Farm subsidies must be earned.......

joe soapy

Member
Location
devon
Devils advocate

£3 billion assuming UK population of 65 million is about £46 each per person. I suppose we could go the other way and remove the subsidy totally and see what happens. If the status qou us maintained it will cost the family of four £200 a year which would be on the shopping bill but their tax bill would reduce.

So you say 'way more money than currently' well unless there is profiteering by farmers without subsidy it will cost about £200 a year more - is that way more? Offset against the tax saved. And it would mean maybe less direct transfer of 'ordinary folks' income to large landowners as currently happens.

Hey ho good debate.

You are missing the point, , over 30% dont pay tax other than VAT, and they would be the ones hurt most by rising food prices
 

Hindsight

Member
Location
Lincolnshire
Not if there was a global supply deficit we would be held to randsome by the countries supplying us

Just suppose for a moment that the system was as you say and lets assume for a moment that their was a world shortage of say wheat or beef which led to the world price rising considerably. Hand on heart would you let your beef and wheat go into the market at a less than world price in lieu of the years of subsidy received beforehand. Would you accept a government lien on your crops at a fair (lower) than world price.
 

Martin Holden

Member
Trade
Location
Cheltenham
Haven't read all previous posts so apols' if this has been said before. One way of looking at subsidies is that food retailers have used the subsidies to buy their raw material cheaper than they would if farmers charged full COP with no subsidy attached. Politicians have avoided this like the plague as they believe that jo public demand cheap food. What is cheap?? The choice open to jo public in the supermarkets is far to big today as there seems to no seasonal change. Of course the retailers say that they are meeting consumer demand. But customers only buy what is offered so that arguemnent doesn't wash. The issue is I believe "opportunity cost". I.e. You can only spend the money you have or can borrow and no more, so it's great for jo public to have cheap food while they have money to spend on new cars, new homes and all that today's generation "must have" now! We have done a generation a disservice in not properly teaching people about the value of life and money. Our issue now is if UK plc decide to change the support system radically it can only be done if the rest of Europe follows suit or we are banjacksed!
 
Last edited:

Hindsight

Member
Location
Lincolnshire
You are missing the point, , over 30% dont pay tax other than VAT, and they would be the ones hurt most by rising food prices

Part of VAT funds the EU if my memory serves, so not sub then VAT bill will reduce? Hence my debating point. And would it be more targeted to give the 30% the £46 to spend on food rather than the equally cackhanded method now of giving it to farmers where a proportion gets given to landowners such as the Chatsworth Estate, the Duke of Buccleagh etc etc and is also capitalised into land values. Your thoughts?
 

joe soapy

Member
Location
devon
You are missing the point, , over 30% dont pay tax other than VAT, and they would be the ones hurt most by rising food prices
why do you think food would be more expensive[/QUOTE]

Subsides tend to keep production stable, without subs there would not be much trad beef about at present day prices.
A lot of the sub ends up off farm inthe hands of supermarkets and land owners
You are missing the point, , over 30% dont pay tax other than VAT, and they would be the ones hurt most by rising food prices

Part of VAT funds the EU if my memory serves, so not sub then VAT bill will reduce? Hence my debating point. And would it be more targeted to give the 30% the £46 to spend on food rather than the equally cackhanded method now of giving it to farmers where a proportion gets given to landowners such as the Chatsworth Estate, the Duke of Buccleagh etc etc and is also capitalised into land values. Your thoughts?[/QUOTE]

VAT was introduced to provide funds to keep Europe self sufficient in food and provide the rural people with an income roughly equivalent to the urbanites,
Over the years it has been eroded to fund all sorts of vanity projects unrelated to ag, For instance the ring road around Tenerife.
Brexitis going to cause immense upheaval in this now as we are 1 of the 2 main net contributors to this fund now.
As to paying the money direct to consumers, we all know where that would end up
 

Hindsight

Member
Location
Lincolnshire
why do you think food would be more expensive

Subsides tend to keep production stable, without subs there would not be much trad beef about at present day prices.
A lot of the sub ends up off farm inthe hands of supermarkets and land owners


Part of VAT funds the EU if my memory serves, so not sub then VAT bill will reduce? Hence my debating point. And would it be more targeted to give the 30% the £46 to spend on food rather than the equally cackhanded method now of giving it to farmers where a proportion gets given to landowners such as the Chatsworth Estate, the Duke of Buccleagh etc etc and is also capitalised into land values. Your thoughts?[/QUOTE]

VAT was introduced to provide funds to keep Europe self sufficient in food and provide the rural people with an income roughly equivalent to the urbanites,
Over the years it has been eroded to fund all sorts of vanity projects unrelated to ag, For instance the ring road around Tenerife.
Brexitis going to cause immense upheaval in this now as we are 1 of the 2 main net contributors to this fund now.
As to paying the money direct to consumers, we all know where that would end up[/QUOTE]


Yes, we probably can surmise where it would end up given direct to consumers. But giving it to farmers is equally blunderbuss in a way. We talk about Cost of production and stability but we see money ending up for example with Sheik Mahomood at Newmarket, and in the coffers of large aristocratic landowners through rents, and why not as they are in effect entitled as the next man. But given that even I can see why the ordinary man on the Clapham omnibus might consider it odd that one of the richest men on the world picks up £400k annually. Hey ho.
 

Hindsight

Member
Location
Lincolnshire
Ha, didnt really wish to sound bitter, well maybe just a bit. we live in a row of houses, so get a close up view.of life in the raw.
I tend to act like a convex mirror and reflect back what comes my way. two neighbours both the newest cars in the village courtesay of disabilty, not worked in the last forty years,
1 was chairman of the local footpath committee and was the most energetic dancer at a recent 60 ith birthday party, the other chased eldest and attacked him with a big walking stick.
pair of retired teachers close by pleading poverty, further down there is a new house going up replacing a recently built one and demolished,
The farm transport has to thread through cars parked haphazardly for nearly half a mile for access especialy as lot of the gear is 3 meters wide now, surprising how grumpy some are before 8 in the morn
Most are good as gold, but happily extend across their plot and then want access across field because they can no longer get to their back gardens
Most of the residents being elderly have huge asset base, but when i suggested they club together to buy an adjoining field to prevent building it was not viewed happily


No you did not sound bitter. I too have neighbours and am friends with several recently retired teachers and also other 60 somethings. Your observations sound familiar!!
 

FarmyStu

Member
Location
NE Lincs
So why do they deduct your subsidy for missing tags then? why not prosecute you?
without the subsidy stick, passports would never have got off the ground.
the horsemeat scandal shows what horseshit it is.
They take your subsidy because it's a cross compliance requirement. If you don't get the sub, as many don't, then they simply stop you moving animals on or off your holding until you put things right.
 

FarmyStu

Member
Location
NE Lincs
Best thing is to tell the inspectors you are away on holiday, and they can round up the cattle themselves if they want.
That's not an option that will work. You must allow the inspection to go ahead. Someone will be looking after livestock whilst you're away on holiday.

Read your BPS application. It's all in there. You signed up to it when you applied. Inspection without notice. You did read the small print?
 

Steevo

Member
Location
Gloucestershire
Yes, we probably can surmise where it would end up given direct to consumers. But giving it to farmers is equally blunderbuss in a way. We talk about Cost of production and stability but we see money ending up for example with Sheik Mahomood at Newmarket, and in the coffers of large aristocratic landowners through rents, and why not as they are in effect entitled as the next man. But given that even I can see why the ordinary man on the Clapham omnibus might consider it odd that one of the richest men on the world picks up £400k annually. Hey ho.

I don't disagree....but it is also interesting when put in context with the recent BBC salary info.
 

The_Swede

Member
Arable Farmer
No direct experience on this but whether stated in the BPS small print or not, as @TimW highlights - "sorry attending to stock elsewhere" (or insert other clear welfare case) is a perfectly reasonable excuse re 12hrs notice in my view.

Obviously you can't fob them off for weeks on end like this but a firm explanation such as the above that you simply won't be available (or indeed the holiday) simply must stand - someone temporarily checking stock (on more extensive systems especially) is not necessarily able to get them in, access paperwork etc, surely this cannot be sensibly argued against?
 

FarmyStu

Member
Location
NE Lincs
No direct experience on this but whether stated in the BPS small print or not, as @TimW highlights - "sorry attending to stock elsewhere" (or insert other clear welfare case) is a perfectly reasonable excuse re 12hrs notice in my view.

Obviously you can't fob them off for weeks on end like this but a firm explanation such as the above that you simply won't be available (or indeed the holiday) simply must stand - someone temporarily checking stock (on more extensive systems especially) is not necessarily able to get them in, access paperwork etc, surely this cannot be sensibly argued against?
I'm not justifying it but the rule is 48 hrs maximum notice before the inspection MUST begin. You quite literally have to be dead before a delay can be allowed. The EU like 0 hours notice though. All the inspections are EU driven. The UK get fined if inspections are not, in the main, 0 hours notice .
 

The_Swede

Member
Arable Farmer
I'm intrigued... I have a suspicion that a far greater proportion of continental EU farmers are genuinely 'part-time' if not actually farming around a full time job elsewhere... they must have very understanding employers or do I whiff some double standards here? What about cattle on alpine pastures?
 
Last edited:

DrWazzock

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lincolnshire
Deductiions seem to be completely random and without any explanation whatsoever in my experience. I had a no notice inspection last year, and he went away saying everything was fine then they knocked £3k off my £16k claim without giving any reason whatsoever.

I just let them get on with it now. They are an unaccountable law unto themselves. It's a waste of time reasoning with them or corresponding with them. I get what I get like some kind of lottery.

Given up worrying about it. Let them get on with it and I'll get get on with my work.
 

glasshouse

Member
Location
lothians
It
That's not an option that will work. You must allow the inspection to go ahead. Someone will be looking after livestock whilst you're away on holiday.

Read your BPS application. It's all in there. You signed up to it when you applied. Inspection without notice. You did read the small print?
it most certainly does work.
How can an eighty yr old be expected to round up livestock for an inspection,?
 
Back to the OP...
Do we not " earn " our subs anyway by producing ridiculously cheap food ?
I dislike the subsidy system, but have always looked at the payments as a safety net, for those years when the weather destroys a % of the crops ( more common here in crapweathershire than the east )
I think poor old Mr Gove has lost the plot already.
A simple £25k payment for every active farmer as suggested a few pages ago.
Maybe a top up payment for those who want to turn farmland into wildlife havens.
No red tape burdened schemes ( administered by the unemployed in suits ) like we had in Wales such as Tear grovel , of glass tears, thanks.
A payment of 25k per farmer would not be fair, many farmers do not receive that much at the moment, and would only lead to corruption.
However a cap of national average wage would offer a full time farmer a wage and command that farms be managed in a way that least breaks even, and possibly maintain the existence of the one man farm and lessen the likelihood of superfarms becoming more common.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 80 42.3%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 66 34.9%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 15.9%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,293
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top