Posts by rowdypilot19

The IRS was breathing down their necks because they claimed there was this huge gap between what was earned and what was actually spent.

It’s like, if you pulled in $10 million back in 2002, you aren't supposed to just go out and spend it in 2018 or something. I guess that's how they see it.😵

So, we’re talking about Pelé here, and honestly, it wasn't even a matter of him having this massive windfall... it's more like he just spent it all. 😁

That’s exactly my point, honestly... damn it, I mean, when you see case after case where it's proven those rules don't actually matter. Like, at the end of the day, the IRS can just basically do whatever they want, whenever they feel like it.

I mean, I’m just sitting here wondering... how does that even work? Like, how is it suddenly legal for a bank to just turn everyone away when they're trying to deal with a CHECKING ACCOUNT—and I am being very intentional about emphasizing that, by the way—just because they decided to pull some random rule out of thin air? It feels weird, I guess. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it seems like such a strange thing to happen all of a sudden.

I mean, I guess it’s fine if they handle things that way for savings accounts or whatever, but applying that to checking accounts? Man, I don't know. Like, look, checking accounts are... they're essential. They're a necessity. If you want to actually get paid—like, receive your actual paycheck from work—there really ought to be some kind of national consensus or maybe even federal legislation involved. There should be these set rules that everyone just follows, you know? Just so regular Americans can have access to basic checking accounts under totally normal, standard conditions. It just feels like it should be more settled than this.

So, look, it’s all well and good that everyone should have the freedom to pick whatever bank they want—really, it is—but I can't help but wonder... what if things go a step further? Like, what if everyone just collectively agrees that you need to provide your blood type just to open an account? It sounds crazy, I know, maybe I'm overthinking this, but would that just become the new normal? Just another thing on the list of requirements? I guess it's possible.

I don't know, I just feel like we’re swinging from one extreme to the other here. Like, sure, you have to follow the legal requirements and all that, obviously, but then there's also these internal bank policies for stuff that is... well, it's a basic necessity for any employee, right? I mean, if they don't follow those rules, people can't even get their paychecks, which is wild. It just doesn't seem to make much sense to me, I guess. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it feels pretty illogical.

So, are you basically implying that someone who’s usually rubbing elbows with the highest levels of government here in the States had trouble proving they actually brought their own cash into the country?

Look, lady—or miss, I guess—I’m talking about the guy everyone knows as The Brand. I mean, surely you have an idea of who I’m getting at.

Of course, the man legally moved his money into the US, and he’s already poured it into several different ventures, but... well, the IRS decided to be a real genius about it and claimed there was no proof of where the income came from. It’s wild. Suddenly, something like $2 million—or maybe it was even less, though it could have been upwards of $15 million—becomes this massive issue.

wiredlynx28 said:It’s not 105k dollars, it's 105k pesos 👍
Basically, any amount that doesn't line up with your paycheck gets flagged.
If someone is pulling in, say, 4 or 5k a month—which is pretty standard for an average American worker—but they're suddenly dropping huge sums on purchases that don't match that income, they're absolutely going to trigger an IRS audit or a probe into where that cash actually came from.
At the end of the day, if the money was earned legally, you won't have any problems.

Are you being serious right now, or just joking?

I mean, how does it make sense that some famous guy—someone who we know for a fact cleared over $20 million net, and honestly, he's such a cheapskate too—gets slapped with a massive tax penalty just because he spent maybe $2 or $3 million in a single year? Like, that's money he probably made years ago... so why would they care?

neondriver5 said:Man, people are such hypocrites. They whine about a few minor issues, yet let themselves get screwed over whenever it suits the system.
And the expats are a special breed. Everything is perfect compared to back home, and then the big shot writes, "Account maintenance is $10 a month."
They can't even figure out online banking, at least not the kind offered by the major banks I know personally here in the States. Maybe the poster was thinking of some Eastern European country; I have no idea what the situation is like there.
From what I know, that $10 fee is probably just a daily rate over there.

Does everyone in the US "have" to have an account at a commercial bank? If you want to receive money in any civilized manner, we can agree that you effectively "must." A basic checking account, without any extras—and depending on the bank, maybe even without a debit card—will cost anywhere from $0.00 in monthly fees upwards.
Let me correct myself: nobody is forcing you at gunpoint to keep your money in a bank. If you don't like it, keep it under your mattress; nobody's going to ask you for a receipt there. Academics.

Yeah, that’s basically the absolute floor for hourly pay. ☕

But honestly, it doesn't really matter how much the corporate drones are getting paid anyway.

Honestly, your package actually looks like a really great deal to me. I’ve never even been offered anything like it before, so I guess that’s why I said that UK offer caught me totally off guard.

But, you know, a business account isn't exactly the same thing as a personal one.

And look, I’m definitely nothing like what bluecyclist64 is thinking—actually, I think I'm probably the exact opposite.

At the end of the day, banks provide a service that I need, and they probably need me as a client too, so it's just... that's just how it works. As long as they stay affordable and helpful, I don't see any reason to go hunting for another bank, or maybe even a third one, because these guys are different. 😁

James Rogers53 said:Alright, here’s the comparison. I don't see how yours is any better than what we have at Chase—and they’re usually considered one of the more expensive banks in the US.

My wife and I have accounts at Chase and we use:

- 2x checking accounts
- 2x foreign currency accounts
- 2x savings accounts
- 2x Maestro debit cards
- 2x Mastercard with a limit of three paychecks
- 2x online banking access
- Service center perks—2x free home repairs a year (plumber, glazier, locksmith, or electrician). We use it maybe once a year (service value is roughly $500-$200)
- Roadside assistance—free (though I haven't needed it)
- Travel insurance—free (used to pay $100-$67 per trip)
- Overdraft protection up to $7,500 (rarely use it, but I like having it there)
- Ability to take out a quick loan via online banking—up to $10,000 (hits the account in about 30 seconds)
- No fees for internal transactions within the bank (at least 10 or so transactions a month)
- A personal banker available via email/mobile/landline—we set appointments whenever works for us, though I rarely need them
- Online business portal access through the app
- Phone, internet, and email support (including video chat with a banker)
- ATMs and branches on basically every corner

And we pay $20/month ($10 per person). Is that a lot? Not to me. Honestly, I hope it stays this way forever.
Mind you, interest rates are higher here than in some other Western countries, which might suit you or not depending on whether you're looking for a loan or a CD. But things are changing fast—mortgages are around 3% for the masses (pretty decent), while CDs are about 1.5% (not great).

And I don't mind answering 5 or 6 benign questions for FinCEN via the app—I've already become a bit of a regular on this thread asking for that stuff, nothing special.

Is this really your answer to me?

What does any of this have to do with a business account?

Also, your figures in dollars are just like my figures in pounds—they aren't even comparable. It would be normal if my services were at least 5x more expensive than yours, but they aren't, which is kind of sad, I guess.

All of this looks great on paper, but what was offered to me back in the States versus what I actually received from what was written on that paper... those two things were totally different.

Plus, most of these extra perks are usually free through insurance anyway, especially abroad. And online banking often glitches out (I've tried Citigroup and Bank of America), and I've never been charged for internal bank transactions at any bank I've used. So that's not really a special privilege; they just don't charge for it, even if you aren't a client.

neondriver5 said:You guys are whining just because a private company needs specific personal data to establish a business relationship. Honestly, it’s like you’re being forced at gunpoint or something.

The best part? About 95% of those requirements are mandated by the Federal Reserve or the IRS; only about 5% is actually at their own discretion.

And yet, here you are, still complaining and practically begging for sympathy.

I mean, come on, let’s be real—pretty much everyone needs a bank account these days. It’s just how things work here. If it weren't practically mandatory to have one, I guess half the people out there wouldn't even bother having one at all.

I guess I should start by saying... well, let me just put this here. Maybe it’ll make sense once I get all my thoughts out. It’s just one of those things, you know? I mean, I was thinking about it earlier today, and it really feels like... well, I don't know how else to put it. It's important. Or maybe it isn't. I'm still figuring that part out. Anyway, here goes nothing.

neondriver5 said:I think it’s pretty hilarious how everyone on this forum acts so tough. If you actually head over to Bregana to open an account, do you think they’d ask for your shoe size too?

Do you honestly think people abroad are going to give you a pat on the back just because you have an account with them? Where on earth did you guys get these ideas?
If you go to Germany to open an account, they’ll tell you that you have to schedule an appointment far in advance. I don't know how anyone survives that kind of bureaucracy. Here in the States, you can practically walk into a branch whenever you feel like it.
To even open an account, that same person would have to answer a series of specific questions. Honestly, if answering those questions feels like too much work, you're better off keeping your cash under the mattress. It’s safer for you and everyone else.

Man, you're just talking nonsense again. I mean, seriously... you're just spinning your wheels at this point.

Honestly, regarding the United Kingdom... I probably shouldn't have even shown up there. I mean, it’s kind of wild to think about, but they hadn't even really seen what I looked like in person for almost three years. Maybe I just stayed under the radar too long, I guess.

Regarding FATCA... are you a US citizen? No. Thanks, but I'm out.

So, I was looking back at my banking setup... I used to be with JPMorgan Chase for a bit. They had this deal where I got a free business account for about six months, and they were actually giving me a 50% discount on the fees whenever I moved money over from PayPal. It seemed like a sweet deal at the time, I guess. But then, things changed. I ended up switching over to Bank of America. Now, they give me eighteen months of a free business account, which is nice, I suppose. There isn't any special discount for transferring funds from PayPal anymore, but honestly? Even without the discount, the base fee is actually lower than what I was paying at JPMorgan Chase, even when I had that 50% off thing going on. It’s funny how that works out, right? Maybe just how math goes sometimes.

I think I still have that bonus active... you know, the one where they give you extra perks if your account turnover stays high enough. I guess it depends on how much cash is moving through the account, maybe?

Honestly, interest rates are looking so good right now that I feel like it might actually be more profitable to just take out a personal loan over in the United Kingdom than what people are dealing with when they try to pay off mortgages for houses back home in America. It’s kind of wild, I guess... maybe I'm just thinking out loud here, but the math seems to point that way. Just an observation, really.

The service was honestly top-tier. I mean, I could have just walked into a branch and seen someone right away, but instead, I decided to pick a specific advisor online, booked a slot through their portal, and that was pretty much it. Super smooth.

The cards are working exactly how they should, you know? And honestly, the online banking isn't glitching out like it does back home in America... I mean, it actually works. They’ve got this 24/7/365 support for business clients too, whether you're hitting them up online or just calling on the phone, it doesn't really matter. It all just flows. I guess it's just nice when things actually function the way they're supposed to.

So, I was thinking about this online credit stuff... you know, getting those overdrafts approved through the web? And if things get hairy, you can grab a loan up to like $60,000—also entirely online. I mean, honestly, if things keep going the way they're going, I guess I might actually find myself staring down a $120,000 hole by next year. It’s wild how fast that happens. But, uh, the money is basically there in a matter of minutes. Just... right there.

Plus, you know, there's those three foreign currency sub-accounts too, I guess.

It’s all coming out to about $10 a month, I guess. Just a flat fee for everything.

Are you honestly sure that someone living out in a place like Topusk wouldn't want to just pack up and move somewhere else to actually make a decent living? 🍿

I mean, I guess we all pretty much realize that if the soil quality isn't there, you have to grow different crops. It's just common sense, right?

So, yeah... it doesn't really make any sense to be pushing people to grow wheat if the yields are consistently falling below a certain point.

The world is changing, you know? There’s really no point in clinging to some outdated system that was cooked up a hundred years ago and acting like the rules of the game haven't changed since then.

I don't know, I can't really agree with that. If certain areas just aren't built for farming, then maybe we shouldn't be trying to force it there in the first place.

Especially not in a country where even the prime, most fertile land isn't being worked properly.

I mean, you have to actually tap into your best possible potential first. Only after you've done that can you start looking for ways to deal with the land that is, I guess, in a different category altogether.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:EXACTLY: http://www.agrosmart.net/vesti/bez-z...lastenika.html

Look, the real secret lies in innovating how we handle irrigation and fertilization—but we aren't just talking about turning on a hose here. It’s about a massive, integrated system—everything from building reservoirs and pumping stations down to the actual sprinklers, all tied together by computer-controlled monitoring. The whole goal is to take soil that’s been thoroughly tested and deliver the exact amount of water and nutrients directly to the plant's roots for peak growth—that’s how Hermisan ” Juan Felipe Muñoz Viscaíno, the director over at “ Hermisan, explained it to us.

“Hermisan” is one of those heavy hitters in Spain, producing top-tier irrigation equipment for both greenhouses and open fields. They’re moving about two billion euros worth of gear through Spain and 70 other countries. From what we gathered from Juan, the entire point is using these high-tech tools to squeeze out the highest possible yield while using as little water as possible, all while staying green.

- It’s actually quite simple. You have to understand plant biology and soil characteristics to deliver precise amounts of food and water. We haven't seen rain here since May, though honestly, a sudden downpour might actually mess things up right now by throwing this controlled system out of whack—Juan told us this while we were touring the greenhouses and lemon groves in San Juan, way down in the South of Spain, near Alicante.

The Andalusians really go all out to secure their water supply; they use rainwater, desalinated seawater, groundwater, and even pipe it in from other parts of Spain. They build these massive reservoirs and then pull from them via fully automated systems where the computer acts as the brain. Everything is doable and everything pays off, mostly because the farmers there—whatever they’re growing—work together. The Andalusians are pretty much in a league of their own when it comes to that. They irrigate fruit and veg collectively through irrigation user associations. They pay a flat membership fee to access the reservoir water, and then a secondary fee based on how much water they actually use, or rather, the acreage they’re irrigating.

We’re actually planning to head out to Israel and Spain next spring, specifically to check out their agriculture. Trying to mix a little bit of travel fun with some useful learning, I suppose.👍

bluetinker54 said:

stormyangler12 As I was saying:
I’ve been thinking about this lately, and I honestly can't help but feel like most of those government subsidies just end up being swallowed by the massive corporations. It seems like whenever there’s a new round of stimulus or tax breaks being handed out, the big players—the ones who probably don't even need the extra cushion—are the first ones in line to grab it all. I guess it’s just how the system is set up, but it feels like the smaller businesses, the actual backbone of the economy, are left fighting over the crumbs while the giants get a free pass. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but it certainly looks that way from where I'm sitting. I guess it really comes down to how you define "large" in this context, doesn't it? It’s one of those terms that feels pretty straightforward until you actually sit down and try to pin it down, but I suspect everyone is looking at a different metric. Maybe we should probably establish what we mean by "big" before we get too far into this, because without a clear definition, the whole argument kind of loses its footing.

I guess the total amount earmarked for those subsidies is sitting somewhere around $460 million.
I guess if you look at the numbers, exactly 1,063 of the largest recipients—those pulling in more than $500,000—have received their payments in full. $558987860

If you actually sit down and crunch the numbers—considering there were exactly 103,194 recipients in total—it turns out that... I guess if you look at the numbers, it’s pretty wild to see that a tiny fraction—about 9.7% of the largest recipients—ended up walking away with roughly 50% of the total. It just seems like such a massive concentration of resources in so few hands, though I suppose that's just how these things tend to play out in the US. ...out of the total amount.

I suppose you could make the exact same argument when it comes to their specific share of total production.
Since there isn't exactly a clear-cut definition of what qualifies as "large-scale" or any specific, granular data on production numbers for individual companies, it’s basically impossible to make an exact, definitive statement about the market share. That said, I guess we can look at one illustration to get a sense of the scale: the biggest player in the American agricultural sector produces roughly 8% of the milk and about 20% of the pork.

That’s exactly the point right there—before we can even begin to move forward, I guess we really need to figure out how we're actually going to define who counts as a "major" player and who just falls into that "minor" category. It seems like a pretty fundamental step we're skipping over, but without some kind of clear distinction between the big fish and the small fry, the whole discussion feels a bit aimless, don't you think?
I guess if you’re looking at someone managing maybe 12 acres, then that guy running 250 acres probably seems like some massive industry player to them. But honestly, even that 250-acre operation is practically nothing once you start comparing them to the heavy hitters out there managing 2,500 acres or more. It's all relative, I suppose.
On the other hand, over on the Mediterranean Coast lately, you’ve got these guys who managed to snag long-term concessions for permanent crops, and now they’re just sitting pretty, reaping in those massive government subsidies on 50 to 100 hectares. It feels like a setup, honestly.

I guess there isn't much to say here, really. It feels like we're just circling the same drain over and over again without actually getting anywhere, which is pretty frustrating if you ask me. Maybe I’m being too cynical, or maybe I’m just seeing things for what they truly are, but it seems like everyone is just talking to hear themselves speak rather than actually addressing the core of the issue. It’s a bit exhausting, honestly. I suppose we could try looking at it from another angle, but I haven't seen anyone offer anything substantial enough to make that worth the effort yet.

rowdypilot19 Asks: Whether you’re pulling in 3 tons or 10 tons per acre, the subsidies stay exactly the same. Honestly, if you ask me, that’s just plain stupidity.

Look, you have to understand that this isn't some kind of stupidity. It’s actually pretty straightforward when you think about it, because not everyone is working with the same natural conditions. I mean, if you take two farmers using the exact same agricultural techniques, Matt from the Midwest might pull in maybe 8 tons of wheat, while Steve over in a hilly region like Tennessee might struggle to even hit 5 tons. Plus, he’s dealing with all that extra work coming from the hills, too.

I guess if we’re being honest about how these subsidies actually work, the whole system feels a bit backwards. If you really want incentive programs to make any sense at all, the payout per acre should probably scale down as the farm size increases. It just seems logical that a larger operation benefits from economies of scale—they have lower overhead and can run things much more efficiently than someone struggling with a tiny plot. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but right now, the math just doesn't seem to add up for the bigger players who are already running a tight ship.
Honestly, if that happened, we’d just be looking at an even bigger mess of total chaos and systemic corruption.

I guess I should probably start by addressing this whole situation, though I’m not entirely sure where to begin without sounding like I'm just venting for the sake of it. It feels like everything is being thrown into a blender lately, and honestly, I find myself questioning if anyone is actually looking at the bigger picture here. Maybe I'm just overthinking things, or maybe I'm the only one noticing how much the landscape is shifting under our feet, but it seems like we're constantly reacting to the latest headline instead of planning for what comes next. It’s frustrating, I suppose, to see such a lack of foresight, especially when you consider how much is actually at stake for us all. I mean, if you really sit down and weigh the implications, it becomes pretty clear that the current trajectory isn't exactly sustainable, though I realize that might be a bit of an exaggeration depending on who you ask. Still, it leaves me feeling rather unsettled about where we'll end up if things don't start heading in a more predictable direction.

So, who exactly is to blame for all this? I mean, really, if we're going to sit here and dissect this mess, we have to ask ourselves who is actually responsible. It feels like everyone is pointing fingers, but I guess it’s never that simple, is it? Maybe it's one group, maybe it's another, or perhaps it's just a systemic failure across the board. I don't know. I'm just sitting here wondering who we should actually be holding accountable when everything falls apart like this.

That’s assuming your well is the only one in the vicinity 3.1 miles. But then again, there are areas where you won't find water at all, or maybe it's sitting fifty meters down. And even if you hit it, the water is usually way too cold, so you end up needing these massive surface tanks just so they can soak up some sun during the day to reach a usable temperature.

Real irrigation isn't really possible without massive infrastructure projects and serious, large-scale systems. Primarily, it's an issue of ecology.
If everyone starts setting up their own little DIY micro-systems just to suit their immediate needs, we’re going to run into an ecological disaster long before anyone sees any actual profit.

Fine. But I think you should read that article a bit more carefully.
It points out that livestock producers actually receive a higher percentage of subsidies compared to crop farmers. Which makes sense, I suppose, because they get incentives for both the initial planting and the livestock itself.
Looking at Belje's own data, they manage about 50,000 acres of cropland along with 4,000 head of cattle and 2,000 beef cattle.
That works out to roughly one animal for every 12 acres.
Whereas a dedicated livestock farmer, where ranching is the primary business, might have about one head per 2.5 acres. Or basically three times the density of livestock per unit of land. So, naturally, their subsidy percentage ends up being higher.

As for those folks claiming subsidies make up 50% of their income, those numbers probably need a little "cleaning up." It’s most likely small-scale homesteaders who produce a tiny amount for the market—often just selling right from their front porch—so there’s hardly any paper trail regarding their actual sales volume.

So, basically... you're encouraging someone to pour their life into something that just doesn't pay off? I mean, yeah, great idea. Truly a stellar move.

I mean, if we’re being honest, for subsidies to actually make any sense... I don't know, maybe the amount per acre should probably scale down as the farm gets bigger? It just seems like it would work better that way. Because, you know, a larger operation usually means lower overhead and everything runs a bit more efficiently. It's just more rational, I guess.
I mean, honestly? It would just be a total disaster. Probably even more chaos and shady business than what we're seeing now. I guess... maybe things would just get way messier.

It’s like... this whole setup is actually even worse, I guess. It feels like if you're actually doing well and being successful, they just end up punishing you more for it. Maybe that's how it works now? It's just a system where the more you succeed, the more they come after you. Truly.

Since you're clearly struggling, here—take some extra cash. Maybe it’ll help.

That’s just brilliant. Truly.

I guess I should probably start by saying... well, there isn't much else to say, really. It’s just that thing we were talking about. You know? I mean, if you look at it one way, maybe it doesn't even matter, but I can't help but think about it. It stays on my mind. I don't know. Maybe I'm overthinking things, too much, probably. But anyway...

I mean, it’s a whole different ballgame if your well is basically the only one for miles around. I guess you start thinking about things differently then, right? Like, if that one source goes dry or something... man, that's a heavy thought. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like everything changes when you're relying on just one thing. It's a lot of pressure, honestly. 3.1 milesIt’s just... I mean, you have to consider that in certain spots, there isn't even any water available at all. Or, if you do find some, it might be sitting fifty meters down. And then, okay, even if you get it, the temperature is just way too cold. It’s freezing. So, I guess you’d end up needing those massive storage tanks out on the surface, just hoping they soak up enough sunlight during the day to actually warm things up. Maybe that works, but it seems like a lot of extra work, right?

That’s not quite right, I guess... if you actually look at Vrgorac and Sinjsko polje.

I mean, seriously, if there isn't any water, what on earth would be the point of trying to jumpstart agriculture there? I guess... I don't know, it just doesn't make sense. Like, why would we even talk about incentivizing farming on Brač, specifically out in the Blaca desert? It feels a bit pointless, honestly.

I mean, sure, it’s doable, I guess... but you better be ready to shell out some serious cash if you're actually going through with it.

Watering your lawn in the middle of a summer day? I don't know... maybe it isn't the brightest idea. It just feels like a waste, honestly.

I guess, at the end of the day, maybe it’s actually better for farming to just have a desert and the ocean instead of all that fertile soil and a river running through it. I don't know. It feels like if you have the barren stuff, at least nobody is breathing down your neck about environmental conservation or whatever. At least then, nobody's messing with you. 😁

The most basic setup, probably straight from the Stone Age—just a well.

Hmm, nah, the way it works is you get subsidies based on acreage, or per head of cattle, or maybe based on hitting a minimum milk production level. Like, if you hit some baseline amount of milk—say, 10 liters per cow, LOL—you get the payout, but if you don't, you get absolutely nothing.

It’s not like you get paid for how much wheat you actually grow per acre or anything like that. That's what I'm getting at.

Whether you pull in 3 tons or 10 tons per acre, the subsidy stays exactly the same. I mean, if you ask me, it's just plain silly.

stormyangler12 said:The vast majority of these subsidies go straight to the big players (though one has to wonder: how exactly do we define "big" here?).

The total amount allocated for these support programs sits at roughly $2.3 billion.
There are 1,063 major recipients (those receiving over $220,000) who walked away with exactly $558987860

When you consider there were 103,194 total recipients, it turns out that just 9.7% of them—the heavy hitters—snagged about 50% of the entire fund.

The same logic applies when looking at production shares.
Since there isn't a clear definition of what constitutes a "large entity," nor any granular data on individual production levels, an exact calculation is impossible. So, let me offer this illustration instead: the undisputed giant in the US (think massive conglomerates like Cargill) produces roughly 8% of all milk and 20% of pork.

What kind of nonsense is this?

I mean, how much land area and production percentage does that 9.7% of recipients actually hold?

The reality is, obviously, that small farmers take the subsidies, while the big guys handle the actual production. ☕

Ronald Howard3 said:The comparisons between farming and renting out vacation rentals always crack me up. I have this buddy who inherited some acreage from his old man—a tractor, some gear, the whole bit—and spent a few years running wheat, corn, and sunflowers. Back in the day, maybe ten years ago, you could actually see a decent return on your time and investment even with smaller plots. Nowadays? It’s basically peanuts. He finally just gave up and started leasing his land out instead. If you don't have the cash upfront for supplies, you're stuck signing IOUs. Plus, when harvest hits, you're glued to that tractor for 36 to 48 hours straight—you need serious stamina for that. When he actually crunched the numbers, the "profit" was so pathetic his hourly rate ended up being way lower than what a college kid makes working in a warehouse—and that wasn't even factoring in the depreciation on his equipment. It’s all too easy to work yourself to the bone only to realize you're actually losing money.

Interesting... I mean, how would he even fix up an apartment if he had no money? People seem shocked every time they realize things actually cost money.

Of course, people living on the coast think everything just falls from the sky. ☕

bluetinker54 said:How many people do I personally know who are out there collecting government subsidies while simultaneously letting ragweed take over their entire property? Let’s try to avoid making sweeping generalizations here, but I have to wonder how common this actually is.

Yeah, especially when you're looking at those smaller family farms. But honestly, I guess maybe he would have been the smarter one if he’d actually put those subsidies toward consolidating his acreage instead of blowing it all on some overpriced, shiny new John Deere tractor.
You really have to keep in mind that when you're looking at tractors, the actual age of the machine isn't nearly as critical as the total number of operating hours. I mean, if you have a solid, well-built tractor that’s been properly maintained, it can easily clock 10,000 hours without breaking a sweat. Once you hit that mark, you just perform a complete engine overhaul, and honestly, you're basically starting over again.
If someone manages to clock about 1,000 hours a year—which, let’s be honest, is actually quite a bit if you're putting in four hours every single workday—they’ll probably end up destroying the machine within ten to fifteen years. But, I guess if they only run it for maybe 300 hours a year, it could potentially last them forty years. Of course, that’s assuming you factor in all the inevitable breakdowns and regular maintenance required to keep things running.

Besides, any boss with half a brain is going to go out and buy a brand-new John Deere or maybe a top-of-the-line piece of equipment, but they’ll still insist on keeping that ancient, rusted-out relic tucked away in the back of the shed just in case some absolute disaster strikes. It’s honestly ridiculous. You’re right in the middle of a massive job, a warning light pops up on the dashboard of the new machine, and what can you actually do? You basically just call the service department and sit there staring at the floor, wondering where it all went wrong. Until the mechanic shows up, you’re stuck trying to finish the whole damn project with some prehistoric junk from 1975 that probably shouldn't even be running.

wearytrucker22 As I was reading what Paul Gonzalez10 had to say, I couldn't help but feel that...
You people have been living on this land for over a thousand years, yet you can't even manage to pull together 250 acres of solid ground? It really makes you wonder what your ancestors were actually doing with their lives. Honestly, if you don't have at least a few hundred acres to work with, maybe you should just step away from the farming business entirely. It’s just not practical. And don't even get me started on the situation along the Mediterranean Coast, where the government either holds onto almost all the land or leaves nothing for the actual people to use. It's frustrating, I guess.

Here we go again, just whining and complaining like usual.
I guess you could say that back in the old days under America, there was a legal cap on land ownership set at around 25 acres. Even with that limit in place, the actual average per person was probably only sitting somewhere around five or seven acres.
Even if you happen to have the cash sitting there ready to go, it’s not like you can just walk into any neighborhood and buy up land on a whim. It doesn't always work that way.

I guess I should probably start by addressing what was said in that previous post. It seems like we're circling the same drain without actually making any progress on the core issue at hand.

How exactly am I supposed to wrap my head around that? I mean, I guess there might be a way to look at it, but honestly, I’m just not sure where to even begin with a question like that. It feels like there’s so much missing from the equation that any answer I give would probably just be a shot in the dark, though I suppose I could try to piece it together if I really had to.
I can't help but wonder who actually owns all this forest land that’s currently being torched right before our eyes. If I had to guess, most of it probably belongs to the federal government, wouldn't you say?
It doesn't really matter if they aren't easy to work with right now; over the last decade, I guess they've actually become somewhat manageable.

Fuel consumption matters too, and obviously the breakdowns. I mean, sure, luck plays a part, but most issues really come down to how you maintain things and whether you actually bother reading the manual. And honestly, people around here... I don't know, they're usually pretty bad at both.

how do you mean?
Whose forest lands are currently burning up like this? I'm thinking most of them are government-owned.
It doesn't matter if they aren't tillable right now; over the last decade, some of them have actually become usable farmland.

The land along the roads and highways is mostly private—like 90%—but all that inaccessible, worthless stuff out in the middle of nowhere? That's been state-owned for ages.

When you look at the coast, the government really only holds onto whatever they managed to nationalize. 😁

James Phillips92 said:I’m assuming you’re talking about American Todorica and his crowd—they’re definitely the ones who perfected the craft.

No, no way... I mean just a good chunk of people, in general.

I mean, how else can you explain why they keep bumping up the total subsidy amounts when production is actually dropping year after year? It just doesn't add up.

Nicole Nguyen6 said:But they really were. Just look at how many tens of billions have been pumped into highways, shipping lines, shipyards, tax breaks for tourism, rebuilding cities along the coast—it all counts. Even now, the Department of Transportation puts maritime stuff front and center in their title, and the Secretary keeps saying that investing in the coastline is the top priority.

Shipbuilding shouldn't be lumped in with tourism investment, period.

Given how profitable and high-earning tourism is, we probably should be investing even more there.

stormyangler12 said:First off, you need that 100 hectares. At 40 per acre, that puts your land value at $0.00 = 4,000 $0.00. On top of that, you'll need another million just to cover the machinery required to work it all.
And yet, you still have the nerve to claim some guy can take $5 million in startup capital, plant a seed, and then sit in a pub waiting for those $0.00 annual subsidies for that much acreage. You have vastly underestimated us and overestimated yourself.

Sure, but the thing is, hardly anyone actually owns that much land.

A colleague mentioned he works 70 hectares, but 80% of that isn't even his.

And honestly, the equipment used by small family farms is often older than the country itself.

I highly doubt someone making those kinds of investments—with average intelligence and market knowledge—isn't earning enough for a decent life.

If the guy I mentioned who barely has 10 hectares of hazelnuts is living, I guess, like an average German or Swiss, then someone with 100 hectares definitely has even more potential. Everything else just depends on what you can do with it.

Jerry Martinez6 said:Look, I could probably write a whole book here, but if we stick to that shortsighted coastal mindset of just planting almonds, peaches, or mandarins, we aren't getting anywhere. Let me put it simply: industry and agriculture are the bedrock, but they are deeply layered. You have the land, the machinery, the seeds, the fertilizer, the raw yields—you feed the next link in the chain. You have meat processing, and I won't even bother listing the thirty other industries that exist solely because agriculture supports them. Everything else builds on top of that. A strong agricultural sector means a strong nation. You can't have a powerhouse state without solid agriculture, and you can't have solid agriculture without a powerful state. It’s a cycle of cause and effect, and honestly, it all boils down to this: this country is a total mess, and there's no point looking any further.

To get back to your post: what exactly are you feeding people with those almonds, man? And just because YOU are profitable, who actually cares? Who gives a damn if YOU are making money? Are you an American? Do you actually love America? Or do you just love your own profit? It’s the same question for the importers, the middlemen, the bulk buyers of foreign goods, and the free-market enthusiasts: do you actually care about America, or would you rather everything be part of Germany, Spain, or the Netherlands? What are you even doing here?

Look, you're doing this for yourself. You aren't doing it for America, Germany, or Spain. It's just about you, I guess.

So, when the government decides to hit us with a new tax, does any of that percentage actually land in your pocket, or does it just... vanish? I mean, does anyone actually see a dime of it, or does it all just get swallowed up by the system? I guess it's hard to tell sometimes. Maybe some of it trickles down, but honestly, most of the time it feels like it just disappears into thin air. What do you guys think? Does it ever actually reach you?

bluetinker54 said:slysurfer14

I was actually thinking about table grapes in $1.25 retail markets—if that's what they're selling, what on earth is their production cost? I mean, where is the profit margin in all this?

Even the price for bell peppers seems suspiciously low. Honestly, I have no idea what they’re paying for labor, but just the cost of refrigerated transport from Spain alone is at least $0.30 per kilo.

Seriously, if you can find me peppers for 50 cents 🙂
, let me know.
If you're asking who benefits from prices being this cheap, it certainly isn't the consumer; it’s definitely not the small local farmer. Someone paying $0.67/kg for peppers isn't even going to bother picking them—they'll just leave them to rot in the field.

Maybe just buy out their entire annual dividend for the year, then you'll probably see that kind of price. I guess.

I mean, I guess their labor costs are probably way higher over there in the States than they are here, but honestly, you really only need someone for the computer analysis and the dosing part, and then just some picking. That’s pretty much it, I suppose.