2010 Land Rent

[Fransisco]

"I didn't say it right for you."

Well then you're two for two, cause I still don't have much of an idea what you're getting at.

"Taxes that, in effect, the second Sam at my table has picked up for me by providing the lost leader on the turkey to get me into his store. It's likely provided on the study that once there, I'll purchase some road hazard insurance in the form of a tire in order to make it to the Thanksgiving dinner on time" ????

[SASKFARMER3]

But guys its a business and if I can grow as much as the Idiot that's paying 80 an acre or 50 on 32 Dollar ground then they wounder why I have all the toys. HM doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that their over paying for the land.
Canola say 55 an acre x 9 = 495
Calgary Genius 80 - 495 = 415
Sask 32 - 495 = 463
Diff 48 on 10000 acres = $480,000.00 Hm but he is farming expensive dirt that he will never ever own. Here with the extra profit you buy the damn dirt some day and its yours not some speculator.

[mbratrud]

We are looking at going to a % of Gross Sales across the farm. Anyone try this? Anything to look out for. Our Yearend is July 31st So this should work well. We would take the gross sales of the farm devide by our acres and pay 15% - 18% (depending on land quality)of that number to the land lord on his/her acres. Any Unsold grain at July 31st would be brought to market on paper. This should diversify the risk for both sides.

[checking]

Told you, it was only moot.

Three for three then.

Would you agree that the average shopper shops at Wal Mart? And that this study is based on averages.

"All told, for a Thanksgiving feast
for a family of ten, the government takes a bite of 40.91 percent." Why didn't those two organizations stop there? That is the story they are trying to get out. Why muddy it with $ signs that can be questioned?

[Fransisco]

So because they didn't look for the best price on turkey's you're saying their tax figures might be wrong.

I agree that the point is moot because as I said before, it doesn't matter if one spends $5, $50, or $150 on a thanksgiving meal the tax rate would still be 40%. For every $100 spent on food $40 goes to government.

BTW- I wouldn't consider a $7 bottle of wine as a "premium" product.

[Fransisco]

And there would be a whole lot more questions if they didn't show their math.

[checking]

I don't believe the wine should have been included to inflate the price of the meal celebration, and by extention the government tax grab in dollars. That aside, most of us don't require a special event in order to drink!!!

I'm saying that an average person would cry bullship if presented with figures from organizations that are two to three times higher (just to get to an average price) on what they have identified as a major expense in a celebration. If that's wrong, does it then place doubt on their main premise?

They should not have shown their math without the caveat of "if."

[Fransisco]

"Farm Bureau volunteer shoppers are asked to look for the best possible prices, without taking advantage of special promotional coupons or purchase deals, such as spending $50 and receiving a free turkey. Shoppers with an eye for bargains in all areas of the country should be able to purchase individual menu items at prices comparable to the Farm Bureau survey averages. Another option for busy families without a lot of time to cook is ready-to-eat Thanksgiving meals for up to 10 people, with all the trimmings, which are available at many supermarkets and take-out restaurants for around $50 to $75

The AFBF survey was first conducted in 1986. While Farm Bureau does not make any statistical claims about the data, it is an informal gauge of price trends around the nation.

<b>More than 200 volunteer shoppers from 35 states participated in this year’s survey.</b> Farm Bureau’s survey menu has remained unchanged since 1986 to allow for consistent price comparisons."

[Fransisco]

Just over 200 volunteer shoppers from 35 states sounds like a reasonable and random enough sample to be considered "average".

Yes, you can find the $5 wal-mart turkeys but no, everybody does not buy their turkey at wal-mart.

[Fransisco]

The tax fighters didn't use their own shopping figures they used a third parties, the American Farm Bureau's. And the American Farm Bureau didn't get their numbers themselves either, they used voluntary shoppers.

You can't get much further from cherry picking data than that.

[checking]

Are the items of a mostly unprepared classic Thanksgiving dinner for ten people the same as a ready-to-eat Thanksgiving meal with all the trimmings for ten people?

It seems like a lot of husbands and wives are beating themselves up, if their preparation time is valued for as little as $7.09. Maybe, there is a bottle of wine in there, as a center piece, to make it worse.

"Shoppers with an eye for bargains in all areas of the country should be able to purchase individual menu items at prices comparable to the Farm Bureau survey averages." Are the masses even trying?

Humm! Are best possible prices of the 200, the same as bargains for the rest?

I'm confused, but there is nothing new there!!

[Fransisco]

Let me guess you think tax's are too low.

[checking]

Actually, I believe taxes are higher in the US than this report states. Which brings up the question of, how many volunteer tax accountants in 35 states did it take to determine the hidden tax bite?

Even with those hidden taxes I think the public, at an individual level, is receiving more than value for their dollar. I'd hate to have to create those products from "scratch" because I know the time and effort, would eat me up.

As a primary producer, however, the selfish part of me says I don't want all products to get to the CWB model of the more you buy the cheaper I'll sell the individual units to you (you know, like a Saudi wheat sale.) Carry that to the extreme and the only value in the system will be the hidden taxes! My country does not come first!!!!

[Fransisco]

"at an individual level, is receiving more than value for their dollar."

You must have a different definition of value.

The CBC, giant floating bananas, snowmobile trails, junkets and booze for bureaucrats, bailouts for failed automakers, the $10 million dollars a year MP's spend on junk mail that nobody reads, pot hole infested roads, a health care system that can make you wait years for treatment, and endless welfare payments for everybody are not my ideas of "value".

I'd like to see government spending get down to 25% of GDP. That way they'd actually have to prioritize what they do instead of constantly spending whatever they wanted all the time.

[Fransisco]

From today's news...

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Corporate welfare tops 200B over years report/2279403/story.html

Bailouts and subsidies to businesses by Canadian governments surpassed $200 billion between 1994 and 2007, adding up to $15,126 per taxpayer, according to a report Friday by the Fraser Institute.

"Unfortunately for Canadian taxpayers, our governments have a long history of spending public money on corporate welfare in attempts to pick winners and losers among various business sectors," said Mark Milke, author of the report."

and

"(The federal government) will take in around $32 billion on corporate taxes this year, and what they've effectively done is taken half the taxes paid by all other businesses in the country and send it to GM and Chrysler."

I do not see good value in any of this to myself or to most Canadians as individuals. I would have put that 15 grand to far better use.