cap the CAP

[Henarar]

either subsidise everyone the same or don't subsidise anyone at all (I prefer the latter)

yep worldwide subs should go

big or small it make bugger all difference other than jealousy which is a pretty rubbish thing to base sound decision on

well they have based it on what granddad done before now and they paid someone growing linseed about 300 quid an acre and the chap over the hedge growing grass got nothing in the past but we couldn't possibly have a cap and penalise the big boys could we

 

[M-J-G]

No, I really meant £5k, but that would have caused uproar.

Don't forget the average wage in Blighty is £27k. How can we justify getting more than that ?

You can't justify it.

National average wage should be the cap. I've said that for years. But it would have to be pro rata on smaller businesses.

The past 5 years should be used as base for which individuals own a business, with strict scrutiny on what qualifies as a new business, in order to avoid several businesses under one umbrella.

That way everyone gets an average wage (or a share of it) and if anyone wants more money that the average tax payer earns, all they have to do is farm profitably.

 

[Bossfarmer]

Im all for subs going if they go worldwide, if not i feel as a nation we should support our own farmers and grow our own food rather than import from others who have supported theirs, makes no sense to me and puts us in a bad position as a highly populated island!

 

[Brisel]

The whole basis of disscussion on this thread is wrong.
Subsidies should be tied to needs of the country, for instance, set a home production level target.
Then set the subs to either encourage or slow down particular branches of farming.
in much the same way the old standard quantities were done, and used in the past to encourage oddball stuff
such as linseed,flax or native breeds or renewable energy along side the main food groups of meat, milk and grains

The problem with that is the market becomes even more artificial. Look at the tens of thousands of acres of unwanted linseed grown under IACS incentives, much of which was ploughed in after the obligatory 2 attempts at harvesting it.

Keep the politics out of the marketplace as much as humanly possible and let the market sort who stays and who goes. Any support will favour some over others and create a degree of artificiality but do you really want headage payments and IACS back again?

I like the idea of renewables and native breeds. How about promoting the environment further? Oh, hang on...

 

[brigadoon]

I

I always thought that the whole point of the CAP was to maintain small farms, so that rural areas
did not lose their population and hence their social structure. I would think that the best way to do
that would be a system based on a reducing rate per acre i.e first 150 acres = highest rate,
151 - 250 acres @ 50% of the high rate, 251-350 acres only 25% of the high rate. Above 350 acres
you should have economies of scale working in your favour. Taking into account the details of
acreage that have been supplied over the last few years, they could pick any base year to start with.

I would have no issue with that and it ticks most boxes for me - I think you also need to tie the payment to the land so that existing landowners cannot divest themselves of land parcels to "new entrants"

 

[brigadoon]

Your not a worker on an average wage you run a business , if you don't think farm businesses should get support then stop it .Don't single some out for in a lot of cases envy

I do think farm businesses should get support

I don't think farm businesses should get unlimited support

I was happy when I did not get support

I am happy now that I do

I agree that it is much easier to justify farm support to joe public if it is capped (in the same way that other benefits are).

Environmental benefits should not be included in the cap.

 

[joe soapy]

The problem with that is the market becomes even more artificial. Look at the tens of thousands of acres of unwanted linseed grown under IACS incentives, much of which was ploughed in after the obligatory 2 attempts at harvesting it.

Keep the politics out of the marketplace as much as humanly possible and let the market sort who stays and who goes. Any support will favour some over others and create a degree of artificiality but do you really want headage payments and IACS back again?

I like the idea of renewables and native breeds. How about promoting the environment further? Oh, hang on...

We harvested ours and found a ready market for it, and the straw made usefull bedding

 

[Henarar]

We harvested ours and found a ready market for it, and the straw made usefull bedding

chap around here use to grow it undersown with grass and never use to harvest it but this was on so called IACS land the chap next door couldn't do it
but we can't have a system that favours one farmer over another can we
Not that a cap would favour one farmer over another because any farmer could get up to 100k, in fact that system would favour the larger farmer as they could have 100k and the smaller farmer couldn't
the only way to have a fair system is to pay every farmer the same amount then everyone gets the same and there would be no arguments

 

[roscoe erf]

I do think farm businesses should get support

I don't think farm businesses should get unlimited support

I was happy when I did not get support

I am happy now that I do

I agree that it is much easier to justify farm support to joe public if it is capped (in the same way that other benefits are).

Environmental benefits should not be included in the cap.

It don't sit well with me that you can trade entitlements

 

[digger64]

chap around here use to grow it undersown with grass and never use to harvest it but this was on so called IACS land the chap next door couldn't do it
but we can't have a system that favours one farmer over another can we
Not that a cap would favour one farmer over another because any farmer could get up to 100k, in fact that system would favour the larger farmer as they could have 100k and the smaller farmer couldn't
the only way to have a fair system is to pay every farmer the same amount then everyone gets the same and there would be no arguments

It would appear from this debate that the only "same" is nothing

 

[Bossfarmer]

chap around here use to grow it undersown with grass and never use to harvest it but this was on so called IACS land the chap next door couldn't do it
but we can't have a system that favours one farmer over another can we
Not that a cap would favour one farmer over another because any farmer could get up to 100k, in fact that system would favour the larger farmer as they could have 100k and the smaller farmer couldn't
the only way to have a fair system is to pay every farmer the same amount then everyone gets the same and there would be no arguments

heres a suggestion,...pay everyone exactly the same per acre whats fairer than that? if people are jealous of a neighbor with a bigger payment go and buy more ground and you too can have a bigger one, by the time you pay for the land staff and kit yourself out on the bigger acreage you may find that the payment is infact peanuts

 

[AvonValleyFarmer]

yep worldwide subs should go

The French would never allow it, they'd have tractors on every runway in the world

 

[Bossfarmer]

The French would never allow it, they'd have tractors on every runway in the world

fair play to them, shame our own farmers are the opposite and feel "undeserving" of the poor taxpayers money, laughable!! i suggest UK farmers big or small get a backbone and stand up for theirselves!!

 

[joe soapy]

chap around here use to grow it undersown with grass and never use to harvest it but this was on so called IACS land the chap next door couldn't do it
but we can't have a system that favours one farmer over another can we
Not that a cap would favour one farmer over another because any farmer could get up to 100k, in fact that system would favour the larger farmer as they could have 100k and the smaller farmer couldn't
the only way to have a fair system is to pay every farmer the same amount then everyone gets the same and there would be no arguments

you forget that the grass was used to collect beef premium, sheep pre and extensification which on an LFA farm turned into real money.
When area payments started, the big payments to intensive livestock were included in the pot to be divided out across all acres,
leading to a stand on for arable , a big drop for many beef and sheep farms and bonus for everybody else including little pony paddocks that
previously were never included in the subs system

 

[Hampton]

heres a suggestion,...pay everyone exactly the same per acre whats fairer than that? if people are jealous of a neighbor with a bigger payment go and buy more ground and you too can have a bigger one, by the time you pay for the land staff and kit yourself out on the bigger acreage you may find that the payment is infact peanuts

If it’s too peanuts why do you claim it

 

[Hampton]

its not about what i can live off its a business remember? a serious amount of money is invested over generations i could get a "living" sitting on my neighbours tractor?? there needs to be money after tax to reinvest and keep the farm going forward

We Have all(or most of us) invested a serious amount of money, but does it that make it right that subsidy cheques can run to hundreds of thousands.
I could buy land (and we have in the past) knowing that the subsidy cheque can pay the interest on the mortgage. If that’s not monetising a business and funding expansion then you need to tell me what is?

 

[Hindsight]

you forget that the grass was used to collect beef premium, sheep pre and extensification which on an LFA farm turned into real money.
When area payments started, the big payments to intensive livestock were included in the pot to be divided out across all acres,
leading to a stand on for arable , a big drop for many beef and sheep farms and bonus for everybody else including little pony paddocks that
previously were never included in the subs system

Not sure I entirely agree with you analysis of sectors gaining from the move to SFP in 2005. Combinable crop arable farms had a small reduction compared to AAPS (Arable Area Payments Scheme), in region of 5%. Potato, sugar beet, vegetables and some fruit had a win as these crops became eligible for SPS, thus any arable farmers with those tended tog et back the 5% and then others who had just veg or specialist growers gained upto 100%. Big gain was for landlords who could become 'active farmers' yet never farm giving much greater flexibility to getting hold of the subsidy - exampled perfectly by pony paddock folk who suddenly could claim an agricultural subsidy. On livestock the intensive beef men payments reduced significantly as forage acres and ghost acres no longer occurred and the bull and steer headage payment system ended as did extensification. My observation was pure sheep actually gained more dependent on stocking rates, especially in the old LFA's. But hey that is how it went. Regards.

 

[digger64]

you forget that the grass was used to collect beef premium, sheep pre and extensification which on an LFA farm turned into real money.
When area payments started, the big payments to intensive livestock were included in the pot to be divided out across all acres,
leading to a stand on for arable , a big drop for many beef and sheep farms and bonus for everybody else including little pony paddocks that
previously were never included in the subs system

And vast amounts went to ngo's

 

[Bossfarmer]

We Have all(or most of us) invested a serious amount of money, but does it that make it right that subsidy cheques can run to hundreds of thousands.
I could buy land (and we have in the past) knowing that the subsidy cheque can pay the interest on the mortgage. If that’s not monetising a business and funding expansion then you need to tell me what is?

its all relative to the costs of these big businesses, i can assure you the £80/acre sub will not pay the interest on the mortgage

 

[Hampton]

It used to and to be fair, if land costs £8k per acre and current borrowing is 3% or less, then it covers one third of the interest, so is still a very relevant figure and my points still stand.