News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Obama, McCain split on farm trade reform 

Obama, McCain split on farm trade reform

18 Jul, 2008 04:25 PM
United States presidential candidates, Democrat Barrack Obama and Republican John McCain, have displayed a major policy difference on global trade reform, which could have significant implications for Australian farmers.

The American Farm Bureau Federation's Council of Presidents has been meeting this week in Washington D.C. and on Wednesday were addressed via teleconference by the presumptive presidential candidates.

Both Obama and McCain pledged their support of American agriculture.

McCain spoke first, and talked about the need to support free-trade agreements that would open markets to US agriculture, calling American farmers the most efficient and productive in the world and that every market should be open to their products.

In contrast Obama emphasised his support of the new Farm Bill, which has been viewed in Australia as further entrenching protectionist tariffs and subsidies.

However, Obama said he would have liked to have seem more reforms, but that on balance it did far more good than bad by providing farmers with stability in an increasingly volatile market.

Both men also addressed agriculture's role in energy and talked about the estate tax and immigration reform.

"It's outrageous that you can't pass onto your children and grandchildren the hard-won fruits of your labour," McCain said.

He proposed an exemption level of $10 million with anything above that level taxed at 15pc.

Obama on the other hand proposed keeping levels at the 2009 exemption rate of $3.5 million for single filers and $7 million for married couples, saying that the $7 million rate would exempt 99.7pc of all tax payers.

"The truth is a complete repeal of the estate tax would cost the government $1 trillion over the first 10 years at a time when our country has some huge priorities," Obama said.

"To finance that repeal, we'd either have to borrow money or we'd have to raise taxes on families who never even benefit from the estate tax or slash $1 trillion in public services."

On the issue of immigration reform as it relates to agriculture labour, McCain highlighted the need for a temporary worker program and Obama pledged to have a comprehensive immigration reform completed in his first year in office.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
If they are so efficient why do sugar farmers get more support than a chicago single mum. Most of asia is scared to eat their beef. Most of their market gardens & processing industries rely on wetbacks.
Posted by THE FARMER, 18/07/2008 9:13:51 PM
I think it is about time Australian farmers were granted a level of suppport closer to that of our rivals over seas in agriculture because we are the only fools on a level playing field. We have to compete against asian products which for some reason no one applies any great number of tests for banned chemical content, let alone bacteria carring levels. Why is that we all should ask? Why do we allow imports from countries that still use chemicals on there food that are banned here? Not to mention what chemicals they lace on there clothing etc.

It's about time tax relief was granted on imputation costs such as fertilizer so we don't pay tax on money we have to spend to make food for all. Why are we paying tax on money which we cannot do anything else with but use to try make food for our people. Let's also distinguish between real farmers and companies that come along dodging tax from their real enterprise and get the same benifits as farmers who solely rely on agriculture for a living?

Let us also make sure the large supermarkets are playing fair as in Western Australia we all know they are not but they are still allowed to lower farmer returns and raise there profits with no one caring at all! Also why are farmers still having to pay provisional tax or its nice new name, pay as you go tax? I know from experience that working for the same money as one may earn on a farm and working for wages for an employer, the farmer pays double the tax on the same money of which we never see again yet have to try pay it out of the same tax year. How unfair is that?

It's time we subject all imported goods to same tests and quality control that we in Australia are subject to and start to support our "real" farmers on all levels to ensure the continued supply of our quality food here in Australia , by doing what ever it takes to ensure the survival of farms and farmers who in turn have a very great knowledge base to pass on to our future farmers rather than allowing them to be starved out of the industry and increasing rely on our importation of substandard food and products from over seas driven by greedy supermarkets !!! It's time all Australian farmers and customers started a louder protest on our extremely short sighted way of treating our quality food producers here in Australia.

So come on every one start to tell everyone about it. Write to city news papers and parliament, the time has come to for once and for all start a ground swell agaisnt what is happening before all farmers are gone and we become import reliant!!!! Remember it's a waste of time voicing your opinion in a rural publication as you are preaching to the converted, so let's get into the city publications guys !

Posted by Davo, 21/07/2008 9:58:47 AM
I think it is about time Australian farmers demanded “free trade”, both on their income, (which we already have), but on expenses, which farmers are unfairly not allowed access to. This would mean farmers would be able to source their items needed for production from the cheapest supplier, where ever they may be in the world. This would result in a massive production cost decrease, at a time when productions costs are going up for farmers at a rate most city people would not, (and cannot) understand.

Forget about demanding so called subsidies, as I have read above, as that will never happen. Demanding free trade in both income and expenses will happen if the industry demands it, as it’s only logical and fair.

Sure urban people will start to complain, but then all we have to say is as long as they want to pay world market price for a food product, that when produced in Australia is much better and safer than a imported produced. Let the urban people demand subsidies for the difference between “world market and Australian market” costs for farm inputs. The difference is actually a subsidy to the urban people, and yes, I find it rather good!! BUT NOT FAIR.

There is plenty of fat in the urban economy; I will say that after working in both sectors. When urban business is required to be world competitive, they will soon demand the reduction of the “regulated market” they operate in, and they will still be able to be competitive as a result. Of course the cost of this regulated market is passed on, with a profit margin to their consumer, and continues until that consumer is a farmer.

So stop demanding subsidies to cover the “urban regulated benefit” that makes “$”s go from rural to urban, and demand the govt policy of free trade to be implanted in its true and fair form.

Posted by city bludger, 21/07/2008 6:38:49 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
POLL
Q: Do you believe the creation of an emissions trading system poses a threat or opportunity for your farm business?

Threat
(59.6%)

Opportunity
(17.7%)

Unsure - more information needed
(22.7%)

Total Votes: 480
Poll Date: 13 July, 2008

Most popular articles

Advertisement



Stock & Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...