Farmers’ S.M.P.s

Press, 5 March 1982, Page 14

Farmers’ S.M.P.s

Sir,—R. Mitchell (February 27) would be welcome to come and spend a few days on my property, just to get an insight into what a true farmer’s life is really like. As for a farmer having $25,000 to spend on luxury items, I think he may have been either having Mr Mitchell on a treat, or be a very lucky fellow. So many city people are under a misapprehension about the average farmer. If only they would make an effort to come out and find out before voicing their opinions in the newspapers. ’ The only wealthy farmer today is the one who sells his livelihood. — Yours, ere.,

D. J. WOODWARD. March 1, 1982.

Sir,—R. Mitchell’s letter appears to be based on the outdated myth of the “wealthy farmer.” Meat Board statistics show that the 1979/80 average

income for sheepfarmers was $24,072; and it is bound to be less this year. All agree that there are a few very wealthy farmers. So, if you take off the 20 per cent wealthier, the remaining 80 per cent earn (even with S.M.P.s) probably less than boilermakers, seamen, or watersiders whose annual wage rises are indirectly paid tor by the community without comment. Farmers have the disadvantage that, because of distance, most wives can’t get outside jobs. They work unpaid on the farm and hence they are single income families. Farm costs have risen 52 per cent in two years and S.M.P.s were devised, not for standards of living, but to keep production from falling through lack of finance for inputs, such as topdressing.—Yours, etc., P. HALL. March 3, 1982.