Farming a welfare scheme or viable business?

silverharp

dont know if anyone caught the end of Prime time , usual standard questions and responses as to the value of agriculture and why the gov. shouldnt cut subsidies.

Logically should I care about farming in Ireland ? either a business makes money or is doesnt , if it cant stand on its own two feet then is it not destroying wealth on a net basis for the country?
The prime time piece mentioned the social aspects. Again nothing stands still in time, maybe a third of the country reverting to forestry or whatever the next best use of the land is the best thing if it not profitable to farm.
Yet another point was a potential shortage of food at some point in the future. Again , people arent stupid , they will reclaim the land and put it back into use when the time is right.

So farming , just another lobby or "strategic" resource that should not be questioned?

Taxipete29

There is a problem with reclaiming land when the time is right. The skills needed to farm that land may have disappeared.

turgon

It appears to be like a lot of things in this country. People have established themselves in a certain lifestyle, and thus monstrous amounts of taxpayers money must be used to shelter them in said lifestyle. All under the banner of "the social good."

diverdriver

It's a welfare scheme for too many farmers. They might as well be on the dole. It's long overdue to put the whole thing on a business footing. Some farmers income is 100% from the EU or government. Exactly what is the point of that?

smithcity

If you had any idea of the cost to reclaiming forested land, you wouldn't have said that.

This country is borrowing 460 million euros a week to stay afloat, at penalty interest rates from the EU.

The REPS schemes and Disadvantaged Area schemes were 65% and 75% funded by the EU. Vast amounts of money were coming into our economy, free of charge, from Europe. That money was then going into the banks, or being re-invested, or spent in the local communities.

The government has thrown all this way. Those schemes were introduced, according to the government, in order to keep down food prices. The logical outcome of these cuts, is raised food prices, unemployed farmers and less money being pumped into our economy.
We will now have a sharp increase in unemployed farmers, Teagasc advisors, Department of Agriculture staff, farm labourers, Hire Depot staff and anybody else who's income directly or indirectly relied on farming.

REPS accounted on average for ten thousand euro's a year to farmers who fulfilled the obligations of the scheme. This meant a lot of work had to be done to earn that money. How many farmers will now be forced to sit on their arses to get that ten grand on the dole?

silverharp

smithcity wrote: »

If you had any idea of the cost to reclaiming forested land, you wouldn't have said that.

No I don't but if the Brazilians think its worthwhile to reclaim the rain forest then I cant see why Ireland should be so different.

smithcity wrote: »

The REPS schemes and Disadvantaged Area schemes were 65% and 75% funded by the EU. Vast amounts of money were coming into our economy, free of charge, from Europe. That money was then going into the banks, or being re-invested, or spent in the local communities.

The government has thrown all this way. Those schemes were introduced, according to the government, in order to keep down food prices. The logical outcome of these cuts, is raised food prices, unemployed farmers and less money being pumped into our economy.
We will now have a sharp increase in unemployed farmers, Teagasc advisors, Department of Agriculture staff, farm labourers, Hire Depot staff and anybody else who's income directly or indirectly relied on farming.

stepping back, is the EU citizen getting a good deal? it would appear that people are paying higher taxes so that they can have access to cheaper food? I say cut out the middle man , drop their taxes and let them pay the economic cost of the food.

The problem as I see it is that gov. have a poor record when it comes managing markets. Here the gov. incentivised property and too much came on line , home owners were incentivised with interest reliefs and other grants and ended up bidding up prices against each other. Something similar maybe happening with farming, the industry is in a position now that it is not viable without grants so otherwise intelligent farmers have led been down a culdesac instead of building sustainable business over the last 40 years.
As for dept. officials , as such they are a cost to the economy and if their salaries have to be borrowed from abroad then I cant see a net benefit for the economy as a whole , it is simply a transfer of money between one set of taxpayers to another.

irish_bob

while scrapping REPS is counter productive ( will send farmers to farm assist scheme , dole ) , the reality is , thier are far too many small farmers in ireland

astrofool

CAP was established to provide food security by guaranteeing the price of farming produce. This lead to food mountains, food being produced and left to rot as the demand wasn't there.

As time has gone on, the rural lobby has pushed for more and more "subsidies" (welfare payments), and the result has been that farming has become a disease on the country, productivity is not encouraged, new techniques will yield very little, and other countries around the world are now able to completely undercut even the subsidy included prices. Food security has become less of an issue as the century has gone on, and the chance of a world war occurring became remote.

Ideally, the subsidies should be wound down, and food prices should be left return to their non tax funded levels (customers just pay it in the form of higher taxes, rather than in the shop), food standards should be used to ensure that other countries produce cannot undercut loal farmers with low grade produce, unless thats what the consumer wants, in which case getting rid of tracability would free up a lot of farmer's work.

BUT, if a brazilian farmer can match our quality, and import it 3000 miles at a lesser price than local produce, then the farmer will just have to admit that his business isn't viable, and move onto something else.

But yes, as it is right now, farming is a welfare scheme.

brianthebard

astrofool wrote: »

CAP was established to provide food security by guaranteeing the price of farming produce. This lead to food mountains, food being produced and left to rot as the demand wasn't there.

As time has gone on, the rural lobby has pushed for more and more "subsidies" (welfare payments), and the result has been that farming has become a disease on the country, productivity is not encouraged, new techniques will yield very little, and other countries around the world are now able to completely undercut even the subsidy included prices. Food security has become less of an issue as the century has gone on, and the chance of a world war occurring became remote.

You're about 30 years too late in your analysis, there are no food mountains and farmers are actively discouraged to increase productivity by the EU, through quotas and other schemes which require a proportion of land to be left fallow. You're not at all concerned that your food be healthy, reared well, doesn't carry any contamination?

astrofool wrote: »

BUT, if a brazilian farmer can match our quality, and import it 3000 miles at a lesser price than local produce, then the farmer will just have to admit that his business isn't viable, and move onto something else.

But yes, as it is right now, farming is a welfare scheme.

Important word bolded. Also considering how little farmers in this country earn I shudder to think what you are damning brazilian farm labourers to live on. If the price paid to farmers by meat factories and supermarkets reflected the true cost of agricultural production then there would be no question that farming would be a viable business.

smithcity

astrofool wrote: »

BUT, if a brazilian farmer can match our quality, and import it 3000 miles at a lesser price than local produce, then the farmer will just have to admit that his business isn't viable, and move onto something else.

Think you may be a bit mixed up there. Even Peter Mandelson at the time of the last World Trade Talks claimed that killing tarriffs on Brazilian Beef was nothing to worry about because Irish farmers produced far higher quality beef, and that is what the consumer would go for.

These schemes lowered the price of food, but not on the shop shelves, they lowered the prices for the factory owners like Goodman who now make the lions of share of profit from farming.

Farmers received more for their product in the 1970's than they do now.

It's fair enough to say that these schemes should be wound up over time, but by the same token, farmers should be paid at the factory for their product. Not by subsidies. I think that is what most farmers want anyway.

Nevertheless, I think that axing these schemes, is doing untold damage to the country. 100's of millions of euros, if not more, that were entering our economy have no ceased.


Now Silverharp said "No I don't but if the Brazilians think its worthwhile to reclaim the rain forest then I cant see why Ireland should be so different."

Have you any idea of the methods the Brazilians use? Slash and Burn methods that destroy local ecosystems and cause nutrient leaching of the soil. After 5 to 10 years, land reclaimed like that becomes useless and they have to move on to a new spot.

It's silly and uneducated to suggest that a good move for Ireland would be to plant forests over one of the few industries we have left that is still bringing in money from europe, then smashing it down when it suits.

ei.sdraob

smithcity wrote: »

This country is borrowing 460 million euros a week to stay afloat, at penalty interest rates from the EU.

I need to correct you on that as your sentence is wrong

its not the EU that are penalizing us

but entities buying bonds, these include:

* hedge/pension funds
* chineese
* arabs
* banks
* other investors



now on the topic of farmers, if you can not make a profit without subsidies then your business should fail

my business and most other business in country dosent receive a cent in subsidies, why should farmers?

why should the taxpayer support support someone else lifestyle? this question is also aimed at people who would rather sit on welfare than get a job even when there where plenty available

turgon

brianthebard wrote: »

You're not at all concerned that your food be healthy, reared well, doesn't carry any contamination?

What Im concerned about is that the government distorts the market place to give Irish meat an undue advantage. If Im concerned about quality food I will fork out extra for Irish meat. If Im not, why should the government be penalizing me? Why should they hold my hand in the supermarket, "here look at this lovely Irish meat"??

brianthebard wrote: »

If the price paid to farmers by meat factories and supermarkets reflected the true cost of agricultural production then there would be no question that farming would be a viable business.

Your argument being to pay farmers based on how much a product cost to produce, not how valuable it really is.

astrofool

brianthebard wrote: »

You're about 30 years too late in your analysis, there are no food mountains and farmers are actively discouraged to increase productivity by the EU, through quotas and other schemes which require a proportion of land to be left fallow. You're not at all concerned that your food be healthy, reared well, doesn't carry any contamination?

I'm concerned, but then I can afford to buy most any food I want, but the price I pay is completely artificial due to subsidies.

Also, almost everyone will have a different definition of "healthy and reared well", and it should be a given that there is no contamination, but we're as bad as anyone here (Irish pork?).

For example, I would see halal meat as being a particularly inhumane of killing an animal, yet religions demand this method.

In any other business, they could increase productivity to bring prices down and increase profits, as you say, in farming they are actively discouraged due to overproduction. Farming is not a business in this case, it's a charity.

Any good farmer, to increase productivity, should let land lie fallow, as the return on the land in later years will be greater. Any sane business plan would allow for this, so I wouldn't see this as being unproductive. Farmers who don't let a field lie fallow, will end up unable to compete and go out of business.

nessie911

To ei.sdraob you said "now on the topic of farmers, if you can not make a profit without subsidies then your business should fail
my business and most other business in country dosent receive a cent in subsidies, why should farmers?
why should the taxpayer support support someone else lifestyle? this question is also aimed at people who would rather sit on welfare than get a job even when there where plenty available[/quote]"

Well if you even read the comment above your's, you would realise that its not thats farms can not stand on there own, the problem is that the goverment and the eu introduced these scemes to both lower the cost of food to the consumer, and to increase employment in local areas. If you researched into the amount of money that a farmer receives for products such as meat and milk, is the same or less money than they received in the 1970, but yet the cost of producing these products has more than doubled, and the amount of rules which they must aheard to has tripeled...

There are alot of jobs which count on farms continuning to produce products for the market. If all farms were to stop producing, then there would be thousands of jobs lost in ares such as the dairy industry, meat producing plants, local shops, etc etc...

Some of the scemes and grants that were introduced were brought in to give farmers money to employ builders, and other service worker etc...

To astrofool, you said "Any good farmer, to increase productivity, should let land lie fallow, as the return on the land in later years will be greater. Any sane business plan would allow for this, so I wouldn't see this as being unproductive. Farmers who don't let a field lie fallow, will end up unable to compete and go out of business."
Could you please explain this from your farming opinion, and give examples of how you would increase productivity.

RedPlanet

There are alot of jobs which count on farms continuning to produce products for the market. If all farms were to stop producing, then there would be thousands of jobs lost in ares such as the dairy industry, meat producing plants, local shops, etc etc...

Firstly, nobody suggested that all farms would stop producing, only the non-viable ones.
The ol "jobs" hat is rather worn out at this stage.
The very same can be said of builders, but i think we all detest the idea of subsidizing them.

nessie911

RedPlanet wrote: »

Firstly, nobody suggested that all farms would stop producing, only the non-viable ones

If the government were to take away all grants etc, and not change there current method of not geting the consumer to pay for the food then there would be no viable farms let in ireland, that is the point that farmers are trying to make, the majourity of farmers would be quite happy if all the scemes and grantc etc were gone, if they were being fairly paid dor the product they are producing. Some farmers are being paid more to transport there animals to england and france etc.

ronbyrne2005

Consolidate , too many small farms , we need economies of scale. Poland etc will provide us with cheaper EU quality produce in future. Too many inefficient farmers who arent business minded.

ei.sdraob

nessie911 wrote: »

To ei.sdraob you said "now on the topic of farmers, if you can not make a profit without subsidies then your business should fail
my business and most other business in country dosent receive a cent in subsidies, why should farmers?
why should the taxpayer support support someone else lifestyle? this question is also aimed at people who would rather sit on welfare than get a job even when there where plenty available

Well if you even read the comment above your's, you would realise that its not thats farms can not stand on there own, the problem is that the goverment and the eu introduced these scemes to both lower the cost of food to the consumer, and to increase employment in local areas. If you researched into the amount of money that a farmer receives for products such as meat and milk, is the same or less money than they received in the 1970, but yet the cost of producing these products has more than doubled, and the amount of rules which they must aheard to has tripeled...

There are alot of jobs which count on farms continuning to produce products for the market. If all farms were to stop producing, then there would be thousands of jobs lost in ares such as the dairy industry, meat producing plants, local shops, etc etc...

Some of the scemes and grants that were introduced were brought in to give farmers money to employ builders, and other service worker etc...

i see so here we have a mess created by government intervention in the markets, leading to more government intervention

astrofool

nessie911 wrote: »

Could you please explain this from your farming opinion, and give examples of how you would increase productivity.

Are you asking me from a farmers point of view, or from a laymans point of view? Either way, I would suggest a quick use of Google for some information, as a lot is out there. It is also suggested to use crop rotation rather than letting the land lie fallow, if there is the demand for more food.

On productivity, there are many aspects that a business can follow, economies of scale work pretty well for farming, reducing the wastage of equipment across many smaller farms. We should also be looking at growing more variety of crops in this country, find crops which suit our climate better and give us an advantage, rather than trying to compete with places which by default, have more fertile land and more suitable whether for some produce.

My point is, the current quotas and subsidies system actively discourages productivity gains, as the farmer gains nothing on them (like having a maximum salary), so farmers will only do enough to get their subsidies and meet their quotas as a a result.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

smithcity wrote: »

It's silly and uneducated to suggest that a good move for Ireland would be to plant forests over one of the few industries we have left that is still bringing in money from europe, then smashing it down when it suits.

just to clarify, I didnt mean to suggest that forestry would be next likely use of agricultural land. If pushed I'd say farms would be bigger and at some valuation land would be productive to some form of ag. business. DF's post would suggest that farms are way too small which is one of the problems and land prices have probably been bid up on the back of subsidies.

Tipp Man

astrofool wrote: »

Are you asking me from a farmers point of view, or from a laymans point of view? Either way, I would suggest a quick use of Google for some information, as a lot is out there. It is also suggested to use crop rotation rather than letting the land lie fallow, if there is the demand for more food.

On productivity, there are many aspects that a business can follow, economies of scale work pretty well for farming, reducing the wastage of equipment across many smaller farms. We should also be looking at growing more variety of crops in this country, find crops which suit our climate better and give us an advantage, rather than trying to compete with places which by default, have more fertile land and more suitable whether for some produce.

My point is, the current quotas and subsidies system actively discourages productivity gains, as the farmer gains nothing on them (like having a maximum salary), so farmers will only do enough to get their subsidies and meet their quotas as a a result.

Why are you talking about something that you obviously haven't a clue about.
Irish tillage farmers actively pursue crop rotation, at least the decent ones.
As for growing crops suited to Ireland, well Ireland is generally regarded as the best grass growing country in the world (along with NZ) and i think its 85% of the country is in grass (or there about), and for 9 years between 1995-2006 had the best wheat yields anywhere in the world (not sure of last couple of years), so don't give me this crap about crops that suit us.

There is 1 major problem and 1 major problem only with Irish farming, the price that the producer is receiving is ridiculously low, 20c for a litre of milk when it 1.20 in a shop, in 1982 farmers were receiving 20c a litre (equivilant) and it was about 55c in the shops. Beef was making more in the late 80's than it is now, grain will be 100 euro a ton this harvest, do you have any idea how much it costs to grow a ton of wheat??

The problem is that people have got used to cheap food and now with recession it would be near impossible to raise the price, in fact the opposite is happening. Until Irish farmers get control over the multiples and the middle men (factories, coops, millers etc) then they will continue to make losses. People seem to assume they have a right to cheap food forgetting that although the farmer receives the cheque it is the consumer (and middle men) who are being subsidised.

And just to all the townies who seem to have a lot to say about subsidies etc, farmers didn't ask for all the subsidies, red tape and bulls##t that Brussells has introduced, they want to farm, they want to farm well and they want to farm for a profit using market prices

Tipp Man

smithcity wrote: »

If you had any idea of the cost to reclaiming forested land, you wouldn't have said that.

This country is borrowing 460 million euros a week to stay afloat, at penalty interest rates from the EU.

The REPS schemes and Disadvantaged Area schemes were 65% and 75% funded by the EU. Vast amounts of money were coming into our economy, free of charge, from Europe. That money was then going into the banks, or being re-invested, or spent in the local communities.

The government has thrown all this way. Those schemes were introduced, according to the government, in order to keep down food prices. The logical outcome of these cuts, is raised food prices, unemployed farmers and less money being pumped into our economy.
We will now have a sharp increase in unemployed farmers, Teagasc advisors, Department of Agriculture staff, farm labourers, Hire Depot staff and anybody else who's income directly or indirectly relied on farming.

REPS accounted on average for ten thousand euro's a year to farmers who fulfilled the obligations of the scheme. This meant a lot of work had to be done to earn that money. How many farmers will now be forced to sit on their arses to get that ten grand on the dole?

Good post, i can't for the life of me believe 2 things

1) why this so called expert group would want to stop money coming into the country, as mentioned 65% and 75% of the funding for these schemes was coming from Europe, so by cutting this we are in fact reducing money from Europe so cutting subidies in effect is cutting exports
2) why the hell isn't Walsh making more of a deal about where the money is actually coming from?

Just so other people are aware, the average cost of every IDA job created is 65,000 paid for by taxpayers, the young farmers scheme was costing 11,000 majority funded by EU, yet this gets cut.

RedPlanet

Tipp Man wrote: »

1) why this so called expert group would want to stop money coming into the country, as mentioned 65% and 75% of the funding for these schemes was coming from Europe, so by cutting this we are in fact reducing money from Europe so cutting subidies in effect is cutting exports

That's great that we've been able to take advantage of our European neighbours to prop-up unsustainable enterprises here. But at some point that money is going to run out, or we'll have to repay it, or even, we'll wish that instead supporting some of our citizen's lifestyle choices, we'll wish that money was spent more meaningfully.
Like, more infastructure, more public transport, etc.

Tipp Man

RedPlanet wrote: »

That's great that we've been able to take advantage of our European neighbours to prop-up unsustainable enterprises here. But at some point that money is going to run out, or we'll have to repay it, or even, we'll wish that instead supporting some of our citizen's lifestyle choices, we'll wish that money was spent more meaningfully.
Like, more infastructure, more public transport, etc.

Well the reason they're paying it is because of the regulations they've brought in, stocking rates, nitrates etc, and its taken on the basis that is non refundable. also its from the CAP not CTP so no the funds are not available for infastructure/public transport/whatever

Please explain what exactly you mean by lifestyle choices??

RedPlanet

See post 20

Tipp Man

RedPlanet wrote: »

See post 20

Without a shadow of a doubt there are fundamental structural changes that need to take place in Irish farming, farm size is too small, land is not available to new entrants as readily as it should, older farmers too willing to hold onto land rather than sell when there is no successor

However its complete garbage that the state is sponsoring they're 4x4 lifestyle, perhaps if more people left suburbia for more than an annual outing they would see that there isn't a 4x4 lifestyle, the days of farmers with new cars and flashy jeeps are long gone. Also donegal fella whilst pointing out the average farm size also conveniently forgets to point out average farm income which for all farmers was 16,933k last year, a fall of 14% on previous year, and another 20% fall is expected this year. not even what they get on the dole

There's no doubt a lot of small farmers would be better off on the dole, would you rather pay dole and get nothing in return or get EU to pay a subsidy and get agricultural produce to give 10% of our exports

How do you think you'd surive on 17k a year??

Also What exactly does the price of sites have to do with farmer income??

Tipp Man

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What exactly is your background Donegal Fella, dairy beef tillage, what sizxe farm?? May i ask why aren't you farming if your from a farming background??

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Tipp Man

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well then i'm surprised to see you write such garbage to be honest

Would you class your parents as efficient farmers?? How much money do you think they'll make from 230 acres of tillage this year?

Do you not realise that farmers worldwide are losing money, cows in USA being shot rather than milked, millions of acres in eastern europe and Russia to be left fallow this year.

Do you know why this is happening??

The good thing for Irish farmers is that because of their efficiency and small size they are actually losing less money than their bigger compatriots worldwide

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nessie911

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You realy do sound like you think you are better than farmers... Look i live on a farm, my father farms 200 acres of a beef farm, allo four in my family have gone to college, my sister has her masters, my brother his degree, my other brother has a cert, and is a drafts man and apprentis capertener, and i am in college at the min, but that does not mean we think we are better than other people like you seem to do... My two brothers big dream is to farm, my father was ment to take the early retirement this year, due to health reasons, and now he cant because the goverment cut the early retirment sceme, so now the government is nearly paying the same to my brother because he is on the dole, because he could not take over the farm.

To say that farming is not a sustainable business is not true. My father as a single parent made his living off the farm, he paid for all of us to go to college, with only the farm income, while also expanding the farm. but truth be know he does need the grants etc because farmers are Not been paid wha other farmers across europe are being paid for there products...

As yea say that there are too many older farmers still farming, well you can blame Finna Fail for that as they took away the main insentive for both older men to leave farming and for younger ones to join, because they dont have a clue about what is actualy goin on.

Also donegal fella you have a total unrelistic view of farming because as you said above "But they sold quite a lot of prime commercial development land between 2005–07, and so they aren't dependent on tillage income anymore". so your parents are not the adv farmer, beacuse i can tell you that my father never sold an acre of land like your parents do...

No wonder you think that farmers drive round in there 4x4 jeeps, just cause your parents have a load of money to spend since they sold there land, does nt mean every one does.

Tipp Man

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

and are you prepared to pay the higher price for food that dismantling this system would lead to?? you do actually realise that you the consumer are the 1 that is actually being subsidised, you do realise that don't you??

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Tipp Man

nessie911 wrote: »

You realy do sound like you think you are better than farmers... Look i live on a farm, my father farms 200 acres of a beef farm, allo four in my family have gone to college, my sister has her masters, my brother his degree, my other brother has a cert, and is a drafts man and apprentis capertener, and i am in college at the min, but that does not mean we think we are better than other people like you seem to do... My two brothers big dream is to farm, my father was ment to take the early retirement this year, due to health reasons, and now he cant because the goverment cut the early retirment sceme, so now the government is nearly paying the same to my brother because he is on the dole, because he could not take over the farm.

To say that farming is not a sustainable business is not true. My father as a single parent made his living off the farm, he paid for all of us to go to college, with only the farm income, while also expanding the farm. but truth be know he does need the grants etc because farmers are Not been paid wha other farmers across europe are being paid for there products...

As yea say that there are too many older farmers still farming, well you can blame Finna Fail for that as they took away the main insentive for both older men to leave farming and for younger ones to join, because they dont have a clue about what is actualy goin on.

A great post, whilst everyone in agriculture knows that the strucutre of farming needs to change (land to be passed to younger farmers, new entrants etc) Mr Smith seems to think otherwise. Whatever chance there was of strucural reform with the retirement scheme and young famers grants, the abolition of those 2 schemes will hold the succesion of farms back in Ireland which is bad for the industry.

Also as you say when are people going to realise that farmers are producing the best quality of food the world has ever seen for UNDER COSTS OF PRODUCTION. I mean its pretty simple either Jo Public pays more for his food, which is passed onto farmers, or the subsidies continue. Irish farmers are too the forefront of top quality food production, best wheat producers, best grass growers etc, all they want is to earn a living, its that simple really

Tipp Man

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How can we not compete?? We are the best wheat producers in the world, we have a stable (albeit ****e:)) climate which grows the best and cheapest grass anywhere in the world, they're is no country in the world that can do farming better than Ireland can

nessie911

The government put strong incentives in place for many years to try to convince farmers to pass on their land to younger generations. The Early Retirement Scheme was one. The waiver on stamp duty when transferring land to qualified young farmers was another. What else did you expect the government to do?[/quote]

And these incentives were use when they were in place, i know many farmers in my area which used these. But now they are gone and people still was to use them like my father and brother, but my father was not old anofe to use them till this year, and now they are gone.

You tell me since you know alot about all types of farming what is he sapose to do for money if he gives up farming at the age of 55, which he is ment to because of serious health reasons.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nessie911

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

no one says that he should be any different but how is he to survive. Like the sceme was 15 thousand to let him retire, 75percent of which was comming from europe he could go claim some allowance from the government like most ppl are at the min, he could prob make 10 grand off the job seekers, get a free medical card, then i would actualy get a grant for college of round 6 grand it would prob work in our favour but he does not want to be a leach to a country which is already goin down the toilet.
if they left the sceme in place they would only have to pay less than four grand, but if he goes about it any other way they would end up paying at least 16

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

turgon

I worked on a farm 3 years ago for two summers in a row. The farmer I was working for was pretty well off, he had like a €150,000 surround sound system, nice cars etc etc. I think he had a 200 acre dairy farm, but I could be way off. I know he had more land than he used, for quotas etc. Anyway, he got €40,000 in CAP grants last year. Thats more than the average industrial wage. Clearly unsustainable.

Now, people are maintaining that removing these grants is useless; who is it hurting etc. The fact is that you are paying higher taxes for this produce. Even if you don't drink milk, don't eat beef, dont consume Irish cereals. The government has decided you must pay for this food, even if you don't eat it.

Instead, consumers should have their own control over to what food producers their money goes. If you think Irish beef is really great, then speak with your wallet. Equally if you don't care you should be fully entitled to eat cheap Brazilian beef.


Its clear that some members of the farming community have come to expect the government to pay for their lifestyle. Demanding retirement aid and REPS grants and all that. Its completely unsustainable.

nessie911

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Are you not one of the people who were giving out about the current age of farmers, and now your saying that they should not retire...

If it was your father who relayed on the farm for money but needed to retire because he is ill and will never get better only worse, do you think that you would have these views...

You say your parents are farmers is your fathere one of these older men that everyone here is giving out about...

nessie911

turgon wrote: »

I worked on a farm 3 years ago for two summers in a row. The farmer I was working for was pretty well off, he had like a €150,000 surround sound system, nice cars etc etc. I think he had a 200 acre dairy farm, but I could be way off. I know he had more land than he used, for quotas etc. Anyway, he got €40,000 in CAP grants last year. Thats more than the average industrial wage. Clearly unsustainable.

Now, people are maintaining that removing these grants is useless; who is it hurting etc. The fact is that you are paying higher taxes for this produce. Even if you don't drink milk, don't eat beef, dont consume Irish cereals. The government has decided you must pay for this food, even if you don't eat it.

Instead, consumers should have their own control over to what food producers their money goes. If you think Irish beef is really great, then speak with your wallet. Equally if you don't care you should be fully entitled to eat cheap Brazilian beef.


Its clear that some members of the farming community have come to expect the government to pay for their lifestyle. Demanding retirement aid and REPS grants and all that. Its completely unsustainable.

Any farmer who can hire help is alot better off than your adv farmer. most farmers must do it all them selves.

I think that the answer to all this is to get the irish people to start growing there own veg, keeping there own animals for killing and milking there own cow, and growing there own cereal, and we will see how long they will carry on doing this for. I would love to get the likes of brian cowen etc to come and live and work on a farm for a month and see if they will survive...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dresden8

In the 80's when jobs in Dublin were uneconomic the government let whole areas of the capital become sh1tholes, in the national interest, going forward.

What makes the farmers special that they get subsidised to maintain their lifestyles and Dubliners can feck off and live in junkie infested crapholes?

I suppose yet again, Dublin gets everything.

turgon

dresden8 wrote: »

What makes the farmers special that they get subsidised to maintain their lifestyles and Dubliners can feck off and live in junkie infested crapholes?

Because we have such a big government, you cant even decide who or what area is getting an advantage or a disadvantage.

For example I get on the bus and pay my fare. Is my fare covering the cost of the OAP's fare, so I'm actually paying for more than I get? Or is the income taxed taxpayer subsiding my bus so I'm paying for less than I get? Who knows?

Ideally we should pay for services as we get them, so those who get the most out of the system pay the most. This could be covered to include all kinds grants, from farmers to sports.

astrofool

Tipp Man wrote: »

Why are you talking about something that you obviously haven't a clue about.

My response about letting land lie fallow was in response to BriantheBard making the claim that farmers would need to be forced to do it in a regular climate, when it is something that they would do anyway (maintain the land through crop rotation, or letting it lie fallow), even if they didn't get an EU subsidy for it, nothing more, nothing less.

I do wonder if we have the best climate in the world for certain crops, how come we have such a problem competing?

Farmers also have to remember that the supermarkets are able to demand the prices they do because someone will supply them at that price, usually be someone who is milking the subsidy system dry. If all farmers refused to supply at that price, the price would go up.

networks

i get 8000euro single farm payment,5000euro forestry premuim,thats my subsidy,im milking 35 cows on 27 hectares,21cent a litre last month,i dont draw social welfare,00 car,02 tractor,joined reps4 ist b4 closing date t.g.but i do think its crazy to be paying some farmers the huge amounts of sf payments,and cattle dealers being the worst offenders owning farms all over the country on the backs of genuine farmers/ejits??i wont break the bank neway!!!!!!!:(

ninty9er

turgon wrote: »

The fact is that you are paying higher taxes for this produce. Even if you don't drink milk, don't eat beef, dont consume Irish cereals. The government has decided you must pay for this food, even if you don't eat it.

It's entirely more probable that some German or French person is paying for it. Ireland is still a net benefactor from the EU budget due to CAP...8 years after we were due to become net contributors.

I'd much prefer that German person's tax to be building a Western Rail Corridor or Cork City LUAS etc...

It'll work out cheaper to put 90% of farmers on the dole and run all farms as businesses.

I don't buy this bull**** from that toerag Padraig Walshe that rural Ireland will die without farming...he should take a look around. Most people in rural Ireland work in factories and own no more than 2 or 3 acres.