• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Farmers who supported Trump having regrets

Food will just be more expensive. Isn't that what Trump supporters voted for? If they didn't, they're idiots
I think you got the last few words correct anyway.

Food won't be more expensive because the free market will make it cheaper and cheaper and cheaper, especially when the FDA is neutered so they can't get in the way. We should be eating more melamine anyway.
 
Food will just be more expensive. Isn't that what Trump supporters voted for? If they didn't, they're idiots
But...but we have a right to cheap food...whaaaaaaaaa!

And also, Crooked Hillary was going to tax us to death (I read it on FaceButt)...whaaaaaa!

View attachment 9910

There is something to this.

The problem is neither side will try to fix the situation. The Republicans want the threshold as high as possible or even gone, the Democrats want it as low as possible.

I've already proposed a simple fix for this: With such realistically indivisible assets the estate can give the IRS a lien on the asset that is a percentage of it's value equal to the effective tax rate on the estate. If a property ends up with multiple such liens only the highest is retained. The lien is only triggered if it is transferred by means other than inheritance and to someone who does not already own a portion of the asset with such a lien attached.

(The farm is split between two kids. Lien created. A sells out to B. Since B already owned part of it this doesn't trigger the lien. B sells half of it to C--the lien triggers, the IRS gets it's share of the proceeds. B now owns half with the lien, C owns half without. B sells the rest to C--the lien triggers again but then vanishes as the whole value has been taxed.)
 
But...but we have a right to cheap food...whaaaaaaaaa!

And also, Crooked Hillary was going to tax us to death (I read it on FaceButt)...whaaaaaa!

<clipped pic>

There is something to this.
No, there really isn't anything to this. For one thing the YUUUUGE SCARY Clinton proposal of 65% only kick in on net worth above $1 billion per couple (currently 40%). If you own over a billion dollars worth of land, then your name is probably Ted Turner. The above Facebook shrill creation is about BS and creating unwarranted fear.

Secondly, the Clinton proposal, was about lowering the couple's exception from $10 million to $7 million. And the estate tax would only apply to the worth above that cut-off.

Nothing is broke on this topic, period. I have a hard time shedding tears for a family that owns more than $7 or $10 million in farm land, and failed to make plans on how to handle all fucking wealth...
http://fafdl.org/blog/2016/10/24/whats-going-on-with-hillary-clinton-and-the-estate-tax/
Thus, in 2013, only 20 U.S. estates that owned farms or small businesses paid any estate taxes—and those 20 paid an average of 4.9 percent of their value.

See also:
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-farms-estate-tax/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertw...ate-tax-or-donald-trumps-repeal/#442731165bf7
Indexed for inflation, it now stands at $5.45 million, $10.9 million for a married couple.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/california-farmers-backed-trump-but-now-fear-losing-field-workers.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fus&action=click&contentCollection=us®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=47&pgtype=sectionfront



Since there is overwhelming evidence that American workers don't want, or aren't even capable of performing the tasks that we depend on for much of our food, will we start having shortages of fresh produce or will Trump realize that his attack on undocumented workers could cause great damage to the country? Will he be willing to consider farm work visas like we had in the past or will he remain his stubborn self who never admits mistakes and leave American farms without enough workers to survive?

More nonsense from the New York Times.

If workers are needed, they can come on a work visa supported by a contract and protected in law with a minimum wage.

Undocumented means illegal and such workers undercut the opportunity for those who wish to come over legally with a visa and a contract. Pay people a little more and they spend a little more in the economy. This is how Europe and the USA prospered.

Allowing farmers to run sweatshops seems rather un-American
Assuming the report is true from the Washington (Moonie) Post suggesting some raids did take place.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...c2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.59a99ed3a860

However, I would hope the emphasis should begin with convicted drug pushers, criminals and other illegals of their ilk, with no more amnesties.

Who and where are these so-called "pushers"? I have heard that term all my life... "drug pushers". I've seen the commercials ("It'll make ya feel good, feel good, feel good...) You mean drug "salesmen"? the people that offer the supply for which there is an existing demand? Those I have seen all over the place. I've never seen them "push" anything. I've never seen a drug salesman argue with someone over the merits of drug use in order to get a sale... like a Used Car Pusher.. or those Banana Pushers at the grocery store. The worst ones though... the damn Metro Card Pushers in the subways... I HATE them!

this is just a made-up term used to support the unethical war-on-drugs.
 
Food won't be more expensive because the free market will make it cheaper and cheaper and cheaper.

Well, true, the free market has been doing a pretty good job of making food cheaper and cheaper for some centuries now, but I'm not sure what "the free market" has to do with a thread in which the subject is the government barring willing parties from working.
 
There is something to this.
No, there really isn't anything to this. For one thing the YUUUUGE SCARY Clinton proposal of 65% only kick in on net worth above $1 billion per couple (currently 40%). If you own over a billion dollars worth of land, then your name is probably Ted Turner. The above Facebook shrill creation is about BS and creating unwarranted fear.

Secondly, the Clinton proposal, was about lowering the couple's exception from $10 million to $7 million. And the estate tax would only apply to the worth above that cut-off.

While the 65% doesn't apply even the 40% is pretty damaging over time.

Nothing is broke on this topic, period. I have a hard time shedding tears for a family that owns more than $7 or $10 million in farm land, and failed to make plans on how to handle all fucking wealth...
http://fafdl.org/blog/2016/10/24/whats-going-on-with-hillary-clinton-and-the-estate-tax/
Thus, in 2013, only 20 U.S. estates that owned farms or small businesses paid any estate taxes—and those 20 paid an average of 4.9 percent of their value.

It's not that they didn't make plans. It's that even properly made plans are quite destructive to large family businesses.
 
No, there really isn't anything to this. For one thing the YUUUUGE SCARY Clinton proposal of 65% only kick in on net worth above $1 billion per couple (currently 40%). If you own over a billion dollars worth of land, then your name is probably Ted Turner. The above Facebook shrill creation is about BS and creating unwarranted fear.

Secondly, the Clinton proposal, was about lowering the couple's exception from $10 million to $7 million. And the estate tax would only apply to the worth above that cut-off.

While the 65% doesn't apply even the 40% is pretty damaging over time.

Nothing is broke on this topic, period. I have a hard time shedding tears for a family that owns more than $7 or $10 million in farm land, and failed to make plans on how to handle all fucking wealth...
http://fafdl.org/blog/2016/10/24/whats-going-on-with-hillary-clinton-and-the-estate-tax/
Thus, in 2013, only 20 U.S. estates that owned farms or small businesses paid any estate taxes—and those 20 paid an average of 4.9 percent of their value.

It's not that they didn't make plans. It's that even properly made plans are quite destructive to large family businesses.

Yeah, why don’t you go find that poor farmer who was taxed out of his family’s farm. Good luck searching! The point wasn’t about estate taxes in general. The point was about the fantasy of the alt-reality types and about the fantasy that farmers are special people with special needs above all other wealthy people. If your net worth is above $10 million, you are in fact wealthy. And yes, if you don’t plan, you can in fact donate more to Uncle Sam.

From Pulitzer Prize winning tax law reporter David Cay Johnston at length here:
http://fafdl.org/blog/2016/10/24/whats-going-on-with-hillary-clinton-and-the-estate-tax/
President George W. Bush wanted to repeal the estate tax entirely, and to advance that cause he repeatedly said it was destroying family farms.

But the Bush White House could not point me to a single example, nor could the American Farm Bureau or other organizations I contacted.

Harlyn Riekena and two dozen other central Iowa farmers — every one a Republican — told me they favored increasing the estate tax exemption, then about $1.3 million for a married couple, but not the repeal proposed by Bush and other party leaders, which they saw as a favor to Wall Street.

When I met with the Marshall County board of supervisors, all of them farmers, they laughed out loud when asked if we needed estate tax repeal to save family farms. In salty language, one supervisor said he was surprised at the gullibility of network television journalists whose reports lacked any skepticism about Bush’s statements.

Professor Neil Harl, an Iowa State University economist whose tax advice has made him well known among Midwest farmers, said for 35 years he searched without finding one family farm lost to the estate tax.

“It’s a myth,” he said.

I don’t care if it is because you bought 20 acres of land in Santa Barbara 60 years ago; or have string of fast food restaurants; or a corn farm. If you have that much money, you need to do something more than stick your head in a hole. There are reasons there are estate lawyers and tax attorneys. And they are damn expensive. But for some reason people keep giving them money…
http://fafdl.org/blog/2016/10/24/whats-going-on-with-hillary-clinton-and-the-estate-tax/
Well run family farms take advantage of several strategies to manage the transfer of the farm from one generations to the next, including ownership under limited partnership, family limited partnerships, transfer through purchase prior to estate transfer, and incorporation with ownership of stock for various family members.
 
I don’t care if it is because you bought 20 acres of land in Santa Barbara 60 years ago; or have string of fast food restaurants; or a corn farm. If you have that much money, you need to do something more than stick your head in a hole. There are reasons there are estate lawyers and tax attorneys. And they are damn expensive. But for some reason people keep giving them money…

Of course they can't find examples--the victims don't look like victims.

The IRS allows such assessments to be paid over a long period of time. Presto, no more farms lost due to the estate tax. Instead, it's the interest on those loans. It adds up to a decent percent of the net profit. Presto--a business that isn't doing too well is now a failure.

And the reason people keep giving them money is that they do help. They just don't totally prevent the problem.

Note that I have no problem with the estate tax in most cases, I'm only objecting to cases where the asset is harmed by being divided. Family-owned businesses, expensive real estate and the like.
 
Somewhat more general than the thread, and more about trade than immigration, but still relevant.

What is your professional opinion of Donald Trump's proposed economic policies, which clearly embrace neoliberalism and all sort of shenanigans for the rich but oppose global "free-trade" agreements, and what do you expect to happen when they collide with Ryan's austerity budget?

Mr. Trump's plan for American economic revival is still vague, but, as far as I can tell, it has two main planks -- making American corporations create more jobs [at] home and increasing infrastructural investments.

The first plank seems rather fanciful. He says that he will do it mainly by engaging in greater protectionism, but it won't work because of two reasons.

First, the US is bound by all sorts of international trade agreements -- the WTO, the NAFTA, and various bilateral free-trade agreements (with Korea, Australia, Singapore, etc.). Although you can push things in the protectionist direction on the margin even within this framework, it will be difficult for the US to slap extra tariffs that are big enough to bring American jobs back under the rules of these agreements. Mr. Trump's team says they will renegotiate these agreements, but that will take years, not months, and won't produce any visible result at least during the first term of Mr. Trump's presidency.

Second, even if large extra tariffs can somehow be imposed against international agreements, the structure of the US economy today is such that there will be huge resistance against these protectionist measures within the US. Many imports from countries like China and Mexico are things that are produced by -- or at least produced for -- American companies. When the price of iPhone and Nike trainers made in China or GM cars made in Mexico go up by 20 percent, 35 percent, not only American consumers but companies like Apple, Nike and GM will be intensely unhappy. But would this result in Apple or GM moving production back to the US? No, they will probably move it to Vietnam or Thailand, which is not hit by those tariffs.

The point is that, the hollowing out of American manufacturing industry has progressed in the contexts of (US-led) globalization of production and restructuring of the international trade system and cannot be reversed with simple protectionist measures. It will require a total rewriting of global trade rules and restructuring of the so-called global value chain.

Even at the domestic level, American economic revival will require far more radical measures than what the Trump administration is contemplating. It will require a systematic industrial policy that rebuilds the depleted productive capabilities of the US economy, ranging from worker skills, managerial competences, industrial research base and modernised infrastructure. To be successful, such industrial policy will have to be backed up by a radical redesigning of the financial system, so that more "patient capital" is made available for long-term-oriented investments and more talented people come to work in the industrial sector, rather than going into investment banking or foreign exchange trading.

The second plank of Mr. Trump's strategy for the revival of the US economy is investment in infrastructure.

As mentioned above, the improvement in infrastructure is an ingredient in a genuine strategy of American economic renewal. However, as you suggest in your question, this may meet resistance from fiscal conservatives in the Republican-dominated Congress. It will be interesting to watch how this pans out, but my bigger worry is that Mr. Trump is likely to encourage "wrong" kinds of infrastructural investments -- that is, those related to real estate (his natural territory), rather than those related to industrial development. This not only will fail to contribute to the renewal of the US economy but it may also contribute to creating real estate bubbles, which were an important cause behind the 2008 global financial crisis.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/it...al-capitalism-an-interview-with-ha-joon-chang

This guy seems eminently reasonable. Too bad people like him have such relatively weak impact on the state of affairs.
 
Hahahahahaha! Oh good one.
1) Nobody is going to do the lengthy paperwork
2) Undocumented immigrants are guaranteed minimum wage (but farm labor minimum wage is lower than for other jobs so don't expect locals to take them).

Few immigrants are willing to work farm jobs like these. They can get big city jobs that teach them a skill.

Allowing farmers to run sweatshops seems rather un-American
Assuming the report is true from the Washington (Moonie) Post suggesting some raids did take place.
Farm labor has a long history of being exploitative here. CNN and other outlets are covering the raids.

What's so difficult. A passport, and a contract of employment. In the Philippines an extension of visa takes a few minutes including a Police Bureau check.
The Employer meanwhile has entered the details onto a US Labour Dept Database which it can check with the Mexican data bases to see if the passport is real and there is no criminal history
We already have a green card program, it is quite out of date, and seriously insufficient. You would know that if you had a clue about the US.

This happens in other countries.
It may take a little while to set up.
The right wing has spent a decade plus making villains out of brown people from south of us. You might as well say it may take a while for evangelicals to accept gay pastors. Any discussion of practical updates to the existing green program would be DOA with the Repugs today. And Don the Con never talked about either. You would know that if you had a clue about the US.

I've got to agree. This shows whichphilosophy's fundamentally ignorant understanding of the politics of the US, and the attitudes of the right in the US. "Just make a guest-worker program..." Haha.
 


Yes. I remember that well. I was even stopped in a license check that was set up to look for undocumented workers. It was in a rural farm area near whee I work. I also remember that when the farmers tried to hire local natives, nobody could do the job. I was under the impression that the current number of temporry farm work visas wasn't adequate. Am I wrong? I assume that's why so many farmers have turned to undocumented workers. It hasn't really been a problem until now, when we have a mentally disturbed man in the WH, who can't figure out the unintended consequences of his actions.

And, for those who may not have read the article, a lot of these undocumented workers are making above the minimum wage, still low, but far more than they would make in their native country.

I suppose if you paid well enough, you could find bodies to fill the roles using native labor. The funny thing is that this is a prototypical example of a competitive advantage and free trade (in this case, of labor) would make everyone better off. Of course, Republicans only care about free trade when it helps serves their preferred interest groups. In this case, that includes AgriBusiness, but there is the slight complication that they have used migrants from Latin America as a scapegoat for far too long that they are stuck there.

The people coming to fill the roles as laborers from Mexico and Central America are the lowest strata of Latin American society - the campesinos, literally peasants. Many are illiterate, and a lot don't even speak Spanish, let alone English, but they sure as hell can pick crops. They and their family members have been doing back-breaking labor for generations uninterrupted. They grow up hauling giant loads of coffee/beans/banans, usually from some rich local landowner, or perhaps from their own humble cosechas. Most rural Americans today cannot fill these roles and be as productive. No way. Farms have pretty much disappeared, and the biggest difference between your typical rural American and your typical city-dweller is not so much in their propensity for farm labor as other cultural distinctions.

And the funny thing is, being a guest-worker is likely the ideal situation for them. These people exist, you meet them on flights to Central America. Total campesinos, who speak Spanish with a thick accent. They would rather not live in the USA permanently. Why would they? It's a totally alien culture. Hell, city-living in Mexico/Guatemala/etc is totally alien. They want to come and pick crops, work which they know and know well, make a good bundle of money (relative to what they are used to), and take that money back to their aldea and live. That should suit Americans just fine. They get cheap, effective farm labor and the laborers go home when it's no longer harvest time. It's a win-win.
 
Back
Top Bottom