HillFarmer wrote: » http://www.leitrimobserver.ie/news/farming-news/leitrim-macra-want-real-cap-reform-1-4820046 What are peoples views on a much lower rate per acre for marginal land?
Min wrote: » I loved the article and it was published in today's farming independent, loved the way he had a go at the IFA and the minister for trying to protect the payments of just over 2,000 farmers who get over €50,000 a year. Basically both parties working against the interest of 98.4% of farmers, the French model would be best and we should look to the French who are doing more for Irish family farms than the IFA or the government. Apparently if capped at 50k, we could have €400 for the first 20 hectares, €250 for the next 20 hectares and then lower again for the rest. But no this doesn't suit the IFA, as most of the leaders in the IFA get more than the €50k a year... I thought it was a great article. Nice to see someone having a real go at the IFA and the government for trying to protect the highest paid, as the lad in the article said, there is no problem when it comes to capping the DAS monies, which is down to €3k for most.
HillFarmer wrote: » Couldn't agree with you more. I'm amazed more small and marginal land farmers are not up in arms
rancher wrote: » Why single out IFA, none of the farm organisatios are supporting flat rate payment, How can any organisation support taking one members money and give it to another member. I said in a post months ago that the only policy open to IFA was that no member should lose too much
rancher wrote: » And if everyone maximised their subsidies like us....the budget would now be 4 or 5 billion or if we farmed like the 98.4% the budget would be 1/4 Billion. Credit where credit is due I say. Macra has members who are on farms with good SFPs... wonder what they think of Leitrim macra
Min wrote: » I bought land that has no SFP attached to it, apparently according to the IFA this makes me a farmer that isn't that productive Leitrim macra make a lot of sense. I like the system the French are proposing, the IFA are the most vocal and largest farming organisation in the country and they have been a disgrace when it has come to the CAP negotiations. So much so that if they want me to vote at the election next time, I will not be wasting petrol to go vote as I will not forget how they have tried to make sure those with the lower payments are penalised, because the ones with the big payments seemingly need protection or they might not want to get out of the bed in morning and be productive. While those on lower payments have to be productive and more profitable when it comes to the products they produce, because they don't have a large SFP to fall back on. It is the IFA who have the big marches to Dublin, I want them to see them care for family farms. They talk about the family farm then work to protect those with higher payments which is not in the interest of most family farms. I am totally supporting the French on this. It is a great agricultural country and from what I see they are doing far more for Irish family farms than the IFA is. Talk is cheap for the IFA, their actions do not reflect their talk, and to think I contribute money to them... The only problem with Leitrim Macra is the man has said what a lot think and what a lot are afraid to say in public. The truth hurts sometimes.
Poor Farmer in the hills wrote: » Capping payments must be a sensible option . Farmers getting a massive payment give farming a bad name and give ammunition for the anti-farmer lobby to attack all farmers.
freedominacup wrote: » Right so let's go the whole socialist hog and cap the SFP at around €11.5k or the average payment per farm in 2011...... any takers. Forget any links to production or acreage just a nice simple flat cap at the average payment with no facility to ever increase it. Anyone exiting farming would simply lose their payment to the national reserve to be distributed equally amongst all remaining farmers.I imagine everybody would like the cap to be set a couple of '000 above their own level though.
rancher wrote: » There is only one crowd lobbying to reduce farmers incomes and thats you lot, and not forgetting o'cuivs travelling circus....he wasn't worried about you when he scrapped the REPS ...a scheme that had very little cost to the country. If all the low sfp farmers stay at the level they were at in reference years and the high SFP farmers can't afford to maintain tha level they were at........there won't be much production going on
HillFarmer wrote: » Rancher, how are we lobbying to reduce money to farmers incomes? Irelands SFP will be nearly the same, its just the way the funds are distributed among farmers. All we are saying is the system should be fairer. Why is O'Cuivs meeting a travelling circus? I don't have any affiliation to any political party but at least he is getting a balanced view and meeting farmers to get a view of what is best for all irish farmers. You say if farmers with largeSFP are cut there will be no production. They will be plenty of production going on. I doubt the fields in Kilkenny and Tipperary will be empty.
Min wrote: » I'm lobbying here to increase incomes of the majority, rather than protecting the minority who make out they get the money because they are the most productive. The man from Leitrim Macra is lobbying to increase the income of the majority. I think the problem is greed, rather than anything to do with productivity. Where I live in Kilkenny, I get the DAS for farming in an area termed 'mountain type grazing land', which is very different to farming on the flatter land in Kilkenny which does have a longer growing season than the higher lands. This means the people on the better, flatter land can be more productive, have higher SFP because the spoon they are born with means they are simply starting off from a far more advantageous position. It doesn't mean the person on the higher ground isn't working just as hard to produce food and with higher costs - longer winter, more work to maintain land, higher rainfall. Then the person with the advantage of the better land getting higher payments for living in a more advantageous area. This paying more to people with better land does nothing to support the family farm, it is a support for better land over those who work and farm land that has natural disadvantages. The French proposals remove this and supports all, irrespective of land type, advantages and disadvantages. We need to support rural Ireland, not farmers with higher payments, who give the impression they aren't very efficient if they aren't able to farm on a lower payment so others get a bit more. The majority get €10,000 and under and the IFA are crying that a cap of €50,000 is too low... It shows the priority of the IFA, it is not towards those farmers on lower SFP. It is just sheer greed. There is no problem with the payment system used for the DAS, which should be used for the SFP. Never heard anyone claim the DAS was socialist in nature for it's sytem which caps the payments. SFP should be done in a similar manner to the DAS. Equity for all.
Tipp Man wrote: » introduce a matrix system which incorporates a flat rate payment combined with a rate linked to your stocking rate for example. The flat rate should be low to discourage "arm chair" farming (maybe 50 and acre) and then the rate increases as the level of the stocking rate increases. If they wanted to (in fact it would probably be necessary) they could have a bell curve for stocking - so once stocking rate gets above a certain point then the payment rate could drop off again. This should be easy to implement - there would be no reference year. You would simply fill out your area aid form and they will have your average stock held for the year. so you would be continously paid for your previous years efforts
Dont be daft wrote: » I've been of the opinion for a while now that this is probably the best option for everyone. At least then there is some faint link to productivity. The tillage sector would be a problem but then again I'm of the opinion that tillage is a complete waste of good land in this country. I think the "Labor Unit" would be another way to link it but that would favor dairy systems and the West/part-timers would be disadvantaged. In fact I'd be interested to hear opinions from people as to why a min stocking rate wouldn't be a fair compromise.
Tipp Man wrote: » It's also very easy to say that there are so many farmers with small SFP's - but how many of these are full time farmers?? Would you prefer to take SFP from full time farmers and give it to part timers?? I certainly wouldn't
signinlate wrote: » Any recoupling of the sfp to production would be a backward step. All it would achieve is give the factories a guaranteed and price insensitive supply. Farmers should have the freedom to produce, or not, as they see fit.
Tipp Man wrote: » Ah the equity of DAS - the very same equity which means that I couldn't claim 1 red cent of DAS while our neighbours directly across the river were able to claim 10k - farming exactly the same type of land - they just happened to be on the other side of the river - that's real equitable alright The amazing thing is that i would say that 95% of the countries farmers would kill to have this "disadvantaged" land It's also very easy to say that there are so many farmers with small SFP's - but how many of these are full time farmers?? Would you prefer to take SFP from full time farmers and give it to part timers?? I certainly wouldn't There are 2 very easy solutions to this distribution "problem" 1) get rid of CAP altogether - at a rough guess at least half the farmers in the country would be gone to the wall within 2 years - but at least they would have gone to the wall together in solidarity and fairness 2) introduce a matrix system which incorporates a flat rate payment combined with a rate linked to your stocking rate for example. The flat rate should be low to discourage "arm chair" farming (maybe 50 and acre) and then the rate increases as the level of the stocking rate increases. If they wanted to (in fact it would probably be necessary) they could have a bell curve for stocking - so once stocking rate gets above a certain point then the payment rate could drop off again. This should be easy to implement - there would be no reference year. You would simply fill out your area aid form and they will have your average stock held for the year. so you would be continously paid for your previous years efforts
Min wrote: » One could never claim €10k on the DAS, I think the maximum at the height was somewhere about €4.4k, now with sheepthe max is somewhere equal to or under €3.4K or with no sheep it is a bit less. If your neighbour told you €10k he or she were telling lies.
Tipp Man wrote: » Apologies, got confused with the reps Either way my point on the DAS stands
caseman wrote: » If thier was a few herd numbers in the house hold, which is very common around me
Tipp Man wrote: » Then abolish CAP altogether
