Common Agricultural Policy - nice earner for billionaires
Discussion
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
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
hornetrider said:
Other beneficiaries include Lord Iveagh (£915,709.97)
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
Local to me so I thought this might be relevant - Elveden Estate (owned by Lord Iveagh) does an awful lot of conservation on the Breckland heathlandShould '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
http://www.elveden.com/farm-land/conservation/
and
http://www.elveden.com/our-story/the-estate/
What's the argument that larger farms should exist in a worse economic environment to smaller farms? Sounds like something Corbyn would come up with.
Of course there are going to be large payments to large businesses owned by wealthy people.
Aside from the political element of this story, CAP isn't based on subsidy anymore, it's payment for benefit (as decided by the scheme). Large payment = large benefit = large cost to the farmer. If the CAP is reduced to zero for moral reasons, the business will choose not to apply for CAP and not to do all the good things that are then no longer required to be done.
Of course there are going to be large payments to large businesses owned by wealthy people.
Aside from the political element of this story, CAP isn't based on subsidy anymore, it's payment for benefit (as decided by the scheme). Large payment = large benefit = large cost to the farmer. If the CAP is reduced to zero for moral reasons, the business will choose not to apply for CAP and not to do all the good things that are then no longer required to be done.
paulrockliffe said:
What's the argument that larger farms should exist in a worse economic environment to smaller farms? Sounds like something Corbyn would come up with.
Of course there are going to be large payments to large businesses owned by wealthy people.
Indeed. Owning big business means larger profits, shocker. Of course there are going to be large payments to large businesses owned by wealthy people.
Of course, we could do away with subsidies for farming and say hello to industrial battery farming, bks to the countryside, and hello to food grown in the uk costing several times what it does now. Those subsidies directly keep the cost of food low, which directly benefits the poor.
CAP payments are the only thing keeping the dairy farmers afloat. They are out of business without them. Same for the hill farmers.
Obviously the headline CAP payment figures for large farms are very high but so are their costs.
It's all for the benefit of the French who have about 4% of their population in farming. In the UK more people work in sandwich production than agriculture.
Obviously the headline CAP payment figures for large farms are very high but so are their costs.
It's all for the benefit of the French who have about 4% of their population in farming. In the UK more people work in sandwich production than agriculture.
It's no different from other benefits, but just a high end version. Surely some thought should be given to reducing the dependency; when added to farms being free from inheritance tax, it would seem farms have it cushy. (Cue violin playing / sob stories etc, but a few £billion a year of taxpayer's money on handouts just to one UK sector of the population is a lot and I think should be looked at.) How many other businesses get such handouts?
lockhart flawse said:
CAP payments are the only thing keeping the dairy farmers afloat. They are out of business without them. Same for the hill farmers.
Obviously the headline CAP payment figures for large farms are very high but so are their costs.
It's all for the benefit of the French who have about 4% of their population in farming. In the UK more people work in sandwich production than agriculture.
There is over production of milk and a ready supply of alternative sources of dairy and meat products. It would help farmers if a % went out of business rather than allowing them to limp along. Subsidies aren't the answer, they distort the market. Obviously the headline CAP payment figures for large farms are very high but so are their costs.
It's all for the benefit of the French who have about 4% of their population in farming. In the UK more people work in sandwich production than agriculture.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff