Cap reform convergence

Say my name

Say my name wrote: »

Who's Hans Weirner Meis?

Google search throws up Maam metal recovery company.

And what are these environmental payments people/companies are getting?

(directed at anyone that'll answer not just Bass.)

Meis is originally from Germany, just from what I've heard (I've actually been on his place but on other business) he owns most of a valley about 3,000 acres. I've seen him in the mart a few times, he lives in the valley and farms it.

Remember "Lambo"? https://www.rte.ie/archives/2017/0601/879575-reality-radio-row/

I'm only *guessing* about the environmental payments but I'd say things like GLAS/Hen Harrier/Pearl mussel/EIP's.

I'm only now getting the punchline of a joke of questionable taste told by a neighbour of his, an Englishman, 11 years after he told it :rolleyes:

Young95

Young95 wrote: »

I see front loading of payments is being pushed for in Europe. I wonder how much per top up per hectare would be worth ?

It depends........ because we don't know if it'll be implemented here or not, or if it is how it'll be funded.

I have heard the figure of €80/ha top up on the first 15 hectares.

But again, don't take that as Gospel please.

MayoAreMagic

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/100-convergence-as-a-townie-i-know-it-will-benefit-everyone-in-rural-ireland/

Interesting points made by ming flanagan a full two years ago. Some people dont like him, I think he is an honest type personally, but either way, what he has said has more or less been shown to be true, particularly around how the trope that was upwards only convergence played out.

Interesting to see if the 100,000 limit, or something close to it, comes in also. If it does then id be asking serious questions about what is being reported to us in certain media outlets, and what is actually going on in europe. Im starting to get the impression that a fair bit more is known about the thing than we are being led to believe.

Donald Trump

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/100-convergence-as-a-townie-i-know-it-will-benefit-everyone-in-rural-ireland/

Interesting points made by ming flanagan a full two years ago. Some people dont like him, I think he is an honest type personally, but either way, what he has said has more or less been shown to be true, particularly around how the trope that was upwards only convergence played out.

Interesting to see if the 100,000 limit, or something close to it, comes in also. If it does then id be asking serious questions about what is being reported to us in certain media outlets, and what is actually going on in europe. Im starting to get the impression that a fair bit more is known about the thing than we are being led to believe.

100k limit would be worked around by a lot of people.



You'd either have a wife claiming the remainder, or a separate company or a child etc.

MIKEKC

Donald Trump wrote: »

100k limit would be worked around by a lot of people.



You'd either have a wife claiming the remainder, or a separate company or a child etc.

You can't claim privately and as part of a company.If this was possible people would be claiming ANC Glas etc on the double

Gman1987

MIKEKC wrote: »

You can't claim privately and as part of a company.If this was possible people would be claiming ANC Glas etc on the double

On the BPS database I have seen a local fella getting payments in his own name and in two separate company names.

MIKEKC

Gman1987 wrote: »

On the BPS database I have seen a local fella getting payments in his own name and in two separate company names.

Strange that because a neighbour who trades as a company had to remove his wife as a director when she started farming on her own. Advisor told him she couldn't benefit from both payments. Although in reality they being husband and wife they both benefited whoever the money came from.

Bass Reeves

Donald Trump wrote: »

100k limit would be worked around by a lot of people.



You'd either have a wife claiming the remainder, or a separate company or a child etc.

In theory yes however you have to make sure it will not effect your business elsewhere. For dairy farmers if they split the payment may cause issues with there nitrates and cause you to exceed limits which may effect sticking rates.

As well you need to be able to separate holdings. Land may be tied up with leases that may prevent separating out onto different units. As well both farms have to be treated as separate units which involves separate tax returns, separate farm plans, separate herd tests. Cattle transferred between units will incur movements. Sales from units have to go into that units accounts.

For ultra large payments it will entail setting up separate companies, transferring assets out of one company into another it may entail taxation issue.

Donald Trump

Bass Reeves wrote: »

In theory yes however you have to make sure it will not effect your business elsewhere. For dairy farmers if they split the payment may cause issues with there nitrates and cause you to exceed limits which may effect sticking rates.

As well you need to be able to separate holdings. Land may be tied up with leases that may prevent separating out onto different units. As well both farms have to be treated as separate units which involves separate tax returns, separate farm plans, separate herd tests. Cattle transferred between units will incur movements. Sales from units have to go into that units accounts.

For ultra large payments it will entail setting up separate companies, transferring assets out of one company into another it may entail taxation issue.

I already know of two tillage families in my area where the father has almost 100k in payments and each has one son on 20-30k in payments. While they may be separate on paper, an outsider would not be able to tell which land the sons are claiming on.

As regards dairy and nitrates, slurry can be easily exported to the "second" unit. They will still get hit with the new >170kg before export rules, but I'd say most fellas would be over that anyway.


As regards separate herds etc., one would imagine that the second unit would just not have any animals. Second unit might just "sell silage" to the first and so on. The lads in danger of exceeding a 100k threshold are likely large tillage men anyway.

Bass Reeves

Donald Trump wrote: »

I already know of two tillage families in my area where the father has almost 100k in payments and each has one son on 20-30k in payments. While they may be separate on paper, an outsider would not be able to tell which land the sons are claiming on.

As regards dairy and nitrates, slurry can be easily exported to the "second" unit. They will still get hit with the new >170kg before export rules, but I'd say most fellas would be over that anyway.


As regards separate herds etc., one would imagine that the second unit would just not have any animals. Second unit might just "sell silage" to the first and so on. The lads in danger of exceeding a 100k threshold are likely large tillage men anyway.

The problem for intensive dairy is the 250 kg actual limit. You must remain below that. When a unit is split it causes an imbalance, then whst happens is one unit hits 170 kgs the other unit cannot export into it.

Most of the 100 k threshold will be large scale dairy and finishing beef units who drew a lot of slaughter premiums.

If it was going to be that easy to manipulate the system WTF are they fighting so hard against it.

wrangler

Bass Reeves wrote: »

The problem for intensive dairy is the 250 kg actual limit. You must remain below that. When a unit is split it causes an imbalance, then whst happens is one unit hits 170 kgs the other unit cannot export into it.

Most of the 100 k threshold will be large scale dairy and finishing beef units who drew a lot of slaughter premiums.

If it was going to be that easy to manipulate the system WTF are they fighting so hard against it.

I Know one farmer that's using three different names /companies in his business

Bass Reeves

wrangler wrote: »

I Know one farmer that's using three different names /companies in his business

I know people that are set up that way at present. However if you are not set up that way it may not be easy to restructure it especially in a company structure.

If you set up a company you transfer assets into it. Those assets are transferred into it at a certain value it usually only stock and machinery. These are usually the book value they are at in you accounts. Say the book value is 150k. Your company is set up with 100 X1 euro share. The stock put I to the company is considered a loan into the company. You can then withdraw that money tax free from the company which always done when the company is profitable.

Now because of BPS restructure you need to transfer that to a new company in your spouse or a child's name.BPS has a value as has stock. Recently a father and son operation got ended up with a one million tax bill for improper working's of a company structure.

alps

Donald Trump wrote: »

I already know of two tillage families in my area where the father has almost 100k in payments and each has one son on 20-30k in payments. While they may be separate on paper, an outsider would not be able to tell which land the sons are claiming on.

As regards dairy and nitrates, slurry can be easily exported to the "second" unit. They will still get hit with the new >170kg before export rules, but I'd say most fellas would be over that anyway.


As regards separate herds etc., one would imagine that the second unit would just not have any animals. Second unit might just "sell silage" to the first and so on. The lads in danger of exceeding a 100k threshold are likely large tillage men anyway.

Lot of guys on high payments returning the payment to the landlord. Going to be some complication if the payment changes to be front loaded. Each landlord will demand the front loaded figure?? Will landlord just take land back and farm it themselves? What if they are in long term leases? Carnage..

alps

Bass Reeves wrote: »

The problem for intensive dairy is the 250 kg actual limit. You must remain below that. When a unit is split it causes an imbalance, then whst happens is one unit hits 170 kgs the other unit cannot export into it.

Most of the 100 k threshold will be large scale dairy and finishing beef units who drew a lot of slaughter premiums.

If it was going to be that easy to manipulate the system WTF are they fighting so hard against it.

There's no fight against an upper level restriction.

wrangler

alps wrote: »

Lot of guys on high payments returning the payment to the landlord. Going to be some complication if the payment changes to be front loaded. Each landlord will demand the front loaded figure?? Will landlord just take land back and farm it themselves? What if they are in long term leases? Carnage..

Any one that leased in the last few years and not be aware that they were putting their payment at risk would be a bit naive.
Lots of landlords forfeited their entitlements last CAP reform and it won't be a lot different this time, it won't be carnage as people will be expecting it

MIKEKC

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I know people that are set up that way at present. However if you are not set up that way it may not be easy to restructure it especially in a company structure.

If you set up a company you transfer assets into it. Those assets are transferred into it at a certain value it usually only stock and machinery. These are usually the book value they are at in you accounts. Say the book value is 150k. Your company is set up with 100 X1 euro share. The stock put I to the company is considered a loan into the company. You can then withdraw that money tax free from the company which always done when the company is profitable.

Now because of BPS restructure you need to transfer that to a new company in your spouse or a child's name.BPS has a value as has stock. Recently a father and son operation got ended up with a one million tax bill for improper working's of a company structure.

. Saw that
,crazy situation they made no effort whatsoever to set it up properly

green daries

Young95 wrote: »

From a young farmers point of view I think convergence is the only way forward. The sooner all those beef farmers with beef and sucklers with high value entitlements get brought down to reality the better . A lot of lads renting land and losing there shirts on it only to be kept propt up and still leasing it with there high entitlements. It will free up land for young farmers .

Unfortunately no such chance will that happen

MayoAreMagic

Donald Trump wrote: »

100k limit would be worked around by a lot of people.



You'd either have a wife claiming the remainder, or a separate company or a child etc.

Id imagine all farm units being inspected on the same day would be one way to weed out the fake ones from the real ones.

Donald Trump

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Id imagine all farm units being inspected on the same day would be one way to weed out the fake ones from the real ones.

How do you weed out the tillage farmer with 120k BPS whose son works for him. Father stops paying the son a salary so that he is no longer "working for him" but instead transfers to him 30k of his BPS entitlements (net of whatever clawback there is from transfer)


Inspector arrives out. Check's the fields on senior's BPS application and sees some nice crops of winter wheat. Then checks the fields on junior's BPS application and sees some Spring barley.



Hectares submitted for BPS don't have to be owned. Nor are financial accounts part of the application. Nor are there any requirements on machinery owned or in your name.

MayoAreMagic

Donald Trump wrote: »

How do you weed out the tillage farmer with 120k BPS whose son works for him. Father stops paying the son a salary so that he is no longer "working for him" but instead transfers to him 30k of his BPS entitlements (net of whatever clawback there is from transfer)


Inspector arrives out. Check's the fields on senior's BPS application and sees some nice crops of winter wheat. Then checks the fields on junior's BPS application and sees some Spring barley.



Hectares submitted for BPS don't have to be owned. Nor are financial accounts part of the application. Nor are there any requirements on machinery owned or in your name.

It mightnt be a silver bullet for everything, but it would definitely help with guys having 3 or 4 different herd numbers to maximise their payment. I doubt you would be able to stop every loophole going in one move.

And back at it again in Brussels

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/fairness-for-730000-farmers-is-aim-of-inhfa-trip-to-brussels/

orchard farm

Deleted User wrote: »

And back at it again in Brussels

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/fairness-for-730000-farmers-is-aim-of-inhfa-trip-to-brussels/

The final push?

orchard farm

orchard farm wrote: »

The final push?

Lol, who knows. If it is, it's just the final push of this stage.

Dinzee Conlee

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And back at it again in Brussels

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/fairness-for-730000-farmers-is-aim-of-inhfa-trip-to-brussels/

Not sure I’d agree with him saying they’re waiting 20 years for it?
The current system needs reform, but at the start it was probably as fair a system as any...

Anyways, I’ll leave them at it...

Dinzee Conlee

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

Not sure I’d agree with him saying they’re waiting 20 years for it?
The current system needs reform, but at the start it was probably as fair a system as any...

Anyways, I’ll leave them at it...

I'd agree to disagree

wrangler

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

Not sure I’d agree with him saying they’re waiting 20 years for it?
The current system needs reform, but at the start it was probably as fair a system as any...

Anyways, I’ll leave them at it...

It'll probably end up close to a flat rate, I know drystock farmers with nice farms and they say a reduction in BPS will tip them into dairying , one local drystock farmer even developing a 3-400 cow dairy enterprise at the moment.
The local Teagasc beef advisor is even developing a dairy enterprise on his drystock farm

orchard farm

Being a weekly reader of the journal ive cross referenced the farmers who are againest convergence in that paper with their direct payments for 2020 and all i can say is shame on you for cribbin when your payments are many,many many multiples of the national average while this process is all about trying to increase the majoritity of low income farmers payments up from 60% of the national average

Dinzee Conlee

orchard farm wrote: »

Being a weekly reader of the journal ive cross referenced the farmers who are againest convergence in that paper with their direct payments for 2020 and all i can say is shame on you for cribbin when your payments are many,many many multiples of the national average while this process is all about trying to increase the majoritity of low income farmers payments up from 60% of the national average

Ah, people are always going to try to keep what they currently have... You’re trying to get a piece of the pie, which is fair enough too.
But to say they should be ashamed, I don’t know. If I stood to lose out by a lot, I’d probably be against it... Everyone must fight their own corner too to an extent...

wrangler

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

Ah, people are always going to try to keep what they currently have... You’re trying to get a piece of the pie, which is fair enough too.
But to say they should be ashamed, I don’t know. If I stood to lose out by a lot, I’d probably be against it... Everyone must fight their own corner too to an extent...

More especially when it's a political decision you're trying to influence, because there'll be influencers coming from all sides.
To the victors the spoils then

Dinzee Conlee

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

Ah, people are always going to try to keep what they currently have... You’re trying to get a piece of the pie, which is fair enough too.
But to say they should be ashamed, I don’t know. If I stood to lose out by a lot, I’d probably be against it... Everyone must fight their own corner too to an extent...

I don't think anyone is surprised farmer x want's to keep their level of public money. However, they need to seriously up their argument. That's what most have a problem with I reckon.

In the previous CAP it was "Oh those on highest entitlement values are the most productive", ahm no, Department of Agriculture figures disproved that, albeit too late in the day that time.

Then, "Oh won't someone think of those on high value entitlements but low # of hectares", wait, what's that sound? It's ALL the other farm orgs apart from INHFA throwing exactly those farmers under the bus at the first available opportunity being against CRISS/Front loading.

Then, and probably the most useless argument in the history of the world, that of the "commercial farmer", that most successful of business personality s/he needs both hands in the public purse to make his poor system choice add up.

I'm awaiting the next installment from the "My brother is bigger than your brother" book of playground tiffs with baited breath.