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
Save Our Farms
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="DrWazzock" data-source="post: 7936879" data-attributes="member: 2119"><p>I would not mind the gradual cutting of BPS in itself. Rents would have to adjust, etc. That’s life. It might even get farming running on a more realistic basis. </p><p>The slap in the face is the transfer of the cash saved by cutting BPS into schemes that are far less worthy than farming in my opinion. None of these rewilding schemes will generate enough profit to be a net gain to the taxman for example, so they won’t help pay for schools and hospitals etc, but what they will do, as we see already, is force some hardworking progressive livestock farmers off the land as landlords switch over to the environmental money. So it’s a loss of livelihoods, a loss of tax revenue, a loss of activity in the rural economy and a loss of food production security. </p><p>That’s the nub of it for me. The schemes provide an easy escape route for landlords, even a bonanza, but for tenants it really doesn’t look good even though they are and have to be some of the most efficient farmers in the land.</p><p>A gradual wind down of BPS without wholesale environmental schemes as an alternative, would have meant landlords were required to keep some kind of active farming operation going on the land and maybe share the pain of a rent reduction. The problem now is landlords have no incentive to keep an active farmer in place. It will be much easier for them to deal directly with DEFRA and hoover up a considerable sum for much less risk and effort.</p><p>As I’ve said before, subsidies discourage real enterprise, graft and efficiency.</p><p>And I’ve nothing against rewilding, nature reserves or carbon capture per se. You should be free to do as you like with your own land but why transfer the subsidy problem from one industry to another? Let’s rewilding, carbon capture and nature reserves pay their own way. We are told everybody wants them and consider them good value so let’s see how deep they will dig in their own pockets to pay for them. Break the subsidy cycle.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DrWazzock, post: 7936879, member: 2119"] I would not mind the gradual cutting of BPS in itself. Rents would have to adjust, etc. That’s life. It might even get farming running on a more realistic basis. The slap in the face is the transfer of the cash saved by cutting BPS into schemes that are far less worthy than farming in my opinion. None of these rewilding schemes will generate enough profit to be a net gain to the taxman for example, so they won’t help pay for schools and hospitals etc, but what they will do, as we see already, is force some hardworking progressive livestock farmers off the land as landlords switch over to the environmental money. So it’s a loss of livelihoods, a loss of tax revenue, a loss of activity in the rural economy and a loss of food production security. That’s the nub of it for me. The schemes provide an easy escape route for landlords, even a bonanza, but for tenants it really doesn’t look good even though they are and have to be some of the most efficient farmers in the land. A gradual wind down of BPS without wholesale environmental schemes as an alternative, would have meant landlords were required to keep some kind of active farming operation going on the land and maybe share the pain of a rent reduction. The problem now is landlords have no incentive to keep an active farmer in place. It will be much easier for them to deal directly with DEFRA and hoover up a considerable sum for much less risk and effort. As I’ve said before, subsidies discourage real enterprise, graft and efficiency. And I’ve nothing against rewilding, nature reserves or carbon capture per se. You should be free to do as you like with your own land but why transfer the subsidy problem from one industry to another? Let’s rewilding, carbon capture and nature reserves pay their own way. We are told everybody wants them and consider them good value so let’s see how deep they will dig in their own pockets to pay for them. Break the subsidy cycle. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Save Our Farms
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