We Have To Eat In Order To Exist

[James Hampton]

This one is the one I was thinking of I think.

[gettafa]

Thanks for that James.

Total £ 6,470,344.91, with 399 recipients averaging £ 16,216.40

I'm sure there is a good argument for this generous distribution, but there must also be a good argument for a simple means test. Or just stop the grant. Especially in light of the Meals on Wheels situation.

The likes of Personal Allowance Credit was stopped for the low paid because the Isle of Man got found out and the cash is drying up. I think it's time the big boys took a hit and a bit (well not much relatively speaking actually) of the strain.

2015 CCS LDS 001.xlsx

 

 

.

 

 

[woody2]

1 hour ago, pongo said:

Good to know that you fly private.

good to know you don't.....

[twinkle]

1 hour ago, gettafa said:

Thanks for that James.

Total £ 6,470,344.91, with 399 recipients averaging £ 16,216.40

I'm sure there is a good argument for this generous distribution, but there must also be a good argument for a simple means test. Or just stop the grant. Especially in light of the Meals on Wheels situation.

The likes of Personal Allowance Credit was stopped for the low paid because the Isle of Man got found out and the cash is drying up. I think it's time the big boys took a hit and a bit (well not much relatively speaking actually) of the strain.

2015 CCS LDS 001.xlsx

 

 

.

 

 

SIX AND A HALF MILLION to these grasping bastards,what the fuck are members of tynwald playing at,they could cut this in half and the bastards are still comfortable sitting looking at their fucking grass growing.

[asitis]

6 minutes ago, twinkle said:

SIX AND A HALF MILLION to these grasping bastards,what the fuck are members of tynwald playing at,they could cut this in half and the bastards are still comfortable sitting looking at their fucking grass growing.

I have no problem with subsidising food production if that is what we need to do. I note Quayle mooted recently that the sole arbiter of the grants may be moved simply onto the amount of land owned ! This is nauseating when put into context at the side of all the other cuts taking place.

an interesting read for thickos like me who needed to try and understand why we give people money here not to grow food but simply to look after property which they own !

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/21641/agriculture/farming-subsidies-in-the-uk/

[Donald Trumps]

I'd cancel landowner grants & farming subsidies, & trial a citizens income experiment for food artisans

[twinkle]

18 minutes ago, asitis said:

I have no problem with subsidising food production if that is what we need to do. I note Quayle mooted recently that the sole arbiter of the grants may be moved simply onto the amount of land owned ! This is nauseating when put into context at the side of all the other cuts taking place.

an interesting read for thickos like me who needed to try and understand why we give people money here not to grow food but simply to look after property which they own !

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/21641/agriculture/farming-subsidies-in-the-uk/

This article does not justify this insane policy of giving these grasping bastards money for fuck all.

[asitis]

18 minutes ago, twinkle said:

This article does not justify this insane policy of giving these grasping bastards money for fuck all.

Nope quite the opposite ! I agree.

[Non-Believer]

58 minutes ago, twinkle said:

SIX AND A HALF MILLION to these grasping bastards,what the fuck are members of tynwald playing at,they could cut this in half and the bastards are still comfortable sitting looking at their fucking grass growing.

But it'll carry on. If we had 45,000 of the population reduced to begging for crumbs on the streets you can guarantee that the farmers would still be getting their handouts. Because they're part of what IoM exists to benefit. Always have, always will be.

By whom and how is it ever going to change?

[asitis]

If you are not feeling peeved about the levels of these payments consider this ........

The Island is roughly 141,440 acres, of this reputedly 107,210 acres is under agriculture say 75% of the land which is supported by 6.5 million of public money. Alarmingly, farming forestry and fishing combined contribute only 0.5% of GDP. A Bargain !!

[woody2]

1 hour ago, asitis said:

If you are not feeling peeved about the levels of these payments consider this ........

The Island is roughly 141,440 acres, of this reputedly 107,210 acres is under agriculture say 75% of the land which is supported by 6.5 million of public money. Alarmingly, farming forestry and fishing combined contribute only 0.5% of GDP. A Bargain !!

they do need increasing.....

[asitis]

2 minutes ago, woody2 said:

they do need increasing.....

Maybe they do to farmers producing food , not keeping horses or holiday accommodation or just cutting the croquet lawn to look nice ! or simply because we are well enough off to own land and play at being farmers !

[dilligaf]

7 hours ago, Albert Tatlock said:

Onchan MHK David Ashford? I think you mean Douglas North.

Somebody should have pointed out that he was not representing Onchan in the second post on the thread.

[woody2]

i don't actually agree with any grants, but if they are daft enough to pay it.......

[James Hampton]

2 hours ago, woody2 said:

i don't actually agree with any grants, but if they are daft enough to pay it.......

Exactly. There are a small number of landowners / ranchers / hobby farmers who have and are milking the system for all it's worth, but who wouldn't - if the money is on offer you take it right? It has to be said though that the majority are just taking what they are offered (which in relative terms has never been significant for most when you look at the costs) as they always have - and again who can blame them. On the IOM the entire industry has effectively been tied to the government for decades. During the years of cereal area payments and intervention GOV effectively controlled all input and output - the majority were basically working for the government. The current system has moved away from production subsidies to area based in order to reduce costs for political reasons, with a recently introduced 'active' farmer clause to try to avoid the lawn mowing scenarios - which isn't worth the paper it's written on. There is also a minority of young fellas at the other end of the scale who are effectively screwed by the current model, because it ensures that nobody can get a foot in the door unless it's already open to you by inheritance or an alternative income stream. There are virtually no 'real' farmers left now - by 'real' I mean farmers whose entire household income is taken from agricultural production. I've been told that during the Second World War the IOM was entirely self sufficient in the basic food commodities, including supporting the additional population of internees up until very near the end when milk had to be imported. Hard to imagine now. 

I think both of the FOIs posted were from Buster, and he did try again. He was trying to find out names, presumably so he could find out what the MHKs who are on the scheme are pocketing. 

Production subsidies were introduced after the wars in order to help the UK back on to its feet, however they should have been tapered out as production efficiency increased significantly. They didn't, and now they're effectively just free money for supermarkets. 

The great irony is that production subsidies were introduced in the first place on the basis of ensuring food security, and that's now effectively what they have destroyed.