You may not be denying it, but many farmers seem to be in denial that their neighbours subsidise their lifestyle, compulsorily through their taxes.
Farmers have been the most vocal about allowing their produce to be priced in free market terms of supply and demand.
Its the rest of society, via government interventions, that persist with good reason for subsidized food supplies.
Unfortunately Revenue don't seem to see it that way.
I was thinking in terms of existence.
I am sure many other posters on here currently, paid amounts in tax equal to the salary of a Garda recruit or a newly qualified school teacher.
Yes, like I said, on an individual basis it pays for sod all.
Certainly nowhere near, by some considerable distance, to subsidising food supplies - the result of which is abundant food in supermarkets with stable prices.
That was the case 20 years ago, what we are seeing now is the farmers who spent 20 years of subsidy without a thought to the day it would run out, and now instead of being prepared for the future they are demanding subsidies run forever
Farmers would be quite happy to allow their produce be priced in free market supply and demand. Its the rest of society, via government, that has concocted the concept of subsidized food produce.
Quite possibly they would not, but consumers would be spending their money as they wished in supermarkets or restaurants, not having it taken from them in the form of taxes to subsidise the lifestyles of farmers.
You are suggesting that not only does your taxes pay for the salary of a teacher, or a garda, it also subsidizes farmer incomes?
I respectfully disagree. The subsidizing of food supplies is only achievable through the collective population contributing, including taxes on farm incomes.
You no more subsidize food prices than farmers do themselves, and some of them also contribute to the salaries of a teacher, or a garda.