What's wrong now, is even the title of farmer going to be canceled? After a lifetime of farming and hard work, now that he is old, even the title of farmer has been canceled, and he is directly rewarded as "renting land".
There is a division of labor in society, and all of them have contributed to the development and construction of the country, and workers, peasants, and military studies are the backbone of it. Now that the country is good, retired workers, soldiers, scientists, teachers, doctors, etc. can rely on their seniority to provide for their old age, why can't farmers? Can the contribution of the peasant profession really be ignored!
The food production is low, which is an overall arrangement, and does not represent the value it should have! If you can set your own price, you have to buy rice at a price of 1,000 pounds. Farmers have food, meat, salt, and all kinds of herbs, and they can still survive without urban industry and commerce.
It is said that the state subsidizes farmers and provides for the elderly, but in fact, farmers have been suppressing food ** in subsidizing people in the city!
The people in the city should not take advantage of it, just rent the land and send the old peasants, they are also people who have made great contributions to social development!
The second point is to talk about the issue of farming subsidies! The peasants' work is much harder than that of the factory, the value of the food produced is incalculable, and the income should be higher than that of the average worker, but the fact is the opposite, is it wrong for the younger generation of farmers to want to change this unequal treatment?
Because of the overall reasons of social development, food has been suppressed at a low level, and it is impossible to give a value that it should have, and the low income of farmers is actually the result of the forced distribution of social resources, which cannot reflect the real value.
Even if it is so unfair, is it wrong that the peasants understand the needs of social development and do not ask for the right to set grain prices back, but instead demand reasonable subsidies?
Social development needs food, peasants, and people need to continue farming.
Could it be that the new generation of peasants will continue to grow grain for the people in the city to enjoy, but they will not be able to share the dividends of social development?
The phrase "people who rent land" chilled the hearts of the peasants, don't wait until they get back the right to set grain prices, and the city will know who is the real strongman in society!
Do you support food production subsidies? How to ensure the income of peasants, should we continue the tradition of watching the sky and eating for thousands of years?
If the harvest is poor due to drought and flood, you can only go hungry, eat grain seeds, and eat grain! The harvest is just barely filling the stomach (the harvest grain ** will become lower).
Peasants work hard for a year, and even an ordinary worker who enters the factory to make a living is not as good as a month's income. The point subsidy is called "renting land"....