April fools...or is it

rangler1

http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/macra-wants-farmers-to-complete-a-mandatory-succession-plan-at-63/#
They can't be serious

Reggie.

rangler1 wrote: »

http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/macra-wants-farmers-to-complete-a-mandatory-succession-plan-at-63/#
They can't be serious

Well I'm kinda on both sides of the fence her on this. For instance the farm belongs to the man no question but in my own personal case the boss he would want to figure out what he plans to do in the future as when I'm finished in the forces I'll have to know which route I'm taking.

I think it takes lads so long to "let go" of the farm that the next generation has made other arrangements or lost interest and then the older generation complain or claim that the next generation has no interest in continuing on farming.

Bass Reeves

Rangler

When I get to 63 I be going to court on age discrimination. This has as much chance of flying as a fat pig. They are way out of line in regard too the way longer retirements are are forcing people to work longer.

ganmo

It's something I was thinking about not too long ago, what would happen if there was a mantatory retirement age for farmers. (Positives less farm deaths, negatives land going derelict where there is no obvious heir)

Since then there's been talk of removing mantotory retirement age from workers contracts so I'm very surprised about this tbh.

There hasn't been a more positive environment for transferring to the next generation whether it's the young farmers or the possible fear of the fair deal but it's still taboo to talk about in some households.

Cavanjack

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Rangler

When I get to 63 I be going to court on age discrimination. This has as much chance of flying as a fat pig. They are way out of line in regard too the way longer retirements are are forcing people to work longer.

It would be a tough sell at 73 never mind 63

Waffletraktor

We all know of farms that plan to have sucession sorted out by the time the (great?) grand kids are due to take over.... Lifes to short to be waiting on the word of one day this will all be yours promises from some bitter old curmudegeon.

Username John

It's a difficult one...

I think to try to force people to think about succession is a good thing. Do I think making it mandatory that a plan has to be completed at 63, I'm not sure that's the way to go...
But again, making people think about it and communicate plans is a good thing...

But - you can't treat a sector as self employed one minute, not giving them any security... and then once they turn a certain age, they then start getting treated as employees, and are 'forced to retire'

This having to form a partnership or agreement or whatever over 70 is ridiculous...

rangler1

Username John wrote: »

It's a difficult one...

I think to try to force people to think about succession is a good thing. Do I think making it mandatory that a plan has to be completed at 63, I'm not sure that's the way to go...
But again, making people think about it and communicate plans is a good thing...

But - you can't treat a sector as self employed one minute, not giving them any security... and then once they turn a certain age, they then start getting treated as employees, and are 'forced to retire'

This having to form a partnership or agreement or whatever over 70 is ridiculous...

Farming is a poor enough income for one, now macra want it shared to top up a young fellows day job....... you couldn't make it up

Username John

rangler1 wrote: »

Farming is a poor enough income for one, now macra want it shared to top up a young fellows day job....... you couldn't make it up

The article really gives the feel that it written to force old lads out...

But, having said that - I don't fully agree with your comment re a top up for a day job. It may be true in some cases, but not all...

What about the lads who want to go farming full time? Not saying they should be given the farm when their old lad turns a certain age, but they should be told what the old lads plans are... so they can decide their own way in life...

patsy_mccabe

You have to be fair to the next generation too. Waving a carrot in front of them for decades will only lead to bitterness. The age profile of farmers is getting worst, year on year.

50HX

Sam Kade

Username John wrote: »

It's a difficult one...

I think to try to force people to think about succession is a good thing. Do I think making it mandatory that a plan has to be completed at 63, I'm not sure that's the way to go...
But again, making people think about it and communicate plans is a good thing...

But - you can't treat a sector as self employed one minute, not giving them any security... and then once they turn a certain age, they then start getting treated as employees, and are 'forced to retire'

This having to form a partnership or agreement or whatever over 70 is ridiculous...

They want the retirement age pushed out to 68 and then 70 but want farmers thinking about retirement at 63 and make it compulsory :rolleyes: Macra can take a running jump.

Who2

Will this not create another scenario where it's going to be as lads hit late fifties that they just say, why bother sure I've to give it up in a few years anyway. I wouldn't like to think after a life's slogging that at a set point and time I have to let it go. Why should someone have to hand something over? If it's there's and they worked for it then they deserve it. None of us are entitled to someone else's property or life, is it not down to each of us to make our own way. It kinda stinks of the land commission set up.

rangler1

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

You have to be fair to the next generation too. Waving a carrot in front of them for decades will only lead to bitterness. The age profile of farmers is getting worst, year on year.

Agreed, if there isn't an income for two, it should be made clear, then there's no carrot being waved.
There's great opportunities for young people now....I'd find it hard to stomach paying out for college and then they ending up on the farm, unless of course there was 500 acres involved returning a professional income
Macra condemning oldies to the OAP is a bit innocent

Buford T. Justice XIX

Tbh, it looks like a bit of kite-flying from Macra to start a debate on farm succession.

Saying that, though, there does need to be a debate in each household about who exactly is going to take over the farm, when it is going to happen and how it's going to happen. I don't think making it mandatory is going to make it any more palatable to the older lad who wants to stay going whatever the consequences.

A relative recently started farming in his own right after his father died. He was 56! Will he be willing to pass it on in the next 10 years?

Madness, Ted!

rangler1

A neighbour transferred to his grandson. I really thought it was the ideal, he's only in his late twenties and full of energy

Sam Kade

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Tbh, it looks like a bit of kite-flying from Macra to start a debate on farm succession.

Saying that, though, there does need to be a debate in each household about who exactly is going to take over the farm, when it is going to happen and how it's going to happen. I don't think making it mandatory is going to make it any more palatable to the older lad who wants to stay going whatever the consequences.

A relative recently started farming in his own right after his father died. He was 56! Will he be willing to pass it on in the next 10 years?

Madness, Ted!

He will only have 7 years to magic macra day.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Sam Kade wrote: »

He will only have 7 years to magic macra day.

5 years, that was 2 years ago:P

patsy_mccabe

rangler1 wrote: »

A neighbour transferred to his grandson. I really thought it was the ideal, he's only in his late twenties and full of energy

Did this neighbour's son work on the farm and if so was he ever paid for his work?

yewtree

I would say macra are just trying to stir up a debate rather than think this might happen.
A lot of older farmers would be better off financially if they let go of management of the farm. A well run progressive farm is much more likely to be able provide two incomes. Sucession does not always have to mean transfering the land.

rangler1

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

Did this neighbour's son work on the farm and if so was he ever paid for his work?

Not much, he put in long hours at his own job. the grandson helped out a lot growing up so had it well earned

Who2

There's a lot of old lads out there that have no one or anything bar their few acres to keep them going, will macra call around and make sure they teach these boys how to play golf and ensure they provide some sort of goal so that they have something to live for, or maybe they could convert an old she'd and house all the inconveniences, so that some sharp young lad who likes the idea of farming can be catered for.

mf240

Age discrimination.

Injuryprone

Jebus, alot of the posts on this thread don't say much about the literacy levels among the farming community anyway.

Since when does "succession plan" mean forced retirement! What's to say a 62 year old farmer can't sit down with his next of kin and make a plan to transfer the farm on the date of his 100th birthday

Who2

Injuryprone wrote: »

Jebus, alot of the posts on this thread don't say much about the literacy levels among the farming community anyway.

Since when does "succession plan" mean forced retirement! What's to say a 62 year old farmer can't sit down with his next of kin and make a plan to transfer the farm on the date of his 100th birthday

Who's to say he has a next of kin, the fear of being stuck in a home or forgotten about, even the lack of trust that their own children won't just abandon them is enough for most to hold on for years to come. Why does this next of kin deserve it, and don't say for all the help they've given, people go into these situations with their eyes open. If a persons physically fit to farm, then let them be. There's a lad ninty years old farming not far from me and he'd put most young lads to shame.

Muckit

I can't really see the problem with passing on the farm early to the next generation, especially if you were a part time farmer (like the majority).

You have the pension from the day job, none of the headaches and unless they put a barring order on you, you can still potter around.

Only person it wouldn't suit is a control freak.

Waffletraktor

Who2 wrote: »

Who's to say he has a next of kin, the fear of being stuck in a home or forgotten about, even the lack of trust that their own children won't just abandon them is enough for most to hold on for years to come. Why does this next of kin deserve it, and don't say for all the help they've given, people go into these situations with their eyes open. If a persons physically fit to farm, then let them be. There's a lad ninty years old farming not far from me and he'd put most young lads to shame.

Holding someone who is an anomaly having already buried practically all of his contemporaries is not a good example.

Sam Kade

Injuryprone wrote: »

Jebus, alot of the posts on this thread don't say much about the literacy levels among the farming community anyway.

Since when does "succession plan" mean forced retirement! What's to say a 62 year old farmer can't sit down with his next of kin and make a plan to transfer the farm on the date of his 100th birthday

On the subject of literacy you missed this "For farmers over 70, in order to continue to receive a CAP payment, the organisation proposed that they must enter a collaborative farming arrangement".:rolleyes:

Who2

Waffletraktor wrote: »

Holding someone who is an anomaly having already buried practically all of his contemporaries is not a good example.

Why is it not a good example

Reggie.

Who2 wrote: »

Why is it not a good example

I'd say as there ain't too many 90 year old out there like that

Injuryprone

Sam Kade wrote: »

On the subject of literacy you missed this "For farmers over 70, in order to continue to receive a CAP payment, the organisation proposed that they must enter a collaborative farming arrangement".:rolleyes:

Complete separate issue to the 63 year old succession plan being discussed.

But seeing as you brought it up, "collaborative farming arrangement" doesn't mean forced retirement or transfer either

Who2

Muckit wrote: »

I can't really see the problem with passing on the farm early to the next generation, especially if you were a part time farmer (like the majority).

You have the pension from the day job, none of the headaches and unless they put a barring order on you, you can still potter around.

Only person it wouldn't suit is a control freak.

Seriously a control freak. There's still a huge amount of older generation with children they are genuinely afraid to hand over too, another person locally who died recently who wouldn't sign over the farm for fear of loosing everything did so for good reason. Dead less than a year and nearly everything drank already. It's not always as clear cut as giving it to the eldest son. I know of another man who waited to give the farm to his daughters son because he didn't want to leave it to his own. What would they have had to do to keep everything right and all happy.

Username John

There seems to be two opposite views on here...

Some seem to so against even the thought of succession, it makes me thing maybe it's a better idea than I first thought to get the subject out there...

Some on this thread are more open...

I suppose, like everything in life - it's all relative to your life experiences... maybe where you are in life...

I'm all for discussions and open communication about the future, just from a practicality perspective. Regardless of succession, do your wives and children know what will happen, finically speaking, if you die tomorrow?

Some here seem to think that raising the subject is a means to rob the land from under them... which seems odd...

Who2

Reggie. wrote: »

I'd say as there ain't too many 90 year old out there like that

Yes but should they all just curl up and die and let someone else take over, farming is what a lot of them live for. Let them do it. Progressive farmers or not are we really that stuck to produce more for export at break even prices just to pamper the ego of some young lad.

ganmo

Sam Kade wrote: »

On the subject of literacy you missed this "For farmers over 70, in order to continue to receive a CAP payment, the organisation proposed that they must enter a collaborative farming arrangement".:rolleyes:

are there many over 70s who operate without help?

something needs to happen to encourage elderly lads to talk to those around them about succession. it might help reduce the amount of farm deaths and incidents like this http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/court-gives-elderly-farmer-last-chance-to-hold-onto-his-cattle/

Reggie.

Who2 wrote: »

Seriously a control freak. There's still a huge amount of older generation with children they are genuinely afraid to hand over too, another person locally who died recently who wouldn't sign over the farm for fear of loosing everything did so for good reason. Dead less than a year and nearly everything drank already. It's not always as clear cut as giving it to the eldest son. I know of another man who waited to give the farm to his daughters son because he didn't want to leave it to his own. What would they have had to do to keep everything right and all happy.

Best that as it may but not every case is a horror like that either.

I know cases where all family members know who is getting what and know other cases where sons who are mad to farm but aren't allowed out from under the thumb had to go into partnerships or rent land elsewhere so they could be thier own bosses.

The fathers in these cases are begrudge to them now as they are away from the family farm not working under them the whole time. Sometimes ya just can't win

Reggie.

Who2 wrote: »

Yes but should they all just curl up and die and let someone else take over, farming is what a lot of them live for. Let them do it. Progressive farmers or not are we really that stuck to produce more for export at break even prices just to pamper the ego of some young lad.

No one is saying letting them curl up and die but what's wrong with letting the next generation have some authority and power of decision. I heard of lads 40 years of age who aren't allowed to sign cheques. A deal over a tractor fell through as the father of 90 refused to sign it. That's not healthy in any industry.

Also know of neighbours here who run the farm and the parents are still involved with relief milking and such. I'm told they are dreading the day they can't help out anymore as they are great to help out. I think it's unfair to say it's all about egos

Who2

Reggie. wrote: »

Best that as it may but not every case is a horror like that either.

I know cases where all family members know who is getting what and know other cases where sons who are mad to farm but aren't allowed out from under the thumb had to go into partnerships or rent land elsewhere so they could be thier own bosses.

The fathers in these cases are begrudge to them now as they are away from the family farm not working under them the whole time. Sometimes ya just can't win

No but who is it for you or me to say they deserved that farm. Maybe young lads need to realise they need to cut their own cloth.

Who2

Reggie. wrote: »

No one is saying letting them curl up and die but what's wrong with letting the next generation have some authority and power of decision. I heard of lads 40 years of age who aren't allowed to sign cheques. A deal over a tractor fell through as the father of 90 refused to sign it. That's not healthy in any industry.

Also know of neighbours here who run the farm and the parents are still involved with relief milking and such. I'm told they are dreading the day they can't help out anymore as they are great to help out. I think it's unfair to say it's all about egos

Well maybe that son should have pulled pin years ago. He has a successor but is milking the last bit of life out of him , it'll suit that lad yes but what about the old lad down the road with forty acres and no one but a nephew living up in the big smoke. Should he just leave it to him at 63 and let him decide to plant it because he couldn't be arsed travelling the distance down to the back of beyond. My fathers in his seventies and we farm together, I'd have to change a lot of things if he wasn't here as I doubt I'd have the time, but he's here now and it's what keeps him going every day.

Username John

Who2 wrote: »

Seriously a control freak. There's still a huge amount of older generation with children they are genuinely afraid to hand over too, another person locally who died recently who wouldn't sign over the farm for fear of loosing everything did so for good reason. Dead less than a year and nearly everything drank already. It's not always as clear cut as giving it to the eldest son. I know of another man who waited to give the farm to his daughters son because he didn't want to leave it to his own. What would they have had to do to keep everything right and all happy.

Everyone should be left do what they want with their own farm. But if they have kids or grand kids with any inclining to farm, they should let them know where they stand too. Tis only fair...

In the last situation above, it sounds like the man couldn't deal with the fall out of not giving it to the expected person, so instead of dealing with it - they said let them sort it out when I am gone? That's not right either... whatever fallout might have happened before the man died, twould only have been amplified after his death...

We have all heard of good stories and bad stories when it comes to land...

It's up to you to decide which story you want to be in - the one that's open and honest, and leave others decide what they want to do once they have the information, or the one that holds on and maybe pushes people away, or leads people on...

Grueller

There are two sides here. The older generation own it. It is up to them what they do with it. Nobody else has angry right to do it. The flip side however to this is that they then have no right to demand that the younger generation be affected their beck and call to do the work on farm. Both sides of this coin have been abused the country over.
A situation over the road here is developing where a widow in her 80s is playing three nephews (these are not brothers but all first cousins) off against each other. One of them has pulled pin and told her to lamb her own ewes. He has had enough.
A bit of discussion would go a long way.

Reggie.

Who2 wrote: »

Well maybe that son should have pulled pin years ago. He has a successor but is milking the last bit of life out of him , it'll suit that lad yes but what about the old lad down the road with forty acres and no one but a nephew living up in the big smoke. Should he just leave it to him at 63 and let him decide to plant it because he couldn't be arsed travelling the distance down to the back of beyond. My fathers in his seventies and we farm together, I'd have to change a lot of things if he wasn't here as I doubt I'd have the time, but he's here now and it's what keeps him going every day.

Ive no interest in that article I'm just saying every situation is different is all

Bass Reeves

I look at this differently. Tell me another private business where you are forced to arrange succession in your early sixties and then hand over that business to a successor or take on a partner of a stranger to you just because they may have a green cert done. It very presumptive of Macra. It assumes that the farmers can afford to or wants to retire. What rights will this stranger have when the older farmers gets too old to be involved.

The other part about payments is it is recognised that in drystock and tillage BPS payments will make up a large part of your profits.Therefore it is a forced retirement scheme. It's smacks of socialism, it also smacks of an idea that Macra consider that older farmers are not entitled to decide there own future. This is the second time that recently Macra have proposed a Land Commission type proposal to get access for so called young trained farmers to grab land.

It interesting in that I know no young farmers in Macra. Would these all be the sons and daughters of larges farmers who do not want to have to buy land.

John_Rambo

You might need to collaborate with a young farmer that can explain things to you! They don't want anyone to retire at 63!

Cavanjack wrote: »

It would be a tough sell at 73 never mind 63

Bass Reeves wrote: »

When I get to 63 I be going to court on age discrimination.

In the document, the young farmers’ organisation wants it made mandatory for farmers to complete a succession plan at 63 years (not give up the farm or the work at 63), with a transitional payment available for farmers between 65 and 70 years. For farmers over 70, in order to continue to receive a CAP payment, the organisation proposed that they must enter a collaborative farming arrangement.


God forbid you might get a creative, enthusiastic young farmer to collaborate with that will bring new ideas, streamlined methods, more money and enhanced safety!

I do appreciate that's it's hard to let go, change, hand over the tiller when it comes you your own farm. And, I realise that there's cutehoers out there that will see strategic, coup like opportunities.

mf240

We will all be old if we live long enough.

ganmo

Grueller wrote: »

There are two sides here. The older generation own it. It is up to them what they do with it. Nobody else has angry right to do it. The flip side however to this is that they then have no right to demand that the younger generation be affected their beck and call to do the work on farm. Both sides of this coin have been abused the country over.
A situation over the road here is developing where a widow in her 80s is playing three nephews (these are not brothers but all first cousins) off against each other. One of them has pulled pin and told her to lamb her own ewes. He has had enough.
A bit of discussion would go a long way.

I pulled the pin a few years ago. had to be done.
started back when the ould lad suggested a partnership after reading about the young farmers scheme in the journal.

Why I pulled the pin was I was working with him most weekends with no say in anything or payment for my time, i then wondered would I be left the land as a result of all this labour, I reckoned not and I'd have to buy it off the siblings. so then I said f it.
now I'm in partnership with him so I'll have an income from the work I do and a say in that work which I wouldn't of got if I hadn't pulled the plug.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I look at this differently. Tell me another private business where you are forced to arrange succession in your early sixties and then hand over that business to a successor or take on a partner of a stranger to you just because they may have a green cert done. It very presumptive of Macra. It assumes that the farmers can afford to or wants to retire. What rights will this stranger have when the older farmers gets too old to be involved.

tell me another business like farming where the elderly make up a large portion of the deaths?

its up to the older generation to start the conversation and make their wishes known and let the younger generation decide if they want they like what they hear.

Mooooo

You can't put a one size fits all scheme with regard to this. Would be better to supply help to those to organise succession or just start talking about it. Everyone is different, some want the land to stay in the family, I know of others that if kids don't show interest after finishing education the place will be sold for his own retirement, kids will be on their own two feet once educated and into a job.

Bass Reeves

John_Rambo wrote: »

You might need to collaborate with a young farmer that can explain things to you! They don't want anyone to retire at 63!






In the document, the young farmers’ organisation wants it made mandatory for farmers to complete a succession plan at 63 years (not give up the farm or the work at 63), with a transitional payment available for farmers between 65 and 70 years. For farmers over 70, in order to continue to receive a CAP payment, the organisation proposed that they must enter a collaborative farming arrangement.


God forbid you might get a creative, enthusiastic young farmer to collaborate with that will bring new ideas, streamlined methods, more money and enhanced safety!

I do appreciate that's it's hard to let go, change, hand over the tiller when it comes you your own farm. And, I realise that there's cutehoers out there that will see strategic, coup like opportunities.

The average person that nor reaches 65 will live to be 84. Remember the word mandatory is just that mandatory. So at 63 years of age a person has to make decisions that they may not be able to change. This is fine and dandy where a successor is defined especially in larger farms which are commercially viable. However what was viable 20 years ago is not now. It also will put a large number of farmers who farms on small acreage which they are capable of managing themselves forced to retire. If there is not an income for one person there will not be an income for two people.

Finally for this individual

God forbid you might get a creative, enthusiastic young farmer to collaborate with that will bring new ideas, streamlined methods, more money and enhanced safety!

let him do what I did buy his own f@@King place.

John_Rambo

Bass Reeves wrote: »

The average person that nor reaches 65 will live to be 84. Remember the word mandatory is just that mandatory. So at 63 years of age a person has to make decisions that they may not be able to change. This is fine and dandy where a successor is defined especially in larger farms which are commercially viable. However what was viable 20 years ago is not now. It also will put a large number of farmers who farms on small acreage which they are capable of managing themselves forced to retire. If there is not an income for one person there will not be an income for two people.

Finally for this individual

God forbid you might get a creative, enthusiastic young farmer to collaborate with that will bring new ideas, streamlined methods, more money and enhanced safety!

let him do what I did buy his own f@@King place.

Well, that's the point! That individual might end up buying his own place Just like you did. Your place!

And I did acknowledge the risk of interlopers.

Bass Reeves

John_Rambo wrote: »

Well, that's the point! That individual might end up buying his own place Just like you did. Your place!

And if he dose he is quite entitled to. What he is not entitled to is to be handed half a million in property for giving someone a hand a for a few years.

ganmo

Bass Reeves wrote: »

And if he dose he is quite entitled to. What he is not entitled to is to be handed half a million in property for giving someone a hand a for a few years.

is 20 considered a few?