« AnteriorContinuar »
declining farm real-estate values, new and renewed loans have tended to represent smaller amounts than original amounts of credit extended. Current payments on amortization loans and gradual reductions provided for in many other farm mortgage loan contracts have further reduced the amount of outstanding principal. Meanwhile, the volume of new credit extended on farm land security has been much less in amount than in former years. Throughout the years 1930 to 1932, foreclosure and assignment of deed have continued to extinguish substantial amounts of farm mortgage credit outstanding at the beginning of the period.
TABLE III.-Agricultural loans outstanding'
1 End of the month.
? These companies represent 82 per cent of the admitted assets of all legal-reserve life-insurance companies in the United States.
3 Does not include $53,000,000 owed Sept. 30, to 3 banks placed in receivership during 1932, in following months and amounts: $9,000,000, May; $14,000,000, June; $30,000,000, October.
RELATION OF TAXES TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME
Taxes represent another situation that has a bearing upon the burdens of agriculture. Between 1913 and 1921 taxes about doubled. By 1930, they were about two and a half times what they were before the war, and it is estimated that it requires at the present time around five times as many units of farm commodities as before the war to pay taxes. Now, let me illustrate that further, because that tax situation in relation to agricultural income is very vital: When looking at it from the point of view of farm income, here are some figures we arrived at: During the 5-year period from 1909 to 1913, about 744 per cent of the agricultural income was required for the payment of taxes, interest on capital, and the wages for management. That percentage, which taxes and mortgage interest together took of the income, rose until in 1932 it was 25 per cent.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Do you mean that it took 25 per cent of the farmer's income to pay those charges?
Mr. OLSEN. In 1932, it would take 25 per cent of the agricultural income for the payment of taxes and interest on capital, and the wages which the farmer gets for his management and for the labor of his family. Let us put that on a slightly different basis: In 1932, it took about 50 per cent of the net income available for interest on capital and for labor and management.
Mr. BUCHANAN. When you say interest on capital, do you mean interest on borrowed money?
Mr. OLSEN. No; I mean 50 per cent of that income available as a return for the farmers' own investment. That illustrates a disparity situation that is very serious indeed.
Mr. Hart. The farmer does not have any income from which to pay interest on borrowed money, does he?
Mr. BUCHANAN. That is interest on debts.
Mr. Hart. But he does not have any income to apply to that. He has not enough to pay taxes.
Mr. OLSEN. That is true of some farmers, but all farmers are not in debt to an equal degree. We have estimated the income of agriculture as a whole, and we have taken the debts and the taxes for the industry as a whole. I agree with you that in the case of many farmers, there is no income from which to pay interest or taxes.
Mr. HART. I was talking about any farmer. If he is earning taxes, he is doing very well, to say nothing about interest to apply to capital, or anything else. He is doing pretty well if he earns his taxes over and above his actual expenses.
Mr. Olsen. That is true of farmers in some sections, but it is true that the farmers' income in some other sections is more than enough to pay taxes. If you measure the total income of agriculture against the total taxes and interest on total debts of agriculture, you get those figures.
Mr. Hart. I have talked with stockmen and with poultrymen, and I do not know of any who are making more than expenses and taxes.
NET RECEIPTS OF FARMERS ABOVE OPERATING EXPENSES
Mr. ENGLUND. The above estimates relate to agriculture as a whole. In another set of estimates we make use of answers to inquiries sent out to owner operators, and those are the figures we obtained for the calendar year 1931. Of course, the situation will be somewhat worse in 1932. We received voluntary returns from 7,437 farmers last year showing their total cash receipts, expenses, and so forth. The average cash receipts for those farmers was $1,549, which we believe is better than the general average of all farmers. The net cash receipts of those farmers, before deducting taxes and after paying the hired labor and making the purchases they had to make, were only $388. Their taxes represented $183 on the average. Thus, for the year 1931, the taxes took 47.2 per cent of the cash returns that remained after the other cash charges had been met.
Mr. BUCHANAN. After the operating expenses of the farm had been paid?
Mr. ENGLUND. That is correct; yes, sir. In addition, the farmer had food products, the use of the farmhouse and certain other noncash returns from the farm.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Do you have any figures with regard to agriculture as a whole, along the line of what Mr. Englund has just stated? In other words, what were the net receipts of the farmers above the actual operating expenses of their farms?
Mr. OLSEN. Yes, sir; in our national income statement for agriculture, we have those figures, and we shall be able to segregate them for you. Would you wish me to elaborate upon that now, or insert the statement in the record?
Mr. BUCHANAN. This would be a good place to put it in the record.
Mr. ENGLUND. We do not have the net income figures for the past year, but we have the figures on the gross income, which I can give you now.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Do you have figures showing the gross expenditures for operating farms?
Mr. ENGLUND. Not for the past year, because that is an extremely complicated figure to arrive at. We do not have that for the past year, but I will be glad to furnish it for the record.
Mr. BUCHANAN. I suppose you could cover that better in the record.
Mr. ENGLUND. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olsen. I think the details of it can be better presented in a special statement.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Then, you may furnish it for the record. (The material referred to is as follows:)
Changes in farm income in the United States, 1929–1932
[Division of Statistical and Historical Research)
The cash receipts less cash outlay for production expenses, including taxes on owner-operated farms reporting to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, fell from $1,097 in 1929 to $458 in 1931, and to a still lower level in 1932. Reports for 1932 have not yet been made. In the West North Central States the decline has been from $1,423 per farm to $516; in the South Central States from $828 to $253, and in the Western States from $1,663 to $599. Including the value of food produced and used in the farm home and deducting interest paid, the income in 1931 for these reporting farms was only $462 compared with $1,160 in 1929. These results cover larger-than-average farms.
Estimates of the Department of Agriculture which cover all farms, owneroperated and other, show that gross income per farm declined from $1,900 in 1929 to $1,106 in 1931. The amount available for capital, labor, and management was $847 in 1929 and only $343 in 1931. This amount has been further reduced in 1932 to probably well below $300 as is indicated by the decline in gross income from $1,106 in 1931 to $833 in 1932.
REDUCTION IN GROSS INCOME OF AGRICULTURE FROM FARM PRODUCTION
Mr. OLSEN. I would like to call attention to the fact that this price collapse is reflected in the estimated drop in the gross income from agriculture, from around $12,000,000,000 in 1929 to around $5,200,000,000 for 1932. That is the preliminary estimate which we have made that is, a drop of from $12,000,000,000 to somewhat above $5,000,000,000.
Mr. BUCHANAN. That means a loss of $7,000,000,000 of income.
Mr. OLSEN. Yes, sir; $7,000,000,000 of gross income. The manner in which these returns for production have been made is shown by this chart (indicating). From that you can see how severe the collapse has been.
Mr. Hart. Is that broken up into groups of wheat commodities, cotton, potatoes, and so forth, or are they all thrown together?
Mr. OLSEN. It is made up by commodities and by States.
Gross income from farm production, United States, by commodities, 1929–1931
[In thousands of dollars; i. e., 000 omitted)
370, 849 697, 740 106, 447 41, 725 17, 742
5, 925 38, 316 38, 311 7, 635
1, 837 1, 245, 084
143, 696 286, 104 126. 109 2, 751
97 23, 626 3, 205
426 11. 019
2, 502 71, 044 11, 197
4,883 31, 409
5, 417 366, 191
66, 953 387, 364
3. 785 184, 787 60, 889 30, 152 14, 800
9,954 55, 803 237, 051 53, 846 22, 185 7, 188 7, 427 51, 805 20, 790 7, 130
5, 419 173, 420 226, 033 61, 212 83, 867
91, 925 211, 102 99, 608 1, 919
114 14, 705 1, 980
242 11, 520
4,069 49, 394 10, 068
4, 567 22, 799
3, 267 271, 938
51, 232 361. 013
3, 462 156, 711 44, 208 18, 932 14, 844
5, 602 38, 960 183, 012 47, 417 21, 463 5, 688 7, 771 65, 697 15, 375 4, 774
8,587 146, 832 213, 568 55. 202 79, 784