Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 391 posts

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

#261

Post by ABCLAW »

EdSharkey wrote: post #213
baldfat wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Are you perhaps looking for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve ?

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

#262

Post by lloyd-christmas »

maxsilver wrote: post #211
mywittyname wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Interestingly, Wyoming is actually the worst pick of any state that they could choose. As of 2013[0], it was second in the nation (New Jersey) in balance of payments with the federal government (give more than take). It was one of only two red states, along with North Dakota. Per capita, it paid the most of any state in corporate taxes, 3rd most in estate taxes (behind CT and FL), and 2nd in excise taxes (ND).

[0] https://osc.state.ny.us/reports/budget/2015/fed_budget_fy201...

I can't find a more recent pre-compiled source, and too lazy to run the numbers myself. I doubt it has changed significantly enough to make the

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

#263

Post by scarmig »

nitrogen wrote: post #98
scarmig wrote: 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.

I was responding to a comment that stated that rural folks believe that they subsidize the cities by pointing out that belief was contrary to the reality (at least in the States; I don't know much about Canada's rural vs urban divisions, but I'd guess the dynamics there are similar).

As far as what I prefer: I have no issue subsidizing rural areas, within reason. I support everyone having access to basic infrastructure, healthcare, and education, regardless of where they live. Beyond that, there's no particular reason for government to provide incentives to live in one or the other; let the market sort that out.

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

#264

Post by civilian »

mediaman wrote: post #115
colanderman wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dumb question, as I am neither a farmer nor a businessperson, but is there a way for a farmer to set up, say, an LLC, which holds money from profitable years for use in unprofitable years, from which the farmer takes a steady salary each year?

LLC are pass-through entities. So, let's say you're a farmer, and you set up Farm, LLC, and then set up Profit, LLC. Profit LLC has to charge Farm LLC enough to eliminate the profits that Farm LLC generates. One way to do this is to have Profit LLC own the land, and Farm LLC pays Profit LLC a lease rate on the land that nicely eliminates the profit from Farm LLC. This is all well and good, but now you've just shifted…

Interesting. I think it could be argued that some small-ish amount could be paid for the brand. Developing relationships with buyers is not an insignificant part of ranching and farmers, and you could probably justify that as a 10k/year expense.

(Not a lawyer, not a tax preparer.)

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

#265

Post by softawre »

dclowd9901 wrote: post #256
coliveira wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this is not necessarily a good thing. If you don't need a new truck, buying that truck is worse than paying the taxes and getting some profit. The truck will be sitting there unused and it cannot be resold for the full price paid.

Especially when the truck depreciates so much. That's several thousand right there.

Yes, two comments up mentioned deprecation. Maybe you're forgetting that you can offset deprecation in your taxes for the next year?

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

#266

Post by softawre »

LockeWatts wrote: post #194
yufeng66 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US tax code is a strange animal. While in general you take home more if you earn more, the curve is not always smooth. There are several spot you suddenly lose the ability to claim certain benefit as income increase. In a situation like that you could take home slightly less as your income increase. If your income is high enough, those doesn't apply to you. All you need to worry about it the different tax bracket.

Very very few things being claimed by the average person fall off immediately, almost all of them scale such that you are still netting an increase, even if that increase is less pronounced. In fact, I can't think of a thing where this isn't the case. Can you provide an example?

All of the people who would get jobs if it wouldn't cut them off of their free/cheap housing and food stamps? You either qualify for subsidized housing or you don't (at least in my state).

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

#267

Post by thomas_howland »

ams6110 wrote: post #182
danans wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They might benefit indirectly from the donation in a way they couldn't by spending the money themselves, while also getting an income tax deduction.

Other than "feeling good" you can't derive personal benefit from a deductible donation.

Depending on how underwithheld you are, you can avoid tax underpayment penalties.

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

#268

Post by mistermann »

froindt wrote: post #181
mistermann wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's land in the middle of nowhere. If you're near a city you can get a nice premium as the suburbs expand. 4x is a bit extreme (been a long time since it was that much). But it's expensive. In the middle of nowhere there have been quite a number of land sales with $10k+/acre in the past handful of years. Farmland prices have been kinda crazy over the last 5-10 years. As a quick example of some math: * Rent prices…

What a strange world.....farmland prices in Canada are about a tenth of that, whereas if anything land prices for housing are typically at least double what they would be in the US (roughly adjusting for earning potential). Maybe we're just on opposite ends of a pendulum.

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

#269

Post by doomcaster1 »

CydeWeys wrote: post #125
doomcaster1 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many rural areas in the US are heavily neglected; There are roads that haven't seen any upkeep in a decade and have police response times that are over an hour long. A lot of farmers feel that they pay into the system but get only a minuscule fraction back.

This has everything to do with the fundamental physical fact that it's hard to provide services at very low population densities. I live in a city that has low single digit emergency response times. In order to get that out in rural farmland you would need to collocate a police and fire station with every single dwelling. Not gonna happen.

Correct, but that doesn't change the fact that when most people think about taxes they think of them paying for roads, schools, and emergency services. All lacking in rural areas. This creates the cognitive dissonance against taxes among those folk.

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

#270

Post by mohaine »

avs733 wrote: post #90
ravingraven wrote: post #52

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.

The problem with that is that its only a $150,000 tractor until you drive it off the lot. I would be if the day after you bought it you are lucky if it is a $120,000 tractor. Averseness to government is taxation is so engrained in some country it is almost genetic...and it leads to utterly bad thinking by individuals.

Tractors are not cars. While they do loose value by not being "new", the ratio is MUCH smaller than for cars.

They have an hour meter for a reason. This is really what people use to tell if it is new.

Post reply on HN