OCR Text |
Show aa : rr: flfWDvestockTl Los Anyeles, JunelS, 15)34 News emanating from the nation's capitol indicates that the beef cattle industry indus-try may soon be forced to shoulder a processing tax. It is understood that the committee of five cattlemen appointed by the agricultural adjustment adjust-ment administration is about ready to present a program of benefits to producers and taxes to consumers in accordance with suggestions of the A. A. A. The rank and file of cattlemen appear to be largely against either a national beef cattle adjustment program and even more firmly opposed op-posed to a processing tax. While the tax is in fact collected from the meat packer or processor by the government, and in theory passed along to the ultimate consumer, the history of the corn-hog program very clearly indicates that actually the packer must figure the tax when he buys the cattle and deduct the amount of the tax from the price he pays the producer or feeder. Until a definite program is offered offer-ed by the federal Authorities, it is difficult to say who will suffer the most from a processing tax. The cattle business is peculiar in that cattle often change ownership in a legitimate manner two or times be fore finally going to the packer. Some sections are strictly producing areas and nearly 100 per cent of the cattle production is sold to cattlemen cattle-men for finishing into beef. Some of these stacker and feeder cattle go directly into feedlots or on ranges to be fattened and sold as beef. Otherr. go to range operators, who sell off the fat end to packers and the thin end to dry lot feeders for further finishing. Thus if the benefit payments are to go only to producers, only a small proportion of those in the cattle business will stand a chance to receive re-ceive benefit payments. On the other hand, southwestern cattlemen fear that the feeders and finishers who would not receive benefit payments would see to it that the beneficiaries of the scheme would pay the tax in the lowered cost of stockers and feeders, just as the hog tax is actually actual-ly paid by the producers of hogs. Taxes on foods are onerous to American people. Cattlemen have seen pork lose much of its popularity popular-ity because of a revolt against a huge tax, which during the past two months has amounted to fully 75 per cent on the market price of hogs. Those who are opposed to a processing taxes argue that if the price of beef is forced upward by a processing tax, consumers will turn to the hundreds of other food commodities, com-modities, that are strictly competi- theartre had bought Miss Eleanor Sims' interest in the Utah theatre and was to confine the showing of moving pictures to the Utah theatre building, which was to be known as the Victory. The room then occupied by the Victory was to be conducted as a dance and amusement resort. Mrs. Ed Peterson had returned home from Parowan,' where she had been called by the death of a sister. The primary organization of the U. D. S. church had cleared between $75 and $80 at a bazaar, thus being able to finish paying for a Liberty bond and have a nice sum left over. : 'tive with beef, such as lamb, mutton, poultry, eggs, beans, etc. Opponents of the tax declare that there already ' is too wide a spread between what the producer gets for his cattle and 'what the consumer pays for beef. Addition of another charge would surely widen this spread, j It seems a fosegone conclusion that, in spite of protests from pow-, pow-, erful associations such as the Wyo-jming Wyo-jming Stock Growers association, Kansas Livestock association and others, that beef will be called upon to carry a processing tax. Such ! being the case, the industry is hope-! hope-! ful that the program will not be e-j e-j laborate and that a tax of only a .fraction of a cent per pound will be I decided upon. Possibly a tax of 10 to 25 cents per hundred weight ; could be borne by the industry with- out materially restricting consump-J consump-J tion. n |