Who speaks for the taxpayer?

[TheBigShort]

If they have to bailed out next year, and the year after that is that not just state aid?
Should the costs not be integrated as part of the cost of doing business. If it's not that common, I have to get insurance against adverse events in my business. Do farmers not have the same requirements.

Taking out insurance does not protect against stock dying or becoming diseased, this is the underlying threat to the sector.

 

[Purple]

One of the main reasons for farming subsidies is our expectation of low food costs.
Farmers cannot sell their products for an economically viable price.

No, Farmers cannot produce their products for an economically viable price.
The solution to that it to make their sector more efficient.
It is not to continue to funnel vast amounts of money into the sector so that we can produce food at artificially deflated prices and depress world market, causing widespread suffering, hunger and death in other parts of the world.

 

[qwerty5]

Taking out insurance does not protect against stock dying or becoming diseased, this is the underlying threat to the sector.

The threat materialises in a financial loss which can be quantified. This is what insurance is for.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

I have no idea whether farmers can insure against such events.

But the underlying principle is that all businesses should anticipate recurring problems and bad years and plan accordingly.

They should not run their business on the grounds that they make money when things go well but get bailed out by the taxpayer when things go badly for them.

Brendan

 

[Firefly]

But the underlying principle is that all businesses should anticipate recurring problems and bad years and plan accordingly.

They should not run their business on the grounds that they make money when things go well but get bailed out by the taxpayer when things go badly for them.

Amen to that. Otherwise, where draw the line?

 

[TheBigShort]

But the underlying principle is that all businesses should anticipate recurring problems and bad years and plan accordingly.

Yes they should, and in general that is what they do.

They should not run their business on the grounds that they make money when things go well but get bailed out by the taxpayer when things go badly for them.

Its not a case of 'things going badly' for them. The sector is being affected by adverse weather conditions that no-one can predict from one to the next the extent of the impact on the industry.
If Temple Bar is washed out with severe flooding tomorrow that puts retailers out of business for three months, do you think the retailers should stand or fall on there own two feet, or do you think that there could be scope for emergency funding, first through financial assistance and then secondly, through financing flood defenses? Who would pay for the flood defenses? The same people who are paying for the emergency supplies of fodder I would imagine? Or would that be wrong?

 

[Sophrosyne]

No, Farmers cannot produce their products for an economically viable price.
The solution to that it to make their sector more efficient.
It is not to continue to funnel vast amounts of money into the sector so that we can produce food at artificially deflated prices and depress world market, causing widespread suffering, hunger and death in other parts of the world.

I agree that this is a global problem.
But you cannot assume that that the entire farming sector is run inefficiently.

 

[TheBigShort]

[

No, Farmers cannot produce their products for an economically viable price.
The solution to that it to make their sector more efficient.
It is not to continue to funnel vast amounts of money into the sector so that we can produce food at artificially deflated prices and depress world market, causing widespread suffering, hunger and death in other parts of the world.

Is the problem with that however, that effectively we will be reliant on food imports? In which case, a national strategically important sector will be outsourced to other countries which could then, as some point, hold undue leverage over our other interests?
In a trade war, I wouldn't fancy our chances if we placed tariffs on Ryanair flights to Ireland over tariffs being imposed on our food imports.

 

[Purple]

Its not a case of 'things going badly' for them. The sector is being affected by adverse weather conditions that no-one can predict from one to the next the extent of the impact on the industry.
If Temple Bar is washed out with severe flooding tomorrow that puts retailers out of business for three months, do you think the retailers should stand or fall on there own two feet, or do you think that there could be scope for emergency funding, first through financial assistance and then secondly, through financing flood defenses? Who would pay for the flood defenses? The same people who are paying for the emergency supplies of fodder I would imagine? Or would that be wrong?

If that happened to a manufacturing company in the export sector it would probably be against the law to support them. The downturn in the oil sector took a lot of people by surprise and hit many Irish manufacturing companies hard. Not one cent was available to support them or help them maintain employment. The double standard is hard to take. I think that if farmers put as much energy into sorting out their sector as they do whinging and begging they might be better off in the long run.

 

[TheBigShort]

If that happened to a manufacturing company in the export sector it would probably be against the law to support them. The downturn in the oil sector took a lot of people by surprise and hit many Irish manufacturing companies hard. Not one cent was available to support them or help them maintain employment. The double standard is hard to take. I think that if farmers put as much energy into sorting out their sector as they do whinging and begging they might be better off in the long run.

I think the fundamental difference is that food is essential. Without it we will all die. Without manufacturing we can still survive with food.

 

[Purple]

[


Is the problem with that however, that effectively we will be reliant on food imports? In which case, a national strategically important sector will be outsourced to other countries which could then, as some point, hold undue leverage over our other interests?
In a trade war, I wouldn't fancy our chances if we placed tariffs on Ryanair flights to Ireland over tariffs being imposed on our food imports.

Are you saying that every country in the world would gang up on us and stop selling us food?
We import feed and fertilizer and tractors and fuel and trucks for transport and plastic and glass for greenhouses etc. Without all of that we couldn't produce much food either.

 

[Purple]

I think the fundamental difference is that food is essential. Without it we will all die. Without manufacturing we can still survive with food.

Without fuel and trucks etc we couldn't farm on a commercial basis. Without EU subsidies we'd have no farming either. The notion that we are somehow food independent is fanciful.

 

[TheBigShort]

Without fuel and trucks etc we couldn't farm on a commercial basis. Without EU subsidies we'd have no farming either. The notion that we are somehow food independent is fanciful.

That's true. We would be back to pre-Industrial age - where food kept people alive.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

The sector is being affected by adverse weather conditions that no-one can predict from one to the next the extent of the impact on the industry.

Apparently, they have known about it since last September.
And bad weather is a feature of farming, just as good weather is.
In times of plenty, they should put something aside for the bad times.

These guys have very valuable assets in their farms, and taxpayers, most of whom are much poorer, are subsidising them.

do you think that there could be scope for emergency funding, first through financial assistance and then secondly, through financing flood defenses? Who would pay for the flood defenses?

I don't think that people who bought houses in housing estates with a name like "River view" should get any government assistance when their homes inevitably flood.

Not sure about Temple Bar. If it gets flooded regularly, then, no they should not get emergency funding. If they or anyone else is hit by a once in a 100 year event, which was not insurable against, then I would not have a problem contributing to the cost.

Flood defences are part of the infrastructure just as the roads are. They should be paid for through central funding. But we should not be building flood defences to protect the residents of "Wet meadowlands Drive".

Brendan

 

[TheBigShort]

Apparently, they have known about it since last September.
And bad weather is a feature of farming, just as good weather is.
In times of plenty, they should put something aside for the bad times.

Yes, and as has been explained above, knowing about it last September was a consequence of weather conditions last year that utilised the previous stock of fodder. And as the weather conditions resulted in slow growth of grass last year, farmers could not replenish the fodder stocks for this year, if the growth was slow again this year, which it is, then they would be facing into hardship.

Imagine if we had had a searing hot summer last year followed by a dry winter conditions resulting in water shortgages – by September, Irish Water could rightly warn the government that if the same searing hot Summer occurs again, water supplies will be cut. This will put businesses that use water under pressure right?

So, should we say “well they should have kept stocks of bottled water in a barn”, or would it be more prudent for the government to intervene, spending taxes on necessary water repairs, building new resevoirs etc?

These guys have very valuable assets in their farms, and taxpayers, most of whom are much poorer, are subsidising them.

Farmers are taxpayers too. There are rich farmers and poor farmers, like any other sector.

I don't think that people who bought houses in housing estates with a name like "River view" should get any government assistance when their homes inevitably flood.

Why on earth not? Because of the name? Or because it is built beside a river?

Not sure about Temple Bar.

Why? Because of the name? Obviously not because it is built beside a river then!

If it gets flooded regularly, then, no they should not get emergency funding. If they or anyone else is hit by a once in a 100 year event, which was not insurable against, then I would not have a problem contributing to the cost.

Why on earth not? If it gets flooded regularly, shouldn’t that be the place that taxes are spent on flood defences? Instead you seem to prioritise freak once-in-a-blue-moon for emergency funding?

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Hi Shortie

If someone builds a house or buys a house in a flood plain, I should not have to pay for them. They should make their home flood-resistant or move.

I am not prepared to pay for a predictable and common occurrence.

The same principle should apply to Temple Bar. If there is a predicable, common occurrence, the occupiers should provide for it. The taxpayer should not pay for it.

If a very rare event causes great hardship to families, and they can't pay for it themselves, then the taxpayer should help through, subsidies or maybe a loan. A rule of thumb might be that the first time flooding occurs in an area, the taxpayer would help. But it would not help a second time.

But the key point here is that Irish farmers can expect droughts and bad growth every few years and should build up reserves to tide them over. If they see a problem coming down the line, then they should buy in supplies from abroad early on.

Brendan

 

[TheBigShort]

That makes no practical sense to me.
Im no expert, but I would imagine adequate flood defenses would involve one-time capital expenditure.
I think it would make more sense to put adequate flood defenses in areas where there is regular flooding first before putting them in where there is once-in-a lifetime floods.

As for fodder, I dont think it is reasonable to expect farmers to have unlimited capacity to store fodder every year. They will typically store adequate amounts for the winter and replenish those amounts in the summer.
Im no expert, but I would imagine there is a timeframe for storing fodder before it starts to rot?
The issue today is not because farmers didnt store adequate amounts, it is because the weather conditions prevented them from being able to replenish their stocks from last year. They may have had the option of importing stock earlier, but if the Spring had arrived and grass started to grow, they would be left with rotting fodder and unnecessary expense. In which case they would most likely be calling for payments to compensate.
Either or, the system as we have it is designed to secure farmers incomes in order to keep enough farmers on the land. This ensures that there is always adequate food supplies at stable affordable prices for the population.
Its by no means a perfect system. But the principle of having surplus food at stable prices is, in my opinion, more desirable than having food shortages with fluctuating prices.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

Brendan,

Just going back to your point about the teachers, their sense of entitlement amazes me.

Plenty of people in the private sector sit beside other people who are better paid than they are for doing exactly the same thing. The only difference being that the better paid person negotiated his/her contract during the period up to 2008.

Gordon

 

[TheBigShort]

Plenty of people in the private sector sit beside other people who are better paid than they are for doing exactly the same thing. The only difference being that the better paid person negotiated his/her contract during the period up to 2008.

Doesnt make it right though does it? If two people are doing the same job, with the same output, and one is getting €30,000 the other €35,000 then fair play to one who has negotiated €35,000. But realistically all that means is that the €30,000 employee is feasibly worth an extra €5,000. Through no fault of their own (they may be good at the jobs, but just poor at negotiation) they are on the loss for €5,000 a year, which is what they could reasonably expect to be paid to them for their efforts.

Im not arguing that teachers pay is too high or too low, but if the unions are protesting about it, I doubt if it is being led by new recruits. More likely, out of a point of principle, the unions are agitating for a minority of their members.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

If two people are doing the same job, with the same output, and one is getting €30,000 the other €35,000 then fair play to one who has negotiated €35,000. But realistically all that means is that the €30,000 employee is feasibly worth an extra €5,000.

Or, as with the teachers, the existing staff are on salaries which are way above the market level and the €35k guy should be reduced to €30k.

Brendan