As we are all aware our farmers, or, some of them have had a pretty rough time of late.

Take the banana farmers up north, they have had it rough, so we, the tax payers come to the rescue.

Now while this may seem the right thing to do, just think about the farmers that don't get effected.

Take bananas.

Normally sell for about the mid $2 per kilo, now, $12 per kilo, so, the farmers that have bananas to sell are making a killing.

So, how about a scheme that takes the 'excess profits' from the 'lucky farmers' and gives it to the 'unlucky ones' at their time of need, thereby relieving the burden the us, the tax payers.

As it stands, we the tax payer, the 'farmers saviour' get screw twice. Firstly, we contribute part of our taxes to those effected, then, their brothers in arms screw us because they all of a sudden are presented with this monopoly.

Of cause, bananas are just one example.

Is there any merit in this?

Rehctub

Our farmers have always been agrarian socialists, demanding their right to make private profits in good times while the taxpayer subsidises their self-chosen lifestyles during hard times.

Not for them the cruel system of 'capitalism', although they still insist on the 'benefits' of the 'free market' and align themselves with the neo-liberals in party politics.

So, why would they even consider such a 'communist' plan as you suggest?

And, if you think the banana growers who are currently selling their 'product' at a higher rate (do they get the higher rate or does it just flow direct to the supermarkets?) why not apply your formula to every other industry that has high and low performers in it?

In fact, why not institute a system of taxation that takes from the rich and gives to the poor, unlike the system we have now?

Or, fund public schools at a rate that allows them to deliver a good education to the mass of students who attend them, rather than advantaging 'faith' and 'private' schools?

And so on....

So, your suggestion would only have merit if you are calling for a complete overhaul of our economic and social system, which, I suspect, is not your intention at all.

when i was young i worked in fruit and veg
taking your bannana's at the back of every veg freezer i ever saw is a wall of green bannanas...[recall we were in a huge banana glut]

every supplier would be stacked to the eyeballs with green bananas
[funny how a strong cyclone season puts them on notice]

anyhow there is no reason for increased prices of bananas
its sheer oppertuinism

but i do feel for the poor farmers
selling their cows for the same prices for the last ten years
or the apple farmers getting 35 cents a kilo for apples

just in case you missed it
farmers have long bonded together
they have the most lobby groups of all those who lobby

they have their own publications own media outlets
deal in millions..and are great at turning a dollar into two

im not feeling sorry for them
too many do..poor them..poor you
now what will your govt do?

Rehctub firstly those banana farmers are not making a killing at $12 a kilo. There is less to sell. Thanks to the impact of natural disasters and it is simple supply and demand at play.

Blue Cross your comments are spot on.

I think it's a great idea. They could have a motto like "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". It has a nice ring to it.

Perhaps the State could set prices centrally too?

TBC>>And, .. why not apply your formula to every other industry that has high and low performers in it?

Simple, because to my knowledge no other industry or body gets support like the farmers do when they hit hard times, and this is the cruts of my thread.

The farmers who have sustained huge losses get supported, while those who escaped, make a killing.

Pelican >>Rehctub firstly those banana farmers are not making a killing at $12 a kilo. There is less to sell.

Wrong. These farmers that have not been effected by disasters have exactly the same amount to sell, in fact, with regards to crops with a 'quick turnaround', they will often plant more in an effort to take advantage of their win fall.

Now the point of my thread is to suggest that instead of the excess profits going to the 'lucky few' unaffected farmers, why not either give it back to the 'tax payer', or, make these farmers pay the extra into a farmers fund. Either way, the tax payer is indirectly better off as their taxes are assisting other worthwhile cases.

Of cause like many things this will be very difficult to enforce and would require honesty, something that usually gets cast aside when money is involved, and not just by farmers I might add.

What about our failed car industry? They get handouts every day of the week. And the racing industry. And mining. And energy. And so on.

Perhaps the worst offender of course is the religion industry, glued like a limpet to the ATO back pocket it contributes nothing but fear and pain to society, yet gets a free kick for doing so.

There is no area of 'free market business' that does not get a dole payment from the ATO.

But 'dole bludgers' are frowned on.

*So, how about a scheme that takes the 'excess profits' from the 'lucky farmers' and gives it to the 'unlucky ones'*

Yup Rehctub, its called taxation. It already exists.

I seem to recall that you own a couple of thousand acres
of farmland. Are you being paid huge subsidies on that?

Working on the land for 25 years along with most of my relatives Farmers, interacting with many Aus farmers, dairy farmers and graziers, I can tell you all, that many have never put their hands out for government assistance/drought relief or other government schemes and programs advertised.

Further, most are taxed highly and were ordered to pay probate during droughts spanning 20 year and more periods with total incomes going into expensive overheads to support Australia's trade and many public servants, similar to many other exporters supporting and boosting our trade.

When there are no more crops, beef, lamb, wool and dairy exports and/or expensive or rare meat for sale, recall your viewpoints people.

I have tears everywhere WAU.

Farmers are on a par with whingeing Poms.

Flogging our land into oblivion, wasting the water, inviting salt to invade everywhere, endless logging, soil destruction, desertification, scaremongering on Native title, and endless support from the ATO.

Do we need farming?

Of course we do, all of us.

And there is a good case for supporting farmers when the weather goes against them, but not when they farm and flog the land or rush into wool when there is a glut, or sheep when there is a glut and so on.

Unfortunately, they support the 'free market' and refuse to be assisted in an orderly manner, even though they know the 'free market' is a total failure for them.

Farmers are gamblers, like share holders are, and we need them like we need another GFC, the result of poor judgement and gambling on a massive scale.

Rehctub just has this thing about banana farmers, for some reason.
They would only make up a tiny fraction of Australia's farmers.

Most farmers in fact have to compete on global markets, at
global prices, as around two thirds of our production is exported.

They survive by being some of the most efficient farmers in the
world. They can't just rip off those little old ladies like
the butchers can :)

A kilo of snags and a 500 grm butchers finger is part of the Oz culture Yabby, where would we be without it?

Maybe he hates Italians?

Farmers do compete on the global market, some of them, but they can only do that because no one counts the cost of their damage as part of the production costs, like mining of course, and most other industry that gets a free gift from we long suffering fools..

* but they can only do that because no one counts the cost of their damage as part of the production costs*

Ah TBC, like other Australians, you would have ridden the merino
into the ground, to achieve first world status in Australia. It
didn't come from mining. Fact is, without farmers, you would likely
starve and be living in a third world banana republic.

Indeed,farming is not natural, hunting and gathering is. You are
free to grab your loincloth and have a go, remembering 7 billion
other humans wants to be fed as well. You might run out of berries :)

Today's farming methods are far more sustainable then they were
some 30 years ago.

Unless you want to try organic. They have to cultivate the hell
out of soils to kill those pesky weeds, so soil tends to blow
or wash away. People pay them extra for that.

What's this? A banana republic? Is this what rechtub fears?

Yes, I did say we need farmers, and so we do.

But we need a little honesty too.

And, like all business people, that is in short supply.

My only real concern here, is that our author really does not believe in any forms of 'socialism' in other threads, and that is what s/he proposes in the post.

It is nonsense.

*But we need a little honesty too.
And, like all business people, that is in short supply*

Hang on TBC, I know some extremely honest business people.
I also know plenty of highly dishonest ones, not in business.
So I think that you have your wires crossed there.

As to Rehctub's post, I don't think that there is any
deep thought out philosophy there, he's just having a whinge
and stating his opinion, as he's entititled to, on OLO.

Yabby, I am not having a whinge, I am simply making a suggestion.

In any case, if I don't wish to pay the highly inflated price, then I go without. No problem.

I was merely suggesting that perhaps the farmers that were not effected and, as a consequence are 'making a killing' could support their 'mates' and relieve the tax payer so that we may assist other areas of need.

every farmer is under a diffrent growing scheme with their foods , no matter what it is, , the farmers will always find they suffer a diffrent elimante of life , through out dissarsters , of weather, , but all should be compensated for their loss from the goverment , as this is the food that is keeping our country going , and for all us families surving with food , if it were not for the farmers we would all die of starvation,

what will everyone eat if their is no farm food produces or animial produce

from a real forgotten australian

The level of discussion in this post is disappointing and achieved nothing. It simply reveals the chasm between urban and rural Oz.

The reason farmers can't bond together is that it is illegal. Two farmers cannot legally collude to set a joint price for their produce - the ACCC so decrees. So the organised few will always control (dictate to) the unorganised masses. The big duopoly will always be able to screw their farmer suppliers. Any advance in technology or efficiency will always be harvested by the market(er) - not the farmer who developed the technology or efficiency.

Farming is no longer an enjoyable endeavour - so even its 'lifestyle' has become questionable - it now has to be suffered because a lot of capital has been invested to generate (on average) a 2+/-10% return.

The future will be farmers as lessees to corporations which will then control production systems, marketing and prices. Let's see what this forum will have to say about that situation when it develops.

In the meantime have a bit of sympathy for those who cannot control their own destiny, who work very hard - and contrary to a strong element in this thread - are the least subsidised producers in the World.

Welcome to the world of work Beef.

There are 6 billion who suffer that, less the handful who direct it all.

Farmers are no different to the rest of us.

Where the 'lifestyle' of the 'man in the grey suit'?

Gone, once the manufactory was invented, years ago.

Anyway, in the farmers rush into neoliberalism, they sold off their protection, the various boards that sold their gear with some control on the markets.

Too busy 'getting big or getting out', too greedy for their shares in the flogged off entities.

The 'future' as you described it is here, and the farmers helped to bring it.

I have to agree with Rehtcub, and with Beef; it's ridiculous that some farmers reap windfall profits as a direct effect of others' misfortunes. A Farmer's bank, where one farmer's profits could be made available to cover another farmer's losses (due to no fault of his own) makes a good deal of sense.
Remember what the word 'bank' (levy, dyke) means? A way of saving for a rainy day; for spreading -common- wealth throughout the community -or industry.
Both Banks and Insurance companies started out as really good ideas; not just for the owners, but for the whole community.
The good folks at Edge.org organized a symposium, and 164 thinkers contributed suggestions. John McWhorter, a linguist at Columbia University, wrote that people should be more aware of path dependence. This refers to the notion that often "something that seems normal or inevitable today began with a choice that made sense at a particular time in the past, but survived despite the eclipse of the justification for that choice. ...
Remember when insurance was 'swings and roundabouts'? Once it was accepted that a healthy person could look forward to whinging about all the money he'd wasted, while unluckier ones could be grateful.
Now insurance companies expect to make a profit out of everyone, and don't they make you feel like a criminal, if you make a -perfectly justifiable- claim.
And banks used to be optional. Now they have our govmints so well trained, they are mandatory, even though in many cases we'd be better off putting our money under the mattress.