cap the payments

kerry cow

Just a opinion .not that I have a big payment at all , but what's the rational behind capping payments in the new round of cap reform .
There's x amount of land and x amount of active farmers . Surely the person farming only should recieve the monies .
It's should be a flat rate payment per entitlement .if a big farmer works a lot of land then well and good .he probably needs that payment like everyone else .
Fair is fair .
It's unfair to pay out huge sums based on a historical time worked , and the stacking etc.
If you work you get paid .
If you lease out you should get nothing but your land rent .
Active farmers need to be over a certain threshold of activity, clarified by revenue .
I get a small payment but would increase if a level was applied to all .
I have no problem a guy getting 150k or more if he works the acres .

_Brian

I think allot harks back to the time of allocation.
If it were moved to maybe a five year rolling average of actual current farming activity then more lads would buy into the distribution.

And by farming activity it doesn’t need to be number of heads output, greening measures, compliance etc could all be factored in.

kevthegaff

What is digression payments? Anyone explain the details for 2020?

TPF2012

Agriland has it up that a Co. Cork farmer left 11 million in his will. Slow day at work, so i checked his payments on DAFM , 125,000 a year. Ridiculous system the way it is now, making people millionaires out of taxpayers money. CAP should be set at 200/ha and max payment of 50000.

wrangler

kerry cow wrote: »

Just a opinion .not that I have a big payment at all , but what's the rational behind capping payments in the new round of cap reform .
There's x amount of land and x amount of active farmers . Surely the person farming only should recieve the monies .
It's should be a flat rate payment per entitlement .if a big farmer works a lot of land then well and good .he probably needs that payment like everyone else .
Fair is fair .
It's unfair to pay out huge sums based on a historical time worked , and the stacking etc.
If you work you get paid .
If you lease out you should get nothing but your land rent .
Active farmers need to be over a certain threshold of activity, clarified by revenue .
I get a small payment but would increase if a level was applied to all .
I have no problem a guy getting 150k or more if he works the acres .

Dairy farmers getting the same entitlement as drystock farmers despite the difference in profit is a bit of a joke.
Trying to lease my farm here at the moment and it's evident that the landowner is getting a lot of the entitlement anyway, I've always said that the person farming the land should get the subsidy.
What is surprising is that there's no one interested in leasing the entitlements with the land....even one of the interested dairy farmers that had no entitlements said they don't bother with subsidies........nothing as queer as folk eh

Water John

One has to go back as to the purpose of the payments. They are income supports. So the question is, should the support be larger the bigger the turnover/size of your business?

Grueller

Water John wrote: »

One has to go back as to the purpose of the payments. They are income supports. So the question is, should the support be larger the bigger the turnover/size of your business?

I could be wrong here, but were they not by way of compensation for lower prices? Lower prices come from every hectare, regardless of how many hectares you farm, age, creed race or indeed if you farmed in the reference years or not.
With the above in mind I find myself agreeing with Kerry cow here. A flat payment per hectare and paid on every hectare with no cap on payments. The amount of hectares a lad farms is up to himself but the joke of one lad on €600 per ha on one side of a ditch and a lad on the other side getting nothing should be stopped.

Water John

The original SFP of 1992 was that. The more recent payment system which was decoupled from stocking rate and numbers, is an income support system.
From Google
https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/.../files/...payments/.../basic-payment-scheme_en.pdf

"With the 2013 CAP reform the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS)1, replacing the Single Payment Scheme (SPS)2, was created. The BPS offers a basic layer of income support to farmers, to be topped-up by other direct payments targeting specific issues or specific types of beneficiaries."

Floki

Grueller wrote: »

I could be wrong here, but were they not by way of compensation for lower prices? Lower prices come from every hectare, regardless of how many hectares you farm, age, creed race or indeed if you farmed in the reference years or not.
With the above in mind I find myself agreeing with Kerry cow here. A flat payment per hectare and paid on every hectare with no cap on payments. The amount of hectares a lad farms is up to himself but the joke of one lad on €600 per ha on one side of a ditch and a lad on the other side getting nothing should be stopped.

I wish that ^ was true.
If it was I'd have 1000 or even 100 acres by now.

Since we're getting all controversial on boards here lately maybe bps should only be paid to current full time farmers?

Grueller

Floki wrote: »

I wish that ^ was true.
If it was I'd have 1000 or even 100 acres by now.

Since we're getting all controversial on boards here lately maybe bps should only be paid to current full time farmers?

But Floki if the payments were levelled you could be as forthcoming at any conacre auction as any of these tillage lads are now.

If bps was only going to be paid to true full time farmers there would be only one bps in the 7 farms bounding my ditches. Contractors, landlords, postman, auctioneer, lorry driver would all lose out.

Water John

Floki, you have a point. This BPS, is an income support. Should other income be taken into account?
BTW, that would be against my own interest.

Floki

Grueller wrote: »

But Floki if the payments were levelled you could be as forthcoming at any conacre auction as any of these tillage lads are now.

If bps was only going to be paid to true full time farmers there would be only one bps in the 7 farms bounding my ditches. Contractors, landlords, postman, auctioneer, lorry driver would all lose out.

Personally think no matter way you work a payment system it'll never be fair.

If you were to level payments at say e.g 20k per farmer. You might get some equality. Then the only fiddling that might happen is if there's more than one in a family but then you'll get those back in tax. Maybe limit the payment to farmers with 30 acres and more and who can prove they're fulltime by their accounts.

I think big Phil mentioned proof of farming will have to shown for bps in the future.
It's up to each country to decide for themselves what they want to do now it seems.

Water John

My own opinion is give out a certain min amount, flat rate and have a top cap at the other end. Let tax claw back.
It's like a farming Universal Basic Income (UBI).

charolais0153

Think sfp should be goten rid of. The money should ne given out through specicfic grants like tams,bdgp and ewe scheme

Water John

The problem is Tams is providing funding, via grants, for new milking parlours for the expansion of production. That's us back to the start with over production.

Tied to environment and quality food production possibly.

kerry cow

Maybe we should get a payment to stop farming the land and just top off the growth and only pay bfp to them farmers and not the producer .

lalababa

TPF2012 wrote: »

Agriland has it up that a Co. Cork farmer left 11 million in his will. Slow day at work, so i checked his payments on DAFM , 125,000 a year. Ridiculous system the way it is now, making people millionaires out of taxpayers money. CAP should be set at 200/ha and max payment of 50000.

Didn't Cilios try to do something like this but Coveney messed with it in Ireland ?

arctictree

In my opinion SFP should be scrapped and replaced with an increased ANC payment which should then be capped.

Water John

Yes, there should be a cap. The large sums, that a few get, are indefensible, in any forum.
Kerry Cow, farming environmentally doesn't mean doing nothing with the land. Both activity and inactivity extremes should be discouraged.
I remember seeing a photo in a newspaper of five farmers lobbying Coveney, at the time. All five were drawing over €60K/year, each.

Waffletraktor

Water John wrote: »

Yes, there should be a cap. The large sums, that a few get, are indefensible, in any forum.
Kerry Cow, farming environmentally doesn't mean doing nothing with the land. Both activity and inactivity extremes should be discouraged.
I remember seeing a photo in a newspaper of five farmers lobbying Coveney, at the time. All five were drawing over €60K/year, each.

Indefensible how? What because your not recieving above your cap so others shouldn't either regardless.
Do larger farms not get to be compensated for loss in income from the same restrictions.
The irony coming from the bloke who wants subsidy grab ad-plants.

Water John

Ah attack me. I wrote that one of the suggestions, which would actually be against my own interest, was a good option.
Your over in the UK, where the Queen and Charles get millions from the system of farm payments. That's indefensible.
Waffle, you work in the tillage sector, which to my mind has got the poor end of the stick, in terms of income support.

MIKEKC

kerry cow wrote: »

Just a opinion .not that I have a big payment at all , but what's the rational behind capping payments in the new round of cap reform .
There's x amount of land and x amount of active farmers . Surely the person farming only should recieve the monies .
It's should be a flat rate payment per entitlement .if a big farmer works a lot of land then well and good .he probably needs that payment like everyone else .
Fair is fair .
It's unfair to pay out huge sums based on a historical time worked , and the stacking etc.
If you work you get paid .
If you lease out you should get nothing but your land rent .
Active farmers need to be over a certain threshold of activity, clarified by revenue .
I get a small payment but would increase if a level was applied to all .
I have no problem a guy getting 150k or more if he works the acres .

Government have brought in tax relief for long term leasing.What will happen to the farmers that leased long term?

Water John

A lot of deals have been long term lease, plus any payments back to the lessor. Not a good option by the active farmer leasing the land.

wrangler

Water John wrote: »

Yes, there should be a cap. The large sums, that a few get, are indefensible, in any forum.
Kerry Cow, farming environmentally doesn't mean doing nothing with the land. Both activity and inactivity extremes should be discouraged.
I remember seeing a photo in a newspaper of five farmers lobbying Coveney, at the time. All five were drawing over €60K/year, each.

I didn't see the picture but I probably could name them, I'd also guarantee that they had enterprises that justified their SFP at the time and you can't blame them from protecting their income. poor form to be using that information like that anyway.
All levels of SFP beneficiaries were lobbying coveney at that time....what would you expect

Willfarman

This issue is quite complex. Capping large active farms doesn't make sense as they often employ labour and are the movers and shakers, building buying and moving the rural economy.
The requirement is going to have to be active farming. The payment to the man for production/environmental works not the land owning gentry.

Waffletraktor

Water John wrote: »

Ah attack me. I wrote that one of the suggestions, which would actually be against my own interest, was a good option.
Your over in the UK, where the Queen and Charles get millions from the system of farm payments. That's indefensible.
Waffle, you work in the tillage sector, which to my mind has got the poor end of the stick, in terms of income support.

Ay and ye've made millionares out of horse folk in a tax free economy that recieve payments and equally indefenseble. Nevermind a beef barron or 2.
My employment and location are of no concern of yours, so go cry foul of attacks if you want.

Birdnuts

Waffletraktor wrote: »

Indefensible how? What because your not recieving above your cap so others shouldn't either regardless.
Do larger farms not get to be compensated for loss in income from the same restrictions.
The irony coming from the bloke who wants subsidy grab ad-plants.

Its pretty hard to justify these payouts of taxpayers money to the public when you see the likes of big-agribusiness corporations and well known multi-millionaire businessmen pocketing vast sums. I for one am glad the whole thing is being reviewed. The current system has failed miserably to stem the decline of rural areas and the loss of our farmland based natural heritage

Waffletraktor

Birdnuts wrote: »

Its pretty hard to justify these payouts of taxpayers money to the public when you see the likes of big-agribusiness corporations and well known multi-millionaire businessmen pocketing vast sums. I for one am glad the whole thing is being reviewed. The current system has failed miserably to stem the decline of rural areas and the loss of our farmland based natural heritage

Could just as easily say the same of supporting unviable farms expecting to be provided a living. Should it be put to a Eurovisison style vote who's allowed to apply:pac:.
The socio economics of tech putting people out af the country side has been going on for centeries, and we are on the verge of the second ag revolution which will amplify this in the next few decades. The veg houses already have automated greenhouses for the high value herbs. In a world where some people think growing food in a test tube is the next logical progression for 'natural farmland based heritage' i guess the next cap round is a mass aforestation programme as that battle has been lost a while ago. Tesco do web shopping, home delivery don't they sher? If we're going straight to the hyperbolic extremes of rights and wrongs of distrobution of funds designed to compensate for rules and regs everyone should adhere to, yet weekly folk post about flaunting them in Ireland. Go figure...

Water John

Said this in 1992 when McSharry proposals were in vogue. Don't bother with the subsidies, just a fair and decent price.
http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/farmers-would-rather-drop-cap-altogether-in-return-for-better-prices/
Considered a heretic.

The IFJ poll is indicating that 3 out of 4 think the cap should be €60K or less.

kerry cow

Water John wrote:

The IFJ poll is indicating that 3 out of 4 think the cap should be €60K or less.

How can people think it should be capped at 60k .
It's all relevant .
Of you farm 100 acres and get 15k and another farms 700 acres .why is he not entitled to his 75 k .
Answer the question .
Why is he not entitled to fair play ???

Water John

The word 'entitled' is often misused, as in this case. It is back to the core principle of the payments system. It's an income support.

You may be more astonished that 1/3 said under 20K, 1/3 said under 40K and 1/3 said under 60K as the cap.

Perhaps, and we know environment will be a key component. A Cork farmer here milking and still looking after the environment.
http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/farmers-must-be-rewarded-for-delivering-on-biodiversity-top-dairy-farmer/

wrangler

Water John wrote: »

The word 'entitled' is often misused, as in this case. It is back to the core principle of the payments system. It's an income support.

You may be more astonished that 1/3 said under 20K, 1/3 said under 40K and 1/3 said under 60K as the cap.

Perhaps, and we know environment will be a key component. A Cork farmer here milking and still looking after the environment.
http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/farmers-must-be-rewarded-for-delivering-on-biodiversity-top-dairy-farmer/

That poll probably consisted of farmers voting to take it off anyone with better entitlements than themselves....polls mean nothing.
Unlikely to be more than 25% of farmers getting more than 60k anyway and they'd be voting for a higher Cap as evident in the Poll.

paddysdream

Lets end the arguments here and now and present a united front to big Phil and the EU.

As everyone knows the BPS should be capped at exactly one euro more than the present payment of the individual concerned.So therefore it should be ?

On a more serious note the next BPS scheme looks like a continuation of the present one with added "green cover" to justify it to the European taxpayer.Probably a compulsory green element with more actions etc plus a continuation of the levelling of payments ,both nationally and EU wide.Last time we were targeting 250 a hectare Europe wide by 2027 if memory serves me right.


Biggest issue could be funding it with Brexit.

Floki

paddysdream wrote: »

Lets end the arguments here and now and present a united front to big Phil and the EU.

As everyone knows the BPS should be capped at exactly one euro more than the present payment of the individual concerned.So therefore it should be ?

On a more serious note the next BPS scheme looks like a continuation of the present one with added "green cover" to justify it to the European taxpayer.Probably a compulsory green element with more actions etc plus a continuation of the levelling of payments ,both nationally and EU wide.Last time we were targeting 250 a hectare Europe wide by 2027 if memory serves me right.


Biggest issue could be funding it with Brexit.

Brexit is the only reason this is all being discussed in the EU. The pot is going to get reduced but cute Phil says it's up to the individual member States if they want to make up the shortfall or not.
In the meantime we have popular pr noises coming out from europe about capping top payments and increasing payments to small family farms. It's a slam dunk of a thing to avoid protests while at the same time dealing with a reduced cap pot.

Sheep breeder

arctictree wrote: »

In my opinion SFP should be scrapped and replaced with an increased ANC payment which should then be capped.

Why would you increase ANC payments on poor land that can not produce much more out put,do you really want a farmers dole for ANC land.

Bitten & Hisses

lalababa wrote: »

TPF2012 wrote: »

Agriland has it up that a Co. Cork farmer left 11 million in his will. Slow day at work, so i checked his payments on DAFM , 125,000 a year. Ridiculous system the way it is now, making people millionaires out of taxpayers money. CAP should be set at 200/ha and max payment of 50000.

Didn't Cilios try to do something like this but Coveney messed with it in Ireland ?

IIRC Coveney just rolled over and accepted the IFA's position as the one which best suited the country as a whole. It was the whole, "The biggest payments are received by the most active farmers" red herring.