Farming a welfare scheme or viable business?

Tipp Man

Just to clarify in my recent posts i've been talking about buying land, sheds etc, the prices that i have used are about the very minimum that you can use and in reality you would be lucky to do it for my numbers.

nesf

Tipp Man wrote: »

Again more rubbish, the biggest polluters of our waterways is now un treated sewerage so blame that on the county councils, planners whoever

Yup, but some farmers still indulge in cleaning out the slurry spreader in the local river. It pretty much puts an end to an evening's fly fishing.

RedPlanet

there's an article in todays IT about the IFA claiming 12,300 farming job losses will result from An Bord Snip.
In the article it meantions:

"cuts in the rural environmental protection scheme (Reps), the suckler cow payments, and disadvantaged areas payments"

Could someone enlighten us on some of these charitiable programs?
What is the disadvantaged areas payment?
Does that mean that if a farmer tries to farm X product in an unsuitable area, the government will help out by proping up the whole charade.

Sam Kade

RedPlanet wrote: »

there's an article in todays IT about the IFA claiming 12,300 farming job losses will result from An Bord Snip.
In the article it meantions:

Could someone enlighten us on some of these charitiable programs?
What is the disadvantaged areas payment?
Does that mean that if a farmer tries to farm X product in an unsuitable area, the government will help out by proping up the whole charade.

You don't know what any of these mean yet you define them as charitable:rolleyes:

Tipp Man

Sam Kade wrote: »

You don't know what any of these mean yet you define them as charitable:rolleyes:

Listen this guy is advocating state run farms becasue it worked so well in Russia and everywhere else that tried it, he's not worth wasting your time

RedPlanet wrote: »

I would prefer large farms administered from an organ of the state.
Slap on some democratic controls and heavy regulations with a goal of national self-sufficiency.

But that is unlikely, so I am open minded to commericially viable farms instead.

RedPlanet

Tipp Man wrote: »

Listen this guy is advocating state run farms becasue it worked so well in Russia and everywhere else that tried it, he's not worth wasting your time

Actually I am not advocating state-run farms.
That is just an ideological concept.
I have said as much and have said that instead, I am basically promoting farming that is commericially viable.
That is not what we have today.
What we have today is a myraid of welfare schemes propping up a dysfunctional industry.

itsallaboutheL

RedPlanet wrote: »

Actually I am not advocating state-run farms.
That is just an ideological concept.
I have said as much and have said that instead, I am basically promoting farming that is commericially viable.
That is not what we have today.
What we have today is a myraid of welfare schemes propping up a dysfunctional industry.

Yet you havn't a notion what their purpose is, what the guidelines are, what has to be done to qualify.

Come on man, you can do better

RedPlanet

itsallaboutheL wrote: »

Yet you havn't a notion what their purpose is, what the guidelines are, what has to be done to qualify.

Come on man, you can do better

In my post above, I've asked if any of you could explain the Disadvantaged Areas Scheme.
I've given my summary of it, although that was done in ignorance.
It doesn't actually require that i know the purpose of said scheme nor it's qualifying criteria for it to be anything other than a welfare scheme.
Incidentally, there is purpose to Job Seekers Allowance and qualifying criteria, yet it too, remains a Welfare Scheme.

Tipp Man

Tipp Man wrote: »

Listen this guy is advocating state run farms becasue it worked so well in Russia and everywhere else that tried it, he's not worth wasting your time

RedPlanet wrote: »

Actually I am not advocating state-run farms.
That is just an ideological concept.
I have said as much and have said that instead, I am basically promoting farming that is commericially viable.
That is not what we have today.
What we have today is a myraid of welfare schemes propping up a dysfunctional industry.

Read the quote THAT YOU TYPED below, you clearly state that you would prefer state farms, its there in black and white for god's sake, don't try and back out of it now or lie and say that you didn't say it, it's there for all to see.

RedPlanet wrote: »

I would prefer large farms administered from an organ of the state.
Slap on some democratic controls and heavy regulations with a goal of national self-sufficiency.

But that is unlikely, so I am open minded to commericially viable farms instead.

itsallaboutheL wrote: »

Yet you havn't a notion what their purpose is, what the guidelines are, what has to be done to qualify.

Come on man, you can do better

Or can he, that is the question. Your typical person with a lot to say about something they have no clue about. That really sickens me, if you don't have a clue about something either educate yourself or shut up

RedPlanet

But that is unlikely, so I am open minded to commericially viable farms instead

Read much?

Tipp Man

RedPlanet wrote: »

Read much?

taking from an online dictionary, I'm sure most will have the same - to advocate "to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advocate

you were advocating it because you said you would prefer state run farms i.e you publicly recommened it wrote in favour of, supported.
Your little clarification at the end only highlights the fact that you acknowledge that it is unlikely, not that you weren't advocating state farms. Just because what your advocating is unlikely to happen doesn't mean your not advocating it.

I read a bit, how about you??

Tipp Man

nesf wrote: »

Yup, but some farmers still indulge in cleaning out the slurry spreader in the local river. It pretty much puts an end to an evening's fly fishing.

Ah nesf, that's a little harsh nowadays especially on this thread:D

RedPlanet

Anyway, regardless of TippMan's attempts to drag this thread off topic.
I would like to draw attention to the Suckler Herds Welfare Scheme, which is a nationally-funded scheme (we pay for it, not German taxpayers), yet required EU approval and was met with opposition, which our good ol government got around.

Irish Government has just been given the go-ahead to introduce an animal welfare payment for Ireland’s 65,000 suckler cow herds. The Animal Recording, Welfare and Breeding Scheme, to give the payment its full title, will commence on 1st January 2008 and run for five years up to 31st December 2012. In return for complying with seven basic requirements, including calf registration, de-budding, castration where appropriate, a minimum calving age, appropriate weaning procedures including the introduction of meal feeding, animal events recording and taking part in a training and education course, suckler producers will qualify for an annual grant of €80 per cow, up to a maximum of 100 cows per herd.

http://caphealthcheck.eu/new-irish-animal-welfare-payment-sets-interesting-precedent/
Apparently most of this is already covered by "Good Farming Practice" requirements attached to the Single Farm Payment.
According the article an average payment around €1,360 per farm.
But since these measure are already included in the Single Farm Payment, why the additional charity?
Just a sneaky protectionist measure to prop up failed business models?
It's costing we the people €235 million.
Do we get anything in return or do the farmers and pocket the profits?


This page is quite interesting, regarding An Bord Snip and the agriculture sector.
http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2009/07/20/an-bord-snip-agriculture-forestry-and-fishing/

Disadvantaged Areas payments

This is a scheme of payments introduced to ‘compensate’ farmers who are located in more marginal farming areas for their higher costs of production. However, the scheme is not targeted on delivering tangible outputs. When the scheme was first introduced in Ireland in 1975, 4.0 million acres or 57.8% of land area was classified as disadvantaged; by 1996 this had increased to 5.2 million acres or 74.8% of land area. In addition, the area classified as Most Severely Handicapped (which gives eligibility for higher payment rates) had increased from 66% to 79% of the total. There is, in principle, a case for a targeted scheme to maintain farming where it is necessary for the maintenance of high-value nature areas, but it is clear that the Irish scheme is little more than income support, making it an easy target for An Bord Snip.

I agree with the author's view. But i have to add, why is it necessary to prop up non-viable farming in unsuitable areas?

Riskymove

RedPlanet wrote: »

Do we get anything in return or do the farmers and pocket the profits?

a nice steak?

Macha

Riskymove wrote: »

a nice cheap steak?

FYP

Edit: Hey, whaddya know! Article from today's Times about those no-good, lowlife, commie money scrounging wasters in manufacturing and export services:

€250m subsidy scheme to protect jobs

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0806/breaking35.htm

Tipp Man

RedPlanet wrote: »

Anyway, regardless of TippMan's attempts to drag this thread off topic.

Sorry but you tried to be a smart arse by claiming you weren't in favour of state farms, all i did was prove that you had said it, and you then tried to belittle me with your smart ass reading comment, so i had to prove further exactly what you said, how exactly is that off topic, surely thats the basis of all good discussion.

Are you just upset cause you don't really have a clue what your talking about and you got caught out?? I notice you didn't argue against it. anyway back to the topic in hand

Tipp Man

taconnol wrote: »

FYP

Edit: Hey, whaddya know! Article from today's Times about those no-good, lowlife, commie money scrounging wasters in manufacturing and export services:



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0806/breaking35.htm

Well well well, looks like the farmers aren't the only 1's being subsidised. But hold on, don't all you guys want uncompetitive - inefficent firms to fail?? isn't that yer arguement? if its not self supporting it should fail??

Riskymove

Tipp Man wrote: »

Well well well, looks like the farmers aren't the only 1's being subsidised. But hold on, don't all you guys want uncompetitive - inefficent firms to fail?? isn't that yer arguement? if its not self supporting it should fail??

ah its about time we had a go at communism anyway..nationalise everything, farms, banks , companies.....bring back the one true socialist Bertie as our glorious leader......I know I have a set of grey overalls somewhere

Macha

Riskymove wrote: »

I know I have a set of grey overalls somewhere

You mean red overalls

Riskymove

taconnol wrote: »

You mean red overalls

I believe our asian commie friends prefer grey!

astrofool

Tipp Man, would you see farming as a glorified welfare scheme? If not, why not?

Would farmers survive without the subsidies after some initial upheaval?

Is it economically viable to produce in Ireland, if food security was not an issue at all?

Are there areas where we do compete and not due to subsidising the produce?

astrofool

Tipp Man wrote: »

Well well well, looks like the farmers aren't the only 1's being subsidised. But hold on, don't all you guys want uncompetitive - inefficent firms to fail?? isn't that yer arguement? if its not self supporting it should fail??

Because a once off budget to save viable firms due to not being able to access credit is the same as propping up an unviable industry for 30 years?

RedPlanet

Tipp Man wrote: »

Sorry but you tried to be a smart arse by claiming you weren't in favour of state farms, all i did was prove that you had said it, and you then tried to belittle me with your smart ass reading comment, so i had to prove further exactly what you said, how exactly is that off topic, surely thats the basis of all good discussion.

Are you just upset cause you don't really have a clue what your talking about and you got caught out?? I notice you didn't argue against it. anyway back to the topic in hand

This is the last i'm going to entertain your attempts to drag the thread off topic.
I am not here adovcating state run farms, period.
I've said that was an ideological concept.

I said i accept that that is unrealistic, therefore i support commerically viable farming.

I suppose phraseology like "socialism" and "communism" are a sort of Thought Crime in that fragile world some of the pro-farming lobby occupy. But relax, i only want what you claim to want also: the end of subsidies to non-viable farming.

Macha

astrofool wrote: »

Because a once off budget to save viable firms due to not being able to access credit is the same as propping up an unviable industry for 30 years?

You think this is the only government money the manufacturing and export industries of Ireland have ever seen?

astrofool

taconnol wrote: »

You think this is the only government money the manufacturing and export industries of Ireland have ever seen?

Do you? Do you think it approaches the amount spent on farming? Do you think the amount spent per head of employment, if comparing the two, is even slightly comparable, or of the same magnitude?

Macha

astrofool wrote: »

Do you? Do you think it approaches the amount spent on farming? Do you think the amount spent per head of employment, if comparing the two, is even slightly comparable, or of the same magnitude?

I don't know the figures - do you? Where would be the best place to get them?

Also no one answered my previous question:

By scaling up our agricultural system, we may be reducing the number of people directly involved in producing our food. But a lot more people are needed along the agricultural chain, in oil production, fertiliser and other chemical production packaging and transportation to farms, in manufacturing heavy machinery and transportation vehicles, driving and maintaining these vehicles and infrastructure, working in the distribution centres, manufacturing packaging, etc etc.

Is that really more efficient?

Also, a lot of the new inputs into agriculture rely on imports, most spectacularly on imported energy but also fertilisers, chemicals, etc. Surely that's more money going out of our economy?

RedPlanet

What about this whole idea of subsidising people whom are attempting to farm at a location that is unsuitable for farming?
And instead of doing the right thing, subsidising it?

I can't think of a similiar situation regarding manufacturing.

The_Conductor

RedPlanet wrote: »

What about this whole idea of subsidising people whom are attempting to farm at a location that is unsuitable for farming?
And instead of doing the right thing, subsidising it?

I can't think of a similiar situation regarding manufacturing.

Udaras grants for the (erstwhile) clothing industry in Gaeltacht areas? Government subvention of regional airline routes? Multinational companies being incentivised to locate here purely because of the 12% corporation tax rate? You could go on and on........

Riskymove

smccarrick wrote: »

Udaras grants for the (erstwhile) clothing industry in Gaeltacht areas? Government subvention of regional airline routes? Multinational companies being incentivised to locate here purely because of the 12% corporation tax rate? You could go on and on........

well I wouldn't agree 100% that schemes to get companies to locate here is the same as subsidising non-viable enterprises

its not like they are subsidising an oil rig in lough derg or a diamond mine in the burren?

The_Conductor

Riskymove wrote: »

well I wouldn't agree 100% that schemes to get companies to locate here is the same as subsidising non-viable enterprises

its not like they are subsidising an oil rig in lough derg or a diamond mine in the burren?

Gold mining in the Slieve Blooms, speculative licences for gas/oil drilling in the Corrib basin, provision of gas at less than 1/10 of the open market price to ICI for conversion into fertiliser to support an indigenous fertiliser industry- they didn't quite bribe an oil rig onto Lough Derg- or a diamond mine in the Burren- but by god, they weren't far off.........