Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Public Accounts Committee enquiry into ELMS
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Goweresque" data-source="post: 7927516" data-attributes="member: 818"><p>Isn't that exactly whats going to happen under ELMS? One third of the money is specifically earmarked for the top 1-2% of landowners, those who control more than 500ha. And they can dip into the other two thirds of the budget as well. Who do you think is going to do best out of ELMS, James Dyson or a 200 acre stock farm in upland England? And in doing best I mean get the best return per acre, not total cash terms. </p><p></p><p>If giving money to the richest sections of society is out then no farmers would get any money at all, the owner of a 100 acre farm is a millionaire just about anywhere in the UK, which puts them in the top 1% by wealth (over 700k of wealth puts you in the 1%). So cutting subsidies out entirely makes some logical sense. Landowners are by any standard wealthy people, ergo give them nothing. I'm not advocating that, just saying the argument has some logical consistency.</p><p></p><p>On the other hand if you are going to spend public money on 'public goods' wouldn't it make some sense to ensure it doesn't just predominantly go to those who are the very richest of the already rich? The hundred acre farmer might be just into 7 figures of wealth, Dyson is well into 9 figures. Should we not ensure that the former gets a disproportionately higher amount per acre than the latter, and not the other way around?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Goweresque, post: 7927516, member: 818"] Isn't that exactly whats going to happen under ELMS? One third of the money is specifically earmarked for the top 1-2% of landowners, those who control more than 500ha. And they can dip into the other two thirds of the budget as well. Who do you think is going to do best out of ELMS, James Dyson or a 200 acre stock farm in upland England? And in doing best I mean get the best return per acre, not total cash terms. If giving money to the richest sections of society is out then no farmers would get any money at all, the owner of a 100 acre farm is a millionaire just about anywhere in the UK, which puts them in the top 1% by wealth (over 700k of wealth puts you in the 1%). So cutting subsidies out entirely makes some logical sense. Landowners are by any standard wealthy people, ergo give them nothing. I'm not advocating that, just saying the argument has some logical consistency. On the other hand if you are going to spend public money on 'public goods' wouldn't it make some sense to ensure it doesn't just predominantly go to those who are the very richest of the already rich? The hundred acre farmer might be just into 7 figures of wealth, Dyson is well into 9 figures. Should we not ensure that the former gets a disproportionately higher amount per acre than the latter, and not the other way around? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Public Accounts Committee enquiry into ELMS
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top