On the way to truly being a third world country

[FarmRanger]

Grassfarmer, If you think the massive consumer subsidy that supply management extracts isn't a subsidy, then there's no use arguing about crop insurance either.
Name calling doesn't make you right, but it's a little ironic that you say that I'm "lying" about supply management subsidies when you claim that their entire income comes from the marketplace. Just because the consumer pays the extra costs directly in their grocery bill, doesn't mean its not a subsidy. Higher consumer prices enforced by closed borders and tariffs are still subsidies to the farmers collecting from that system. The only difference is that is the consumer paying that subsidy directly, instead of it coming off their tax bill.

I find it perplexing that socialists find this situation acceptable, as this is essentially a tax on those who "eat", rather than on their favourite whipping boy "the rich".

[katoe]

What do we call money from agrinvest, western grain stabilization, grip, cheaper licence plates, colored fuel and on and on. i call it a form of taxpayer subsidy. am i wrong.

[grassfarmer]

Don't know why you can't admit it - you are subsidized through crop insurance, as you are through Agri-Invest, Agri-Stability, Farm fuel rebates and you had access to the Advanced Payment Program many years before it was extended to livestock producers. As a livestock producer we can access most of these too, not saying that you shouldn't be getting subsidized this way but please don't pretend that you aren't subsidized.

Supply management is an alternate production system, a good one in my opinion, where they don't have access to these more direct subsidies you and I do. It is just completely false to claim they are subsidized and you aren't .

[grassfarmer]

I missed your post katoe. I agree with you.

[dalek]

Jeez I milked for 15 years and never once managed to fool myself into believing SM wasn't a form of massive subsidization.

[ado089]

First of all let's deal with the here and now, most of those words haven't been used in 25 years. Marked fuel is for off road use, why would one pay road tax for off road fuel? Not a subsidy and offered to other industries. Cheaper plates? That's a sask thing. In Alberta when I moved from Calgary to mossleigh my insurance was cut in half on my private vehicle. As with F plates in sask it's a risk thing, you're less likely to have claims in rural areas. Not a subsidy. Agriinvest is probably but at the end of the day when I add up what I pay into anything with a growing forward logo on it compared to receipts with a the same logo there is a significant surplus of money flowing to the government.

[FarmRanger]

grassfarmer
I never claimed we weren't subsidized, but I'd gladly give up that miniscule in comparison amount to eliminate all the tariffs and barriers for the crops I grow. Like others have said here before me, some of those "subsidies" aren't really subsidies at all, merely rebates on upfront surtaxes.

When I can buy clear diesel in the US for less than marked fuel here, I consider our higher price to be the opposite of a subsidy. I'd give up the crop insurance "subsidy" if it meant all tariffs and barriers were removed on wheat, peas and canola in our export markets. Unfortunately our trading partners roll their eyes at us when we suggest any such barrier elimination when we guard SM5 like a heroin addict protecting his stash.

[ajl]

Farmers are hardly in a position to criticize others for taking a subsidy. Most of them are first in line. My subsidies=good, your subsidies=bad. I do agree that with Ado about SK crop insurance is a tax on new entrants in the province. The new entrants get to subsidize the good old boys down the road. When land was cheap it worked OK. Getting rid of crop insurance would be fine with me as the way it operates now it does more harm than good.

[pgluca]

FarmRanger you are right we are all subsidized and you can argue which are the most onerous. My guess would be supply management. ALL SUBSIDIES should go, they soon get monetized into land prices or other overhead (quotas) and in the end do nothing but distort the marketplace. And offer no real benefit to the recipients. We are in an uneven playing field internationally but we could still compete without subsidies because for example land and inputs would of necessity be cheaper.

[grassfarmer]

pgluca,
I too would like to see an environment free of subsidies, as you say they get monetized into land prices etc. You say they offer no real benefit to the recipients - but who are the intended recipients? is it as simple as supporting the producer, is it a subsidy to support the whole rural community or as some say on here is the recipient meant to be the consumer through a "cheap food policy?"

We are in an uneven playing field internationally and realistically that is unlikely to change significantly. If we decided to "go it alone" as New Zealand did and move to a subsidy free environment there would still be agriculture here but it would be significantly different. Following the NZ example farmers would need to become more market orientated, fertilizer and chemical usage would drop dramatically (maybe by half as you couldn't afford it). My conclusion would be that for grain production you'd be looking at a lot more organic type model - low yield, low input but supplying growing market demand. Land prices would drop at least initially. Unlike NZ we have more adverse growing and climatic conditions so I'd expect the change to be tougher here than it was there. I don't think continuing a high input model using the latest technology and inputs and hoping to still compete with global commodity prices would be profitable.
It's a road we could go down but we'd have to be aware of the potential consequences.