Farm subsidies (2 Viewers)

[katie_tully]

Right, it's there for you.... hence the "enjoy" remark

The enjoy remark was there because I posted the website for the general information of everybody else too. I don't expect you to, nor did I say I want you to wade through it. Regardless, the link is there for anybody who wants to read the statistics.

I just find it highly amusing that in a country our size, with the vast agricultural space available, people are proposing we move AWAY from agriculture. Japan will have to import quality grain and wool from somewhere else, oh...but where.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Okay well in the meantime, until you would care to put forward some sort of point, that site is of no consequence.

Now as I said, it seems to me that there are more profitable industries for our economy. With the global decline in commodity prices our continued reliance on agricultural commodities was the primary reason our economy became so messed up.

 

[Wesnat]

Biotechnology, from memory, is the fastest growing industry in Australia. Commodity is certainly slowing down, although it still accounts as Australia's biggest exports. Yet, economists believe that Australia should move away, in time, from producing primary products, and instead boost its resources to produce secondary ones.

Furthermore, relying too heavily on primary exports is not 'safe', so to speak. Many countries begin to produce commodities that Australian farmers export, and therefore a heavy reliance on commodity exports can only cause volatility in the terms of trade (added to that the exchange rate effect).

Australia can still produce primary products, but perhaps only for the reason of self-sufficiency. There has already been a trend of an increase in exports of secondary and tertiary products...

 

[Wesnat]

Oh, we're talking about subsidies. Bloody hell.

Subsidies can be good in that they reduce prices and allow farmers to increase production. However, this tend to result in heavy reliance of government subsidies on the farmers' part, and, instead of being more efficient, subsidies may potentially do the opposite (ie. making the industry less productive). There are other more productive forms of assistance to farmers, but... Oh well... I know my posts have been like a textbook chapter, but going back to the basics often helps.

 

[mr_shittles]

Now, some information for your pleasure
- Agriculture is the LEAST supported major industry in Australia, and dought aid pales into insignificance when compared to the ongoing assistance provided to the manufacturing industry
- in 2003-2004, the government provided $11 billion in business support to other forms of industry, of which the manufacturing industry recieved $10 bill.
- the automotive industry recieved $3 bill in direct tax concessions, while the services sector recieved $800 mill.
- The housing industry recieved a $5.6 b boost since the government introduced the first home buyers grant
- Drought affected farmers recieved $79 million in direct business support, and $137 mill a year in welfare support. Making the total support provided over three years, $670 mill.

When calculating the size of farm subsidies, you may also wish to consider the following:

1. Regional Partnerships Program
2. Tax concessions for available only to primary producers
3. Current $1.25b drought assistance package
4. Fuel subsidies for primary producers
5. Universal Telecommunications Services Obligation (that dodgy scheme that forces Telstra to provide expensive & unprofitable telecom services to rural Australia and charge the same price as it levies city users)

They are all direct subsidies in one way or another.

 

[mr_shittles]

I'm quite strongly opposed to most farm subsidies and I think many farmers get too many bucketloads of taxpayer money thrown at them.

The following is an excerpt of an article from crkey.com.au about farm subsidies (23 May 2005):

http://crikey.com.au/articles/2005/05/23-1009-9446.html

The key points are;

1. Most economic and market analyses measuring the farm sector at around 4% or less of the national economy.

2. Approx. 70% of water in Australia is used by rural and regional industry, and that those activities are the single greatest contributors to salinity, soil degradation, habitat loss and tree clearing

3. If a little milk bar operator, dry cleaner, plumber, printer, chippy, lawyer, dentist, doctor, engineer, butcher or any other small business goes under there is no government handout available. Those business people are required to stand or fall on the strength of their own planning, operation, diligence, risk assessment, market observation, personal and business insurance protection positions.

4. The Farm Deposit scheme – not available to any other taxpayer – can defer tax paid on income into those years which are good.

 

[katie_tully]

I'm quite strongly opposed to most farm subsidies and I think many farmers get too many bucketloads of taxpayer money thrown at them.

The following is an excerpt of an article from crkey.com.au about farm subsidies (23 May 2005):

http://crikey.com.au/articles/2005/05/23-1009-9446.html

The key points are;

1. Most economic and market analyses measuring the farm sector at around 4% or less of the national economy.

2. Approx. 70% of water in Australia is used by rural and regional industry, and that those activities are the single greatest contributors to salinity, soil degradation, habitat loss and tree clearing

3. If a little milk bar operator, dry cleaner, plumber, printer, chippy, lawyer, dentist, doctor, engineer, butcher or any other small business goes under there is no government handout available. Those business people are required to stand or fall on the strength of their own planning, operation, diligence, risk assessment, market observation, personal and business insurance protection positions.

4. The Farm Deposit scheme – not available to any other taxpayer – can defer tax paid on income into those years which are good.

In reference to number 2, most water used by farmers out here comes from their own private dams, many of which have been dry for the last 3 years. Farmers are now paying to cart water.

3. A plumber, dry cleaner, printer or lawyer doesn't rely on good seasonal weather for their livelihood. Some of you still can't comprehend that the drought was totally out of our control and we shouldn't be penalised for it. However, with the new water restrictions in Sydney, other businesses such as nurseries are suffering because what's the use of buying plants when there's no water? Overall, the drought is affecting everybody, more so farmers.

Again in reference to number 2, most farmers who are serious about the land have strategies in place to reduce the land degredatiom. We recently paid $30,000 to have new dams installed, as well as 2000 trees. We've also put 200 acres under salt bush to help reduce salinity.

You're being to broad. It's easy for city people to sit here and say farmers get too much money, but unless you've lived on a farm you wouldn't comprehend just how much money, and how much effort is expected. Farmers who run good farms, and are serious about making a livelihood get up at 5 am and come in at 9 pm, often 6 or 7 days a week.

It's true that some are probably milking the scheme, but people do that with everything. Should we cut welfare to low income earners, or single parents?

 

[ogmzergrush]

5. Universal Telecommunications Services Obligation (that dodgy scheme that forces Telstra to provide expensive & unprofitable telecom services to rural Australia and charge the same price as it levies city users)

Yeah, people shouldn't be guaranteed basic phone service access in their home, for the simple reason that they don't live in a major city. It'd be a much more reasonable system if anyone living say, outside of Sydney, had to pay for the installation and maintenance of lines themselves. Afterall, we wouldn't want to drag down Telstra's bottom line.

 

[katie_tully]

Where did he say that about the telecommunications?

I'm amazed. How dare we pay the same taxes, and the same line rental, and expect the same service as somebody in the city. I mean, wow, that doesn't even make sense. The fact that a person in the country would have the audacity to expect basic telecommunications services.

I forgot to mention how the drought affects other businesses in the country, other than the farmers.
Wool Marketing companies are going broke because farmers aren't producing as much quality wool as before, or aren't producing wool in the same quantity. But that's just the farmers being selfish, because they should have had management strategies in place to combat that.
Overall, all country businesses are losing out, and there is a decline in business and growth because people simply cannot afford to support local businesses, as well as their properties.

 

[Generator]

Wool Marketing companies are going broke because farmers aren't producing as much quality wool as before, or aren't producing wool in the same quantity. But that's just the farmers being selfish, because they should have had management strategies in place to combat that.

In a sense that's true, though, because it isn't as though this drought was entirely unexpected. We are living in Australia, after all.

3. A plumber, dry cleaner, printer or lawyer doesn't rely on good seasonal weather for their livelihood. Some of you still can't comprehend that the drought was totally out of our control and we shouldn't be penalised for it. However, with the new water restrictions in Sydney, other businesses such as nurseries are suffering because what's the use of buying plants when there's no water? Overall, the drought is affecting everybody, more so farmers.

They are forced to rely on the erratic nature of the market and government intervention (amongst other things), though. Is there a particular reason why there is a difference between two groups that are in, in effect, reliant upon forces largely beyond their control? The only difference appears to be that the 'urban' group is able to respond to shifting patterns given the nature of their practices, and that says quite a bit. The idea that the farmers are at the mercy of the environment is nothing more than an admission that they have failed to be proactive in pursuing sustainable practices that would ensure their operation's survival. Of course, given the costs involved, the government is also at fault for not supporting this shift sooner.

The current situation is the fault of many, so I'm not against continued support for the bush (apart from cotton production systems, that is, and they should be nuked from our land for enternity).

 

[katie_tully]

Yeah. Urban community has done a fantastic job of sustaining water in light of a drought. I can hear the crying already over the new water restrictions.

Many of you seem to forget that the drought hasn't just happened, and that many areas of NSW have been in drought for over 5 years. No amount of planning or strategising means that you can survive a drought for a sustained period of time. The effect of the drought won't just leave as soon as we get a bit of rain either, it will take up to 8 years of good seasonal rain to get the land back.

How much rain have you had in Sydney in 6 months? Since February, our farm has recorded 10ml.

 

[ogmzergrush]

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1372731.htm

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Droug...in-eight-months/2005/05/19/1116361673744.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/05/19/drought.australia.ap/

http://thepete.com/australian-city-almost-out-of-h2o/2/

Take your pick, hopefully at least one of those is a source the media elitists among us won't laugh at

Conflicting information in the articles, I can't remember if it's four or five years of drought here, but I do know that I don't remember the last time we didn't have water restrictions in one form or another. Sydney at 40% (or probably less by now)? Looking around I can't see anyone who did plan for this. Are there even financially (And ecologically), viable ways you can plan for such an extended period of drought so that it can be dealt with in a way that doesn't require government assistance in some form?

 

[katie_tully]

What I don't comprehend is the view held by those in the city.

'You should have planned, there was a failure on everybodys behalf'. A 5 year drought that doesn't look like breaking any time soon cannot be avoided, and no amount of management can sustain such a long period of time.

Exactly right. Sydney is on stricter water restrictions, and while this means you cant have your 30 minute showers anymore, it isn't necessarily going to affect your livelihood.

 

[katie_tully]

http://parkes.local-e.nsw.gov.au/environment/1146/1162.html

http://www.parkes.nsw.gov.au/news/pages/1800.html

http://www.parkes.nsw.gov.au/news/pages/1826.html

http://www.agric.nsw.gov.au/reader/drought

 

[ogmzergrush]

I guess when you live in the city and water is just something that comes out of the tap when you want, it's very easy to forget that in some places that's not something you can count on. It's pretty obvious (At least to anyone who gives it thought), that the drought is causing significant financial hardship in a range of endeavours, be it farming or whatever. Complaining about support for farming because florists are not receiving similar assistance seems counter-productive (In that you're acknowledging funding is required, but suggesting that it should be denied to all because it's not offered to some. Rather, it'd be more productive to suggest that it should be offered to all if genuinely required).

To question the provision of funding towards those in this situation seems ridiculous, especially when the line of attack is something similar to "Hey I live in the city, we've got plenty of water, it's their fault for not living here too", which is frankly what I equate some of the argument so far to stating.

Yes there are probably ways, with adequate investment and support, people in farming could have been better prepared for this (not to the point where it would be a non-issue though, at least by my reckoning), but the fact is that this is not the current situation. There are people who *obviously* need assistance, and they're getting it, and I don't have a problem with that at all. Maybe this is something that can be investigated and undertaken in the future, but I don't think now is the best time for it.

On a side-note, what I really *love* hearing is people in Sydney complaining about how all of a sudden there are set hours which are the only times they're allowed to water gardens (Slightly off-topic, I know, but while we're talking about taking water for granted)

 

[mr_shittles]

Where did he say that about the telecommunications?

I'm amazed. How dare we pay the same taxes, and the same line rental, and expect the same service as somebody in the city. I mean, wow, that doesn't even make sense. The fact that a person in the country would have the audacity to expect basic telecommunications services.

But the cost of providing those telecommunications services is so high that Telstra is losing money on its services in rural Australia. So its not fair to force a company like Telstra to provide loss-making services and claw back the extra revenue from city people.

In a fair market economy, Telstra's pricing structure in rural Australia would reflect the market stucture, and if its unprofitable to provide the service, they should either:
1. increase the price charged for the service
2. not provide the service at all.

But there are so many whinging whining people who complain about paying a fair price for a fair service.

 

[katie_tully]

But the cost of providing those telecommunications services is so high that Telstra is losing money on its services in rural Australia. So its not fair to force a company like Telstra to provide loss-making services and claw back the extra revenue from city people.

In a fair market economy, Telstra's pricing structure in rural Australia would reflect the market stucture, and if its unprofitable to provide the service, they should either:
1. increase the price charged for the service
2. not provide the service at all.

But there are so many whinging whining people who complain about paying a fair price for a fair service.

Wait. What. Poor Telstra. Oh my heart goes out to poor Telstra, and how they're losing money, despite making billions in profit last year. Maybe if they provided reliable telecommunications infrastructure in the first place, they wouldnt be paying extra to fix the problems.

 

[ogmzergrush]

ahahahahah, good one mr_shittles

Edit: that is a joke, right? :>

You would have to be the first person I've ever come across who begrudges rural Australians their right to basic telecommunications services. The fact that you appear to think this is a reasonable stance because without these services you'd get what you do a little bit cheaper (Assuming Telstra didn't just gobble up the profit without passing on "savings") is remarkably amusing.

In your perfect world, where these basic telecommunications services did not exist unless people could afford to pay the significant amounts required to install and maintain a line, what would happen, say for example, if someone needed to call 000? Pretty unreasonable expecting to be guaranteed to be able to call emergency if you live somewhere rural. Why on earth should a large, profit-making beast of a company like Telstra (Which we must remind ourselves is at least still partially government owned, meaning that one would hope it should at least partially look out for the interests of ALL Australians), have to bear the burden of providing its services everywhere, when we could shuffle it off onto little farmers, who obviously are in a far better situation to cope with the costs!

 

[katie_tully]

I guess when you live in the city and water is just something that comes out of the tap when you want, it's very easy to forget that in some places that's not something you can count on. It's pretty obvious (At least to anyone who gives it thought), that the drought is causing significant financial hardship in a range of endeavours, be it farming or whatever. Complaining about support for farming because florists are not receiving similar assistance seems counter-productive (In that you're acknowledging funding is required, but suggesting that it should be denied to all because it's not offered to some. Rather, it'd be more productive to suggest that it should be offered to all if genuinely required).

To question the provision of funding towards those in this situation seems ridiculous, especially when the line of attack is something similar to "Hey I live in the city, we've got plenty of water, it's their fault for not living here too", which is frankly what I equate some of the argument so far to stating.

Yes there are probably ways, with adequate investment and support, people in farming could have been better prepared for this (not to the point where it would be a non-issue though, at least by my reckoning), but the fact is that this is not the current situation. There are people who *obviously* need assistance, and they're getting it, and I don't have a problem with that at all. Maybe this is something that can be investigated and undertaken in the future, but I don't think now is the best time for it.

On a side-note, what I really *love* hearing is people in Sydney complaining about how all of a sudden there are set hours which are the only times they're allowed to water gardens (Slightly off-topic, I know, but while we're talking about taking water for granted)

Hahhaha, thank you for being from the country and understanding.
I think they'd die if they had to live here, supply their own water. We rely completely on RAIN water to fill our tanks and dams, because our farm is 30 minutes from town. We've down relatively well with water, as we've put in extra dams and run offs, but at a huge price.

Currently Lands and Conservation are offering grants to farmers to build dams, plant trees and such to reduce land degredation...But this is a timing issue, as anybody from farms know, time is crucial and precious...and there isn't a lot of it.

It's amusing too, to hear them complain about trains being late. Especially when people out here are getting flat tyres from driving to work on dirt roads. Roads that are frequently travelled and rarely maintained due to a lack of funding. I'm quite over this - 'the country shouldnt expect the same road infrastructure and telecommunications infrastructure as the city' argument.

 

[mr_shittles]

What I don't comprehend is the view held by those in the city.

'You should have planned, there was a failure on everybodys behalf'. A 5 year drought that doesn't look like breaking any time soon cannot be avoided, and no amount of management can sustain such a long period of time.

Exactly right. Sydney is on stricter water restrictions, and while this means you cant have your 30 minute showers anymore, it isn't necessarily going to affect your livelihood.

Let me make this point if I may. I live in Sydney and we put in a new lawn a couple of months ago. We've got water restrictions, we dont get to water our lawns freely (no hosing), but we never complain like those farmers.

To top it off, as Sydneysiders, we do not receive subsidies from the government to protect our grass. In Sydney, we are in grought, but we hack it. We get on with our lives, try to conserve water as best as possible and pray for rain. We dont whinge and squeeze money out of the taxpayer. In fact, Sydneysiders pay most of the taxes that go into funding these ridiculously expensive schemes for rural Australians.