If America will buy 5 million cars in 2008 Detroit isn't stupid enough to build 8 million. That's what farmers are doing. What are you going to do hold a gun to my head and tell me I have to buy 10 bushels of wheat from you?



> Remmber angus if you make any money as a rancher or farm,paid your taxes on it,


You might not want to get into this. It will expose another sweet deal.

I would say get a different tax man. My mother did taxes in a small town for about 40 farmers for 40 years. If it looked like they were going to have to pay taxes they were darn sure to go buy some new equipment before January 1. I have a relative that has somewhere around 22 sections. Land is scattered and he writes off his motor home that his wife drives to the field with and makes him lunch. Another relative flies to Vegas for some ag show and writes that off his taxes. Ya, pay taxes my rear end. Tell that to somebody with an IQ of 30. Some may, but I know far more who do not. I hear it all the time, but that doesn't go over well. It just ticks people off. It's crap like this that makes me think ditch all the support prices if your such a good manager. Relatives very very close to me that I think the world of go to college free because parents write off so much it looks like they made nothing on the farm. Farming is the only business that you can do that. Any other business that doesn't make money one out of three years is changed by the government to a hobby business and you can't write off anything. I know, I own a business, and that's what they told me at the state office when I registered my business name and got my paperwork.

If your doing it alone angus1 I'm all for your. 280IM nearly changed my mind, but I'll struggle to overlook that.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

I never did sign up for a price support program!! This is why I am having trouble on the sale of a half section I am trying to sell as it has never had a corn base. I never signed up for the dam welfare, and know several others who never did either. I have always felt what I made was really nobody's bussiness except at tas time I reported everything! I have paid in every year.

This idea of buying something or paying intrest to aviod taxes is not good bussiness. You pay taxes once,interest you can pay forever,buying a piece of equipment you really don't need is worth less evey day. Not all farms,cattle feeders,or ranches live off the government.

This may be hard for you to believe some people take pride in what they do and take pride in the fact they did it thier way on there own and don't owe any one any thing. It still can be dome that way!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Good to hear, my hats off to you 280. I know there are more like you and angus out there. It's what makes me still vote to support agriculture. I can't abandon the good guys. Every time there is a public vote for an agriculture program in our state and I am in the booth, I have to close my eyes and tell myself they are not all outfitters or guides. They don't all charge to hunt. Trying to put the jerks out of business is like trying to shoot a terrorist behind a wall of women and children.


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

Plainsman I'm not out west so no I do not lease federal land. The ranchers out there need up to 3 times the property to raise cattle as I do because it is just not productive land. As insurance goes my insurance man tells me I'm liable for everyone on my property . For example If a hunter or anyone for that matter go on my property and has an accident with a 4 wheeler , or cuts themselves crossing the fence I'm liable.

As far as farm subsidy payment or as you call it welfare , in the 25 years I have been in farming I have received a little over $14000 . That is just a little over $560 a year. Yes a lot of farmers get more , alot more, but for you to put all of us in the same catigory is like me saying all hunters are poachers. Some one who has a home loan through the government makes or is given more than I just by having a cheap interest rate. I certainly can not go to town and have lunch on that persons lawn with my gun just because they have had a little help from the government, I'd go to jail. BUT that same person thinks they have the right to come onto my property , because of a farm subsidy , and shoot something. Who thinks they have the right? 
As far as getting a different tax man NO. I do things honestly. I have been through 2 audits and have passed both times no problem. Some of the things you have mentioned such as the motorhome, trips, ect is wrong. I pay my land taxes, income taxes and such I like living is the USA and if the govenment wants to take a few bucks from me so be it . In my opinion Taxes help keep us free. Just as everyone else I certainly don't want to see them go up and I'd like to get a little more bang for my buck ,but wait I did get a farm subsidy.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well angus1 what can I say, but simply you're a man I would be proud to know.

Are you from North Dakota. I thought our legislature had taken steps to protect landowners from some liability. I was told that if you didn't charge someone for access you were not liable for accidents on your land. I suppose if someone fell in an open well you would be, but not for running into a rock with their 4X4 that has been there ten thousand years.

Your right I think writing off a motor home is wrong also. One day I bought some Tempo, for mosquitoes, and the lady at Fleet Farm asked do you live in the country. I said yes why. She said I didn't have to pay sales tax on it if I farmed. I said I live in the country, but I don't farm. She said then I didn't qualify. I guess it's ok for my kids to get West Nile, but not farm kids. Do you see the discrepancy that I see? Many farm type stores have begin to carry clothing, hunting and fishing supplies and many other things because as I understand a slip from a store like that can be considered an operational expense.

When I suggested a different tax man, I wasn't suggesting doing anything dishonest. I was suggesting you were missing some write offs.

Angus, don't you think it's a little ridiculous to compare coming into town and having a picnic in someone's front yard with a gun to someone coming onto a section of land where no one lives with a gun? I have heard that a hundred times. How many hunters want to hunt your lawn?

Angus, I am happy your on this site. It's evident your someone we can talk to. It would appear both of us can vent our frustrations without getting angry with each other. That's very valuable to me. It is landowners like yourself that will continue to have public support in the future. Guides, outfitters, or those who charge hunters for "access" (especially to CRP) I would say let them go under who cares. Next time North Dakota farmers were on the Canadian border trying to stop Canadian wheat I would be there with a big sign that said bring more Canadian wheat. You I wish the best of luck.


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

Plainsman. I am not angry one bit. If I lived in town and looked out into the countryside and saw a new tractor ($175,00+) air seeders nice farm houses and new pickups every other year , I'd be ****** knowing they are getting Government help. Many of those guys had a break in life somewhere. Good managment skills from there parents or grandparents and knowing how to get the most out of government help. Those of us who are just barely making it most of the time look at the "big farmer" the same as you do . Price caps , would help the small guy. Crop insurance , this is a very complicated thing, and for the most part caters to the successfull. I hear alot about how crop insurance is subsidied but it is the biggest rip off for the tax payer as well as the farmer. 
Yes I'm a North Dakotan , as far as ND having laws protecting landowners I believe they do but according to my insurance man a smooth lawyer can still make things tough of a guy.

Farm write offs.... You can really write off anything you want when farming, and that is the truth. BUT , in my opionon its not right. Spray for your yard should be taxed and so should the farmers. 
I believe you and I share alot of the same views and yet we would disagree on a lot also, perhaps because neither one of us fully understands . Well I'm off to cut some hay. 4 years ago farm fuel was around a $1 or so and baling twine was $15 now the fuel today was at $2.50 and twine at $35 and the price of cattle has remained about the same , I'm not complaining still the best way of life a person could live.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Angus, I forgot to mention last time that I don't lump all of the farmers together. You certainly are not in the bunch I dislike. I am retired and if your close to Jamestown and ever need help give me a shout.

I understand about the expenses. I can hardly believe it, my brother-in-law paid $6000 just for the hitch to one of his implements. $6000, $6000, for a hitch, that's nuts. There are companies ripping off everyone. If the democrats could leave the second amendment alone, I am afraid I would slip a little that direction. I believe in the free market, but the greedy are going to change us into a socialist nation if we are not careful.

It's been a breath of fresh air talking with you angus, have a great day. I hope your hay will dry between these rain storms.


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

Plainsman and Angus,

Congratulations! I'm proud to say I know you even if it is only through this forum. This is the FIRST time I have seen a discussion on this topic that didn't turn spiteful and personal. I can say I agree with both of you on many of the items you've discussed.

Take care,


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

Why get spitefull, personal , do name calling?? We live where we live because of all sorts of freedoms. Each and everyone of us has an opinion and everyone of us needs to try and respect the opinion of others.This is just a web site to make friends , express opinions, and have a little fun. If we keep open minded we may even learn something or have our own opinions changed just by seeing things from someone elses point of view and perhaps make change in our society for the better. If you go to other web sites ( and you know which one) it is disgusting! Landowners, hunters, everyone it seems, don't like each other by what is posted. I'm shocked by what people will say behind a screen name and just as shocked management or even companies who advertise on that site continue to let it happen. Landowners and hunters have a lot in common. For instance they are the best stewards of the land you could find and both sides care about the wildlife. There are a lot of good people on both sides , and a few bad on each also, its the bad both sides seem to remember. Farm subsidy , crop insurance and disaster payments to farmers is a complicated thing and not all farmers agree with how the $$$ are dispursed and the amount dispursed. Any way it just rained so I can't bale or cut hay so I'm going FISHING!!!!!!


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

How true. Hope you have a good day fishing.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

If truth be known it's only the landowners that are pimping wildlife that I have the big disagreement with. I just can't figure out how to single them out. It's like trying to get a shot at a terrorist hiding behind women and children. I personally know both extremes, really good landowners, and really bad ones. A person always has to keep in mindful not to hurt the good ones, but darn I want to stop those other guys. Angus, there perhaps is not a lot we would disagree on. I get a long very well with the farmers who know me. As you can see, I am trying to use a political sniper rifle, not a shotgun. 
The problem with it not turning into a simple argument is finding someone honest enough to discuss things with. Most are each in there camps, much like the partisanship of the democrats and republicans. One thing that helps us is many landowners are hunters also. If the landowners and hunters stop looking at each other as the other side and drop the blind loyalty to each other we will accomplish something. There are slob hunters and slob landowners and non of us owe any loyalty to either. In reality I would like to preserve the relationship that I see pay hunting destroying. If it alienates hunters then farmers loose political support. No one needs each other more than the hunters and landowners. Pay to hunt will reduce hunter numbers by 75% in the next 20 years I would think. That is a lot of people to not have a hands on relationship with the farmers. Hunters will suffer first, farmers second. Pay hunting is a societal cancer. 
Reduced hunter numbers will leave us susceptible to the anti hunting, animal rights groups. Then farm animals will be next on their list. Many already promote the removal of all livestock from federal lands. You just don't hear that much about it. It's not just PETA, it's groups like Earth First and many others. Remember one of the country western singers that switched to MTV. I don't remember her name, but she made the comment "Meat is Murder". Not to many western ranchers wanted to listen to her after that. Grab hold of every friend you can fellas, were going to need them.


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

I agree. Pay to hunt will certainly hurt both hunter and landowner. Joe Blow will not be able to just take his gun and dog and kid and go hunting on Saturday morning because Billy Big Hunter from Timbuckto has $$ and paid Mr. Landowner to hunt. NOW when it comes time for a farm distaster , drought, flooding what have ya who's going to be there to help Mr Landowner.? The Joe Blow's certainly out # the Billy Big Hunter and it would be nice to have the Joe's in your corner talking to Senators and such. One thing I would like to see ,I'm sure I'm going to get tore up over this one but , I'd like to see it ..... If you own property in ND and do not live here your land taxes should double if not triple! Out of state landowners certainly put a hurt on a begining farmer and the family farm or even the hunter who would like to purchase that quarter of property from a relative so he could have some where to hunt or just a piece of the family farm that is no longer. Fishing wasn't good , it started to sprinkle , NAP TIME!!


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

If you own property in ND and do not live here your land taxes should double if not triple!

Soooooooo If your own land and retire and move to another state your taxes should triple? I know 2 guys that now live here at the Lake and are retired and have farmed in the Minot area all their lives and have rented thier land out to thier son-in-laws and you think theu shoul pay higher taxes? I don't think Soooooo


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

Yes I think they should have to pay higher taxes , EXTREMELY higher taxes if they do not live in ND say for 6 to 8 months out of the year. If they are retired living in Arizona for 3 or 4 months out of the year they'd be exempt. If they live somewhere else 10 months out of the year they should either sell the land or give it to who ever or their taxes would sky rocket. I know people who have land in ND that have never set foot on it and probably couldn't drive to it , It was given to them by a grandpa. They pay their land taxes and contribute nothing else to the state. Why is someone sending their hard earned ND money out of state for rent? The land will never be sold and if it does manage to get to the market the odds are another out of stater will buy it any way and then we are back to square one. A landowner who isn't contributing anything to ND. Yes out of state hunters do contribute $$$ but not like a resident. I have no problems with out of state hunters, Just out of state land owners.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

I guess I miss understood, I thought we had a freedom to move about with out penitly in this country? You think a person should be taxed more if he chooses to leave his house for more than 10 months? If he has lived and farmed his whole life in a state and chooes to live else where when he retires, he should sell his land or pay more taxs? Why not just lock him up in is home state and take his land!!!! He will be paying state income tax on the income off the land,state land taxs,If he rents it on shares he will be buying his share of the crop exspense.
Why punish the retired?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Yes I think they should have to pay higher taxes , EXTREMELY higher taxes if they do not live in ND say for 6 to 8 months out of the year. If they are retired living in Arizona for 3 or 4 months out of the year they'd be exempt. If they live somewhere else 10 months out of the year they should either sell the land or give it to who ever or their taxes would sky rocket


Angus, That concept is totally ludichrist. I live along the SD border and have farmed land in both states. Many farmers from ND own land in MN, Montana, SD. And many from those states own property here. To tax them higher is absolutely crazy!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

When I lived in California I bought a cabin and lot on a lake in another state for my Dad to live in. Dad was in his seventies and on social security. I paid the property taxes and kept a bank account in a local bank there for Dad to draw out of for any required repairs to property or cabin. Thank God that state didn't have such a ridiculous law of higher taxes for me or Dad may have finished out his days in a home somewhere.

One thing to consider is a very large group of residents in every state take far more from a state than they pay in though substance and welfare. A nonresident takes nothing but at least pays their property taxes.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

If you make an investment and land is an investment in another state than you live in you should be punished for it? Thank God for the law makers with common sense,at least we still have the right to decide what we what to invest in and compete equally when it comes to paying taxes


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

Ok I'll agree with you guys, Don't punish the retired. I currently rent land from someone in Switzerland who has never visited the USA . I also rent land from someone in California who doesn't know where his land is located. I can see your points they are points I'd really never thought of, the farmer on the border , the kid living in another state taking care of the folks in ND. You are right I was wrong. BUT lets then open up the 5000+ acres the govenment wants to sell in the badlands to the public and see who buys it, don't complain when out of state money throws up the posted signs. This is just an example and I think the ranchers should have first chance at the property .


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

Who ever has paid Federal taxs and who gives the most fpr it? I have owned farm land most of my life and now going to sell some. Why should I take less or the US government take less? A free enterprize system should be for every one.


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

I just disagree with out of staters who come here purchase land for hunting and leave. Most dont care if they have a weed problem and most want to rent it out but for the same price that they can get in their state. It really does the state, county or the community any good. Out side of land taxes what are they contributing? a couple of weeks in the fall they will purchase items here and there but wouldn't that property be better off in the hands of a resident? Just my opinion.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

IMO it is a free country and if you can afford it and it is legal why should you be diened it? People ***** about government controls but want them when they are to thier benfit!! I have no right to control what you buy,you shouldn't have any control on what anyone else buys/ like it or not!! You don't have the right to deny anyone thier right to hunt no matter were they live!!!!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

angus, at least if its owned by a private individual it will be for sale someday. Let the government buy it or some other wildlife org and it gone forever.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> angus, at least if its owned by a private individual it will be for sale someday. Let the government buy it or some other wildlife org and it gone forever.


Yeah right, gone from the clutches of the commercial crowd selling wildlife


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Angus, I think you should seriously check with another insurance agent! I know of a few agents that have said the same thing to their clients and where found to be very wrong. I have a long time friend in Property and Casualty business as an independent. I will speak with him, but there is I do believe case law supporting ND liability law. I think he knows what it is and I will try and post it up!

Capping payments sounds good, but it could have a real negative impact upon some operations especially some of the family Corp that have been created in recent years. Not sure how I feel about the caps.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/310/farm-s ... .html#here

Interesting site that sheds some light on the total amount of subsidies received. I was a little surprised that Iowa was the highest total dollar amount I could find 2+ billion 

Bob


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> I was a little surprised that Iowa was the highest total dollar amount I could find 2+ billion


Bob, Most of the "welfare" payments are paid on production. They grow a bunch of corn and beans in Iowa. So it is not surprising at all, being payments are based on production.


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

My wife and I were just talking about a different insurace company. Our premiums are getting out of hand. Anyone have any suggestions. ??


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

I think that there needs to be some research done on the down stream effects of how these subsidies hurt rural America... in there present state. Because if you look at the down stream issues... are they also generating a net negative return because of the other social programs that they are creating withn the rural areas... and are the people in need getting the benefits this program was designed for???

Some tough questions to a PORK BARREL program that needs to be revamped. I am not saying by any means that farmers do not need a HEDGE for price and expenses... but is this system delivering on what it was designed to do for the AMERICAN PEOPLE as a whole?????


----------

