Who speaks for the taxpayer?

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
54,789
I got really annoyed watching the farmers yet again for criticising the government for doing nothing about the fodder crisis. I heard one commentator saying that they had been warning the government since last September. But why should the tax payer be subsidising this? If the farmers and their co-ops and their representatives had known since last September, they should have been buying in feedstuffs to prepare for this.

And the teachers who are already very highly paid want more money. If they want equality, then let the existing teachers take a pay cut. Dan O'Brien had a great article on it yesterday in the Indo, although it does not appear to be online. The gist of it was that teachers are paid more per hour than any other profession. This is overstating the case a bit, as some of them do preparation which is not paid. But he also pointed out that there is no shortage of applications at the current salary levels.

But both of these issues are portrayed as "the teachers vs. the government" or "the farmers vs. the government".

It's not. It's the teachers vs. the taxpayers and the farmers vs. the taxpayers.

Likewise with putting homeless people up in hotels. The taxpayers are paying for this.

And it's not just the top 20% who pay the majority of income taxes. It's everyone who pays the high rates of VAT and excise duties on drink and fuel.

But there is no one to speak for these taxpayers and so the vocal pressure groups push the government into high taxation and high borrowing.

Brendan
 
Aren't farmers and teachers taxpayers too?

[broken link removed]

Some facts about the Irish agri/food industry and its contribution to the Irish economy in employment and trade.

If some farmers are genuinely struggling due to adverse weather conditions, I'm quite happy (as a taxpayer) to bail (no pun intended) them out within reason.
I don't think what is being asked for is unduly unreasonable.
 
I'd be interested in knowing how many of the farmers that are struggling are dairy farmers.
And did they increase their stocks in anticipation of making loads of money through increased milk production.
 

Should we bail out hotels and restaurants and airlines if they have cancellations due to bad weather events?

This sort of bailout to farmers just encourages them to over extend.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Yes, but so what?

Brendan
Click to expand...

I just got the impression from your opening post that you believe that no-one speaks for the taxpayer

Brendan Burgess said:
But there is no one to speak for these taxpayers and so the vocal pressure groups push the government into high taxation and high borrowing.
Click to expand...

clearly the IFA speak for the taxpayer farmers?
the teacher unions speak for the taxpaying teachers?

What you appear to be asking is that there is no-one to speak for the taxpayers who disagree with the way the government spends its taxes for groups that have someone to speak for those taxpayers!
In other words, when a group of taxpayers (e.g. farmers and teachers) have someone to speak on their behalf on how taxes should be spent, you are not happy about it, while simultaneously you are not happy if other groups of taxpayers (e.g. the group not happy about spending more taxes on farmers and teachers) have no-one to speak on their behalf.
 
odyssey06 said:
Should we bail out hotels and restaurants and airlines if they have cancellations due to bad weather events?

This sort of bailout to farmers just encourages them to over extend.
Click to expand...

We bailed out lots of hotels during the economic crisis.

I'm not sure if they are still looking for help, or if the restaurants (9% VAT rate, down from 13%) are asking for more?

As for the airlines, if the airline is economically viable, and if a business case can exist to extend taxes to it while it is on verge of an operating emergency, then I would have no issue with affording a taxpayer intervention in order to sustain the business, industry if over the longer-term its value to economy outstrips the costs of any bailout.

I think the issue with farm holdings is that if animals stocks are not fed sufficiently they are liable to outbreaks of disease and death pretty quickly, in turn, threatening the industry even further.
Don't think of it as a bailout, think of it as an investment in industry.
 
(Warning: generalisations in the following text... I am providing these just as examples for the overall point being made!)

I know this issue has come up before here on the forum and in short: no one speaks for the taxpayer because 'the taxpayer' is not a homogenous group. It effectively extends to the general population, even if the tax is weighted heavily in terms of earnings and spending. We all see ourselves as having an equally valid input into how the State acts and what it should do (or limit itself in doing).

Different taxpayers at different stages of their life would like to see certain things prioritised - young adults today would like to know they have somewhere to live, parents would like to know they have schools to send their kids to and retirees would like that the State is prioritising health spending and free healthcare. No one wants taxpayers' collective funds to be wasted but what is wastage for one person is investment by another's eyes. Urban dwellers might wonder why every hole in the hedge across the country is entitled to utility supply and rural dwellers might wonder why all the big investment projects seem to be in city areas.

As such, we vote periodically on the faint hope that our vote translates into politicians acting according to our expectations of their fiscal views.
 
TheBigShort said:
We bailed out lots of hotels during the economic crisis.
Click to expand...

Did we? I understand NAMA acquired hotels. Will we end up owning these farmers lands and assets?

Having a lower VAT rate to make an industry more competitive internationally is not a bailout, especially if the lower VAT rate in fact leads to increased VAT revenues due to more visitors. If a similar case is argued for airlines or farmers, that is not a bailout.


This is not an operating emergency. This was entirely forseeable and given all the predictions of climate change, something that may occur with more frequency in future.

If it's once off event, that is a different scenario. But this does not appear to be so?


How is it an investment if we'll have to bail them out in 3 years if this happens again? It just encourages them to over extend animal stock to levels that can't be supported sustainably.
 


You are being disingenuous. NAMA acquired hotels that were facing bankruptcy at huge cost to the taxpayer. NAMA will dispose of these hotels, ‘we’ – I assume you mean the taxpayer, wont owe any of them. In any reasonable parlance, it was a bailout.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business...o-place-eight-more-hotels-on-market-1.1947112


According to this report the VAT rate reduction for the hotel and restaurant sector may have cost the State €600m. If this is true, that is a bailout.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0324/689253-hotel-industry-vat/





Its not entirely ‘forseeable’. Despite the predictions of climate change no-one can predict the weather forecast six months ahead.

But you don’t know, no-one does, if is once-off or to recur again and again. Its possible we are in a cycle of weather patterns that will result the same problem for the next decade. Farmers should stock up for the next decade – On the other hand its possible that weather conditions will improve immensely over the next decade, meaning farmers could be sitting on fodder stock with no requirement for it. Its not really a viable way to run an efficient business, particularly, given the fact that live animals are at concern here (as opposed to say fairground attractions or ice-cream parlours which are also weather dependent).

Animals that are not sufficiently fed can result in an outbreak of disease that can affect all of the stock, including stock that are not short of food, leading to a potential collapse of the industry.
Considering what is at stake, considering the IFA have made efforts to resolve this issue themselves;

https://www.independent.ie/business...-farmers-take-action-themselves-36429839.html

"It comes as IFA President Joe Healy has announced an emergency fodder initiative, where IFA will mobilise its national county and branch network to support those farmers in most difficulty.

Counties have been twinned with a view to identifying farmers who are in a position to contribute feed, to be transported to areas in need."

I my opinion, as a taxpayer, what is being asked for is chicken-feed.
 

You are being disingenuous. The state owned the hotels, at least for a period. Will the state own any cows as a result of feeding them?

As for the tourism VAT rate, the RTE article even admits "It is not possible to tell how much of those returns only exist because the rate was reduced." So basically, it's a non article.

How many "fodder crisis" events have there been in the last 20 years?
There was a fodder crisis in 1985, 1998, 1999 and 2013 and now 2018 - I may have missed some.

It's entirely forseeable that a fodder crisis will occur. We can't say what year. But it will occur. It is an expected event. If a farm cannot cope with a fodder crisis, it should not be in operation.
 
TheBigShort said:
I my opinion, as a taxpayer, what is being asked for is chicken-feed
Click to expand...
No, they are looking for fodder

I don't have a major problem with this, as long as the farmers themselves are doing most of the heavy lifting then they should be supported.
The broader question is the sustainability of the industry as it is currently structured. The vast majority of farm incomes comes from welfare payments from the EU taxpayer. When two thirds of your income comes from welfare and you still can't make a living you really have to look at doing something else. The reality is that many Irish farms are too small to be sustainable, grossly inefficient and lack the resources to invest in what is an increasingly capital intensive business.
 

A viable way to run an efficient business is to set aside cash reserve to deal with these sort of possible scenarios. If you don't have money to pay for insurance, or to pay for medicines for the animals, or to buy in feed after a bad winter, then you shouldn't be in business.
 
TheBigShort said:
If some farmers are genuinely struggling due to adverse weather conditions, I'm quite happy (as a taxpayer) to bail (no pun intended) them out within reason.
I don't think what is being asked for is unduly unreasonable.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TheBigShort said:
According to this report the VAT rate reduction for the hotel and restaurant sector may have cost the State €600m. If this is true, that is a bailout.
Click to expand...

And I would argue that the hotel and restaurant sector should not have received this special treatment either.

The fact that spend money unwisely in some area does not mean that we should subsidise farmers.

Brendan
 
odyssey06 said:
The state owned the hotels, at least for a period. Will the state own any cows as a result of feeding them?
Click to expand...


Probably not, whats your point? You are not seriously suggesting that by taking ownership of bankrupt hotels to prop them up with taxpayers funds that therefore, that was not a bailout?

odyssey06 said:
As for the tourism VAT rate, the RTE article even admits "It is not possible to tell how much of those returns only exist because the rate was reduced." So basically, it's a non article.
Click to expand...


Really? A non-article? You mean you didn’t read the part where prices rose by 5.2% while the industry availed of a 4% VAT reduction on food and drink? Or where wages were effectively stagnant over the period? Or where the Minister warned the industry of a reversal if prices were to rise?

Either or, it doesn’t matter, we can argue the toss over whether or not it was a 'bailout' or not, the important thing is that the taxpayers in question have someone to speak for them. The Irish Hotels Federation speak for the taxpayers who own the hotels, the unions speak for their members who work in the hotels and are taxpayers, the consumer speaks the for taxpayer through increased spending in hotels and restaurants etc…etc…



How much fodder should a farmer keep on stock for a 20 animals in stock? What normally happens is that they keep, in their available barn capacity to do so, more than enough fodder to feed cattle through the winter. Depending on the winter, it remains to be seen if they have kept enough or not. More often that not, they do.

Sometimes, they have not kept enough and typically what they do is buy surplus stocks from other farms who have kept enough fodder. The IFA assists its members as much as it can in this regard.

Sometimes, a particularly bad winter occurs that delays the growth of grass as it apparently did last year, and is doing again this year. You do appreciate that a shortage of fodder in one year is hard to replenish stocks if similar whether patterns affecting growth occur again the following year?
In these circumstances, not only has the farmer used up his available capacity of stored stock of fodder, he is discovering that surplus supplies to be bought elsewhere are scarce also – this is the crisis.

This is where animal welfare is now in danger. This is where animal disease outbreaks are possible, where farmers who have managed to hold sufficient stock of fodder are in risk of having their herds affected with disease as it spreads. This is the underlying crisis. The potential cost to the economy, to employment, to trade far outstrips the cost of assisting financially with fodder imports.

So these taxpaying farmers, are calling for government intervention, through there representatives that speak for them. The taxpayers have someone to speak for them.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
And I would argue that the hotel and restaurant sector should not have received this special treatment either.

The fact that spend money unwisely in some area does not mean that we should subsidise farmers.

Brendan
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to know what you think taxes should be used for at all? The only thing that you ever seem to promote is the notion of not spending taxes - ever!
I wasn't opposed to the reduced VAT rate to 9%. If the industry was suffering, as it apparently was, then I think this is a useful government intervention to support an industry that is worth billions to Ireland.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register