95% of Family Farms facing ruin after joining the European Union

Look, subsidies and pensions aren't inherently bad ideas, but I guess people in America have really turned the whole art of cutting corners into a fine science. 😁

bluetinker54 said:Of course there's less manual labor involved. But if you actually want to see a decent return on that investment, you really need to be working with a much larger acreage. And, naturally, you’ll need the right kind of technology to make it all work.

That is just brilliant—so, basically, to drive a nail into a board, you need a hammer, a nail, and a board. Just incredible.

Honestly, I'm stunned.

rowdypilot19 said:Wait, hold on a second.

So if you’re looking at 225 $0.00 in subsidies, and you’re claiming it’s not actually that much, does that mean you’re basically losing money on your Wheat?

Look, if Wheat only accounts for 10% of the effort compared to a single hazelnut bush or a grapevine, then I guess you can just take me seriously.

I mean, imagine if I started lecturing you about how cucumbers and zucchini are these incredibly high-maintenance crops that require constant work... and then someone says, "Nah, just relax." Like, no way. In reality, you have to invest, otherwise, all that hard work is just wasted. I suppose that’s the part most people just can't stomach.

You could work yourself to the bone, 365 days a year, but if you don't have irrigation set up for when the plant actually needs water during a dry spell, then everything you did was basically for nothing.

I’ve grown zucchini, so I know exactly what they entail. Where did I ever suggest I was losing money on Wheat unless there was some extreme weather event involved? Seriously, try and find that in my posts. Managing 1 acre of Wheat is nothing like managing 70 acres spread across 50 different plots. It's a massive undertaking. I've done zucchini twice, and I've handled 8 different field crops in the past—I still handle 7 today.

Paul Gonzalez10 said:Well, Europe was the one that pioneered these subsidies in the first place—so what, is the German or the Frenchman just an idiot? Do you actually know what the original purpose of these incentives was, or where they were first implemented?

I couldn't tell you the exact details, but I know back in the '80s, dairy farmers were already receiving subsidies for milk. Honestly, I don't know the specific reasoning behind it, nor does it really matter who is handing them out.
The real issue is that here, the subsidy system hasn't done much for agriculture in terms of actual progress. It mostly boils down to a complete lack of any coherent agricultural strategy.

Paul Gonzalez10 said:I’ve grown zucchini, so I know exactly what they entail. Where did I ever suggest I was losing money on Wheat unless there was some extreme weather event involved? Seriously, try and find that in my posts. Managing 1 acre of Wheat is nothing like managing 70 acres spread across 50 different plots. It's a massive undertaking. I've done zucchini twice, and I've handled 8 different field crops in the past—I still handle 7 today.

Man, seriously, buddy, what do you want me to say after that? Do you need me to draw you a map or something? ☕

rowdypilot19 said:Wait, hold on a second.

So if you’re looking at 225 $0.00 in subsidies, and you’re claiming it’s not actually that much, does that mean you’re basically losing money on your Wheat?

Look, if Wheat only accounts for 10% of the effort compared to a single hazelnut bush or a grapevine, then I guess you can just take me seriously.

I mean, imagine if I started lecturing you about how cucumbers and zucchini are these incredibly high-maintenance crops that require constant work... and then someone says, "Nah, just relax." Like, no way. In reality, you have to invest, otherwise, all that hard work is just wasted. I suppose that’s the part most people just can't stomach.

You could work yourself to the bone, 365 days a year, but if you don't have irrigation set up for when the plant actually needs water during a dry spell, then everything you did was basically for nothing.

I said 225 $0.00—given the amount of labor you listed, those numbers are pure nonsense. You wouldn't even hit 225 $0.00 if you went all-in on 100 hectares. Do you even realize the tax implications? Even if I actually made those 225 $0.00, once you factor in the 40% tax on a Family Farm starting from anything over 121 $0.00, it disappears. Anything below that threshold sits at 25%.

Are you paying taxes on incentives?

It’s honestly so weird, I mean, you really have to pay taxes on all your income and earnings.

Here, have a cookie. 🍿

rowdypilot19 said:Man, seriously, buddy, what do you want me to say after that? Do you need me to draw you a map or something? ☕

And what’s your point? How am I supposed to consolidate anything, please tell me. I’m dealing with state-owned land covering 5 hectares while everything else is private—sometimes you get a nice 7 or 8 hectare plot, but then you hit those tiny 0.1 hectare scraps that are an absolute nightmare to work. And what are you going to do—tell the boss, "No thanks, I won't touch that"? Or suggest to the owner that you and some other guy swap plots to get something larger? The second you even bring that up, the boss will basically show you the door—or, more likely, they'll just tell you, "Fine, there's someone else who actually wants to deal with this mess," and just hand the land over to them instead...

rowdypilot19 said:Look, subsidies and pensions aren't inherently bad ideas, but I guess people in America have really turned the whole art of cutting corners into a fine science. 😁

That is just brilliant—so, basically, to drive a nail into a board, you need a hammer, a nail, and a board. Just incredible.

Honestly, I'm stunned.

Of course, they're always ready for a little scheme.

Man, you really have a knack for twisting things around. It isn't exactly the same setup for someone whose main bread and butter is livestock and who might just plant 25 acres of Wheat because the straw is useful for feed or part of a crop rotation. For them, the profit on that wheat is peanuts, but they have their own logic for why they're planting it. Then you have someone farming 2,500 or even 10,000 acres who actually makes their living off that grain and uses a completely different scale of technology.

That’s like me saying I have to go into business with a guy selling lemonade on a street corner.

Nothing is mandatory, really. You just have to run the numbers and decide what makes sense for your wallet.

But 70 acres spread over 50 different plots... I honestly don't know how to respond to that without being rude, I guess.

bluetinker54 said:Of course, they're always ready for a little scheme.

Man, you really have a knack for twisting things around. It isn't exactly the same setup for someone whose main bread and butter is livestock and who might just plant 25 acres of Wheat because the straw is useful for feed or part of a crop rotation. For them, the profit on that wheat is peanuts, but they have their own logic for why they're planting it. Then you have someone farming 2,500 or even 10,000 acres who actually makes their living off that grain and uses a completely different scale of technology.

What exactly did I twist?

I laid everything out pretty clearly. If something doesn't make sense, maybe just ask before jumping in with a comment.

I mean, obviously, to do the work, you need the machinery to do it. It takes a real genius to figure that one out, I suppose.

rowdypilot19 said:Are you paying taxes on incentives?

It’s honestly so weird, I mean, you really have to pay taxes on all your income and earnings.

Here, have a cookie. 🍿

If you're paying tax on earnings, then those incentives count as income.

Paul Gonzalez10 said:If you're paying tax on earnings, then those incentives count as income.

So, basically, the incentives aren't taxed, while everything else is.

I mean, that seems fine to me... I don't really get what people find weird about that?

There are hundreds upon hundreds of acres of untouched, fertile land sitting right there in Istria, and honestly, it baffles me that nobody has stepped up to really dive into large-scale farming when we have the Adriatic right at our doorstep... it seems like some people still haven't realized that this entire country is essentially being run by the import lobby.

Whose land are we even talking about here? It has an owner, right? And does that owner actually want it cultivated in the first place?
I mean, look, about 98% of the Great Plains is just sitting there uncultivated, even though we have tourism practically right under our noses.

rowdypilot19 said:That’s like me saying I have to go into business with a guy selling lemonade on a street corner.

Nothing is mandatory, really. You just have to run the numbers and decide what makes sense for your wallet.

But 70 acres spread over 50 different plots... I honestly don't know how to respond to that without being rude, I guess.

What exactly did I twist?

I laid everything out pretty clearly. If something doesn't make sense, maybe just ask before jumping in with a comment.

I mean, obviously, to do the work, you need the machinery to do it. It takes a real genius to figure that one out, I suppose.

Look, I’m no lawyer, but do you honestly think he can just take ten separate plots of land and somehow merge them into one single parcel while they're under a lease?
I mean, honestly, those 70 parcels are probably just merged into a few larger plots; I highly doubt there are actually 70 individual, disconnected pieces of land scattered around. But even if that's the case, you still have the massive headache of dealing with all the paperwork for 70 different lots...

I mean, at the end of the day, you can't just force a merger if the owner isn't interested in selling. It's pretty much impossible to consolidate things if they aren't willing to part with the property.

Paul Gonzalez10 said:I won't go around quoting everyone here—it’s a waste of time. Let’s look at the reality: there are plenty of farmers out there managing 250 acres of wheat—or corn, soy, or sunflower, if you prefer, but let's stick with wheat for the sake of argument. If you asked me which single intervention would make the most impact, I’d choose herbicide application every single time. It’s the one thing that actually matters. If they can manage a decent yield from that, they might actually earn enough to cover the costs of tilling, prepping, planting, and harvesting. After all that work, they could potentially walk away with a subsidy of maybe $300,000—though, of course, that gets eaten up by corporate income tax. And let's be honest about the unfairness here: whether you're running a small family farm or a larger operation, being hit with a 40% tax rate is absolute madness. Ideally, those folks should also get access to modern machinery to actually make the labor manageable. Of course, that logic only holds water in places where land lease rates aren't astronomical. $133 Yeah, well—there are plenty of fields like that all over the USA.

Coming from the Midwest—where things actually make sense—there is absolutely no way that model works. At the end of the day, you have to actually turn a profit. $933 So, we're calling this an incentive—for what exactly? It certainly doesn't feel like one. $750 It's already happened. $603 Well, it’s alright—there are a few little perks tucked in there, but let's just say we should look at the whole package together. $650 If you want to pull that kind of money in—we’re talking serious capital here—you really have to earn it. $283 It’s all a bit much without some kind of incentive—honestly, if you want to actually pull in those kinds of numbers, you need a real reason to move. $283 Just pouring seed isn't enough anymore—you have to put in more work just to break even. Once you finally hit that point, you’re basically sitting at zero. To actually see a profit, you have to pull in at least that much extra, and even then, your actual earnings per acre end up being pretty slim. $233 You can't make this work long-term—it’s a losing game. You either have to farm massive acreage just to stay in the black, or you'll find yourself underwater within a few years. Between unpredictable ice storms, droughts, or a piece of machinery snapping shut and requiring a repair bill that costs more than the equipment itself, you're constantly one bad break away from needing to take out another loan just to survive.
Look, if you actually want to survive—let alone turn a profit—under the current economic climate (and trust me, looking at how things are trending in Germany, it’s only going to get much worse), you have to go all in. I’ve already laid out exactly what that entails, but there's a massive catch: this only works if you’re inheriting a solid foundation from your father or grandfather. If no one in your family has ever touched this business and you’re starting from absolute zero, my advice is simple: don't even bother with farming. You’ll spend your entire life just working to pay off the equipment—what I like to call "working for the iron." However, if someone actually left you something tangible to work with, then yes, you can make money—but you’re going to have to work your tail off to do it. All those little schemes people talk about—planting a few crops, doing a couple of operations, and just chasing government subsidies—that's nothing but pure nonsense. At least around here, where land leases are what they are, it's a fool's errand. $933 (private lands).
When it comes to consolidating land, you shouldn't be surprised if a boss like Mark approaches you—or if you end up at his doorstep—with a deal that sounds absolute. He’ll tell you that you’re going to manage his acreage and nobody else's. It sounds straightforward, but let's be real—there’s always a catch. We actually tried testing the waters with a small plot that sat right between our two properties, and once that guy showed up, we were left with nothing. Sure, there are plenty of reasonable people out there who play by the rules, but those types are the exception, maybe two or three in a hundred. The way I handle consolidation is simple: I wait for larger parcels to hit the market, or if the owner is dealing directly with me, I buy them then. Honestly, there isn't any other way to do it.

The whole concept of subsidies—though they didn't call them that back then—actually dates back to around 1947 in the Black Forest region of Germany. The local farmers there were facing a brutal reality: their yields simply couldn't compete with the massive harvests coming out of Southern Germany or central Germany. It just wasn't worth the grind. If a factory worker was pulling in 500 Marks, a farmer might struggle to scrape together 100 Marks—mostly because food prices weren't high enough to offset their low output. Faced with that math, people just packed up and headed for the cities, abandoning the land entirely. To stop that exodus, the government stepped in with what we now recognize as agricultural subsidies based on acreage. Suddenly, staying on the farm actually made sense—it allowed a farmer to match a factory wage, and it provided an extra cushion on top of that. There was also a clever secondary benefit: it kept consumer prices stable. Instead of forcing a systemic 20% hike in wheat prices just to ensure farmers could turn a profit—which would have sent bread prices skyrocketing at the grocery store—the subsidy bridged the gap without hitting the customer's wallet.

The issue with today's incentive is pretty straightforward—it's hard to get excited when Wheat has been stuck at this price point for basically fifteen years now. $0.33 The incentive fluctuates—sometimes by a few cents, sometimes more—but it’s clearly dropped. Given that shift, I have to wonder: what exactly was the logic behind bread prices dropping from 2?$1.00 Fifteen years ago, we were looking at one price—now, we’re staring at seven times that amount. Look, I get it: wages have climbed, commercial rent for a bakery has shot up, utility bills are through the roof... I follow the logic there. But it is sheer madness that bread prices have spiked by 300% while the cost of wheat has stayed virtually stagnant. Just imagine for a second what would happen if those government subsidies were scrapped. Let’s be real—those crooks in Washington would find a way to pocket that money regardless of how you spin it. If the subsidy disappeared, instead of seeing a modest 15% increase in costs, small businesses would be left footing the entire bill just to stay afloat. Honestly? If I were running a shop under those conditions, I don't know if I'd even show up to work for a plate of fish. And here is the kicker: instead of the price of bread rising by a reasonable 15%, you'd have all these middlemen, wholesalers, and bakery owners spinning a massive yarn about how much "costs" have increased. They wouldn't mention the 15% loss—they'd claim a 40% hike. In the end, the bread wouldn't go up by 40%; it would likely jump by 60%. So, instead of a 15% increase, we'd end up paying 60% more anyway. It's a rigged game. $2.25 rather than $3.75. there you have it...

If you don't have the fundamentals down to actually run an agricultural operation, then leave the farmland alone. It's like saying, "I think I'll get into farming," when you don't even own any land to farm.

Paul Gonzalez10 said:And who exactly told you that’s tax-free?
You're completely misinformed. If your income hits 80 $167, it's absolutely taxable—income isn't the same thing as take-home pay. On that 80 $0.00 in total revenue, if you're left with 20 $0.00, well, good luck with that. And then, on that 20,000, you're paying a 12.5% tax... If you had a turnover $26833 of 80,000, then maybe you wouldn't pay, but with only 80 $0.00 in turnover, try surviving on 20 $0.00 a year if that's your primary business... If it's not your main activity, then that pay counts toward your income, so you'll be paying taxes regardless.

Look, obviously we're talking about revenue. How much of that is actually profit is a whole different story...
With Wheat, the profit is tiny, but with other crops it's way higher—something our local farmers just don't seem to get...

rowdypilot19 said:So, basically, the incentives aren't taxed, while everything else is.

I mean, that seems fine to me... I don't really get what people find weird about that?

Actually, non-subsidies are still taxable, which is why so many Family Farms have frozen accounts—money hits the bank and nobody bothers to pay the tax bill...
Like this year, if some local official hands out $15,000 and people just grab it without thinking, once that cash hits the account, you're automatically flagged as a small business owner. Once you hit about 88 $0.00, you're on the hook.
But hey, that's what happens when the people running farms still think their grandfathers knew everything better than everyone else...

wearytrucker22 said:If you don't have the fundamentals down to actually run an agricultural operation, then leave the farmland alone. It's like saying, "I think I'll get into farming," when you don't even own any land to farm.

What do you mean "no land"? Of course there's land—it's leased. You pay for the lease, and that lease cost gets baked right into the overhead calculations.
It's just basic math, really; it works exactly the same way in any other business venture.

rowdypilot19 said:So, basically, the incentives aren't taxed, while everything else is.

I mean, that seems fine to me... I don't really get what people find weird about that?

You want to know what's weird? What's weird is that despite all this endless complaining, the Midwest isn't under siege, because apparently money is just growing on trees out there—it's just that Midwesterners are too lazy to go pick it up. That's the real mystery. Go back and actually read this thread from the beginning. If you want real profitability in farming, you have to play the long game for ten years, and it only takes one bad storm to reset your progress back to zero. So please, just get started, and maybe in ten years we can talk about how much cash you've actually made.

Look, if you set aside the subsidies, the political shifts, the idiots running the show, the corruption, the nepotism within import lobbies, the mess at Walmart, and the competition with those massive vineyards in Herzegovina, etc., etc.—just plant something. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care. Pick whatever you think will make a profit and go for it. Plant pineapples for all I care! 🤣
Just stop trying to act like you're smarter than everyone else. Especially now, when land and housing in the Midwest are practically dirt cheap—so cheap that nobody would even buy a shack there 😁 because, you know, there's always some other excuse 😉. If you live off the land, someone's always going to insult you for being a "hillbilly," but if you're out there hustling and cutting corners, then suddenly you aren't a hillbilly (yeah, right 😁). Hard work is a major deterrent to urbanites, and well, we're just built this way, I guess. It's a shame we pushed out all those hardworking folks from the region; they were real farmers. Something might have actually survived thanks to them, since we clearly aren't interested in that kind of life. But hey, we certainly know better than anyone else! If only everyone else knew what we know...

Just keep hustling! 🤣

bluetinker54 said:Whose land are we even talking about here? It has an owner, right? And does that owner actually want it cultivated in the first place?
I mean, look, about 98% of the Great Plains is just sitting there uncultivated, even though we have tourism practically right under our noses.

The owner is the government, so you really ought to think about that...☕