Single farm payments

castletrader

Just read the journal last night and they said that SFP would comence from Dec1 which is saturday .The money will hardly be in our accounts over the weekend or is it possible.Thanks

simx

castletrader wrote: »

Just read the journal last night and they said that SFP would comence from Dec1 which is saturday .The money will hardly be in our accounts over the weekend or is it possible.Thanks

Probably be tuesday I reckon,

whelan1

could be in tomorrow, will check first thing in morning... it will have mondays date on it but you will be able to spend it if its in...

whelan1

not in my account so hopefully tuesday

johnstown

whelan1 wrote: »

not in my account so hopefully tuesday[/Qote]
The department are sending the payments to the banks on Monday evening. So it will be a day or two before you see the money in your account.

whelan1

last year it was in our accounts on the second of december:rolleyes:

kevthegaff

whelan1 wrote: »

last year it was in our accounts on the second of december:rolleyes:

Not here yet:(

whelan1

maybe tomorrow

1chippy

rang today on a different matter and asked when i was on the phone. She said the majority of the farmers got it transfered into the accounts today. it is just down to the banks now.

bob charles

Santy has arrived for my landlords (I feel like Fr Ted as the money only rests in my account:(). Hope all in serious need of the SFP have it in the bank asap.

whelan1

in my account, i am with ulster bank

ootbitb

Here too BOI:)

td5man

Here too aib

the al kid

As above and Im with Danske Bank -formally N.I.B.


Al

raindodger

Christmas is back on again

whelan1

childrens allowance came in also...have laser card at the ready;)

Cran

Its in here too PTSB, and wait there it goes bye

razor8

Here too aib

whats the linear reduction for 2012 and 2011 all about?

nhg

Seemingly they paid out at the wrong rate in 2011 so it is a 'book balancing' exercise.

Tranceypoo

nhg wrote: »

Seemingly they paid out at the wrong rate in 2011 so it is a 'book balancing' exercise.

Would that explain why we got a few hundred less than what we were expecting?

razor8

nhg wrote: »

Seemingly they paid out at the wrong rate in 2011 so it is a 'book balancing' exercise.

but why is it for 2012 as well? it was €59 for both years

supersean1999

was wondering when i seen it online why it was few hundred down, never heard a word of deductions

castletrader

Got mine today as well , great.

blue5000

Got mine, and there's a few 100 less than I thought I was getting. I can go depress myself now by opening up all the un-opened post from the past 3 weeks. Think it'll be a case of screaming baby syndrome......

milkprofit

Why can government break written REPS agrement- pay so much than was in the contract
And they wont touch Croke Park

Conmaicne Mara

milkprofit wrote: »

Why can government break written REPS agrement- pay so much than was in the contract
And they wont touch Croke Park

Farmers don't strike, who does that hurt? Farmers.

Croke Park people can upset a lot more people by various industrial actions.

grazeaway

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Farmers don't strike, who does that hurt? Farmers.

Croke Park people can upset a lot more people by various industrial actions.

Yeah was trying to work out what that linear reduction crap was about. Wonder if I can get it back as it was late for the last few years.

As for the croke park agreement there is plenty of loopholes in it to make sure they can look after themselves, what other profession would make sure that a convicted corrupt bo***x like ray Burke would continue to be rewarded for his greed and deception by being given a 6figure pension so he can continue to line his pockets at decent people's expense.

simx

Still not In account, anyone else not get it yet?

red bull

razor8 wrote: »

Here too aib

whats the linear reduction for 2012 and 2011 all about?

I think its about the reduction in the area claimed, did you have to submit maps with a small area removed as eneligible ?

just do it

Got the text yesterday to say it was in.

The linear reduction has being happening every year, an extra % or 2 taken off any amount over €5,000. Not sure what it is up to this year, but it is probably about 6 or 8% deducted from amounts over the 5k.

just do it

Just had a look at mine, 14% off amount over 5k :eek:

td5man

just do it wrote: »

Just had a look at mine, 14% off amount over 5k :eek:

Think mine was 10%

20silkcut

Had 750 taken off me. That could have paid the electricity for the year.

darragh_haven

simx wrote: »

Still not In account, anyone else not get it yet?

Didn't get mine yet either, but I didn't get mine till a week after the most of ye last. No panic tho, panic would only stress me out.

paddysdream

Modulation is 10% this year on the SFP (disregarding the first 5k) and is going to be 12% next year !
This money is supposedly going to pay for scws aeos ect.
Got the text this morning so assume its in the bank or at least on its way.
On a different subject does anyone here agree with FF re. the 40k limit and the support for a flat rate?
Seen the figures and it strikes me that a lot of it is jealousy and looking over the ditch and worrying what the lad next door is getting instead or asking how can I make a few more bob.
There are 243(I think) people getting in excess of 100k in Ireland and to take this and redistribute it would give everyone else less than 2 euro per entitlement.
Even a cap at 40 or 50 thou. wouldnt make a major difference to the vast majority of people on low payments.
In case anyone thinks I am just thinking of number 1 my payment is a shade less than 30k on about 50 hectares; no stacking (mostly 10 and 22 month cattle subs plus some tillage and sheep(they didnt amount to much re. the SFP even with big numbers ;about 18 per head if I remember correctly)
The DED average here is 465 per hectare so we would be big loosers on a flat rate system.
Not in a disadvantaged area so no top ups etc and I feel all those pillar 2 measures(Reps aeos leader etc)suit only some people.
Thats my whinge over for this morning !!!

grazeaway

paddysdream wrote: »

Modulation is 10% this year on the SFP (disregarding the first 5k) and is going to be 12% next year !
This money is supposedly going to pay for scws aeos ect.
Got the text this morning so assume its in the bank or at least on its way.
On a different subject does anyone here agree with FF re. the 40k limit and the support for a flat rate?
Seen the figures and it strikes me that a lot of it is jealousy and looking over the ditch and worrying what the lad next door is getting instead or asking how can I make a few more bob.
There are 243(I think) people getting in excess of 100k in Ireland and to take this and redistribute it would give everyone else less than 2 euro per entitlement.
Even a cap at 40 or 50 thou. wouldnt make a major difference to the vast majority of people on low payments.
In case anyone thinks I am just thinking of number 1 my payment is a shade less than 30k on about 50 hectares; no stacking (mostly 10 and 22 month cattle subs plus some tillage and sheep(they didnt amount to much re. the SFP even with big numbers ;about 18 per head if I remember correctly)
The DED average here is 465 per hectare so we would be big loosers on a flat rate system.
Not in a disadvantaged area so no top ups etc and I feel all those pillar 2 measures(Reps aeos leader etc)suit only some people.
Thats my whinge over for this morning !!!

have feck all of a SFP less than 2k, we were milking during the reference years and were not entitled to redistrbuion.

td5man

20silkcut wrote: »

Had 750 taken off me. That could have paid the electricity for the year.

I take it your not milking!!

Min

What Simon Coveney and the IFA are really telling us is the following, the least profitable farmers are those with the higher payments and they need this to substitute their unprofitable enterprise, I mean their high productivity when it came to farming the premiums and subsidies.
The view is people who get smaller payments don't need fairness in the system, given they can produce food with less taxpayer money, just those on high payments would go out of business if they had to produce their food with the same proportion of taxpayer money per unit of food produced.

The fact is there is no logic in what the IFA and Simon Coveney wants. The top people in the IFA have high SFP and then they advise the government on what they want, when it is looking after their own payments.
No wonder there is talk of a backlash in parts of the west and north. Most farmers don't want an animal farm type system, where all are equal, just some are more equal than others.
Flat rate is the fairest system, it could be stacked in a certain way like x amount for the first 20ha, then a lesser x amount for the next 20ha and so on, it would help smaller farmers and the more land you have the more you get upto a cutoff point.
It is insulting to a lot of farmers to be told the most productive are on higher payments, when all they did was farm the premiums to get the higher payments.

paddysdream

Min wrote: »

Flat rate is the fairest system, it could be stacked in a certain way like x amount for the first 20ha, then a lesser x amount for the next 20ha and so on, it would help smaller farmers and the more land you have the more you get upto a cutoff point.
It is insulting to a lot of farmers to be told the most productive are on higher payments, when all they did was farm the premiums to get the higher payments.

How is flat rate the fairest?

What you are telling me is that someone should get the same amount on a mountainside ,in for example Mayo or Kerry, per hectare as someone farming productive land in the south east etc.

How would this help smaller farmers ? Average farm size in Ireland is less than 40 hectares so someone with a lot of poor land with very low or non existant SFP would gain big time for producing nothing or doing nothing other than having a lot of map acres.

The reason most people who have larger than average SFP have them is that they were the ones doing the work and taking the risk in those years.

Yes we were lucky that it was those particular years it was based on but if you picked another base period then I believe you would find that on average the same people would still come out best.

Lets face it;its unfair but then so is life.

Tipp Man

A Flat rate system is going to be an absolute disaster for the rental market

Why would sombody rent land for 150 an acre with they could get a payment of 200 an acre on it and sell some hay/bales from it

Tipp Man

paddysdream wrote: »

How is flat rate the fairest?

What you are telling me is that someone should get the same amount on a mountainside ,in for example Mayo or Kerry, per hectare as someone farming productive land in the south east etc.

How would this help smaller farmers ? Average farm size in Ireland is less than 40 hectares so someone with a lot of poor land with very low or non existant SFP would gain big time for producing nothing or doing nothing other than having a lot of map acres.

The reason most people who have larger than average SFP have them is that they were the ones doing the work and taking the risk in those years.

Yes we were lucky that it was those particular years it was based on but if you picked another base period then I believe you would find that on average the same people would still come out best.

Lets face it;its unfair but then so is life.

People seem to think that those with large farm payments just magically acquired them - ignoring completly that they were then the biggest farmers and are probably still the biggest farmers

20silkcut

td5man wrote: »

I take it your not milking!!

No. Wouldn't it be grand though to be getting a cheque every month? 750 euro loss would be easier to absorb.

This is me now for the year till next oct at least providing they get the advance again.

simx

darragh_haven wrote: »

Didn't get mine yet either, but I didn't get mine till a week after the most of ye last. No panic tho, panic would only stress me out.

i didnt get the first shot though yet either:mad:

just do it

Just back in home and see that "linear" deduction now for 2011 and 2012. What the ....???

Min

paddysdream wrote: »

How is flat rate the fairest?

What you are telling me is that someone should get the same amount on a mountainside ,in for example Mayo or Kerry, per hectare as someone farming productive land in the south east etc.

How would this help smaller farmers ? Average farm size in Ireland is less than 40 hectares so someone with a lot of poor land with very low or non existant SFP would gain big time for producing nothing or doing nothing other than having a lot of map acres.

The reason most people who have larger than average SFP have them is that they were the ones doing the work and taking the risk in those years.

Yes we were lucky that it was those particular years it was based on but if you picked another base period then I believe you would find that on average the same people would still come out best.

Lets face it;its unfair but then so is life.

I was getting my training with teagasc, we visited farms. The farms were set up to farm the premums, with 10 months steers premium, 22 month steers pemium, slaughter premium, extensification premium, suckler premium.

A lot were simply farming to suit the premiums.

Maybe the farmer on the side of the mountain needs a higher payment given he or she has to work with more disadvantages. It is funny that the most productive land needs the higher payment, given the most productive land will return a higher a return to the farmer.
So when it comes to helping out the farmers on the side of mountains, wet land or whatever the disadvantge is, you would say they should pay for their disadvantage by getting less, because the more profitable land needs higher payments...based on what happened in the past.

I was only starting out around the reference period and I don't have that large a payment, I am able to make a profit, pay the bills and have a bit leftover for whatever. I find it strange that some who are on far larger payments, multiples of what I get, would somhow be unprofitable and somehow need these high payments.
The fact is they don't, all this is taxpayer money and is no different to paying pensions which are too high to politicians.
One could argue a politician took a risk by going for election so if they make it upto the level of the Taoiseach they deserve €151k a year for their pension. It doesn't mean it is right, one could argue the top pension should be capped at a third of that amount, and it would be no harm if the SFP was capped, lets say at €20k and then what is left over it is redistributed in other ways, lets a say to fund a REPS scheme, the suckler cow scheme or sheep scheme.
When some are getting big payments it means others have to pay for it.

The big payments are mostly down to people being the most productive premium farmers in the past.

paddysdream

Min wrote: »

I was getting my training with teagasc, we visited farms. The farms were set up to farm the premums, with 10 months steers premium, 22 month steers pemium, slaughter premium, extensification premium, suckler premium

A lot were simply farming to suit the premiums.

Maybe the farmer on the side of the mountain needs a higher payment given he or she has to work with more disadvantages. It is funny that the most productive land needs the higher payment, given the most productive land will return a higher a return to the farmer.
So when it comes to helping out the farmers on the side of mountains, wet land or whatever the disadvantge is, you would say they should pay for their disadvantage by getting less, because the more profitable land needs higher payments...based on what happened in the past.

I was only starting out around the reference period and I don't have that large a payment, I am able to make a profit, pay the bills and have a bit leftover for whatever. I find it strange that some who are on far larger payments, multiples of what I get, would somhow be unprofitable and somehow need these high payments.
The fact is they don't, all this is taxpayer money and is no different to paying pensions which are too high to politicians.
One could argue a politician took a risk by going for election so if they make it upto the level of the Taoiseach they deserve €151k a year for their pension. It doesn't mean it is right, one could argue the top pension should be capped at a third of that amount, and it would be no harm if the SFP was capped, lets say at €20k and then what is left over it is redistributed in other ways, lets a say to fund a REPS scheme, the suckler cow scheme or sheep scheme.
When some are getting big payments it means others have to pay for it.

The big payments are mostly down to people being the most productive premium farmers in the past.

And those people will probaly be the most productive in the future regardless of what system if any is brought in.
If you want a system to help those on poorer land and give less to those with better land why not change it from the single farm payment to the single family farm social payment ie a nationwide farm assist programme .
To cap spf at 20k and put more into reps aeos etc would only suit a minority of farmers in my general area at least.
Coupled payments aint coming back lads in any meaningful form .
If they did eg heifer sub of 100 or ewe sub of 20 then all it would do is add 100 plus to the price of a heifer which the meat factory would say thanks very much for
As regards the ewe sub. then no thanks !!
Had lots of ewes for the subs in the good years and never saw anything better from it only a major price collapse in the spring when the retention period ended and people(me included)keeping lots of rubbish
Even now I would have 5 or 6 times the national average flock size and could double that in a few years with no major expense but still dont want a return to a ewe sub.
As far as I can see a return to subs would benefit no one only the factories
Hear a lot of weanling producers complaining about low payments cause they sold their stock in those years without punching them but what they forget is that they got the value of the subs(sometimes a lot more) included in the price in the mart and the purchaser then took all the risk re. finishing them .
And by the way am not a member of ifa icmsa icsa etc and think most of those involved are either messers or only out for themselves

epfff

paddysdream wrote: »

And those people will probaly be the most productive in the future regardless of what system if any is brought in.
If you want a system to help those on poorer land and give less to those with better land why not change it from the single farm payment to the single family farm social payment ie a nationwide farm assist programme .
To cap spf at 20k and put more into reps aeos etc would only suit a minority of farmers in my general area at least.
Coupled payments aint coming back lads in any meaningful form .
If they did eg heifer sub of 100 or ewe sub of 20 then all it would do is add 100 plus to the price of a heifer which the meat factory would say thanks very much for
As regards the ewe sub. then no thanks !!
Had lots of ewes for the subs in the good years and never saw anything better from it only a major price collapse in the spring when the retention period ended and people(me included)keeping lots of rubbish
Even now I would have 5 or 6 times the national average flock size and could double that in a few years with no major expense but still dont want a return to a ewe sub.
As far as I can see a return to subs would benefit no one only the factories
Hear a lot of weanling producers complaining about low payments cause they sold their stock in those years without punching them but what they forget is that they got the value of the subs(sometimes a lot more) included in the price in the mart and the purchaser then took all the risk re. finishing them .
And by the way am not a member of ifa icmsa icsa etc and think most of those involved are either messers or only out for themselves

well said bar the last line

Viewtodiefor

epfff wrote: »

well said bar the last line

I definitely agree SFp should be capped at maximum 40k.

Would land price be averaging 11k an acre if it was capped? I think not.

How can a small guy expand at those kind of land prices? He will be eaten up by the guy with the 80k SFp.
You might say that's life but it still don't make it right. And all this talk about they needing it is pure ****e, they don't need it they just feel they have a right to it!

Min

paddysdream wrote: »

And those people will probaly be the most productive in the future regardless of what system if any is brought in.
If you want a system to help those on poorer land and give less to those with better land why not change it from the single farm payment to the single family farm social payment ie a nationwide farm assist programme .
To cap spf at 20k and put more into reps aeos etc would only suit a minority of farmers in my general area at least.
Coupled payments aint coming back lads in any meaningful form .
If they did eg heifer sub of 100 or ewe sub of 20 then all it would do is add 100 plus to the price of a heifer which the meat factory would say thanks very much for
As regards the ewe sub. then no thanks !!
Had lots of ewes for the subs in the good years and never saw anything better from it only a major price collapse in the spring when the retention period ended and people(me included)keeping lots of rubbish
Even now I would have 5 or 6 times the national average flock size and could double that in a few years with no major expense but still dont want a return to a ewe sub.
As far as I can see a return to subs would benefit no one only the factories
Hear a lot of weanling producers complaining about low payments cause they sold their stock in those years without punching them but what they forget is that they got the value of the subs(sometimes a lot more) included in the price in the mart and the purchaser then took all the risk re. finishing them .
And by the way am not a member of ifa icmsa icsa etc and think most of those involved are either messers or only out for themselves

Well one could view the present system and what the IFA/Simon Coveney want as the farm assist for farmers on higher payments. Like people on higher pay, they should be protected as much as possible, the people with less should pay so the people with more have to take less pain.

I will be expanding a lot but under the ridiculous proposals by our government/IFA, I will be penalised - it will be longer than five years since I took the farm over so the extra payment for under being 40 would not count.

€20k is more than enough as a cap on payments, I don't even get half that and I make a decent profit.
I have taken risks with putting up buildings and buying land but apparently everything should upto 2020 should still be based on 2002.
It is this kind of backward view in agriculture that has held things back, like having to have a milk quota which was based on 1983, this held back the industry.
The historical payments attitude is doing the same, it is not there to encourage young farmers or other farmers, but to protect those who got the most in the past and any extra payments come with certain conditions. The IFA top people want their payments protected, FG want to protect their voters.
It is no different to the universal social charge - USC not being raised in the budget for higher incomes, the top civil servants who were involved in drafting the budget looked after themselves.
The top people in the IFA with their sfp of around €60k advising the government what is best for them, it is certainly not the flate rate system, just like raising the USC was not in the interest of the highly paid civil and public servants.
They all want to protect what they have and in this republic, we can live where some are some are more equal than others, those with influence can advise those with power to protect what they have, in the knowledge that those with less can pay.

Timmaay

paddysdream wrote: »

If they did eg heifer sub of 100 or ewe sub of 20 then all it would do is add 100 plus to the price of a heifer which the meat factory would say thanks very much for

Lets not fool ourselves, a pure area based SFP does not totally avoid this! What is happening at the minute is alot of beef farmers are basically selling to the factories at a loss, when you exclude theirown SFP. So the factories are getting a slice of the SFP indirectly. I'll fully agree that subs system isn't the way to go again, however once you have any form of market intervention from an economics point of view, just like what the SFP, it's very very difficult to direct the payment specifically at one party (in this case the SFP to the farmers), without everyone else, ie the factories, supermarkets, farm suppliers all taking their cut of it, indirectly from the market shift (ie farmers producing excess cattle).

However again the question that has been asked time and time again but often seems to be ignored, what is the SFP there for? Is it just to have security of food supply in Europe, and access to cheaper food (in which case it should be based on production levels), or is it just to be a direct payment to the farmers, which indirectly helps the local rural economy etc etc (in which case the payment should be about keeping as many farmers in business, even if they aren't very productive at all).

6480

what about all the large farms and big beef feedlots that large companys have and some of the meat factoies , they all get 2 or 300 k a year in sfp