Live data from Hacker News

The suicide rate for farmers in the U.S. is more than double that of veterans

theguardian.com

211–220 of 391 posts

Re: The suicide rate for farmers in the U.S. is more than double that of veterans

#211
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside from military protection, that is a list of things largely irrelevant to people who live in rural areas. It's money to be confiscated from them and used to prop up societies to which they have little to no connection.

It's the cost of being an American. And in reality, people in rural communities are the ones that are being propped up by money confiscated from others. Roads alone are very expensive, over a million bucks per mile in rural areas. Wyoming has 33,000 miles of road serving a population of 550k. That works out to at least $60k per person in just to build the roads, never mind maintaining them. And not having these roads…

> over a million bucks per mile in rural areas

This is a commonly repeated myth, but is not usually true. Road costs are far lower than often claimed. A 2-lane asphalt road construction costs about $800k on average and lasts approximately 30 years with proper maintenance. (Using MDOT numbers, since that's what I happen to have on hand).

In Wyoming, this works out to $1,600 per person per year ($133/month/person). But that assumes every single road in Wyoming is paved -- they aren't. I don't know the accuracy of this, but the University of Wyoming claims only 20% of a county's roads are paved in the state, on average, so real costs are probably much lower.

In states with any significant city whatsoever, the costs drop dramatically. Michigan, for example, has 120,256 miles of road serving 9.9 million people, 75% of which are rural. That's a total road cost of about $360 per person per year ($30/person/month).

Re: The suicide rate for farmers in the U.S. is more than double that of veterans

#212
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should they be taxed for the benefit of their customers? Aren't their customers paying them ?

Modern society works by having everyone contribute for the greater good. One of the principal mechanisms by which this occurs is taxation and spending on government services. You go really far down the civilizational chain if you remove these mechanisms. Almost all the way down to primitivism.

> Modern society works by having everyone contribute for the greater good.

Whose definition of "good" are we using? Clearly not mine, as my definition of "good" demands consent.

Re: The suicide rate for farmers in the U.S. is more than double that of veterans

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always thought of "trickle down economics" as an overly-rosy way of saying that we'll "grow our way out of the hole". Nevermind the 'conservatives' will never stop digging, will never cut spending, even occasionally spinning up another entitlement of their own, and only occasionally toss their people a bone by slowing existing programs' growth rate. I don't think Reagan thought of government size as being a prob…

But Hillary wasn't a liberal. Liberals actually hated her. We are now in the world perception of Democrat = Liberal and Republican = Conservative and its just wrong. I grew up being a Republican and I don't think I have changed much in my political stances but everyone else has moved far to the Libertarian doctrine. Case in point: Increase the wages and benefits = less government funding. Never going to get backing f…

> But Hillary wasn't a liberal.

I don't know why you're bringing her up. You're using the term 'liberal', but I haven't got a clue what people mean when they say that anymore. What's your definition?

You say what Hillary is not, but you don't say what she is. I don't separate her in any way from the Democrats politically - at least those who hold power currently - not the rank-and-file of course.

> We are now in the world perception of Democrat = Liberal and Republican = Conservative and its just wrong.

I disagree, you're just assuming everyone's stuck in old tribal thinking when there's so much evidence to the contrary. Haven't you noticed the tectonic shifts in media over the last 5 years? The boomers are starting to die off, their power is waning, and the younger generations are restless. #metoo works because the majority is disgusted by what they see. Look at how many congress-rats are jumping ship at the end of this cycle.

The Republican party is dying for abandoning their base in order to cling to power, despite their fundraising. The Democrats are losing seats everywhere, have not been grooming enough replacements for the old-timers, and won't shake the loser 60's radical ideology - they might as well just die too.

> Case in point: Increase the wages and benefits = less government funding.

Why would you believe that taxes are a zero-sum game? Not that it always works out this way, because the economy has cycles, but you can stimulate economic activity by taxing less which does create growth that yields net increases in tax revenue.

Ask yourself, could your "tax more == more revenue" mental model be too simplistic? Who put that assumption in your head, and why is that idea so powerful for them when you accept it? (My theory is: a human tendency to treat the top of one's conceptual hierarchy as god/religion and the desire to sacrifice to the gods. If government is at the top of your hierarchy, certainly taxes are a worthy sacrifice to the good!)

I'll posit a related question; I don't know the answer because I'm not an economist, but I think it's a good one nonetheless: is there a scientifically/statistically optimal tax rate that we could tweak once a year based on forecasts and trends? Why have we not done this already if maximizing revenue is the goal? I go so far as to claim that for most people on the left (radical or not), maximizing tax revenue is never the goal, just a standard talking point when discussing tax cuts.

Re: The suicide rate for farmers in the U.S. is more than double that of veterans

#214
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this for philosophical reasons about taxes and government? Or is it just a big chunk of money they're trying to save?

I think if anything it can be traced to a fundamental misunderstanding about how fractions work (and less glibly, basic personal finance). Choosing to spend $150,000 on things you objectively do not need in order to not have to write a $30,000 check to the IRS and put $120,000 in the bank for next year is not a rational decision for all but the most extreme anti-government/anti-tax ideologies. It's the very definitio…

They aren't buying things they don't need. They are buying newer equipment to replace older equipment. Could they wait another 2-5 years on some of those purchases, maybe, but they aren't being irrational given the current system and incentives.

Re: The suicide rate for farmers in the U.S. is more than double that of veterans

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This happens any time your only differentiator is price. The small guy is never going to be able to compete with a larger company on only price. Never make your differentiator "we're cheaper"! It's business 101.

Eh...I've worked in a few businesses that do this. Visual effects was the most notable. Also, in the US, isn't the government required to go with the lowest bidder to some degree on contracts?

Isn’t that an example of what the GP is taking about? I keep hearing the VFX business is terrible, with horrific overwork and low pay, for exactly that reason. See this article http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/feb/25/oscars-protest-li... and this accompanying comment when it was posted to Reddit: http://reddit.com/r/movies/comments/1969o6/more_than_400_vfx...

Re: The suicide rate for farmers in the U.S. is more than double that of veterans

#216
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you that such a strategy is not optimal but it is not quite how you describe it to be. In the mind of the farmer: * $150,000 tractor: something that has value (not easy to calculate, but a $150k tractor has a value above zero, even if not brand new) and utility. * $30,000 to the IRS: money that I will never see again. Literally thrown away money. Option number 1 is very tempting.

I wonder how they see taxes as thrown away? Yes, government is inefficient. And corrupt. But you do need roads. And bridges. And law enforcement. And even military protection, even if it seems far away and remote from your farm.

If nothing else, it's probably that the benefit you get from the government does not depend on your tax burden. So the money they pay to the government has "zero" utility to them. Spending that money somewhere else, even if the utility is very low, would seem better.

Re: The suicide rate for farmers in the U.S. is more than double that of veterans

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

JoeAltmaier says> " he pays rent on the land and suffers the risk all himself." Doesn't that depend on which way the wind blows (you can be exposed to airborne chemicals and organisms)? And what about the water supply - any problem with nitrates, for example? I envy you to some degree, but my mother's relatives lived on farms and paid heavy dues health-wise for that.

Can you go into greater detail? What happened to your mother's relatives?

Exposure to pesticides via "pesticide drift".

Re: The suicide rate for farmers in the U.S. is more than double that of veterans

#218
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>One thing that increases the stress on the farmers is the way they avoid income taxes at all costs so they rarely save any of the profits from good years to help them float during the bad years. I'm from Iowa and a family member does lots of farm bankruptcies here. This is definitely a thing. Farmers buy new pickup trucks in lieu of showing a profit. Pair that in with land purchases at 7k+/acre and the saying "the n…

> 7k+/acre Assuming this is pure farm land (no premium for possible annexation or commercial development), is that not an absolutely batshit insane price? I'm no expert but that seems at least 4x what is reasonable.

I have family that own and operate farms in Kansas and Iowa, and that's pretty much on point. Good quality farmland pretty easily goes at $6k an acre, with really high quality riverland going for up to $10k.

Re: The suicide rate for farmers in the U.S. is more than double that of veterans

#219
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure that is a common feeling. And it probably varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But in the USA, just as coastal areas subsidize inland areas, typically urban areas within a state subsidize the rural areas. Definitely true of California counties, and I'd be very surprised if this wasn't true of any particular state.

This gets brought up a lot on Hacker News as if it's a bad thing. One, I doubt it's as universally true as people think (I'd wager that in Utah, say, an equal chunk of taxes comes from suburban as urban areas), and two, people who can't afford the cities need places to live and those who can need places to vacation and buy food.

Its not a bad thing. But it is quite annoying that the places who benefit the most from taxes keep trying to abolish them out of a lack of understanding, and also get an oversized influence in terms of voting value to do so.

Re: The suicide rate for farmers in the U.S. is more than double that of veterans

#220
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't that just make the overall tax burden worse? You'd have to pay corporate taxes on the farm profits, then pay income taxes on the salary.

I don't think so. I think LLC's allow one to pass through profits without double taxation. C corps, I believe, are the type that suffer from double taxation. Correct me if I am wrong though.

You are correct. LLCs don't pay federal business income taxes. An LLC can retain earnings inside of the company but the members are still going to be taxed individually as if the earnings had been paid out to them. US S-corps work in a similar way: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
Post reply on HN