Direct Payments to farmers/ranchers

Fritz the Cat

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 11, 2015
Posts
5,021
Likes
560
Points
423
Coyotefoll69 said,

I'm looking at more of a "rain or precipitation" insurance instead of pasture insurance. I better get off of here and go plant some cover crops. If I get it in before this rain coming tomorrow and Sunday I may have something to graze this fall. Let er rain!

I'm planting "spring" wheat right now. You read that right. Got over an inch the last couple days and it will make fall grazing. I usually leave a field of something standing for fall grazing. This year it was supposed to be sorghum/sudan but the weeds got ahead of it. At this time of year the sorghum/sudan should be tall and shading the weeds out. I'm going to have to bale it up and get those weed seeds off of there. With the rain lately and it will regrow. But there goes my bird habitat.
 


JMF

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 19, 2015
Posts
1,705
Likes
72
Points
258
Location
Mandan
Yep, the hay prices I have heard of are anywhere from ~$70-$120 a bale at auction in SD. Sheesh, at ~1,000 lb bales, that's an insane cost per ton.

We bought 2016 2nd cutting alfalfa out of northern Minnesota for $85 a ton. Ended up at $140 a ton delivered. That was a couple weeks ago, prices are going up as I type.
 

Sluggo

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 14, 2015
Posts
2,608
Likes
452
Points
343
Location
Bismarck
What became of that deal I heard of where farmers in the red river valley were donating hay to ranchers in need out west?
 

Coyotefool69

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2015
Posts
52
Likes
0
Points
93
Coyotefoll69 said,



I'm planting "spring" wheat right now. You read that right. Got over an inch the last couple days and it will make fall grazing. I usually leave a field of something standing for fall grazing. This year it was supposed to be sorghum/sudan but the weeds got ahead of it. At this time of year the sorghum/sudan should be tall and shading the weeds out. I'm going to have to bale it up and get those weed seeds off of there. With the rain lately and it will regrow. But there goes my bird habitat.
I'm plantting winter wheat, kale, radishes, turnips, corn and clover. Hoping something may grow in that mix to get some fall grazing but really hoping the wheat and clover makes a nice hay crop next year. I also planted Sudan grass two months ago and I see a few plants here and there as of this morning. It still might make it, fingers crossed. I am by no means a farmer. My newest tractor is a 97 model, I have a disc and plow that were made by blacksmiths and a 14ft old international drill, but that old equipment still gets by for me.
 

gst

Banned
Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Posts
7,654
Likes
122
Points
308
Jeesh plains sounds like ya miss me over on Nodak Outhouse. ;)

You claim you :know me" yet have never met me ...

I never was an "officer" for the "Cattlemans association.....

American Lands Council specifically prohibits the sale of public lands in their mission statement............

you really should bother to get your facts right a bit more.

Re: Deer rifle license are out

by Plainsman » Thu Aug 03, 2017 1:54 pm
north1 wrote:I really think farm organizations should unite with hunters not some on both sides driving wedges between one another. Farm bureau, farmers union, rancher associations. Start a program with willing landowners to provide FREE hunting opportunities to young hunters. Hunters are important to both farmers and ranchers. They keep wildlife populations under control which helps cut crop losses. They reduce predatory species numbers which in turn helps ranchers during calving. Reduce prairie dog populations which improves grazing. Hunter groups support CRP which benefits farmers with marginal land and ranchers for hay production in drought years. Sure there are problems with programs and give and take between the groups that needs to occur. In truth, however; we have MUCH more in common than the differences between us. Heck, a lot of us are both hunters and farmers and ranchers.
Keep on talking north1 you give me hope. I have said it dozens of times and perhaps am repeating it here, but organizations unlike individuals have no soul or conscience. You and I don't see pure black and white and can compromise on things. Organizations like DU can only think ducks, and organizations like NDFB can only see corn. You and I can see ducks and corn. Nothing drives a wedge like an organization trying to improve things for one group while shafting the other group.

For example I know one guy who in the past was an officer for the Cattleman's association. If he could get on here he would be trying to drive a wedge between you and I right now. He only sees cows. Everyone else is a pion to serve him. The guy says he isn't for selling off public land, but in the next breath tells everyone how much better the access would be for hunters and how much better the land would be managed. He supports the American Land Council which is a strong advocate of selling off the public land. Nothing would kill hunting faster. Even a city slicker needs land he can walk across and behold God's creation and get that feeling of freedom.

- - - Updated - - -

Kind of a measure of a person plains, block them from the site you moderate and then malign their character and tell lies while you pretend to ignore them on a site they post on, very church councilish behavior........ :;:smokin

- - - Updated - - -

Anyways the CRP haying in the RRV where the hay is being donated is happening as we type. I have heard a few folks are donating their CRP haven;t heard how many.

the fella that jump started it spoke of how people came from all across the state to help during the floods and he simply wished to give a bit back.

NDFB is also starting a hay donation program ot help those dealing with this drought.

The Ag Dept has a hay donation program as well.

In response ot a program I was involved in this spring that some on here donated to (thanks again) where NDFB generated well over one hundred thousand dollars to help those ranchers that were impacted by fires down south, some of those groups and people down there are returning the favor sending hay back north.
 
Last edited:


Fritz the Cat

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 11, 2015
Posts
5,021
Likes
560
Points
423
Trying to avoid taxes during the good years sounds like my cousin purchasing the biggest combine John Deer makes at Christmas. Not much need that time of year, but he said if he didn't buy it then the bast(**&^ds in Washington would get it. He wasn't afraid of paying some taxes he was afraid of paying any taxes.

PG, I believe you are talking about IRS Section 179. If a business, not only farming, made some good money during a year they can direct expense an equipment purchase.

Most people think the Section 179 deduction is some mysterious or complicated tax code.
Essentially, Section 179 of the IRS tax code allows businesses to deduct the full purchase price of qualifying equipment and/or software purchased or financed during the tax year. That means that if you buy (or lease) a piece of qualifying equipment, you can deduct the FULL PURCHASE PRICE from your gross income. It's an incentive created by the U.S. government to encourage businesses to buy equipment and invest in themselves.


Today, Section 179 is one of the few incentives included in any of the recent Stimulus Bills that actually helps small businesses. Although large businesses also benefit from Section 179 or Bonus Depreciation, the original target of this legislation was much needed tax relief for small businesses - and millions of small businesses are actually taking action and getting real benefits.

Each calendar year this law was renewed and Obama would foot drag his signature until December 15th. That would explain your cousin waiting until Christmas to make a huge investment. Nothing illegal going on here. If an owner/operator has a good year then direct expense capital investments instead of depreciating them over a period of many years. Smart.

Speaking for myself, I used IRS Section 179 three years ago because I sold a lot of animals and bought a JD 7330. Had I put it on a five year depreciation schedule that would have not been a good idea because this year my income is very low. Have nothing to sell.

Again, IRS Section 179 isn't just for farming. It is for any business.
 

eyexer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
13,730
Likes
709
Points
438
Location
williston
Section 179 also has a cap on how much the amount you can deduct is. And that has changed over the years. I'm not sure what the cap is currently but I think it's 500K.
 

PrairieGhost

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 15, 2015
Posts
10,396
Likes
822
Points
493
Location
Drifting the high plains
Yes I am familiar with the practice I'm simply surprised someone would spend until it endangers their business simply to withhold it from taxes. My mother would say some people would cut off their nose to spite their face.
 

Zogman

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
4,565
Likes
1,656
Points
538
Location
NW Angle, MN and Grand Forks, ND
Yes I am familiar with the practice I'm simply surprised someone would spend until it endangers their business simply to withhold it from taxes. My mother would say some people would cut off their nose to spite their face.

As a former partner in a small business we would meet with a tax person every year to do tax planning. Bottom line do you need/want new equipment or do you want to send it to Washington so they can hire more bureaucrats. I say fire half the bureaucrats on staff presently.
 


PrairieGhost

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 15, 2015
Posts
10,396
Likes
822
Points
493
Location
Drifting the high plains
Zog would you still buy new equipment if the depreciation cost twice what your taxes we're? Would you still buy it if the payments were twice as much as your taxes and you knew you couldn't make the payments? Would you commit business suicide to spite those bureaucrats?



Edit: I'm not disagreeing with you, but out of curiosity which bureaucrats would you cut?

As I said I totally understand the use of purchases to avoid taxes. You don't understand my questions. I am asking if that should drive a person to buy beyond their means then expect gov bailout from those darn bureaucrats? Would they have bailed you out?
 
Last edited:

gst

Banned
Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Posts
7,654
Likes
122
Points
308
Plains at this point you have proven you know little about ag that is not based on your experiences from 1962.

Despite your claims of support, you have demonstrated a dislike for agriculture and those that do not actively farm or ranch how YOU demand they should based on those 50 year old ideas.

You complain about those that receive tax payer dollars despite the fact that is where your income came from your whole career and still does.

You have some valuable insight on reloading and other things.

Why not stick to posting things you have a bit of credibility on rather than posting claims and accusations that are easily proven as lies simply becasue of your disdain for a group of people?

And yes at this point these claims can no longer simply be brushed off as not knowing better because you have had the facts shared with you repeatedly now so indeed when you choose to continue to post them they are in fact lies.

And when you continue to casually mention in passing your involvement in your church council it only shows the level of hypocrisy you will stoop to because of your hatred.

You have an entire outdoor site you moderate where as you indicate you have banned me from posting that you can make your wild untrue accusations and claims on for the 5 people still posting there. Why not just stay over there and let these discussion on this site occur without the predictable lies and accusations you bring to the discussion?

At least please, just give it a rest here.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm plantting winter wheat, kale, radishes, turnips, corn and clover. Hoping something may grow in that mix to get some fall grazing but really hoping the wheat and clover makes a nice hay crop next year. I also planted Sudan grass two months ago and I see a few plants here and there as of this morning. It still might make it, fingers crossed. I am by no means a farmer. My newest tractor is a 97 model, I have a disc and plow that were made by blacksmiths and a 14ft old international drill, but that old equipment still gets by for me.

Planted some oats, forage barley, turnips, radishes, red clover canola and soybeans for cover crops last week. The oats we planted on July 4th as a cover crop might actually make hay with the rains.

It might be interesting to check what the nitrate level may be in your sudan grass.
 
Last edited:

Fritz the Cat

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 11, 2015
Posts
5,021
Likes
560
Points
423
PG said,

Zog would you still buy new equipment if the depreciation cost twice what your taxes we're? Would you still buy it if the payments were twice as much as your taxes and you knew you couldn't make the payments?

Hypothetically "if".............there is no substance or fact in this sentence worthy of discussion..........

Edit: I'm not disagreeing with you, but out of curiosity which bureaucrats would you cut?

Trump was elected President because the people are fed up. But Trump speaks in generalities and I myself would be most amused if he went into the trenches and held up an example. For instance:

Obama appointed Vilsak (an attorney) to head US Department of Ag. Vilsak created out of thin air an enforcement department. They hired Sara Conant. Two days prior to her hiring at USDA she resigned as attorney litigator for the Humane Society of the US. While at HSUS she was involved with suing the USDA. A person can't make this stuff up.

When Trump was elected, Sara Conant and her enforcement department disappeared from USDA early. A google search turns up little to nothing.

There you go PG, an example of bureaucrats.
 

Walleye202

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Posts
124
Likes
3
Points
103
it takes income to take advantage of any tax breaks


It actually does not. Average farmer Joe can go buy a new combine on a loan and depreciate the whole thing in year 1 to avoid taxes. Well now in the next 5 years of making payments there is no longer any depreciation left to offset the payments. All of a sudden you are making payments with post tax dollars. You can see how ugly it gets doing this
 

eyexer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
13,730
Likes
709
Points
438
Location
williston
It actually does not. Average farmer Joe can go buy a new combine on a loan and depreciate the whole thing in year 1 to avoid taxes. Well now in the next 5 years of making payments there is no longer any depreciation left to offset the payments. All of a sudden you are making payments with post tax dollars. You can see how ugly it gets doing this
yep. but if you don't make a profit the tax break doesn't benefit you. It's a vicious web that gets woven.
 


gst

Banned
Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Posts
7,654
Likes
122
Points
308
PG said,



Hypothetically "if".............there is no substance or fact in this sentence worthy of discussion..........



Trump was elected President because the people are fed up. But Trump speaks in generalities and I myself would be most amused if he went into the trenches and held up an example. For instance:

Obama appointed Vilsak (an attorney) to head US Department of Ag. Vilsak created out of thin air an enforcement department. They hired Sara Conant. Two days prior to her hiring at USDA she resigned as attorney litigator for the Humane Society of the US. While at HSUS she was involved with suing the USDA. A person can't make this stuff up.

When Trump was elected, Sara Conant and her enforcement department disappeared from USDA early. A google search turns up little to nothing.

There you go PG, an example of bureaucrats.

Under Vilsak HSUS infiltrated the Ag Dept (which oversees the agencies charged with managing our public lands) in a number of areas.

But instead of having good discussions so people that may not be aware of this can learn some facts, there are those that intentionally try ot drive those discussions down the rabbit hole.

We should be asking why. Does anyone actually think having HSUS people involved in managing our public lands is a good thing?

There are some interesting names being floated to take over some of the Federal agencies like the BLM and the USFS, The next few months may bring a whole new deal.
 

Walleye202

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Posts
124
Likes
3
Points
103
On cash based accounting you can dig yourself deeper than you'd imagine. The effects of doing this on the good years can cause massive taxes payable on the down years.
 

Fritz the Cat

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 11, 2015
Posts
5,021
Likes
560
Points
423
Ronal Reagan jokingly said,

If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

gst, I had forgotten about the US Forest Service being under the US Department of Agriculture.

OK, Plains asked which bureaucracies should be cut? I remembered something kicked around under the George W. Bush administration.

Dated March 10th 2004

http://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/how-get-federal-spending-under-control

How to get federal spending under control. Guideline # 4 made me laugh out loud. Close down old useless government agencies. US Geological Survey made the top of the bone pile. ;)
 

PrairieGhost

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 15, 2015
Posts
10,396
Likes
822
Points
493
Location
Drifting the high plains
I couldn't get to the full report for some reason. I am surprised if USGS made the top of the list. I would have expected an agency that enforced regulation, had management responsibility, or was involved in some sort of enforcement. Not an agency that provides information.

When I asked what bureaucrats would you eliminate I was asking a serious question. I'm interested in what people think about different government agencies. For example geologists in USGS provide a lot of information for oil and mining. So depending on ones profession I suppose everyone would have a different idea.
 
Last edited:

Fritz the Cat

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 11, 2015
Posts
5,021
Likes
560
Points
423
It opened for me. Here you go:

GUIDELINE #4: Terminate failed, outdated, and irrelevant programs.President Ronald Reagan once pointed out that "a government bureau is the closest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on earth." A large portion of the current federal bureaucracy was created during the 1900s, 1930s, and 1960s in attempts to solve the unique problems of those eras.
Instead of replacing the outdated programs of the past, however, each period of government activism has built new programs on top of them. Ford Motor Company would not waste money today by building outdated Model T's alongside their current Mustangs and Explorers. However, in 2004, the federal government still refuses to close down old agencies such as the Rural Utilities Service (designed to bring phones to rural America) and the U.S. Geological Survey (created to explore and detail the nation's geography).
Government must be made light and flexible, adaptable to the new challenges the country will face in the 21st century. Weeding out the failed and outdated bureaucracies of the past will free resources to modernize the government.
Status Quo Bias. Lawmakers often acknowledge that certain programs show no positive effects. Regrettably, they also refuse to terminate even the most irrelevant programs. The most obvious reason for this timidity is an aversion to fighting the special interests that refuse to let their pet programs end without a bloody fight.
A less obvious reason is that eliminating government programs seems reckless and bold to legislators who have never known a federal government without them. Although thousands of programs have come and gone in the nation's 228-year history, virtually all current programs were created before most lawmakers came to Washington. For legislators who are charged with budgeting and implementing the same familiar programs year after year, a sense of permanency sets in, and termination seems unfathomable.7 No one even remembers when a non-government entity addressed the problems.
The Department of Energy, for example, has existed for just one-tenth of the country's history, yet closing it down seems ridiculous to those who cannot remember the federal government before 1977 and for whom appropriating and overseeing the department has been an annual ritual for years. Lawmakers need a long-term perspective to assure them the sky does not fall when a program is terminated. For example, the Bureau of Mines and the U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration, both closed in 1996, are barely remembered today.8
Instead of just assuming that whoever created the programs decades ago must have been filling some important need that probably exists today, lawmakers should focus on the future by asking themselves the following question: If this program did not exist, would I vote to create it? Because the answer for scores of programs would likely be "no," Congress should:

  • Close down failed or outdated agencies, programs, and facilities, including:

  1. The U.S. Geological Survey9 (2004 spending: $841 million, discretionary);10
  2. The Maritime Administration ($633 million, discretionary);
  3. The International Trade Commission ($61 million, discretionary);
  4. The Economic Development Administration ($417 million, discretionary);
  5. The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program ($1,892 million, discretionary);
  6. The Technology Opportunities Program ($12 million, discretionary);
  7. Obsolete military bases;
  8. The Appalachian Regional Commission ($94 million, discretionary);
  9. Obsolete Veterans Affairs facilities;
  10. The Rural Utilities Service (-$1,493 million,11 mandatory); and
  11. Repeal Public Law 480's non-emergency international food programs ($127 million, discretionary).
 


Recent Posts

Friends of NDA

Top Posters of the Month

  • This month: 155
  • This month: 145
  • This month: 75
  • This month: 72
  • This month: 59
  • This month: 58
  • This month: 57
  • This month: 55
  • This month: 53
  • This month: 53
Top Bottom