Common Agricultural Policy - nice earner for billionaires
Discussion
hornetrider said:
So, Prince Khalid Abdullah al Saud gets 400k a year from the CAP.
Other beneficiaries include estates owned partly or wholly by the Queen (£557,706.52); Lord Iveagh (£915,709.97); the Duke of Westminster (£427,433.96), the Duke of Northumberland (£475,030.70 ) the Mormons (£785,058.94).
Should 'the sytem' be paying multi-millionaires a few hundred k out of the public purse in order to maintain their own land? Or should they be doing it themselves...?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37493956
So the answer is what, keep the system of farming subsidies in place, unless the recipient is already rich ? Or persuade rich people that they should voluntarily give up money they are entitled to under the same system as all other farmers ?Other beneficiaries include estates owned partly or wholly by the Queen (£557,706.52); Lord Iveagh (£915,709.97); the Duke of Westminster (£427,433.96), the Duke of Northumberland (£475,030.70 ) the Mormons (£785,058.94).
Should 'the sytem' be paying multi-millionaires a few hundred k out of the public purse in order to maintain their own land? Or should they be doing it themselves...?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37493956
Or perhaps, shock horror, have a proper revision of the way farming subsidies work across the board. The fact that rich people with lots of land benefit more (in £s terms) is a great headline grabber but a complete red herring
[quote]
Or perhaps, shock horror, have a proper revision of the way farming subsidies work across the board. The fact that rich people with lots of land benefit more (in £s terms) is a great headline grabber but a complete red herring
[/quote]
It just highlights the absurdity of the whole thing. The taxpayer gives money to government, who give it to the EU to give back to the farmers and that (allegedly) keeps food prices low.
The whole multi billion pound subsidy juggernaut is kept chugging along, we have overproduction of foods and higher levels of obesity whilst being told that subsidies cannot be removed because food costs will rise and hill farmers / dairy farmers will go out of business.
I would prefer to have higher food costs along with the tax saving. (My uncle ended his dairy farming in the 80's because even then there wasn't any money in it).
Or perhaps, shock horror, have a proper revision of the way farming subsidies work across the board. The fact that rich people with lots of land benefit more (in £s terms) is a great headline grabber but a complete red herring
[/quote]
It just highlights the absurdity of the whole thing. The taxpayer gives money to government, who give it to the EU to give back to the farmers and that (allegedly) keeps food prices low.
The whole multi billion pound subsidy juggernaut is kept chugging along, we have overproduction of foods and higher levels of obesity whilst being told that subsidies cannot be removed because food costs will rise and hill farmers / dairy farmers will go out of business.
I would prefer to have higher food costs along with the tax saving. (My uncle ended his dairy farming in the 80's because even then there wasn't any money in it).
£500K? pffft, hardly worth getting out of bed for... try €62M
https://www.french-property.com/news/french_life/e...
https://www.french-property.com/news/french_life/e...
tfa said:
The largest recipient is the chicken production conglomerate Doux, who received a whopping €62.8 million in aid between October 2007 and October 2008. In the year 2008 the group had a turnover of nearly €2 billion.
quite awful, we get shoved programmes and screaming headlines about ppl on benefits but it's ok for the rich to receive taxpayer
money. One of my biggest beefs is grouse shooting landowners, who clear all indigenous predators off their land, divert rivers, get taxpayer money from this govt per hectare and then sell shooting parties for grouse (which is an invasive species, not of this land). What's more galling is that these ppl now have rights to shoot native eagles which threaten grouse which are already in low low numbers. These ppl are disgusting and we the tax payer are paying for them.
money. One of my biggest beefs is grouse shooting landowners, who clear all indigenous predators off their land, divert rivers, get taxpayer money from this govt per hectare and then sell shooting parties for grouse (which is an invasive species, not of this land). What's more galling is that these ppl now have rights to shoot native eagles which threaten grouse which are already in low low numbers. These ppl are disgusting and we the tax payer are paying for them.
What is odd is that on a considerable number of farms round my way there were big pro exit signs in the run up to the referendum. We have our milk from a consortium of local cow farms (not the technical term I think) and we had literature put through our door some time last year about them not being able to cope without subsidies.
Yet the one nearest to us has three great exit signs in the run down to a roundabout.
These payouts are, I assume, counted for the purposes of benefit scroungers?
Yet the one nearest to us has three great exit signs in the run down to a roundabout.
These payouts are, I assume, counted for the purposes of benefit scroungers?
New Zealand got rid of farm subsidies years ago. Farmers diversified and started producing the stuff that consumers wanted, rather than farming the stuff that attracted the greatest subsidy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-ross/farm-subsi...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-ross/farm-subsi...
Harji said:
quite awful, we get shoved programmes and screaming headlines about ppl on benefits but it's ok for the rich to receive taxpayer
money. One of my biggest beefs is grouse shooting landowners, who clear all indigenous predators off their land, divert rivers, get taxpayer money from this govt per hectare and then sell shooting parties for grouse (which is an invasive species, not of this land). What's more galling is that these ppl now have rights to shoot native eagles which threaten grouse which are already in low low numbers. These ppl are disgusting and we the tax payer are paying for them.
Grouse ARE a native species, and golden eagles are still a protected speciesmoney. One of my biggest beefs is grouse shooting landowners, who clear all indigenous predators off their land, divert rivers, get taxpayer money from this govt per hectare and then sell shooting parties for grouse (which is an invasive species, not of this land). What's more galling is that these ppl now have rights to shoot native eagles which threaten grouse which are already in low low numbers. These ppl are disgusting and we the tax payer are paying for them.
The reasons subsidies were introduced in the first place is because twice last century Europe couldn't feed itself. It can now.
People now obviously have loads of top quality food to eat and have other priorities, the environment being one. The have told farmers that they want the British countryside to look a certain way. The certain way is at odd to producing too at a price that is competitive on the world market. So now the payment farmers receive has been decoupled from production and is now linked to providing space for wildlife.
From an agricultural point of view, it would be best to pull out most of the hedges, cut all of the trees down and pipe the ditches so we can use our big machines to maximum effect, but this is very bad for wildlife.
I, as someone that works in the industry, think that subsidies in what ever for they take have been a double edged sword for agriculture. It has kept a lot of poor businesses afloat, inflated land to levels where actually farming it is a none starter and even made rents incredibly expensive.
If the various payments were removed tomorrow, there would be casualties. there would also be job losses, tears, suicides and family breakups. But wheat would still get sown and harvested and in the spring the cows would be in the field with only the fittest surviving.
That said, does anyone think that Honda, Nissan or Toyota would be doing business here if they couldn't negotiate a good deal with HM government? Agco, keeping it farm related, wanted to bring their European HQ o Banner Lane at their existing factory and asked Tony's government what they could do to them. The response was "meh", so they moved to France.
People now obviously have loads of top quality food to eat and have other priorities, the environment being one. The have told farmers that they want the British countryside to look a certain way. The certain way is at odd to producing too at a price that is competitive on the world market. So now the payment farmers receive has been decoupled from production and is now linked to providing space for wildlife.
From an agricultural point of view, it would be best to pull out most of the hedges, cut all of the trees down and pipe the ditches so we can use our big machines to maximum effect, but this is very bad for wildlife.
I, as someone that works in the industry, think that subsidies in what ever for they take have been a double edged sword for agriculture. It has kept a lot of poor businesses afloat, inflated land to levels where actually farming it is a none starter and even made rents incredibly expensive.
If the various payments were removed tomorrow, there would be casualties. there would also be job losses, tears, suicides and family breakups. But wheat would still get sown and harvested and in the spring the cows would be in the field with only the fittest surviving.
That said, does anyone think that Honda, Nissan or Toyota would be doing business here if they couldn't negotiate a good deal with HM government? Agco, keeping it farm related, wanted to bring their European HQ o Banner Lane at their existing factory and asked Tony's government what they could do to them. The response was "meh", so they moved to France.
How many people on here that use a train service would be happy to pay double or triple the ticket price so we could remove the absurd £5 billion a year SUBSIDY the train companies receive for the privelaged commuters while the rest have to pay petrol tax,licence etc etc to get to work in their cars.
Willy Nilly said:
I, as someone that works in the industry, think that subsidies in what ever for they take have been a double edged sword for agriculture. It has kept a lot of poor businesses afloat, inflated land to levels where actually farming it is a none starter and even made rents incredibly expensive.
If the various payments were removed tomorrow, there would be casualties. there would also be job losses, tears, suicides and family breakups. But wheat would still get sown and harvested and in the spring the cows would be in the field with only the fittest surviving.
Removing them overnight would be needlessly damaging; freezing payments at current levels this year then tapering them off over several years would allow businesses to adapt, find new markets, become more efficient etc. Removal of sugar subsidy doesn't seem to have caused beet to disappear overnight.If the various payments were removed tomorrow, there would be casualties. there would also be job losses, tears, suicides and family breakups. But wheat would still get sown and harvested and in the spring the cows would be in the field with only the fittest surviving.
Jasandjules said:
Good to see more of those lazy people with no legs, heart attacks etc can have their disability removed and cars taken away so we can pay more rich people s**t loads of money...
The basic payment scheme is an EU sourced fund.Local benefits policies do not impact national entitlements.
Willy Nilly said:
Agco, keeping it farm related, wanted to bring their European HQ o Banner Lane at their existing factory and asked Tony's government what they could do to them. The response was "meh", so they moved to France.
It did, at least, lead to the demise of the horrible tower out the front. slow_poke said:
Average payout size to the average farmer is what, 12k-15k? Just put a cap on the CAP. Say, 50k?
the problem will be that a typical arable farm will probably be about 2,000 acres now if it is going to be large enough to survive. I'm not exactly sure what their SFP will be but would expect well into 6 figures. This is to pay for the various field margins, 3 crop rule, not cutting hedges or pulling them out. If you don't pay them to farm in an environmental sensitive way (which 50 grand won't cover), his farm will have no hedges, no field margins and likely just be continuous wheat with next to no wildlife. If that is what you want, fine, if not, you'll need to pay him to grow flowers which you already do via the SFP system. Willy Nilly said:
That said, does anyone think that Honda, Nissan or Toyota would be doing business here if they couldn't negotiate a good deal with HM government? Agco, keeping it farm related, wanted to bring their European HQ o Banner Lane at their existing factory and asked Tony's government what they could do to them. The response was "meh", so they moved to France.
You know your industrial policy has taken a wrong turn when companies are leaving the UK in order to set up shop in France.hidetheelephants said:
Willy Nilly said:
That said, does anyone think that Honda, Nissan or Toyota would be doing business here if they couldn't negotiate a good deal with HM government? Agco, keeping it farm related, wanted to bring their European HQ o Banner Lane at their existing factory and asked Tony's government what they could do to them. The response was "meh", so they moved to France.
You know your industrial policy has taken a wrong turn when companies are leaving the UK in order to set up shop in France.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff