OCR Text |
Show ;:-7ffivestoclc I I.os Angeles. December 11, l'.KU!. 1 1 ojr growers are more than ever i minced that whatever processing taxes are lovio.l by the federal government upon meat packers are actually pai, I ty the producer in getting get-ting a lower price for his hogs. This v a evident when a tax of a half cent a pound was placed on hogs November No-vember 5, an.i it was still more ap-1 ap-1 arent December 1 , when the processing process-ing tax was increa.-ed to one cent a pound. Packers' bids were sharply lower on lV.v:n;-or 1,. when the additional processing tax became effective. It i -ear.s that the hog growers must finally turn over to the agricultural adjustment administration fund a total of :?2.00 on each 200-pound hog tie markets. At present prices, this means a tax of S3 per cent, figuring the home value of hogs at three cents a pound. Hog growers are beginning to complain about the high tax. While they admit that it is possible that a large share of the tax may be returned re-turned to tho.-e who contract to reduce re-duce their herds and the number of hogs marketed by 25 per cent, they feel that the heavy tax at this time is more than they can afford to pay. Hog prices are very low and in few cases, do the prices received by the former approach the cost of production. produc-tion. They point out that the administration ad-ministration officials have not yet even presented a definite plan for those who wish to contract and they da r.ot fee! it a: all likely that the benefits that might come from paying pay-ing the tax will be paid until spring. In the meantime, they are paying a tax that often means the difference between breaking even and suffering a severe loss on every hog marketed. In the far western states, where production is only a fraction of the demand, hog men do not want to be forced to join in the government pro-: pro-: ram calling for reduction of herds. To those who do not wish to contract to reduce herds, the tax is even more oppressive than to the middle western farmers who may be willing to join in the pork reduction program. It seems manifestly out of the question for packers to absorb the heavy tax. The packer explains that lie will continue to pay for the producers' pro-ducers' hogs all that the "traffic" will bear. But they must figure the tax as a part of the cost. Instead of the grower getting five cents a pound that the hog may now cost the packer, pack-er, the grower is actually getting four cents and the government one cent. The tax comes at a time when the usual winter marketing season is under un-der full siring, when in normal years, market values are seasonally low. It has been hoped by those who have had charge of the government hog program, that supplies would be greatly reduced this winter because of -the six million pigs that were slaughtered last fall. Apparently even this huge reduction campaign did not cut down supplies as much as had been hoped, probably because of restricted purchasing power on the part of the consumers. |