Everyones Opinions on Farmers

freedominacup

FortySeven wrote: »

Where are you getting your .4% figure?

Forty billion of CAP spending as a percentage of ten trillion of EU government spending.

Edit; I checked the figures. Europa website. CAP at forty billion is around .6-.7% of total EU government spending of €6-€6.5trillion.

Mrs cockett

Lady is a tramp wrote: »

My opinion on farmers is based entirely on my uncles.

There are five of them who live together in the house they (and my dad) grew up in, at the end of a long windy lane in the back of beyond. The house is like something from a couple of centuries ago. They are in their 60s/70s, and all bachelors, as far as I know none of them has ever had a girlfriend.

They are incredibly stingey and incredibly generous at the same time. They sit down for all their meals together, and share the one teabag between the lot of them. When we visit, they'll give us our own teabags out of courtesy, but you can tell they think it's a crazy extravagance to waste a teabag on just one mug! They are really frugal, their diet is very plain and basic. Their clothes are pure rags, a million years old, ripped to shreds. None of them drink or smoke. But, they buy brand new cars (usually BMWs) every single year. The local dealer loves to see them coming! And they are always buying really expensive top of the range tractors and farm machinery. And they spoil us rotten - any time I visit, I come away several hundred euro richer.

They are very religious, nothing interferes with their Sunday mass. Although I think it's mostly a good opportunity for gossip. They know who owns every bit of land and every animal in all of the south-east of the country! Other than mass, I don't think they have any real social outlet, apart from the ploughing championship every year.

They work crazy hours, very long days. They've all had major health difficulties these last few years, so there's often at least one of them out of action, but the rest of them pick up the slack without complaining. They're all each others best friends, it's actually really nice to see how much they enjoy each others company.

They are GAA obsessed, we're not allowed say a word when the Sunday match is on! My dad's the same actually. (Although he's not a farmer.)

It's not a lifestyle I envy. I've spent time down there helping out with the baling and milking the cows and helping with the calving etc, and the novelty wears off after a couple of weeks. It's just the monotony of it all ... and the dirtiness and smelliness ... and the huge burden of responsibility. I mean they have this massive farm with zillions of cows and loads of crops etc, and they're all getting old and sick and refuse to get in anyone to help them with it ... I don't know what's going to happen when they're too old to do it anymore. I mean they've no children to pass it on to, no one in my family would have any interest in taking it over. It's just sad that they've spent their lives building up this farm, it's obviously working out for them financially, and I guess it'll all end up being sold off to strangers. It's like their whole lives work was for nothing, really. It's sad.

Love them, the relic of auld deacency. Bet they are as happy as Larry

FortySeven

freedominacup wrote: »

Forty billion of CAP spending as a percentage of ten trillion of EU government spending.

Edit; I checked the figures. Europa website. CAP at forty billion is around .6-.7% of total EU government spending of €6-€6.5trillion.

So the other 39% goes on administration? Sounds about right for the civil service.

Lady is a tramp

Grueller wrote: »

Working out financially now because there are 5 old age pensions at €220ish per week going into the house. They spend nothing and take in €1100 a week before earning a euro. Bet they bought very little machinery and bmw's before the pensions.

Nope I think only one of them is pension age, and they've always been that well-off. There is just a lot of money and land in the family. (Sorry if that sounds like I'm bragging - I'm not, it's not MY money!)

They did recently offer to give me the deposit on a house (I didn't accept.) And then they offered me €60k to study Medicine in UCD next year. Always had a wee soft spot for me. My sister was raging when I told her that!

Giacomo McGubbin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So in a world where time is money, and your sole measure of life is to collect and sit on a hord of as many shiny coins as possible and boast about it here at every chance, you choose to spend a considerable part of each day on here dictating shyte about subjects and lives you know nothing about, because you think 'somebody is wrong on the internet' - lol at them costing you a fortune and you having to sit on a smaller pile of shiny things as a result.
But . . . much more likely you're just killing time till the next dole day . . .

sbsquarepants

Lyaiera wrote: »

If all the non-profitable farms shut down tomorrow, it'd take a week before people were complaining about the cost of milk for their weetabix.

Are you actually suggesting that farmers are somehow driving down the cost of breakfast for the rest of us? That's just nonsense.

siblers wrote: »

They don't put their hand out, Farmers would much rather be paid a fair price for the work they do but when the work they do equates to less than the cost they put in, then there's obviously an issue. Is it fair that you can buy 2 litres of milk for around €2 but a farmer will only receive around €0.44? .

Everyone would like to be paid a fair price - do you think the students in mcdonalds are happy getting €9 an hour. Fact is jobs pay what they pay, get the best one you can. I have no sympathy for you just because you don't earn what you would like - who does earn that, Ronaldo?

siblers wrote: »

And this nonsense about "oh just get a normal job" is horse****. You can't just abandon a farm, equipment, 100 acres of land, livestock etc. It doesn't work that way..

Bullshít, do you own the farm or does the farm own you?
If you can abandon an office or a factory you can abandon a farm. Sell your stuff and walk away, simple. A job is just a job. Farms aren't fúcking magical places that somehow ensnare people.

siblers wrote: »

Plus, I presume you and others like having access to milk, meat etc? I wouldn't fancy living in this country if we didn't have an agricultural sector. Go drink the milk you get on the continent or try factory reared meat you get in the states and you wouldn't be long changing your attitude.

What absolute crap. Milk is milk, you just get used to whatever you are given. How many people do you know who arrange for milk to be shipped over from Ireland, you just buy the local stuff and get on with it. Or, shock horror - you can even do without milk. It's not like it's vital for your survival.

onrail

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Everyone would like to be paid a fair price - do you think the students in mcdonalds are happy getting 9 an hour. Fact is jobs pay what they pay, get the best one you can. I have no sympathy for you just because you don't earn what you would like - who does earn that, Ronaldo?

Ridiculous comparison.
McDonald's don't sell their burgers below cost price. That's what you should be comparing.

ganmo

sbsquarepants wrote: »

What absolute crap. Milk is milk, you just get used to whatever you are given. How many people do you know who arrange for milk to be shipped over from Ireland, you just buy the local stuff and get on with it. Or, shock horror - you can even do without milk. It's not like it's vital for your survival.

milk might be milk but butter isn't butter when its kerrygold :P

butter in most places is nearly white but the milk in ireland make yellow butter

Sam Kade

NiallBoo wrote: »

I think farmers do work horrible hours for little reward.

But few of them do themselves any favours. They tend to sink money into the farm that'll never really pay off and don't understand the value of their assets

They have the means of selling up and the capital to go do something different with a much easier life. If they look at that and decide that they prefer to stay on the farm then fair enough - but I think that few of them understand what a strong position they're in...and how the life they're living its their choice.

Selling up, why didn't we think of it sooner If the average farmer sells his farm for 700k probably pay 200K in capital gains tax then left with 500K but to buy a house elsewhere will cost min 250k and he's left with 250k to invest. It doesn't seem such a great idea now

siblers

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Are you actually suggesting that farmers are somehow driving down the cost of breakfast for the rest of us? That's just nonsense.



Everyone would like to be paid a fair price - do you think the students in mcdonalds are happy getting €9 an hour. Fact is jobs pay what they pay, get the best one you can. I have no sympathy for you just because you don't earn what you would like - who does earn that, Ronaldo?



Bullshít, do you own the farm or does the farm own you?
If you can abandon an office or a factory you can abandon a farm. Sell your stuff and walk away, simple. A job is just a job. Farms aren't fúcking magical places that somehow ensnare people.



What absolute crap. Milk is milk, you just get used to whatever you are given. How many people do you know who arrange for milk to be shipped over from Ireland, you just buy the local stuff and get on with it. Or, shock horror - you can even do without milk. It's not like it's vital for your survival.

What about other dairy products, butter, yogurts, cream etc? Milk is most definitely not just milk, there's a world of difference between the milk here and milk on the continent, the same can be said for our meat produce, we produce some of the nicest agri produce in the world and it doesn't come because of ****ty factory farming.

As for McDonalds, do the staff have to pay for their produce before the sell it to customers and is the price of their produce deducted from their wages? Cause the comparison you made, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

jmayo

pone2012 wrote: »

Since you asked, its actually secret option Number 5

Annoying b******* who consistently block traffic and make life a pain in the a** for everyone with their tractors

As opposed to the townies out in their garish coloured lycra on their bicycles pretending they are Sean kelly, Stephen Roche or probably more likely one of the numerous druggies that has of late been winners of the Tour de Farce.

Actually the best laugh I have ever had is seeing a few of these MAMILs stuck behind a lad in an old Fiat with a slurry tanker.
They were on a bit of a hill and didn't have the speed to get past him.
If only he could accidently turn it on.
What ?
I am just saying it would drastically improve the look of their tops

I wouldn't mind being stuck behind him so much because he was going about his business, whereas they were out showing off to each other. And oh yeah getting fit on their taxpayer subsidised bikes.
The amount of people who bought into the bike to work scheme that for some reason still turn up at work everyday in their Audis and BMWs is quiet surprising. :rolleyes:

jigglypuffstuff

jmayo wrote: »

As opposed to the townies out in their garish coloured lycra on their bicycles pretending they are Sean kelly, Stephen Roche or probably more likely one of the numerous druggies that has of late been winners of the Tour de Farce.

Actually the best laugh I have ever had is seeing a few of these MAMILs stuck behind a lad in an old Fiat with a slurry tanker.
They were on a bit of a hill and didn't have the speed to get past him.
If only he could accidently turn it on.
What ?
I am just saying it would drastically improve the look of their tops

I wouldn't mind being stuck behind him so much because he was going about his business, whereas they were out showing off to each other. And oh yeah getting fit on their taxpayer subsidised bikes.
The amount of people who bought into the bike to work scheme that for some reason still turn up at work everyday in their Audis and BMWs is quiet surprising. :rolleyes:

Its far far easier to overtake a bike than a tractor pulling a tank of sh*t along the road

Looks have little to do with it, but if you want to go there we could enter discussion about physical appearance and fashion sense.

Its pretty much safe to say that most farmers walk around looking extras from the set of Angela's Ashes...

fepper

pone2012 wrote: »

Its far far easier to overtake a bike than a tractor pulling a tank of sh*t along the road

Looks have little to do with it, but if you want to go there we could enter discussion about physical appearance and fashion sense.
Its pretty much safe to say that most farmers walk around looking extras from the set of Angela's Ashes...[/QUOTE
The way there are dressed in the film THE FIELD didn't do the film any harm in fact it was part of its overall success all over the world

kowtow

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm from a farming background, and have been defending farmers on this thread, but this argument is a little wonky on its legs.

Farmers are a tiny proportion of European workers, and they generate 6% of European GDP, yet over 40% of the EU's budget is spent on the Common Agricultural Policy.

This is clearly disproportionate.

Now, I happen to think it's a justifiable imbalance (we all want clean air, food, and pleasant views of pastoral landscapes).

Nevertheless, it is not comparable to the financial supports extended to other European industries, not even banking.

The operation of subsidy in the farming sector is moderately unusual in that - from the farmers point of view - when a subsidy is introduced it tends to be capitalised into land value etc. rather than making a difference to long term real farm income. For example, farming income is much lower today in real terms, and the return on investment is almost microscopic, compared to what it was a couple of generations ago.

Food has tended to remain cheap in comparison (for the consumer) .. but more critically the quality has gone down, with some questionable consequences for health. Far from being a healthy population eating local food direct from our farmers (which would be a much better financial proposition for the farms) we have become a chicken nugget chewing nation of obese individuals who care much less about the food on our plate than the farmers who produce it. Taxpayers get more food, of much lower quality, farmers get much less income (even when subsidy is taken into account), farms become untenable, but the agri-food industry thrives and grows it's profits much faster than we can grow corn or grass.

And while a billion are obese in the West, a billion elsewhere starve.

It's not more efficient farms we want, it's a better connection between farmer and consumer - if we had that both of them would be healthier and happier.

sbsquarepants

siblers wrote: »

What about other dairy products, butter, yogurts, cream etc? Milk is most definitely not just milk, there's a world of difference between the milk here and milk on the continent, the same can be said for our meat produce, we produce some of the nicest agri produce in the world and it doesn't come because of ****ty factory farming.

As for McDonalds, do the staff have to pay for their produce before the sell it to customers and is the price of their produce deducted from their wages? Cause the comparison you made, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

If it's that fantastic, why can't you make money doing it?

onrail wrote: »

Ridiculous comparison.
McDonald's don't sell their burgers below cost price. That's what you should be comparing.

Ok, the comparison isn't great because the McDonald employees are just that - employees, a better comparison would be the mcdonalds franchisee. He has to pay for his produce (as does every other business owner btw, that's not actually unique to farmers and fastfood restaurateurs)

He has to pay his staff, cover his overheads etc and he has to then sell his goods at a profit- if he doesn't manage to balance his books and make money - he just looses money, he doesn't get to apply for the chicken mcnugget grant and the shamrock sake subsidy.

freedominacup

freedominacup wrote: »

Forty billion of CAP spending as a percentage of ten trillion of EU government spending.

Edit; I checked the figures. Europa website. CAP at forty billion is around .6-.7% of total EU government spending of €6-€6.5trillion.

You're including all Member State Government spending?

Lol... why??

All those MSs have Ministeries of Agriculture. Our very own Department of Agriculture has an Exchequer-funded budget of €1.35 billion, which is actually a larger budget than direct EU funding to farmers in the form of Basic Payments!

Very odd approach you're taking here. I'm talking about the EU's own budget, and how well (or badly, in fact) it reflects economic activity in the EU.

irish bloke

Smelly b@#tards who create tailbacks on every back road in Ireland.
Just been honest!!!!

kowtow

kowtow wrote: »

For example, farming income is much lower today in real terms, and the return on investment is almost microscopic, compared to what it was a couple of generations ago.

Farm incomes have certainly fallen in real terms, and whilst I find it credible that the return on investment has fallen also, that's probably because

(i) we were previously coming from a very low technological base, where Irish farming was once a crude affair involving horse-drawn ploughs.
(ii) The rapid pace of technological innovation in the postwar era, followed by a decline in recent decades.

Like in any industry, technological developments are subject to the law of diminishing marginal returns. When you move from horse-drawn ploughs, to high powered tractors drawing reversible ploughs, the return on your investment will be enormous. Similarly, when you go from a man walking around a field, manually spraying crops, to a 1200 litre sprayer with 18ft booms, the difference will be immense.

But all industries, especially manufacturing industries, have to live with a slower pace of innovation, and this slower pace will cause the graph for return on investment to flatten-off.

I really don't see what this has to to with defending CAP, however.

Like I said, I do believe CAP should be retained, especially to support artisan farmers... but I think the European budget should better-reflect the variety of economic activity in the Union.

Waffletraktor

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Farm incomes have certainly fallen in real terms, and whilst I find it credible that the return on investment has fallen also, that's probably because

(i) we were previously coming from a very low technological base, where Irish farming was once a crude affair involving horse-drawn ploughs.
(ii) The rapid pace of technological innovation in the postwar era, followed by a decline in recent decades.

Like in any industry, technological developments are subject to the law of diminishing marginal returns. When you move from horse-drawn ploughs, to high powered tractors drawing reversible ploughs, the return on your investment will be enormous. Similarly, when you go from a man walking around a field, manually spraying crops, to a 1200 litre sprayer with 18ft booms, the difference will be immense.

But all industries, especially manufacturing industries, have to live with a slower pace of innovation, and this slower pace will cause the graph for return on investment to flatten-off.

I really don't see what this has to to with defending CAP, however.

Like I said, I do believe CAP should be retained, especially to support artisan farmers... but I think the European budget should better-reflect the variety of economic activity in the Union.

Ploughing is old hack, ultra low disturbance dd is the new craze to throw money at. Modern tech allows management down to a few 10s of m2.
In the west we are entering an era of reducing production as our costs have gotten too high and aiming for premium markets.

Waffletraktor

Waffletraktor wrote: »

Ploughing is old hack, ultra low disturbance dd is the new craze to throw money at. Modern tech allows management down to a few 10s of m2.

The new 'craze' (hardly) isn't really the point, I'm simply talking about diminishing returns on technological investment.

The new 'crazes' are not as dramatic as the move to mechanization in the postwar era. There is a limit to the pace of technological change, and so return on investment will flatten until the next major technological or scientific change arises.

monkeysnapper

Was at work couple of months ago and was telling guy I work with who also has farm I'd just bought car for 2000. He was like " 2000 on a car to drive to work less than a mile!!!" His car is a Toyota 1999 he paid 600 for.

Annnnyway in passing conversation he let out he'd bought a tractor for 40 k , a bleeding 2nd hand tractor at that .

Waffletraktor

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The new 'craze' (hardly) isn't really the point, I'm simply talking about diminishing returns on technological investment.

The new 'crazes' are not as dramatic as the move to mechanization in the postwar era. There is a limit to the pace of technological change, and so return on investment will flatten until the next major technological or scientific change arises.

Depends what you regard a major change. The day job on farm has us at a level of tech from yeild maps,soil mapping and drone Nitrogen/Ga index sensors to micro manage nutrient input to yeild expection on an area of about 40m2 with 2% overlap on input and plan out seeding maps to give an optimum seeds m2 at harvest to that area. Top end of the scale spectrum and the facilities to actually achieve that in the rea world.
So, i guess actually as you were saying, atm while its worthwhile to use the above tech... For us in western europe the cost for "stuff" has gotten too high to give a decent return. Subsidies are now aimed at making the countryside look nice rather than maximise food production.

freedominacup

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You're including all Member State Government spending?

Lol... why??

All those MSs have Ministeries of Agriculture. Our very own Department of Agriculture has an Exchequer-funded budget of €1.35 billion, which is actually a larger budget than direct EU funding to farmers in the form of Basic Payments!

Very odd approach you're taking here. I'm talking about the EU's own budget, and how well (or badly, in fact) it reflects economic activity in the EU.

Because ag spending is the only government spending governed by a common eu policy.

I can't contradict your figure, couldn't be arsed going looking tbh so we'll assume you're right, and we'll further assume every EU government matches CAP spending with a euro of their own. That gets you to around 1.2-1.4% of EU spending on 5% of the population.

freedominacup

freedominacup wrote: »

Because ag spending is the only government spending governed by a common eu policy.

No it is not. Food safety and environment spending are also governed by common policy, and EU enlargement, cohesion funds, trade, external relations, aid, and so on, are largely managed centrally.

You are completely ignoring the billions spent by individual Ministries of Agriculture which sometimes, as in our case, actually outweigh the EU allocations. You are also 'double-counting' the contribution paid by Member State budgets into the EU.

There is simply no getting away from the fact that the EU budget, which is the budget under discussion, supports farmers in a way that is wholly unrepresentative & disproportionate to the relative contribution of farming to the GDP of the EU.

There is no reason why the EU budget should not better-support European manufacturing industries, educational institutions, r&d, and trade, to name but a few vital services that do contribute hugely to the economic welfare of the Union.

Waffletraktor

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No it is not. Food safety and environment spending are also governed by common policy, and EU enlargement, cohesion funds, trade, external relations, aid, and so on, are largely managed centrally.

You are completely ignoring the billions spent by individual Ministries of Agriculture which sometimes, as in our case, actually outweigh the EU allocations. You are also 'double-counting' the contribution paid by Member State budgets into the EU.

There is simply no getting away from the fact that the EU budget, which is the budget under discussion, supports farmers in a way that is wholly unrepresentative & disproportionate to the relative contribution of farming to the GDP of the EU.

There is no reason why the EU budget should not better-support European manufacturing industries, educational institutions, r&d, and trade, to name but a few vital services that do contribute hugely to the economic welfare of the Union.

But cheap, reliable sources of relatively good quality food are the very bedrock any civilisation and social cohesion is built on. Unless you live in a regulatory system of pretty much open for business like Nz with its ideal environment for production, which other stable developed society doesnt give some supports to ensure that remains.
If you really want to get upset, look up Anaerobic digestion from maize feedstock etc.. Ties in with renewable smash and grab of REFITs.

vicwatson

Reggie. wrote: »

Maybe it's the way you ask the question?

Farmer alert in AH thought yis would be out, well, farming

vicwatson

ganmo wrote: »

Register trailers? Someone's been winding you up

Have a registration plate on their trailers

Reggie.

vicwatson wrote: »

Farmer alert in AH thought yis would be out, well, farming

Look closely. There's more than little auld me around

kowtow

monkeysnapper wrote: »

Was at work couple of months ago and was telling guy I work with who also has farm I'd just bought car for 2000. He was like " 2000 on a car to drive to work less than a mile!!!" His car is a Toyota 1999 he paid 600 for.

Annnnyway in passing conversation he let out he'd bought a tractor for 40 k , a bleeding 2nd hand tractor at that .

If tractors didn't hold their value so well he'd have a lot more to spend on a car.

Tractors have a productive life of 20-30 years plus, one of the factors which make them so expensive, and the older ones also have very big wing mirrors.

How else did you think we counted up the cars in the queue behind before the reversing camera came along?

Buford T. Justice XIX

monkeysnapper wrote: »

Was at work couple of months ago and was telling guy I work with who also has farm I'd just bought car for 2000. He was like " 2000 on a car to drive to work less than a mile!!!" His car is a Toyota 1999 he paid 600 for.

Annnnyway in passing conversation he let out he'd bought a tractor for 40 k , a bleeding 2nd hand tractor at that .

He may be spending many multiples of him time in the tractor that he will spend in his car.

Fairly simple to decide to have more comfort and reliability in a machine you will be spending 20-30 hours a week in working than one you will be spending an hour a week in, max, and little of that for work.

maudgonner

monkeysnapper wrote: »

Was at work couple of months ago and was telling guy I work with who also has farm I'd just bought car for 2000. He was like " 2000 on a car to drive to work less than a mile!!!" His car is a Toyota 1999 he paid 600 for.

Annnnyway in passing conversation he let out he'd bought a tractor for 40 k , a bleeding 2nd hand tractor at that .

His 1999 Toyota does the job he needs it to do - gets him to work. Spending any more money on it than necessary would just be an extra cost.

His tractor is probably a far more productive piece of equipment, so he's a wise man to spend more money on it if it rewards the investment.

_Brian

The fact that this thread is in AH is signal that it's going to be anti farmer no matter what.

If farmers say it's a way of life and that's why they work 90-100hrs a week for less than minimum wage the advice from this forum is treat it like a business and not a way of life.
On the other hand if a farmer's business buys a tractor for €60k everyone is up in arms against them being able to spend that sort of money on a tractor.
Loose-loose no matter what is done.

Most of what is said here is ignorance and begrudgery.

I have a full time job and farm small scale part time. I tip my hat to those who can do it full time and make a living, but the vast majority make well below the minimum wage for a job that's tough, long hours, dangerous and where the general public have little or no support for them.

Giacomo McGubbin

Trying to categorize and pigeon hole someone who's business happens to be farming is as stupid, prejudged and pointless as trying to categorise and pigeon hole people by skin colour.

sbsquarepants

_Brian wrote: »

The fact that this thread is in AH is signal that it's going to be anti farmer no matter what.

If farmers say it's a way of life and that's why they work 90-100hrs a week for less than minimum wage the advice from this forum is treat it like a business and not a way of life.
On the other hand if a farmer's business buys a tractor for €60k everyone is up in arms against them being able to spend that sort of money on a tractor.
Loose-loose no matter what is done.

Most of what is said here is ignorance and begrudgery.

I have a full time job and farm small scale part time. I tip my hat to those who can do it full time and make a living, but the vast majority make well below the minimum wage for a job that's tough, long hours, dangerous and where the general public have little or no support for them.

It's not ignorance and begrudgery, it's basic maths. It would take over a year of 100 hour weeks minimum wage to pay for that tractor - considerably longer if, as seems entirely likely, you had to spend any of that money on food or the likes.
People just don't believe this poor mouth bolloxology.

You can't have it both ways - if the days are endless, hard, dangerous work for a pittance - stop fúcking doing them. Get a job in a shop, or a factory or something - the money will be better and the hours shorter, that's a win / win.

If however you love working the land or whatever and want to only do that - then accept that you've made a choice to do something you love but that doesn't pay very well and stop fúcking whining about money like the world owes you a living.

annascott

I would like to think that I would appraise each person as I meet them and try not to stereotype them.
But seeing as you have asked...
IMHO I see them as falling into two or three categories.
1. Ordinary guys who with or without subsidies are running a successful farm and making a profit. Self employed.
2. Guys who have inherited/bought land and call themselves farmers when the reality is there is no working farm or profits to be made. They have just not bothered to go out to work or get an education and are claiming farmer dole under the guise of subsidies.
3. Weirdos living at home with mammy, calling themselves farmers because they live on what was once a farm, although not making any money.

vicwatson

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

One of the most popular forums on Boards is the Farming & Forestry forum:)

Iirc, it used be the 5th or 6th most popular one on Boards:pac:

So what, I still hate it as they are nothing but whingers over there, oh and get registration plates for your trailers, and clean up the public road after pulling half your field out on to it. Thank you. Oh and pay a proper road tax too for those tractors.

Esel

PTO, or GTFO.

XR3i

diesel 20 for sale

fully renovated

will fly thru the nct

Didgeridoodoo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Jaysis i wont milk the cows before ive a cup of tay
and i damnded if ill miss breakfast dinner supper tea and the bedtime snack because of the farm either

Widdershins

Salt of the earth. I don't like office drones much . Apart from the odd thicko, Farmers are great .

_Brian

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's not ignorance and begrudgery, it's basic maths. It would take over a year of 100 hour weeks minimum wage to pay for that tractor - considerably longer if, as seems entirely likely, you had to spend any of that money on food or the likes.
People just don't believe this poor mouth bolloxology.

You can't have it both ways - if the days are endless, hard, dangerous work for a pittance - stop fúcking doing them. Get a job in a shop, or a factory or something - the money will be better and the hours shorter, that's a win / win.

If however you love working the land or whatever and want to only do that - then accept that you've made a choice to do something you love but that doesn't pay very well and stop fúcking whining about money like the world owes you a living.

This post just shows the ignorance there is about both farming and running a business.

The business, the farm buys the tractor, it's a machine to operate as part of the business.

The profit from the business leaves most farmers with less than the minimum wage after expenses are taken into account.

Cop on and at least get some basic understanding on how a business works, the difference between gross and net profits before you go making comments in stuff you obviously know nothing about.

sbsquarepants

_Brian wrote: »

This post just shows the ignorance there is about both farming and running a business.

The business, the farm buys the tractor, it's a machine to operate as part of the business.

The profit from the business leaves most farmers with less than the minimum wage after expenses are taken into account.

Cop on and at least get some basic understanding on how a business works, the difference between gross and net profits before you go making comments in stuff you obviously know nothing about.

Slave away 100 hrs plus a week, in a dirty dangerous job just so you can purchase machinery which allows you to eek out an existence on less than minimum wage - but I'm the one who should learn how a business works?

Good point:D:D

freedominacup

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Slave away 100 hrs plus a week, in a dirty dangerous job just so you can purchase machinery which allows you to eek out an existence on less than minimum wage - but I'm the one who should learn how a business works?

Good point:D:D

I hated doing it considering the poster but I had to thank this post. A little bit of reducto ad absurdum about it but also a lot of truth.

sbsquarepants

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Slave away 100 hrs plus a week, in a dirty dangerous job just so you can purchase machinery which allows you to eek out an existence on less than minimum wage - but I'm the one who should learn how a business works?

the vast majority of farmers aren't in it for the money. I don't know a single young farmer in Ireland who wouldn't be better off selling-up and pushing a pen over and back across a page for a living.

But that wasn't the point, was it? You made an obviously ridiculous calculation regarding minimum wage, and the poster was just calling you out on it.

The premise of your calculation implies that you don't understand how wages are calculated for self-employed people.

sbsquarepants

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

the vast majority of farmers aren't in it for the money. I don't know a single young farmer in Ireland who wouldn't be better off selling-up and pushing a pen over and back across a page for a living.

But that wasn't the point, was it? You made an obviously ridiculous calculation regarding minimum wage, and the poster was just calling you out on it.

The premise of your calculation implies that you don't understand how wages are calculated for self-employed people.

My point was not about how wages are calculated - my point is that it makes no sense to invest so much money into a machine that returns so little reward. So little sense in fact that no competent business owner would do it.
The wages are "calculated" (in every sense of the word) to maintain the ridiculous assertion that a lot of very wealthy farmers are actually earning minimum wage (or less in a lot of cases). Thereby allowing them to put their hand out and / or pay less tax.
I'm happy enough if people say "I'm not in this for the money" - but if that's the case then stop always looking for money and get on with it. You can't have it both ways.
I can't think of any other business where it costs so damn much, and takes so much work to make so little money. It's bullshít.

freedominacup wrote: »

I hated doing it considering the poster but I had to thank this post. A little bit of reducto ad absurdum about it but also a lot of truth.

What's your problem with me?
Have we ever even spoken?

fepper

sbsquarepants wrote: »

My point was not about how wages are calculated - my point is that it makes no sense to invest so much money into a machine that returns so little reward. So little sense in fact that no competent business owner would do it.
The wages are "calculated" (in every sense of the word) to maintain the ridiculous assertion that a lot of very wealthy farmers are actually earning minimum wage (or less in a lot of cases). Thereby allowing them to put their hand out and / or pay less tax.
I'm happy enough if people say "I'm not in this for the money" - but if that's the case then stop always looking for money and get on with it. You can't have it both ways.
I can't think of any other business where it costs so damn much, and takes so much work to make so little money. It's bullshít.









What's your problem with me?
Have we ever even spoken?

He's complimenting your post