Cap reform,bad for whole economy?

darragh_haven

Suckler wrote: »

You've given one example that is not verifiable. I could start a pissing contest by telling you how much paperwork I and others have had to do outside of farming, but its not about 'one-up-manship' - Paperwork goes hand in hand with any business. Farmers make out that they are especially cursed having to do paperwork. Nobody minded paperwork when there was a grant coming out of it.

but your example that is not verifiable either if you wont take a persons word on the matter. Your just ignoring what doesn't suit you. Maybe you should grow up and not throw the toys outta the pram :rolleyes:

Suckler

freedominacup wrote: »

I have run construction projects and the level of paperwork involved is tiny and the cost of compliance is tiny compared to farming.

Again; your unverifiable anecdotal evidence is an indication of all other occupations and professions? I've worked across a number of sector for public and private clients/customers; the paper work is phenomenal and at time bordering lunacy but it has to be done. Will we all have a challenge to mount up the amount of paperwork we all have to do and see who wins.

freedominacup wrote: »

I've also supplied goods and services to govt projects and the exact opposite is the case but talking to the guys running those sites the extra records and compliance problems are caused by civil servants trying to avoid responsibility for anything.

As have I; across many different clients and governments and government agencies. When Public funds/Tax payers money is used there has to be greater governance. It's a fact of life.

freedominacup wrote: »

Your first post betrayed a lot about your attitudes to farmers

Difference of opinion is now an attitude??

freedominacup wrote: »

TBH that it is seen as a badge of honour has a lot to do with the attitude of some dept inspectors who see it as their bounden duty to find something regardless of how hard they have to look to cut a farmers payment on. IMO especially over the past few years the dept inspectors should have had it in their brief to ensure that all farmers were maximising the payments the were entitled to and worrying about penalties only when problems weren't dealt with once identified.

I would agree with this completely, the cute hoorism remark was reflecting people openly and continuously flouting rules and thinking they should be a lw unto themselves.

Tipp Man

The point is surely that there are too many bloody paper pushers and f##kers who are unproductive and do nothing only going around watching others work - it's a bloody industry in itself - but a bloody costly and expensive 1.

Regardless of whether it's farming, engineering or whatever.

Suckler

darragh_haven wrote: »

but your example that is not verifiable either if you wont take a persons word on the matter. Your just ignoring what doesn't suit you. Maybe you should grow up and not throw the toys outta the pram :rolleyes:

That thing that went over your head....that was the point I was making.

I didn't use my current profession as an example; that is why I stated " Other occupations and professions".
Farmers seem to think they are singled out to fill out paperwork; my point is that like any other business it has to be done; some more than others. If the farmer is receiving a grant/subsidy of course paperwork will be a requirement; you are receiving tax payers money at the end of the day.

freedominacup

Suckler wrote: »

I would agree with this completely, the cute hoorism remark was reflecting people openly and continuously flouting rules and thinking they should be a lw unto themselves.

I would have always been of the opinion that cute hoorism was more like sneakily and occasionaly than openly and continuously.

Suckler

freedominacup wrote: »

I would have always been of the opinion that cute hoorism was more like sneakily and occasionaly than openly and continuously.

Whether sneakily or openly; it's the fact that regulations and guidelines are flouted that creates a job for these inspectors.
I would agree minor infringements should not carry the same wrath as complete indifference to the regulations; but in the end it'll come down to a 'Carrot and Stick' decision.

EDIT

Tipp Man wrote: »

The point is surely that there are too many bloody paper pushers and f##kers who are unproductive and do nothing only going around watching others work - it's a bloody industry in itself - but a bloody costly and expensive 1.

Regardless of whether it's farming, engineering or whatever.

Regulation and enforcement is a necessity. It's an (agreed) expensive fact of life. If (and when) it fails the ramifications for an industry and an economy are detrimental.

Suckler

As a side note, one argument I've heard is that if a farms payment is based on the land owned/worked; then that land is now generating a direct income thereby subjecting the farmers lands to the new property tax irrespective of profitability. I would like to say I can't see it but with recent events in Cyprus any idea is possible.

freedominacup

Suckler wrote: »

Regulation and enforcement is a necessity. It's an (agreed) expensive fact of life. If (and when) it fails the ramifications for an industry and an economy are detrimental.

It always fails and the reason it always fails is that after a while it becomes too much about form filling and paperwork and not enough about actually inspecting. If the inspection regieme was tighter across the E.U. the horse meat debacle would never have gotten going. However once the first piece of dodgy paperwork got into the system and people elsewhere in the line filled their forms because the "paperwork" was correct rather than doing their jobs it grew into an industry wide scandal. These people would have been happy in their own minds that they were doing their jobs because the paperwork was done but it's quite obvious they weren't.

JohnBoy

freedominacup wrote: »

TBH that it is seen as a badge of honour has a lot to do with the attitude of some dept inspectors who see it as their bounden duty to find something regardless of how hard they have to look to cut a farmers payment on. IMO especially over the past few years the dept inspectors should have had it in their brief to ensure that all farmers were maximising the payments the were entitled to and worrying about penalties only when problems weren't dealt with once identified.

Before anyone asks....... I dont work for the department. But I do know a few that do.

One of them works in the inspectorate office in portlaoise. The primary reason why department inspectors are so strict is because the european court of auditors is so strict on them.

They are subject to the same types of penalties and inspection reigimes as farmers are.

They are inspected a number of times a year where the auditing inspectors will basically arrive on monday and say we want to inspect tipp man, bob charles and johnboy today. On tuesday morning they'll want to inspect redzer, just do it and viewtodiefor. on wednesday morning they'll want to inspect whelan1, reilig and stanflt.

This happens a few times a year. if these inspections dont show the same results as previous inspections, then the inspection reigime is called into question and fines are applied.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?UserLang=GA&DocID=11082

Those fines have to be paid by the exchecquer, which is kinda broke.

We've gone from one of the worst in europe in this regard to one of the best, and despite what people may feel we also have one of the most efficient payment processes in europe also. a huge percentage of farmers in ireland receive their SFP on the earliest allowed date, it's one of the highest in europe.




That said there are as always a number of little hitlers* out there, there always will be when little people get power.



*just for freedominacup

Suckler

freedominacup wrote: »

It always fails and the reason it always fails is that after a while it becomes too much about form filling and paperwork and not enough about actually inspecting.

It does not fail because of paperwork; paperwork is part of the job. It fails because someone didn't do their job. It's a continuous game of catch up as some find new ways to skirt around regulation (in all industries). Lax regulation is never the answer.
If there was more inspections and less paperwork the argument would just be reversed!

freedominacup wrote: »

If the inspection regieme was tighter across the E.U. the horse meat debacle would never have gotten going. However once the first piece of dodgy paperwork got into the system and people elsewhere in the line filled their forms because the "paperwork" was correct rather than doing their jobs it grew into an industry wide scandal. These people would have been happy in their own minds that they were doing their jobs because the paperwork was done but it's quite obvious they weren't.

The dodgy paperwork was in the form of Euro notes that allowed substandard products be stamped as something else.
If people are of the opinion paperwork is expensive, how much will it cost to have more physical inspectors? It's a vicious circle.

darragh_haven

EpicPothole wrote: »

I think you need to, as you put "need to grow up" if you expect us to read you mind.

FFS, leave him be. Flawed agruments and all (a bit on both side), leave it be.

Suckler

EpicPothole wrote: »

I think you need to, as you put "need to grow up" if you expect us to read you mind.

You mean have the same opinion as everyone and not dare question it. No thanks.

darragh_haven wrote: »

FFS, leave him be. Flawed agruments and all (a bit on both side), leave it be.

I take it you've come to understand how your own argument was wrong and completely missed the point then? Good.

darragh_haven

Suckler wrote: »

.

I take it you've come to understand how your own argument was wrong and completely missed the point then? Good.

No, not good. your point is flawed, but you are allowed have your opinion. And trying to impose your opinion other people while not willing to accept others is just small-minded.
Now, its GOOD that i cleared that up for you

Suckler

darragh_haven wrote: »

No, not good. your point is flawed, but you are allowed have your opinion. And trying to impose your opinion other people while not willing to accept others is just small-minded.
Now, its GOOD that i cleared that up for you

What I stated was that there are other professions/ occupations have a lot more paperwork involved than farmers. I didn't say daragh_haven probably does more paperwork at the office than the farm. You seem to think I did.

:rolleyes: It's unfortunate that I have to address you like a child but if you continue to be continually obtuse I really don't have a choice.

darragh_haven

Suckler wrote: »

Farming is a business. Just like any other. The small bit of paper work farmers are required to submit and record is miniscule.

Suckler

What you've done there is trim what I stated completely misrepresenting it.
Have another go at re-reading the previous responses.

Rovi

[MOD]

Let's just drop the 'who does the most paperwork' contest at this point, huh?
Every sector of agriculture/industry/the economy generally has to deal with multiple and various kinds of official red tape, and every case is different, so it's pretty futile to try to demonstrate that one has 'more' or 'less' than any other.

It's also giving rise to a certain level of hotheadedness here, and some rash things have been written, so it's best to let it drop.
If I was to go back through this thread and edit/delete/infract/ban each and every instance that conflicted with the forum charter, there'd be shag all left to read and a fair few posters would be nursing slapped wrists, so, I propose to leave it all as-is, and ask that we continue from here behaving as sensible adults.

The subject of this thread is on the effects of CAP reform on the greater Irish economy, let's try to stick to that.

[/MOD]