Your right but it somehow doesn't seem right, I have a friend that in ten years through a farm program actually got the purchase price of the land back from the government. What it comes down to is well off people more or less "gaming" the system. Either the subsidy should be rid of completely for everyone or at least set it up so it accomplishes its intended purpose which is to help out the ones that are financially struggling and not be a perk to the well off.
The subject of wether or not goverment should subsidise anything comes into play here but I'm not going to get in to that.
ok...so where do you draw the line? Those who make over some arbitrary amount for a year can't take advantage of the law? That certainly makes no sense. Personally I don't see the problem assuming the tax law is written in a way that is available to everyone. If it isn't, then it should be dealt with on that basis not because some rich person is taking advantage it and you think it's unfair. The possible problem is the definition of a farm.
How is taking advantage of a tax law gaming the system. Obviously we don't know the law exactly which may give us a clue if they are gaming the system or just taking advantage of an existing law.
Farming can be quite lucrative. My family owned farms for the last 100 years in Missouri.
It used to be a tough business to make a buck. No more. Labor is cheap, equipment does a butt load of work, equipment leases and financing (subsidized some of it...) is readily available, futures markets have stabilized crop prices, and bio-tech for seeds has made life a bit easier (even though you have to be owned by Monsanto).
You can do well as a farmer these days. END THE SUBSIDIES.... No more cotton, corn or any other subsidies...
Some farmers get paid to grow corn that will never be eaten!
I know what your saying, in the end I suppose you eliminate the subsidies all together is probably the correct answer.
The guy I know gamed it for sure. As only a matter of compromise I would say that the ones who want the subsidy should have some sort of filter on it....the onus is on the ones who promote it to determine the "lines".
Why stop there...end welfare. Welfare is nothing more than subsidized living the same as farm subsidies. You can find the "gaming" the welfare system as well as those "gaming" the farm subsidies. Could probably come up with a few more examples as well if I just thought about it a bit more. Now where do you draw the line?
This is a really good discussion...sure is making me think a bit more.
I have a really hard time drawing lines in any way. I can't think of a line that I could draw that doesn't put someone on the wrong side. That's the problem with government intervention in anything. "They" draw these lines that seem to cause more problems than solving. I think we need to get rid of all the lines, pay a flat tax without exception, no social security, no bailouts for businesses or individuals (welfare), and let the chips fall where they may. Wow!!! How wacked out is that? There's obviously a lot more to it than that but is more of a conceptual statement as opposed to anything else. That's obviously the far right. Now for the far left, government provides everything. Personally if given the choice of only 2 societies to live in, I choose the far right. Let me succeed or fail on my own merit and let me choose who I want to help and how I want to help them without government intervention.
I'm sure someone can tell me why living in the far right society is bad but on the surface I'd sure like to give that one a try and then in 20 years find out how hopeless that option turned out to be. Honestly, I think we have more of a chance of surviving as a country and a society if allowed to live in the far right.
But I am a very naive thinker.
The following 2 users say Thank You to MWinfrey for this post: