Muckit wrote: » Your post wreeks of begrudgery. He is a businessman with a business head and you hold this against him? He has it sussed where the money is and runs his farm accordingly. Yes farming is good for tax writeoffs. The world and his mother knows this. It's deliberately done so. If the part time farmer gave up in the morning the whole economy would go wallop. It's given as a "sweetner." I always said there was money in farming, just not for the farmer. The man may drive a flash beemer but you can be damn sure farming didn't pay for it!! And if it did, we all could do worse than listen to him.
Limestone Cowboy wrote: » Plenty of middling stock here. Hard to get them all right even with the best will in the world.
Fireside Solicitor wrote: » Leaving out the begrudgery bit. Subsidies should be paid to active farmers only and similarly this test should follow through to the tax assessment with Revenue with restrictions for non active farmers. An active farmer test should be an economic one - if the individual derives 75% of his income from the farm including the subsidies. That still allows a spouse to work off farm. I totally disagree that the whole thing would go wallop. It will go wallop for definite as is with the EU pulling subsidies over the next decade. What’s left in the pot should go to active farmers only. This businessman can always lease the land and pay no tax on the lease income.
wrangler wrote: » They do have 'ordinary' sucklers toohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHScgFiWq_Q
Fireside Solicitor wrote: » Leaving out the begrudgery bit. Subsidies should be paid to active farmers only and similarly this test should follow through to the tax assessment with Revenue with restrictions for non active farmers. An active farmer test should be an economic one - if the individual derives 75% of his income from the farm including the subsidies.
croot wrote: » Because it suits you? I have a good off farm income as does most of my friends because in the west/north west especially full time farming is nonviable. In my DG all of the farmers are part time and and some of them are absolutely on top of their game. Coupled to that, BPS benefits are not that high in these areas. Going by your criteria that would wipe out 90% of suckler farms in this region. Are you more productive than all of these or do you just think you are?
patsy_mccabe wrote: » If you get rid of sucklers, then the present margin would have to be reflected in a factory price increase. People may produce at very low margins, but they won't produce at a loss. We are stupid, but we ain't that stupid. The only income then from land would be to work it hard, leading to even more cattle in the country.
Fireside Solicitor wrote: » On active farmer - see my earlier post and take this example which happens near us - and no Muckit this is not begrudgery. A 125 acre farm that has 40 cattle and pays a subsidy of 22k. Grass is let go wild and 2 fields have gone to seed since this man inherited it. What benefit is there to anyone in this system being allowed continue? A new definition of active farmer is needed and the above sort of thing is a waste. Use it or lose it.
jooksavage wrote: » That's fair enough but that guy sounds like an outlier and certainly doesn't resemble any of the lads I know who are holding down off-farm jobs. Hard cases make bad law and all that. If his farm is gone half wild, he should be penalised accordingly: keeping his land in Good Agricultural Environmental Condition is a requirement for the payment. Assessing everyone on the basis of farm vs. off-farm income is too blunt and doesnt allow for people like me who've taken over underperforming, under-invested farms and are working, with the help of the payment, towards making it more efficient and profitable.
Fireside Solicitor wrote: » Well that’s my point entirely. The system as is facilitates external “investors” who legitimately manipulate the system to their advantage and in the process reduce what is available to other farmers - for example they absorb subsidies for being non productive and they pay non market related prices for cattle because they don’t need to make a profit - furthermore it prolongs the slow death of certain areas. If by going my way we wipe out inefficient area within sectors then maybe that’s the cost because it’s going there slowly and no amount of us on blathering here will change that. Europe and food retail will drive it that way over the next decade. Ask yourself why would you encourage a young person to get involved in a subscale farming operation - let them go away and get skilled and they can some back at weekend to look at the field and take in the fresh air. Recouple to production, revise the tax code around farming as I said nothing to stop investors buying and leasing land on favorable tax terms.Market rules will apply. Those that can stay profitable will stay at it and those that won’t will leave the sector. You mightn’t like what I’m saying but that’s where it’s heading for non dairy.
Fireside Solicitor wrote: » Well that’s my point entirely. The system as is facilitates external “investors” who legitimately manipulate the system to their advantage and in the process reduce what is available to other farmers - for example they absorb subsidies for being non productive and they pay non market related prices for cattle because they don’t need to make a profit - furthermore it prolongs the slow death of certain areas. If by going my way we wipe out inefficient area within sectors then maybe that’s the cost because it’s going there slowly and no amount of us on blathering here will change that. Europe and food retail will drive it that way over the next decade. Ask yourself why would you encourage a young person to get involved in a subscale farming operation - let them go away and get skilled and they can some back at weekend to look at the field and take in the fresh air.Recouple to production, revise the tax code around farming as I said nothing to stop investors buying and leasing land on favorable tax terms.Market rules will apply. Those that can stay profitable will stay at it and those that won’t will leave the sector. You mightn’t like what I’m saying but that’s where it’s heading for non dairy.
Dickie10 wrote: » To be honest i think cash flow is king, i see the profit moniter on some all beef farms i dont know how they survive, going six months plus without any payment i dont know how they keep bills paid. i think sheep and beef are a good combinnation last year as i was doing the accounts i seen that only april was the only month i didnt have a cheque coming in. cash flow is what u need
wrangler wrote: » I see the new beef lobby group is going to look for a voluntary reduction of 10%in calves born in the country, Also a challenge to the Competition Authority. Being led by a member of the IFA livestock commitee and looking for a meeting with IFA. This has all happened before ......resulting in ICSA Doh...am I missing something
patsy_mccabe wrote: » When we export 80% of our beef, a reduction in numbers, voluntary or otherewise wouldn't make one iota of difference. I think people confuse factory price fluctuations due to factories looking to fill contracts on a weekly basis with the far bigger picture of a global market. We sell into a huge market at the end of the day any reduction in numbers here would have have feck all effect on price. Factories would just commit to lower contract volumes and continue as normal.
MfMan wrote: » Back on topic, what's being paid this week?
patsy_mccabe wrote: » 1 - If they pay non 'market prices' as you say, who do they buy these cattle from., why other farmers, of course. Do you hear them complaining? 2- If ' Market rules apply', then we'd all be eating Brazilian beef.
Bass Reeves wrote: » I have highlighted a few parts. First off most of the lads paying non market related prices for cattle tend to be summer grazers, those that are semi-retired on big SFP. TBH they tend to fund the lads producing non economic suckler cattle. When they go the suckler cow will finally go. If we have learned anything it is that efficient farmimg dose not pay. Maybe that businessman you alluded to is making more than you think. John Heney has a bit in todays Indo regard why he is gone extensive rather than intensive. Basically he was making nothing extra out of ration and fertlizer in his opinion. Would not totally agree with all that but it is valid to an extent. Your point about young people is actually valid, let them go away get an education, see the world and come back and farm in a profit efficient manner. Look at profit rather than output. Recoupling to production will only make extra monety for processors not for drystock farmers.We all see how when cattle supply numbers rise to processors price falls to farmer. How will you revise the tax code, the tax code cannot discrimate on your production or income level. If it is applied to farming it has to be applied to the local pub, shop and solicitor. Market rules are applying, more and more small to mid sized units are going part time because you could run a 100+ acre drystock farm that is set up right that you live on in 20-30 hours a week, maybe even less. Therefore lads that have smaller units are setting these up to draw the maximun profit with minimum input. A partimer with 50 good acres keeping 50-60 cattle all year around, either finishing or selling as forward stores making maybe 200/head has 10-12K + his SFP, GLAS and ANC as profit. He might have an income of 20-25K for maybe 20 hours/week work. All he needs to do is draw it down in an efficient manner the same as any business man will do. There are the lads that are profitable and staying in the game.
Cavanjack wrote: » €3.75 for bullocks
