IrishLad2012 wrote: » There is only 2000 farmers in this country getting over 50k in SFP.The IFA and Government dont want to cap SFP because of this small majority.Did you not read the OP's original post?
rancher wrote: » Where and how did you get that figure
Tipp Man wrote: » It's pretty simple how a flat rate will be a disaster It will drive the price of rental land through the roof, it's happening already, and will put a minimum rental price of over 200 euro for any kind of acre of land, any kind of decent land will be 300 It will promote armchair farming even more as there is absolutely no consequence for not producing
blue5000 wrote: » Did you read the article yet? French proposal looks good, but are there unseen cons in it?
signinlate wrote: » I don't see how it would be a disaster. However I do think the current system is impossible to defend. Why pay farmers on the basis of what they did over ten years ago? Why keep giving some farmers a competitive advantage? For example I can rent a field, put 10 cattle on it and receive €200/hectare sfp. If my neighbour rents the same field and he puts the same cattle on it yet he receives €500/hectare.
Tipp Man wrote: » I don't disagree A flat rate will be a disaster
Dont be daft wrote: » I do accept that thats only my own theory and you may very well be right, but if thats a side effect of having min. stock units to acquire payments then so be it. The alternative is a continuation of the scenario were the taxpayers subsidize not only loss making farmers but ones sitting on their arses. I frankly find it an insult have gone out and leased land of a farmer and stocked it while he sat in the house drinkin' tea, and at the end of it all he still got his cheque and I barely had enough to make it worthwhile.
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.
signinlate wrote: » Why would I want to do that? As I see it the CAP has become a payment for farming under a much stricter regulatory regime than our non-european competitors. There is also a political will in Europe to preserve the family farm model that isn't as strong elsewhere. Farmers are better off to be in a position where they can respond to market forces than producing for subsidy
IrishLad2012 wrote: » 2)The government and IFA are supporting aCAP that suits only 2,102 out of a total of nearly 130,000 farmers.
Tipp Man wrote: » Then abolish CAP altogether
caseman wrote: » If thier was a few herd numbers in the house hold, which is very common around me
Tipp Man wrote: » Apologies, got confused with the reps Either way my point on the DAS stands
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: » 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
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
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: » 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: » 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.
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.
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
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.
