On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 16:19:10 -0600, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 10:20:48 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:
The money might have been better used if spread less thickly
at the top
but I guess the present arrangement can be defended as *fair*.

I would be interested in how you would you go about doing that.

I suppose, to retain fairness, you could have a fixed payment to each
farm with a top up acreage payment. This might detract from any
unwritten agenda to encourage farm amalgamation though.

How does this defend the present agreement as fair?

How do you come up with a system that is fair from every point of view?

You do not need to.

In the case of McSharry consensus was reached by upping the total
amount of money handed out, such that on average everybody got more.
This way the smaller farmers could get a dole approaching what they
would've received under a system with the originally intended top
capping, and the bigger farmers got more than they would've received
with or without it. Understandable everyone could be immediately happy
with that deal, not least the big farmers.

However, without the capping built into the system, taxpayers money
was effectively being used to boost the competitive edge of the bigger
farmer, at the expense of smaller farmers, and to the detriment of
society at large. I am asking how this system can be defended as fair.