Cap reform convergence

Cavanjack wrote: »

On average payments here. Won’t effect me. Anyway Can’t see why lads should be getting huge payments for the way their father farmed 20 years ago. At the same time why give the same payment to 10 acres of unproductive land as to 10 acres of top quality land.

It doesn't make sense either to take payments from drystock farmers to give to dairy farmers,
Even dairy farmers that have good entitlements based on 2013 cap reform acreage will change to below average entitlements when divided on their 2020 acreage as a high percentage have increased their acreage since,
INHFA would need to be careful what they wish for,

Base price wrote: »

I worked bloody hard in those years to build up a suckler herd - commercial & pbr's. I don't have huge payments but they are been eroded every year. GLAS is offsetting some of the loss but there is a cost with it.

I know of young farmers around here benefiting from the national reserve thingie, they are living far away from home whilst Mammy & Daddy are still doing all the farm work :mad:

And I know of older retired farmers getting their entitlements handed back to them with land leased. Swings and roundabouts.

Base price wrote: »

I worked bloody hard in those years to build up a suckler herd - commercial & pbr's. I don't have huge payments but they are been eroded every year. GLAS is offsetting some of the loss but there is a cost with it.

I know of young farmers around here benefiting from the national reserve thingie, they are living far away from home whilst Mammy & Daddy are still doing all the farm work :mad:

I count them worse than sofa farmers like myself, I don't deserve to keep my entitlements but neither do they either

Grueller wrote: »

And I know of older retired farmers getting their entitlements handed back to them with land leased. Swings and roundabouts.

I'd bet that the next CAP reform will finish that

Grueller wrote: »

All of them, or just those that are not on the farm daily?

Those farming ''on paper'' not on the farm daily

Base price wrote: »

At least you worked in the past to earn your entitlements.

Subsidies should only go to those farming. a percentage will come to landlords anyway

_Brian wrote: »

Hardly an election topic.

If you asked 99% of voters what convergence was they’d think it was a medical condition and you’d need medication to cure it.

Those below average payment/ha want convergence, those above average payment/ha don't, simples

JohnChadwick wrote: »

Anyone know how will convergence work.

Like, if you are on low value entitlements are you just guaranteed to get an increase in value, regardless of how many acres you have?

[Want to know if it's simple as the previous post above]

Pretty much how worked in the this CAP. It'll probably be similar in the next one. The below link explains it.

https://www.ifa.ie/basic-payment-scheme/

wrangler wrote: »

Unless our lobbyists are very good, the average payment will be a lot lower than the present.
The budget is being cut and there's more money being directed towards the environment.
Anything that was ever directed towards the environment usually meant a cut in production . The good REPs schemes are long gone, REAP scheme is a sign of things to come

Was there talk of front loading entitlements?

Or was that more something I either dreamed or maybe something I read in some ones election manifesto, which isn't worth a while pile

I have above average entitlements, but only 7ha... so front loading would suit me

What's front loading

Base price wrote: »

I know of young farmers around here benefiting from the national reserve thingie, they are living far away from home whilst Mammy & Daddy are still doing all the farm work :mad:

How do you know where they got them from?


All you can see is that they are claiming them. If their parents were actively farming then they wouldn't have naked land for them to claim entitlements on. They could lease naked land, but then that is hard enough got too.



It is also possible that they parents put some of their entitlements in the child's name for either tax reasons or for future planning permission reasons.

wrangler wrote: »

there is a partnership thing too where the parents entitlements are topped up by up to 3000/yr and a substantial tax reduction if the son/daughter farms with them. I don't know the details but I know people that are doing it and the sons/daughters are doing feck all on the farm, probably spending it in Coppers.
I think one of the conditions is that the farm is signed over in five years.
I was tolerating losing my entitlements until that racket started

It’s not great in fairness. BUT it’s also not fair that people who farmed intensively at the right times, 20 years ok, are getting bigger grants now and might be doing feck all. You have defended this before, saying anyone any good knew to build up entitlements. The whole grant system is skewed towards lads now who farmed or who’s father farmed intensively then. Often we see the next generation who come along who are making a great go of it after maybe their father didn’t run a good operation. It’s unfair that they are penalised as such.
I don’t know what the answer is though. Production based won’t come back for a long time, if ever.
When based per ha, will the lad with 200. Acres of a mountain get the same as a lad with 200 acres of prime lowland?

wrangler wrote: »

I don't defend my position,ie. getting subsidies and doing nothing, hence my criticism of young people away from home getting them and doing nothing as well.
As for keeping subsidies of twenty years ago and still getting them, well that's as fair as 35yrs milk quotas ever was.
Interestingly I put your last sentence to Luke Ming flanagan at a CAP reform meeting in 2013 as I knew of one hill case and if convergence happened then that hill farmer would have 20,000 SFP plus disadvantage in 2020 and mine would be 20000 too,
I had 500 sheep then and the hill farmer had 50. I don't know what that hill farmer is getting now, probably a lot more tha 20000 but mine is as forecast.
The important thing is that hill farmer has loads of time to work off farm.
Flanagan said I shouldn't need subsidies and I said I need them because he's doing such a lousy job in Europe

Is there such a thing as a fair cap for everyone then-probably not. Is production based the fairest, but it’s the total opposite direction cap Is going so we won’t see that

eire23 wrote: »

The journal doesn't make for great reading this morning. Anyone with high value entitlements is looking at a nice cut. Also the talk of €30 per ewe and €300 per suckler cow is never going to materialise imo. I'd have thought we were lucky to be getting the tenner per ewe for stuff that we would be doing anyways.

Define “high”

I haven’t looked through entitlement values coming across our books in some time but I’m quite sure I’ve seen sub €60 and up to €750 entitlements, I believe the latter were the result of stacking.

wrangler wrote: »

there is a partnership thing too where the parents entitlements are topped up by up to 3000/yr and a substantial tax reduction if the son/daughter farms with them. I don't know the details but I know people that are doing it and the sons/daughters are doing feck all on the farm, probably spending it in Coppers.
I think one of the conditions is that the farm is signed over in five years.
I was tolerating losing my entitlements until that racket started

Not familiar with that particular scheme, it must be a new early retirement scheme (the last one was used by older people in the same way as the Young Farmers Scheme now)

A lot of these cases sound like the parents using the child's name on paper (with their knowledge and consent) to maximise their own income. Technically possibly fraud from all involved but you can't assume the money is being spent in coppers.

The childs name will have to be on the farm account but it doesn't mean they're spending from it. On the other hand children can abuse parents and use them, it's always been that way. I've heard of a farm round here sold from under the parents probably 100 years ago now but nobody can tell what goes on behind closed doors .

I know other genuine cases too where the child is farming alongside a full time job. In those cases the top ups etc. are fair enough.

_Brian wrote: »

Define “high”

I haven’t looked through entitlement values coming across our books in some time but I’m quite sure I’ve seen sub €60 and up to €750 entitlements, I believe the latter were the result of stacking.

Anything over the national average is probably high relative to a lot of people. They don't give the national median value but I'm sure it's probably a fair bit lower.

Magic A wrote: »

I think this might be the scheme you are referring to no mention of entitlement top ups but there are tax credits to avail of


https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/rural-economy/farm-management/Fact-Sheet-succession-farm-partnerships-September-2018.pdf

Go to page three of this, you'll see about the top ups. don't know if this scheme still exists but there was huge incentives at teh time. it came in in the lastCAP reform and it's looking like there might be good incentives in this cap too.
However I haven't read to days IFJ yet.

https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/rural-economy/farm-management/Get-Financially-Fit-Farming-Independent-August2015.pdf

The pity is that this scheme is hugely abused

kevthegaff wrote: »

Herself done the greencert and we have a joint t herd number, she is a housewife with 3 kids while helping on the farm as much as possible. We applied for the young farmer top up and set up a joint account, all payments went through this account with some other farm stuff. Anyway got an inspection recently and the top up has been rejected due to some of the milk cheques not going into the joint account and a few cheques we lodged in our nearest town which is of a different account. Disgusted I am

Can you appeal that or is it worth it?

kevthegaff wrote: »

Herself done the greencert and we have a joint t herd number, she is a housewife with 3 kids while helping on the farm as much as possible. We applied for the young farmer top up and set up a joint account, all payments went through this account with some other farm stuff. Anyway got an inspection recently and the top up has been rejected due to some of the milk cheques not going into the joint account and a few cheques we lodged in our nearest town which is of a different account. Disgusted I am

I think they're auditing hard this year, probably because of Covid these can be done remotely and also to save any money they can.

I only got the 2020 payment a couple of weeks ago after an audit. The payment should have been made last December.

wrangler wrote: »

I don't defend my position,ie. getting subsidies and doing nothing, hence my criticism of young people away from home getting them and doing nothing as well.
As for keeping subsidies of twenty years ago and still getting them, well that's as fair as 35yrs milk quotas ever was.
Interestingly I put your last sentence to Luke Ming flanagan at a CAP reform meeting in 2013 as I knew of one hill case and if convergence happened then that hill farmer would have 20,000 SFP plus disadvantage in 2020 and mine would be 20000 too,
I had 500 sheep then and the hill farmer had 50. I don't know what that hill farmer is getting now, probably a lot more tha 20000 but mine is as forecast.
The important thing is that hill farmer has loads of time to work off farm.
Flanagan said I shouldn't need subsidies and I said I need them because he's doing such a lousy job in Europe

Well in fairness, the young lads in coppers are spending it on drink and fags - highly taxable goods, what are you spending yours on?!
Re the hill farmer scenario. First off, you say you had 500 sheep, but how many of those were needed to collect the payments? I dont think you are comparing like with like there. Theoretically, you could reduce numbers down to minimum and take up a second job also, could you not? So that bit isnt really fair.
Furthermore, you probably have the guts of 1000 high value lambs to sell come market time, the hill man has 45 skinny hill stores that will average 50 euro if he is lucky.
That is the thing - people are still being paid for production here, they just dont realise it.
Personally id be of the mind that people on good quality land that can produce higher value animals that are fit for the factory off mainly grass, are already being rewarded by the land itself, so I dont get why they would need higher value entitlements also.

So if I have a current unit value of 263 which includes greening for 2023 and on to keep it at that level il have to do the 20% eco scheme? Or am I still going to lose money with convergence?

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Well in fairness, the young lads in coppers are spending it on drink and fags - highly taxable goods, what are you spending yours on?!
Re the hill farmer scenario. First off, you say you had 500 sheep, but how many of those were needed to collect the payments? I dont think you are comparing like with like there. Theoretically, you could reduce numbers down to minimum and take up a second job also, could you not? So that bit isnt really fair.
Furthermore, you probably have the guts of 1000 high value lambs to sell come market time, the hill man has 45 skinny hill stores that will average 50 euro if he is lucky.
That is the thing - people are still being paid for production here, they just dont realise it.
Personally id be of the mind that people on good quality land that can produce higher value animals that are fit for the factory off mainly grass, are already being rewarded by the land itself, so I dont get why they would need higher value entitlements also.

Obviously, and naturally people are defending their own situations. But isn’t that what the anc is for? There is a massive variation of land quality in every parish in Ireland, not mind counties, so very difficult to dish it out as it was meant. I know of one sizeable farm in east Galway and they are the only farm in the area excluded from anc