news Canadian News
Good Afternoon Guest | login or register
  • Home
    • Canadian News
    • Popular News
    • News Voting Log
    • News Images
  • Forums
    • Recent Topics Scroll
    •  
    • Politics Forums
    • Sports Forums
    • Regional Forums
  • Content
    • Achievements
    • Canadian Content
    • Famous Canadians
    • Famous Quotes
    • Jokes
    • Canadian Maps
  • Photos
    • Picture Gallery
    • Wallpapers
    • Recent Activity
  • About
    • About
    • Contact
    • Link to Us
    • Points
    • Statistics
  • Shop
  • Register
    • Gold Membership
  • Archive
    • Canadian TV
    • Canadian Webcams
    • Groups
    • Links
    • Top 10's
    • Reviews
    • CKA Radio
    • Video
    • Weather

Tobacco growers getting over $300M to abandon c

Canadian Content
20671news upnews down
Link Related to Canada in some say

Tobacco growers getting over $300M to abandon crop


Business | 206698 hits | Aug 02 9:33 am | Posted by: WDHIII
22 Comment

DELHI, Ont. - The heart of Canada's century-old tobacco-growing industry took another step toward its inexorable demise Friday as hundreds of farmers and their families turned out to hear Ottawa announce $300 million to help them leave their once proud an

Comments

  1. by avatar romanP
    Sat Aug 02, 2008 6:02 pm
    Why are they upset that they can't grow tobacco? They should grow something that helps people, like FOOD.

  2. by ridenrain
    Sun Aug 03, 2008 5:10 pm
    Tobacco, like any specialized crop, requires unique farming and harvesting equipment and that's a huge investment for the average farmer. Just asking them not to grow a legal product isn't helping them.

  3. by avatar Wada
    Sun Aug 03, 2008 5:26 pm
    Conservatively speaking why should WE be helping THEM? or are you just pulling our legs with your socialist, MR. Goodie Twoshoes,"Just asking them not to grow a legal product isn't helping them." concern. 8O

  4. by ridenrain
    Sun Aug 03, 2008 5:38 pm
    Did I say that we should be helping them? I simply point out that they are growing a legal product. Governments mess about in the economy at their own risks.

  5. by avatar Mustang1
    Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:18 pm
    Tobacco farmers should have got JACK SQUAT - I love the ideological nonsense of Conservative government bailouts for market sectors that have played their economic swan song. Let's see them apply this again. :roll:

  6. by avatar Pseudonym
    Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:41 pm
    I don't like the idea of paying someone to stop doing something, particularly if they weren't going to do that thing in the first place. It is a waste of good money. If tobacco farming is no longer profitable for them (as the article seems to indicate), what are they doing growing it anyway? And if the government just wants to discourage tobacco farming, well, I don't believe that is really in the purview of the responsibilities of government.

  7. by avatar dog77_1999
    Mon Aug 04, 2008 3:02 am
    "Pseudonym" said
    I don't like the idea of paying someone to stop doing something, particularly if they weren't going to do that thing in the first place. It is a waste of good money. If tobacco farming is no longer profitable for them (as the article seems to indicate), what are they doing growing it anyway? And if the government just wants to discourage tobacco farming, well, I don't believe that is really in the purview of the responsibilities of government.


    The problem is that the government has taxed their product out of affordibility. How would you feel if your company had an ever increasing burden to pay with no end in sight?

    Now if the tobacco industry was subject to the same laws as any other business, then fine, let them go without anything. But they are not because they were used as a tax siphon for years. I don't think it's too much to do by giving back a fraction of the money which was taken through them through taxes.

  8. by avatar Pseudonym
    Mon Aug 04, 2008 5:39 am
    "dog77_1999" said

    The problem is that the government has taxed their product out of affordibility. How would you feel if your company had an ever increasing burden to pay with no end in sight?

    Now if the tobacco industry was subject to the same laws as any other business, then fine, let them go without anything. But they are not because they were used as a tax siphon for years. I don't think it's too much to do by giving back a fraction of the money which was taken through them through taxes.

    I would be pretty pissed at the government if I were in the tobacco industry at this point, but that doesn't change my position. Your point that this returns a fraction of the money siphoned off already through taxes is well taken, but, as a conservative, I regard both the original over-taxation and the current attempted pay-off as beyond the purview of government. I am fine with some mild disincentives to discourage what is regarded as "harmful behavior" amongst its citizens, but this is quite beyond that.

  9. by avatar dog77_1999
    Tue Aug 05, 2008 7:00 am
    "Pseudonym" said

    The problem is that the government has taxed their product out of affordibility. How would you feel if your company had an ever increasing burden to pay with no end in sight?

    Now if the tobacco industry was subject to the same laws as any other business, then fine, let them go without anything. But they are not because they were used as a tax siphon for years. I don't think it's too much to do by giving back a fraction of the money which was taken through them through taxes.

    I would be pretty pissed at the government if I were in the tobacco industry at this point, but that doesn't change my position. Your point that this returns a fraction of the money siphoned off already through taxes is well taken, but, as a conservative, I regard both the original over-taxation and the current attempted pay-off as beyond the purview of government. I am fine with some mild disincentives to discourage what is regarded as "harmful behavior" amongst its citizens, but this is quite beyond that.

    That's fine that you are conservative, as I am. But you don't screw around with these farmers by killing their industry on purpose. The over-taxation has already happened. I am sure you would of agreed that it shouldn't of happen in the first place. Do you think it's fair for farmers who have been doing this for generations to have to abandon their farms without compensation because the government hates smokers?

    Perhaps the better solution would be to give enough money to the farmers to buy new equipment to grow new crops. I think that is quite a fair compromise for destroying their livelyhood.

  10. by Demian_164
    Tue Aug 05, 2008 8:36 am
    the government only gives a shit because they have to foot the bill for socialized medicine. anti-smoking is just one stop on the long ride of the government telling us whats for our own good.

  11. by avatar Pseudonym
    Tue Aug 05, 2008 9:55 am
    "dog77_1999" said

    That's fine that you are conservative, as I am. But you don't screw around with these farmers by killing their industry on purpose. The over-taxation has already happened. I am sure you would of agreed that it shouldn't of happen in the first place. Do you think it's fair for farmers who have been doing this for generations to have to abandon their farms without compensation because the government hates smokers?

    Perhaps the better solution would be to give enough money to the farmers to buy new equipment to grow new crops. I think that is quite a fair compromise for destroying their livelyhood.

    We both agree that the over-taxation was wrong. However, regardless of past behavior, I do not think that "compensation" is really an adequate justification, even if that were the purpose of the government in doing this. I do not believe it is the responsibility of the government to distribute wealthy "fairly", or even at all. That was one point I was trying to indicate by saying that I was conservative. Furthermore, I would not be adverse to incentives that would encourage other forms of crop production, or enable farmers to make that shift. I would see that more as investing in future production, as opposed to the pay-off that I seem to see in this situation right now.

  12. by avatar hurley_108
    Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:12 pm
    "dog77_1999" said
    I don't like the idea of paying someone to stop doing something, particularly if they weren't going to do that thing in the first place. It is a waste of good money. If tobacco farming is no longer profitable for them (as the article seems to indicate), what are they doing growing it anyway? And if the government just wants to discourage tobacco farming, well, I don't believe that is really in the purview of the responsibilities of government.


    The problem is that the government has taxed their product out of affordibility. How would you feel if your company had an ever increasing burden to pay with no end in sight?

    Now if the tobacco industry was subject to the same laws as any other business, then fine, let them go without anything. But they are not because they were used as a tax siphon for years. I don't think it's too much to do by giving back a fraction of the money which was taken through them through taxes.

    Fuck'em for growing poison in the first place. The tobacco fine money should go to treatment for lung cancer, or to clean up the trillion odd cigarette butts in every Tim Hortons parking lot, not bail out the people who are part of the problem.

  13. by avatar Zipperfish  Gold Member
    Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:52 pm
    Just another agricultural subsidy.

  14. by avatar C.M. Burns
    Tue Aug 05, 2008 6:49 pm
    I smoke and I have absolutely ZERO sympathy for tobacco growers who have been too stupid or greedy to see the writing on the wall in time to grow something that doesn't kill with various forms of cancer or heart disease.

    In March of 2007 there were huge protests by tobacco growers using tractors to block MP's offices. They were told at the time that a 'package' wasn't politically sellable and that they should wait a year.

    With the economy turning, especially Ontario's, there's even less money to pay for the package BUT there's an election coming in the fall so it's time for the government to grease the skids as they always do.

    It's a pre-election pay-off!



view comments in forum
Page 1 2

You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news.

  • Login
  • Register (free)
 Share  Digg It Bookmark to del.icio.us Share on Facebook


Who voted on this?

  • WDHIII Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:46 am
Share on Facebook Submit page to Reddit
CKA About |  Legal |  Advertise |  Sitemap |  Contact   canadian mobile newsMobile

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net