Bye bye Starmer

[ZedLeg]

Im not making any suggestions. i’m just asking how £5m farms with zero mortgages and massively reduced machinery/set up costs are saying they only make £20-30k a year.

It just doesn’t make any sense, when new farmers with presumably huge mortgages and epic machinery set up costs are also saying they’re only making £20-30k a year.

Not all farms are owned by big corporates, or who are the people protesting?

I’m clearly dumb or worse than Hitler for asking.

You’re being a bit dense here rich.

You asked who’s buying farms now and as I and Gav said it’s people land banking or looking for land to develop.

The people protesting are a mix of people who’ve owned farms for decades and the aforementioned landbankers mad that their tax dodge didn’t work.

[ZedLeg]

Yeah, there was that stat I found that said although the average farm size is around 35 hectares, more than half of farms are under 20.

The massive size of the biggest farms are skewing the results.

So these average 35 hectare farms. They’re presumably not worth £3m+, and not every one is handed down to the next generation. So there must be people buying and running them, at a profit.

The 35 hectare farms aren’t there (well there will be some but the “average” is a statistical anomaly). The average number comes from folk like Dyson buying thousands of hectares of land.

[Mito Man]

Or are there possibly thousands of mansions across the countryside with large parcels of land which are registered as agricultural?

[dinny_g]

Like, what’s the worst that could happen if farmers sold to the government and were paid a salary for working the land?

The incentive to produce would disappear - what's the point. They're on a wage and a government wage to boot - and so yields would plummet.

And as now "Government Employees", they'd unionise themselves to the hilt meaning they couldn't be fired or censured for fear of wide spread strikes.

So ultimately, we'd become more dependant on food imports, thus driving up the price and down the quality of the food we eat.

[ZedLeg]

Like, what’s the worst that could happen if farmers sold to the government and were paid a salary for working the land?

The incentive to produce would disappear - what's the point. They're on a wage and a government wage to boot - and so yields would plummet.

And as now "Government Employees", they'd unionise themselves to the hilt meaning they couldn't be fired or censured for fear of wide spread strikes.

So ultimately, we'd become more dependant on food imports, thus driving up the price and down the quality of the food we eat.

That doesn’t make sense though. How do jobs work if going on a salary removes the incentive to produce.

Like, there are loads of folk who do hard work in all conditions on a wage.

Farmers get paid by the government to not produce anything now

[Rich B]

Im not making any suggestions. i’m just asking how £5m farms with zero mortgages and massively reduced machinery/set up costs are saying they only make £20-30k a year.

It just doesn’t make any sense, when new farmers with presumably huge mortgages and epic machinery set up costs are also saying they’re only making £20-30k a year.

Not all farms are owned by big corporates, or who are the people protesting?

I’m clearly dumb or worse than Hitler for asking.

You’re being a bit dense here rich.

You asked who’s buying farms now and as I and Gav said it’s people land banking or looking for land to develop.

The people protesting are a mix of people who’ve owned farms for decades and the aforementioned landbankers mad that their tax dodge didn’t work.

I think you’re reading my questions, then asking a completely different one in your head.

We agree that there “will be some” buying this theoretical average sized farm, so presumably they can be run profitably (unless you’re saying that zero people other than big corporates are buying farms?).

My issue is the conflation in the media and protests that all farmers earn £20k a year from their £5m inherited farms. The whole asset rich/cash poor line we keep hearing.

[ZedLeg]

Have you looked into it at all?

[dinny_g]

That doesn’t make sense though. How do jobs work if going on a salary removes the incentive to produce.
Like, there are loads of folk who do hard work in all conditions on a wage.

It was a little tongue in cheek Zed but in response to your specific question, Self Employed people generally tend to work harder than their salaried counterparts as they can see a direct cause and effect of their extra effort, whereas the salaried or waged employee are several steps removed from their effort being rewarded.

A farmer will go the extra distance if he can produce an extra ton of grain or an extra head of livestock as it's money directly into his or her pocket. A farm employee in a State Owned Farm will, for the most part, to their expected job and no more.

[ZedLeg]

I don’t really see an issue with that.

If they have to produce 100 tonnes of grain a year and they hit that while not overworking what’s the problem?

[Rich B]

Have you looked into it at all?

well a quick search online shows that Savills have 287 farms for sale in the uk right now - are all of those going to landbanks?

[ZedLeg]

How would I know, have you looked into how profitable or not farming is?

[dinny_g]

I don’t really see an issue with that.

If they have to produce 100 tonnes of grain a year and they hit that while not overworking what’s the problem?

To use your analogy, a private farmer will work every hour under the sun to hit 100 tonnes of that's the number they need to live.

A salaried farmer will work away and whether they hit 100 tonnes or not is not their issue - its a SEP - Somebody Else's Problem. They get paid either way

[Gavster]

Im not making any suggestions. i’m just asking how £5m farms with zero mortgages and massively reduced machinery/set up costs are saying they only make £20-30k a year.

It just doesn’t make any sense, when new farmers with presumably huge mortgages and epic machinery set up costs are also saying they’re only making £20-30k a year.

Not all farms are owned by big corporates, or who are the people protesting?

I’m clearly dumb or worse than Hitler for asking.

You’re being a bit dense here rich.

You asked who’s buying farms now and as I and Gav said it’s people land banking or looking for land to develop.

The people protesting are a mix of people who’ve owned farms for decades and the aforementioned landbankers mad that their tax dodge didn’t work.

I think you’re reading my questions, then asking a completely different one in your head.

We agree that there “will be some” buying this theoretical average sized farm, so presumably they can be run profitably (unless you’re saying that zero people other than big corporates are buying farms?).

My issue is the conflation in the media and protests that all farmers earn £20k a year from their £5m inherited farms. The whole asset rich/cash poor line we keep hearing.

Even if some farmers are making more money than minimum wage (worth a look https://www.sustainweb.org/reports/dec2 ... od-prices/), the price of land is still absolutely astronomical in relation to the annual returns.

I suspect that anyone buying smaller farms, who are not large institutions investors, are people like Clarkson and Andy Cato, who have saved or earned £££ from their work, or perhaps sold a London property, and want to buy a farm to give farming a go. If you went into a bank and asked for a loan to buy land to farm, with the sole intention of repaying the loan with farming income, you'd be laughed out the building.

[Swervin_Mervin]

I don’t really see an issue with that.

If they have to produce 100 tonnes of grain a year and they hit that while not overworking what’s the problem?

You need to factor in the public sector wastage and disincentivisation to work element that Dinny forgot about. Privately owned but employee farmed, you might have a point. State-owned and state-employee farmed would be a massive shitshow.

[ZedLeg]

I don’t really see an issue with that.

If they have to produce 100 tonnes of grain a year and they hit that while not overworking what’s the problem?

To use your analogy, a private farmer will work every hour under the sun to hit 100 tonnes of that's the number they need to live.

A salaried farmer will work away and whether they hit 100 tonnes or not is not their issue - its a SEP - Somebody Else's Problem. They get paid either way

But again, the former isn’t something we want is it? There shouldn’t be a need for people to work themselves to the bone. They only have to because they’re underpaid for their produce.

Offer people bonuses for hitting target, the same as any job.

[Swervin_Mervin]

Have you looked into it at all?

well a quick search online shows that Savills have 287 farms for sale in the uk right now - are all of those going to landbanks?

They might well do in a few weeks when the Gov't publish their revised National Planning Policy Framework which is already leading to an absolute gold-rush on land and development before it's even been published. All that greenbelt agricultural land that's surrounds the urban areas, which is the most likely to be the most valuable agricultural land is suddenly going to seem very appealing to its owners to sell up.

[ZedLeg]

I don’t really see an issue with that.

If they have to produce 100 tonnes of grain a year and they hit that while not overworking what’s the problem?

You need to factor in the public sector wastage and disincentivisation to work element that Dinny forgot about. Privately owned but employee farmed, you might have a point. State-owned and state-employee farmed would be a massive shitshow.

My problem with privately owned and employee farmed is that it would be prime for exploitation.

There would need to be robust employment rules. Also, I’d assume the private owners would still want the handouts if we didn’t do anything to make the work profitable.

[dinny_g]

You need to factor in the public sector wastage and disincentivisation to work element that Dinny forgot about. Privately owned but employee farmed, you might have a point. State-owned and state-employee farmed would be a massive shitshow.

This is the point was trying to make to Zed in response to his point about subsidies

[ZedLeg]

Have you looked into it at all?

well a quick search online shows that Savills have 287 farms for sale in the uk right now - are all of those going to landbanks?

They might well do in a few weeks when the Gov't publish their revised National Planning Policy Framework which is already leading to an absolute gold-rush on land and development before it's even been published. All that greenbelt agricultural land that's surrounds the urban areas, which is the most likely to be the most valuable agricultural land is suddenly going to seem very appealing to its owners to sell up.

Every time I go home more of the green belt around Edinburgh has had shite suburban schemes built on it.

[Swervin_Mervin]

I don’t really see an issue with that.

If they have to produce 100 tonnes of grain a year and they hit that while not overworking what’s the problem?

You need to factor in the public sector wastage and disincentivisation to work element that Dinny forgot about. Privately owned but employee farmed, you might have a point. State-owned and state-employee farmed would be a massive shitshow.

My problem with privately owned and employee farmed is that it would be prime for exploitation.

There would need to be robust employment rules. Also, I’d assume the private owners would still want the handouts if we didn’t do anything to make the work profitable.

I agree. Which is why it shouldn't be managed in that way imo. But then state would be worse. Imagine how many fucking managers you'd need to sign off a harvest