Another BBC article Biased against farming.
- Thread starter Longlowdog
- Start date
- Location
- Exeter, Devon
Over the years, no doubt the known subsidy income has played a part in rent levels, but can you blame farmers for dancing to the various political tunes?
For example:
”Here’s some money for you to rip out hedges” - Hedges get ripped out.
”Here’s some money to plant new hedges” - Hedges get replanted.
Funny how all the complainers who have children are quite happy to accept various “subsidies” for them without questioning it.
Don’t get me wrong, as an industry we should be able to stand on our own 2 feet financially, but the way in which cross compliance has been developed alongside threats of reducing paid subsidies shows how they’ve also been used as a tool to effect change.
That's abit unfair , I'm sure the majority of us on here could get a proper job if we wanted.
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Rail, people, weapons production, buses, the list of UK business receiving cash either directly or indirectly is huge.
Sub is a different issue. BBC has an agenda that is now not neutral but strongly pro or anti various sections from society.
But then, like farmers weekly, who is reading it? Today's top stories : someone has baby, can my child go to school if it has a cold, and various "idiot's guide to Life, or how to get to 30 without a shred of responsibility".
Sub is a different issue. BBC has an agenda that is now not neutral but strongly pro or anti various sections from society.
But then, like farmers weekly, who is reading it? Today's top stories : someone has baby, can my child go to school if it has a cold, and various "idiot's guide to Life, or how to get to 30 without a shred of responsibility".
livestock 1
Member
When subs go/even the notice given of subs going has an alteration of stock numbers/ production therefore effects national output therefore has an effect on prices hence you being wrong in this case.
- Location
- Devon
A lot of problems in society are down to the digital age where all news has to be put in the form of clickbait which drives division.
It will make no difference in the medium/long term.
ollie989898
Member
There are people who receive zero or very little subsidies. There are others who claim them but who are then obliged to pass the money over to the land owner whose land they are renting.
The whole situation is thoroughly bizarre. Ripping out or replanting a few hedges has fudge all impact environmentally where thousands upon thousands of acres are being farmed in monoculture.
livestock 1
Member
You answer that but show no reason in your reckoning where as I do. Putting aside any moral right or wrongs what I have explained is how it is and like it or not -the injection of sub money will lower production therefore that will have an effect on prices.
- Location
- Devon
To an extent but it is only a marginal factor.
Subs haven't been linked to production for some time, it is just that many have decided to use their BPS to subsidise their business/ hobby in the same way as many others do by using diversified income or working for free.
There is obviously a point at which not having sufficient home production would drastically increase the price of imported food or could even leave the country hungry. Avoiding that is priceless.
- Location
- Devon
Because they own land?
pgk
Member
- Location
- south warwickshire
That's a bit harsh, most farmers could find some employment outside of agriculture
ollie989898
Member
The UK is never going to go hungry though is it? In some instances imported product is available for less money. I accept in some cases it may not be produced in the same way or meet the same standards but people can still live off it perfectly well?
Using subsidies to prop up a farming habit is the very definition of insanity. Probably the same people who are perpetually moaning at the prices being offered. You also get the 'have to be seen to farm it because IHT relief' crowd who are gonna produce something whatever the weather. The situation is madness.
livestock 1
Member
How many farmers show bps money added onto existing taxable profit on accounts?
All of the farmers quoted above could be included in the not linked to production scenario
All of the rest can not be included in that
Remember that all of the bps money would be taxable in the top line
So in effect that would mean that money paid in would be taxed at 20% 40% etc and effectively handed back again to where it came from
Then you have to think about how many farmers/farmers accountants would be comfortable with such a taxation position
Therefore subs are linked to food prices
- Location
- Essex
Payment may not be directly linked to production but it is linked to occupation. It follows that occupied land will produce more food than unoccupied land. So if a farmer can't afford to stay on the land, production will fall.
Ironically, abandoned land will probably attract generous payments!
Ironically, abandoned land will probably attract generous payments!
- Location
- Mid Norfolk
Why is the BBC still funded by taxpayers?
No the definition of insanity would be to chuck government money and resources at folk for having kids in an overpopulated world but I bet you are there with your hand out.
You show me someone in this country that doesn't use government resources or get government money and I will show you a very rare person, you only have to walk down a road
But farmers getting a payment for keeping the land in GAEC is an easy target for the likes of you and the bbc
livestock 1
Member
A lot of land near to me not used for anything after decoupling. Now it’s only use is claiming bps. No one rents it because it’s rentable value is near 0
ollie989898
Member
Your point is moot given that virtually every business in the industry is seeking to minimise their tax liability. As I have said before, I had clients who openly told me that their subsidy was either modest in comparison to their business turnover, they didn't claim any at all or that they never used it in their farming activities so the argument that 'everyone needs it' is pretty weak in my view.
The prices of raw materials are linked to what the world markets for them or their substitutes are and also how much margin processors and retailers can garner for their product. If people want to use subsidies to churn out product that is otherwise unprofitable that is their own concern though I would point out that dumping product into the marketplace actually serves to bork the price for all.