We need a land and wealth tax to replace income and transaction tax.

John_Pierpoint

I live on a "farm".
Since the subsidies were switched from the grain mountain output of the farm to the land itself, it now provides almost no food, but it still gets the subsidy. Its owner is a successful importer of Chinese made goods and its out buildings have been turned into a mini industrial estate, [business rates of some sort will be being paid on this part] most of the rest of it is horsey culture.
To be strictly accurate it is owned by an obscure private company, as its lack of food production could effect its status of being Inheritance Tax Free; though under the new "sustainability" criteria for planning permission, there is the "hope value" of realising a return that would be envied by a lottery winner.
The lack of food production should be affecting the subsidy of reclaiming 20% on most of its inputs via the VAT system & "pink diesel" low tax fuel.

It must be very difficult to be a farmer/landowner and remain strictly honest.

http://thetruthiswhere.wordpress.com/?s=farm+subsidy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2208567.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11216061

http://capreform.eu/scenar-study-cap-reform/

Typical farm sale advertisement - note attempt to retain some "hope" value.
http://www.kidsontrigg.co.uk/Property/Properties/View?id=76

http://www.efncp.org/hnv-showcases/south-wales/facts-and-figures/

cepheus

interesting, Farm subsidies, virtually the opposite of a land tax. Well a certain party
under the ‘Food, Farming and the Countryside’ category on the policies section of their website, want to:

Ensure there is no sudden loss of Common Agricultural Policy farming subsidies such as single farm payments

guess who? You might be surprised, although anyone with a few brain cells know where their true interests lie, supporting rich landowners.

Where does this money actually go? Perhaps, you might think, it goes to small, struggling farmers across the country. Subsidies, after all, are supposed to help small businesses survive and develop.

But no: these subsidies go to the very richest people in Britain. The Duke of Westminster, Gerald Grosvenor – number 8 on this year’s Sunday Times Rich List – receives some £820,000 a year. The Duke of Buccleuch, Richard Scott – number 434 in this year’s Sunday Times Rich List – receives some £405,000. Indeed, the money seems to go to organisations who don’t even do any farming: Serco receive some £2 million. Talk about scroungers.

John_Pierpoint

Very strange policy as this subsidy (plus its "nature" baby brother) is the largest one we pay to the EU.
Before joining the Common Market the UK, as a net importer of food had a relatively free market and the market price in the UK was similar to the world price.
UK farmers sold into this market for the best price they could get and at the end of the year a deficit payment would be made to UK farmers based on what they had sold. Thus an efficient and clever farmer would maximise his income, while minimising his outgoings; prosper and expand. The opposite type of farmer would eventually go out of business.
However the market cleared any excess production and the market decided, not a bunch of politicians buying votes.

pqrdef

cepheus wrote: »

Where does this money actually go? Perhaps, you might think, it goes to small, struggling farmers across the country. Subsidies, after all, are supposed to help small businesses survive and develop.

Lots of companies get government grants and subsidies, one way or another, which end up in the pockets of shareholders, one way or another.

It's not supposed to save poor people from starving. It's supposed to direct economic activity towards public policy objectives.

If we need people to do things, we pay them. It's irrelevant how rich they are. The governemnt pays Microsoft for software even though Bill Gates is rich enough already.

We might look at whether some of this spending is cost-effective though.

John_Pierpoint

pqrdef wrote: »

If we need people to do things, we pay them. It's irrelevant how rich they are. The governemnt pays Microsoft for software even though Bill Gates is rich enough already.

I am not sure about your analogy, surely if the government was to stop paying Microsoft, it would stop getting fixes and discount prices for its software and hardware.

If subsidies stopped being paid to land owners for being landowners, what would happen?

[Answer, the price of land would fall and some inefficient farmers would be forced to sell up.
New Zealand did this nearly a generation ago. I have not heard any cries of the end of civilisation as we know it, from down under - in fact it is possible for young hard working people to become farmers and live in a farmhouse, without having to wait for their parents to die].

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2011/07/18/its-time-to-kick-farmers-off-the-federal-dole/

No doubt, farmers have trouble imagining life without their special federal dole. However, two-thirds of American farm production, such as meat, fruit, and vegetables, is not subsidized. In 1984 New Zealand ended its subsidy programs and its farmers have prospered.

pqrdef

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

If subsidies stopped being paid to land owners for being landowners, what would happen?

Landowners wouldn't have any incentive to do what the government wants them to do.

What the government wants them to do is a different question.

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

In 1984 New Zealand ended its subsidy programs and its farmers have prospered.

But my point was, whether farmers prosper isn't the point, because it's not about social security for farmers.

Farmers prosper by aggressive monoculture, by stuffing the environment with chemicals, by doing whatever else they can do to make a buck and to hell with any consequences that they don't have to pay for.

Let the Duke of Westminster off the leash and I'm sure he'll find ways to make a lot more than his £800K subsidy.

Since we won't nationalise land, we pay landowners to do less harm, because we've seen the harm they can do.

John_Pierpoint

Let us not get completely off topic by debating how we stop 10 billion people from eating meat and drinking milk.

I had not noticed that New Zealand had turned into an industrial desert in the last 30 years. I would suggest that if I had to pay twice as much for a farm as it is intrinsically worth, I would be forced, especially if I was a tenant farmer, to force the land for all it is worth.

Here is an example of socialist state capitalism in action.




As they say in New Zealand, lean and mean is clean and green.

Devon_Sailor

pqrdef wrote: »

Landowners wouldn't have any incentive to do what the government wants them to do.

What the government wants them to do is a different question.


But my point was, whether farmers prosper isn't the point, because it's not about social security for farmers.

Farmers prosper by aggressive monoculture, by stuffing the environment with chemicals, by doing whatever else they can do to make a buck and to hell with any consequences that they don't have to pay for.

Let the Duke of Westminster off the leash and I'm sure he'll find ways to make a lot more than his £800K subsidy.

Since we won't nationalise land, we pay landowners to do less harm, because we've seen the harm they can do.

I must admit, I have read some utter hogwash on this forum before (welcome back by the way DLW - thought you'd gone and topped yourself when Labour's lead slipped to 3% and the Double Dip, let alone Triple Dip was avoided...!)...but this post takes the absolute biscuit, cake, indeed the whole blooming Great British Bake Off for it's pure unadulterated garbage.....

Im guessing that the nearest you have actually been to a real farm is accidentally flicking onto back end of an Utterly Butterly advert and admired the cow?

cepheus

Some more ideas here including a land value tax

Taxing wealth is an underexplored option in the UK, given the scale of wealth inequality. A new project confronts this head on, with proposals for radical reform.

Towards better wealth taxation
The IPPR report makes extensive use of data from the new model. We argue for reforms in three key areas:
- Replace council tax with something more equitable and efficient.
- Consider first-steps towards a land value tax.
- Replace inheritance tax with a lifetimes receipts tax.

Do you reckon UKIP might be interested LOL!

John_Pierpoint

Coming soon, if it has not arrived already, to a local authority near you:

The Community Infrastructure Levy, of course as the charge per sq meter is taxed by the local authority it will get spent (locally?) by the local authority.
I am not sure if it is "hypothecated", but even if it is, that will free up more funds for (what shall we say ?) twinning ceremonies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/local-gove...n-106-planning