Money For Nothing

FarmyStu · Apr 23, 2014

Just been watching "How to Get a Council House" on Channel 4. Lots of people on it who seem to think that the state owes them money and housing and unable to recognise that they have responsibility for themselves. I find myself shouting at the TV. Lots of folk on this website would be shouting too.

I then look at the forum list on here and 2 of the headings are about getting grants from the taxpayer. One for grants for GPS and one about grants for fencing. This from people who are probably already getting SFP cheques.

What's the difference between the above 2 groups?

S J H · Apr 23, 2014

Not a lot if you look at it like that, although one group will probably provide employment, pay tax and put money back into the economy.

Whenever I've looked into grants they're more hassle than they're worth, and someone else governing what you do and how you do it.

Fox Red · Apr 23, 2014

landowners letting land for a considerable sum and retaining the SFP? Now thats money for nothing.

DrWazzock · Apr 23, 2014

You won't get far on any farming forum by drawing comparisons between SFP and welfare payments.

Farmers see SFP as a God given right. Without it they just wouldn't be able to afford to pay £250 per acre rent to grow wheat or bid up the price of land to £20000 per acre or afford a six wheel drive twin cab warrior pick up truck that boost single figure mpg.

Without SFP, we would be left vulnerable to a naval blockade and a shortage of bananas and other soft fruit, as farmers just wouldn't get out of bed in the morning unless they were guaranteed £100 an acre before lifting a finger.

Oh no. Don't kill the golden goose that enables us to bumble along in our hobbies rather than have to run truly realistic and efficient businesses.

MickMoor · Apr 23, 2014

Sadly, this wonderful doctrine of socialism means that we are encouraged to believe that the state is only benevolent; all things to all men. We no longer have control over anything ourselves; finance, housing, health, industry, education, bringing up our children, agriculture; the state interferes in them all just to flex its muscles so that we wonder how we can exist without it.
SJH is correct! If you sup with the devil, make sure you have a very long spoon, or better still, ignore him and have faith in yourself!

wanton dwarf · Apr 23, 2014

To be honest although I don't like the grant system I must admit they are at least well targeted, for example at reducing pollution and gaining a step on the ladder of increased efficiency.

I really don't care what anyone says either positive or negative about SFP - all farmers in the EU have SFP, the wisest countries will ensure their farmers benefit the unwise will loose everything.

Lurpak, Danone, Muller anyone ?

S J H · Apr 23, 2014

wanton dwarf said:
To be honest although I don't like the grant system I must admit they are at least well targeted, for example at reducing pollution and gaining a step on the ladder of increased efficiency.

I really don't care what anyone says either positive or negative about SFP - all farmers in the EU have SFP, the wisest countries will ensure their farmers benefit the unwise will loose everything.

Lurpak, Danone, Muller anyone ?

But what is SFP based on? The amount of food produced?

RushesToo · Apr 23, 2014

As the government gets more mature it decides that it doesn't have it's fingers in enough pies. As time goes on they make better and better machines at control, believing that their control improves the governing in accordance with what the people vote.

Trouble is that the old wise owls that realised that this power could be misused are no longer elected by responsible people with a genuine feeling that they were doing good for the Nation. We seem to elect pin ups that are well spoken.

Now we have people that feel that this is a career and enjoy flexing their muscles. If we brought back the days when people governed because they felt they should then it would be better. If we could pay minimum wages to politicians - we might get more of the right people. Successful people that were wealthy from their expertise in business, and union leaders that were successful from ensuring the wealth was spread - which to my mind is a good happy medium. The successful get paid - they carry their workers with them. This will however fail because someone one will be as good at corrupting this system as well as they have the current one.

How have I managed to talk myself into anarchy? Because I feel that the only genuine people in the World would rather jump into a field with a herd of mad bulls knee deep in slurry and cocci rather than try and change politics from the inside. So that seems to be it. Revolution.

How sad.

wanton dwarf · Apr 24, 2014

S J H said:
But what is SFP based on? The amount of food produced?

I'm a bit confused about why you would ask this question.

SFP is a mechanism for moving jobs around Europe - wise countries will gain market share, unwise countries will lose.

I'm a bit baffled why you would say "amount of food produced" - what has that got to do with SFP ? UK ministers aren't fighting for UK farmers jobs they are diverting SFP funds that support UK farm businesses into the hands of them & theirs.

The EU has no trading tariffs - therefore the only way for EU countries to gain a competitive advantage is via SFP administration and implementation - or the FAILURE to legislate - as in illegal imports of eggs & pork.

Which country has the lowest SFP and gold plated legislation ? Do you think your farm can compete with a German or French farm ? are you fighting on a level playing field ? You should already know that EU farmers got 20K Euro more than you before we got our new SFP deal.

Some EU farms bypass competing with UK farms because they are in a co-op or in a non food sector - subsidised by your EU taxes, the UK won't use matched funding and gets a rebate instead - which gets spent where ?

UK farms need to compete with the whole of the EU and the rest of the World because we compete on price set on world trading markets. So we get the worst support in Europe but are treated exactly the same as the rest of the EU when it comes to exporting (tariffs) - handicapped twice.

Germany must be laughing it's socks off - before the Euro Germany would have been held back by a strong currency. Now the Euro is kept in check by a useless southern Europe which means Germany can just keep making money - and let's face it, no one needs to compete with the UK because we will just destroy ourselves and implode - all the UKs problems are of our own politicians making. Better still the countries which are helping keep the Euro low and now indebted to Germany LOL !

tinsheet · Apr 24, 2014

If we all got a decent price for our product we wouldn't need sfp grants etc.

Iron150 · Apr 24, 2014

tinsheet said:
If we all got a decent price for our product we wouldn't need sfp grants etc.

Or be more efficient at what we do?

caveman · Apr 24, 2014

Iron150 said:
Or be more efficient at what we do?

FFS.
Theres that word again.
Do you mean do twice as much and put your mate out of work whilst you moan about paying more tax to keep him?
Think I will change my name to the luddite.

Yale · Apr 24, 2014

Iron150 said:
Or be more efficient at what we do?

Problem is how do you become more efficient and make more profit?

Take land at silly rents and produce more but make less profit?(or even a tad more with great stress)

Or sit back,treat it as a business and if necessary drastically cut costs below the drop in production and reap the extra profit with less work.

To make your farm more efficient surely you rent it to the next door neighbour to spread his costs,you claim the payments,charge him rent then take a job working for him for £10/hr.

DrWazzock · Apr 24, 2014

I've often wondered why the DSS, income support, etc is not sufficient to protect farmers personal income in difficult years, as applies to every other citizen.

SFP, which actually underpins farm businesses, is a different matter. It allows us to carry on producing commodities and to receive prices for those commodities that are less than the cost of production, when otherwise we might just decide not to bother growing them at all. Or we might find ways of reducing the cost of production and supply trade might also reduce their prices, knowing we no longer have SFP to draw on.

Reality is though that while all of EU has SFP we would become a dumping ground for subsidised produce and go bust if we tried to go it alone without it. We would need import tariffs to prevent this, and that is not desirable either.

Meanwhile SFP keeps inefficiency alive and well, and many parasitical organisations in work, and keeps new starters priced out of the industry.

S J H · Apr 24, 2014

Problem I have with SFP, is that the amount paid is not relevant to the amount of food produced. I always thought subsidies were designed to stabilise the price of food? :scratchhead:

Steevo · Apr 24, 2014

S J H said:
Problem I have with SFP, is that the amount paid is not relevant to the amount of food produced. I always thought subsidies were designed to stabilise the price of food?

That stopped a long time ago when the Govt. decided we could import food to feed us, without needing to produce our own. Farmers are now paid to jump through the endless number of pointless hoops created by politicians (which add cost to all farms!) for almost no purpose than to justify a return for the SFP money farmers receive. This added cost is what DEFRA, RPA etc run on, which keeps more people employed. The by product of this process is that all these farmers use their spare time to product food, half of which is rejected by the supermarkets and wasted, the rest is sold to consumers at ever inflating prices.

Sorry, maybe a bit cynical having read this thread!

tinsheet · Apr 24, 2014

Iron150 said:
Or be more efficient at what we do?

When my folks were students late 60s, a fat lamb would pay two weeks wages for a student.
Minimum wage now what roughly £250 a week for 40 hrs, fat lamb should be £500 each! Yet us hill boys are getting £80 if we're doin well :scratchhead:

Can't get much more efficient here, all ready there.

JP1 · Apr 25, 2014

tinsheet said:
When my folks were students late 60s, a fat lamb would pay two weeks wages for a student.
Minimum wage now what roughly £250 a week for 40 hrs, fat lamb should be £500 each! Yet us hill boys are getting £80 if we're doin well
Can't get much more efficient here, all ready there.

Remember Anton Coaker telling me that during his Father's day a fat lamb paid a man's wages for a week. Sure there is also a multiple rail for fat lambs to buy a medium sized tractor, bet it's much more now. Hamster wheel springs to mind

JohnGalway · Apr 25, 2014

FarmyStu said:
Just been watching "How to Get a Council House" on Channel 4. Lots of people on it who seem to think that the state owes them money and housing and unable to recognise that they have responsibility for themselves. I find myself shouting at the TV. Lots of folk on this website would be shouting too.

I then look at the forum list on here and 2 of the headings are about getting grants from the taxpayer. One for grants for GPS and one about grants for fencing. This from people who are probably already getting SFP cheques.

What's the difference between the above 2 groups?

Are you a farmer? Do you get SFP or "grants"?

FarmyStu · Apr 25, 2014

JohnGalway said:
Are you a farmer? Do you get SFP or "grants"?

No

Money For Nothing

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

0 %

Up to 25%

25-50%

50-75%

75-100%

100% I’ve had enough of farming!

Share this page