NNTP-Posting-Host: chook.demon.co.uk
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1041191853 6478 158.152.180.36 (29 Dec 2002 19:57:33 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 19:57:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Priority: 3
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Path: text-east!binarykiller.newsgroups.com!propagator2-la!news-in-la.newsfeeds.com!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!colt. net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail
Xref: 127.0.0.1 uk.business.agricultu95937 sci.agricultu60081


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 17:13:46 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:

the world would be economically
much stronger if the world's farmers only produced about 30% of the food
that is actually needed - i.e. enough to feed everyone in the west, and
no
more. The only problem that then remains is what to produce, where, and
how it gets distributed without some crazy Robin Hood type trying to
give
it to the poor.

There is no need to reduce farm production, if we just waste more
food. This will for obvious reasons inflate demand relative to supply.
just as good as reducing production.Now, this means less farm subsidy
will be needed, because the farmer is able to sell more of his
product. Farm subsidy comes from your taxes, so this means your taxes
will be less.

UK taxes exist for two purposes, but in many forms. They exist to fund
essential (and some not so essential) services and to redistribute wealth.
We have very many taxes, again for two purposes, one is to make the taxes
fairer - i.e. to punish (e.g. tobacco) those who do bad thing, and reward
those who do good things. Farm subsidy for the most part is provided by
income tax - i.e. it is a tax on the rich. The payments, in the past,
ensured basic food stuffs were available in great quantity at low prices -
i.e. the provided most benefit to the poor. Of course the payments went
via farmers, who took a cut, just as our doctors providing state health
care are also quite wealthy.

The farmers will attempt to produce more to satisfy the
artificially inflated demand. By increasing the production, the
farmers will get lower relative overhead per unit of production. The
lower production costs will reduce the cost of food. The lower food
prices will then allow the poor to afford more food with the same
money. Therefore, wasting food feeds the poor and lowers your taxes.


So who will waste food, and how much will we have to pay them to do this?
I can see a new tax might be needed.

Michael Saunby

Michael Saunby wrote in message
...
So who will waste food, and how much will we have to pay them to do
this?
I can see a new tax might be needed.

obviously this new tax will need more officials to both collect and
monitor them, and will therefore create employment and will doubtless be
"a good thing".


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'


Michael Saunby

On Sunday, in article

"David P" wrote:

The reviews in FBT's can be very wide. The rents may be increased on say
5yrly cycles or whatever other cycle is agreed upon from the outset.
Similarly they may be based, at review, on some totally artificial
mechanism that was, again, agreed at the outset.

It is my experience that the early FBT new lets were showing higher
levels than the more recent FBT new lets.

The is also the 'marginal cost' argument to consider. The adjoing farms
may be on the point of running at less than the two men they currently
have [say i.5 men]. It can be difficult to employ just the 0.5 when he
is needed. Hence, to retain the second full man they take on extra land
over which they can spread the costs of their present labour/machinery.

There is a lot of potential for Special Circumstances. I've heard
indirect reports of more than one case where a small piece of land on an
FBT allowed two parts of a large farm to be connected without use of the
public highway. One instance was a livestock farmer, and the shibboleth
of "biosecurity" was mentioned. The other was arable, and there was
expected to be a saving on vehicle insurance.


--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"Let me get this straight. You're the KGB's core AI, but you're afraid
of a copyright infringement lawsuit over your translator semiotics?"
From "Lobsters" by Charles Stross.

"David G. Bell" wrote in message
.. .

There is a lot of potential for Special Circumstances. I've heard
indirect reports of more than one case where a small piece of land on
an
FBT allowed two parts of a large farm to be connected without use of
the
public highway. One instance was a livestock farmer, and the
shibboleth
of "biosecurity" was mentioned. The other was arable, and there was
expected to be a saving on vehicle insurance.

FBTs are supposed to allow for all sorts of things, for example the use
of land for non-agricultural or at least non-traditional uses. I thought
that theory was that such things as Car Boot sales, equestrian centres
etc could be built in as part of the tenancy of the farm, while still
continuing to be a farm and predominantly agricultural operation.
--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'

On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 16:57:56 -0000, David P
wrote:

In article ,
says...
From what I have seen so far, I am unconvinced, that the AHA rents
track the agricultural value significantly more accurately than land
sales values. The response in either case seems to be biased, slow,
and incomplete, and you point to some of the reasons this is so.

I also omitted to point out that the AHA rent is based on the productive
capacity of the *land*. Most farms will have a dwelling on them.

Sorry, please can you rephrase/expound?

I would like your opinion on why FBT rents appear to be tracking the
agricultural value of land even more poorly than AHA rents...

The reviews in FBT's can be very wide. The rents may be increased on say
5yrly cycles or whatever other cycle is agreed upon from the outset.
Similarly they may be based, at review, on some totally artificial
mechanism that was, again, agreed at the outset.

It is my experience that the early FBT new lets were showing higher
levels than the more recent FBT new lets.

[That is correct. From the data I have seen, it can well be argued
that the FBT rents in the most recent year appear to track the
agricultural value of land no worse than AHA rents.]

The is also the 'marginal cost' argument to consider. The adjoing farms
may be on the point of running at less than the two men they currently
have [say i.5 men]. It can be difficult to employ just the 0.5 when he
is needed. Hence, to retain the second full man they take on extra land
over which they can spread the costs of their present labour/machinery.

Thank you for your comments to the FBT question.

To get back to our line of inquiry, might it have had an adverse
effect on UK farm profitability to 2002, that land rents have been
kept at or close to historic high levels, while farm income fortunes
dropped to scraping the bottom?

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 16:57:56 -0000, David P
wrote:

In article ,
says...
From what I have seen so far, I am unconvinced, that the AHA rents
track the agricultural value significantly more accurately than land
sales values. The response in either case seems to be biased, slow,
and incomplete, and you point to some of the reasons this is so.

I also omitted to point out that the AHA rent is based on the productive
capacity of the *land*. Most farms will have a dwelling on them.

Sorry, please can you rephrase/expound?

Elementary my dear Watson. A farm comprises, in the main, land and
dwellings. The rent has regard to both the dwelling and the land. The
land value is 'restricted' by having regard to its productive capacity.
There is no such restriction imposed when considering the value of the
dwelling.

Residential values have been rising quite dramatically in the UK.


To get back to our line of inquiry, might it have had an adverse
effect on UK farm profitability to 2002, that land rents have been
kept at or close to historic high levels, while farm income fortunes
dropped to scraping the bottom?

Yes. If we are talking of tenanted farms/land.
No. If we are talking of freehold farms/land as they have no rent burden
to carry.
--
David
Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk for your local farmgate food supplies.
FAQ's, Glossary, Farming Year and more!

On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 20:36:29 -0000, David P
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 16:57:56 -0000, David P
wrote:

In article ,
says...
From what I have seen so far, I am unconvinced, that the AHA rents
track the agricultural value significantly more accurately than land
sales values. The response in either case seems to be biased, slow,
and incomplete, and you point to some of the reasons this is so.

I also omitted to point out that the AHA rent is based on the productive
capacity of the *land*. Most farms will have a dwelling on them.

Sorry, please can you rephrase/expound?

Elementary my dear Watson. A farm comprises, in the main, land and
dwellings. The rent has regard to both the dwelling and the land. The
land value is 'restricted' by having regard to its productive capacity.
There is no such restriction imposed when considering the value of the
dwelling.
Residential values have been rising quite dramatically in the UK.

So, if I understand you, if the agricultural value of the land drops
like a rock, while the residential value rises dramatically, the
combined effect may be that AHA rents stays the same. The increasing
part of AHA rent which represent rent of dwellings would not be
included in the farm account, its increase would therefore not affect
farm income.

To get back to our line of inquiry, might it have had an adverse
effect on UK farm profitability to 2002, that land rents have been
kept at or close to historic high levels, while farm income fortunes
dropped to scraping the bottom?

Yes. If we are talking of tenanted farms/land.
No. If we are talking of freehold farms/land as they have no rent burden
to carry.

What, are we not talking about UK farm profitability in terms of
Net Farm income?

On Monday, in article

"Torsten Brinch" wrote:

On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 20:36:29 -0000, David P
wrote:

Yes. If we are talking of tenanted farms/land.
No. If we are talking of freehold farms/land as they have no rent burden
to carry.

What, are we not talking about UK farm profitability in terms of
Net Farm income?

Remember, you are talking to an estate agent, though far from the worst.

For some of them, my minimum politeness level is the post-refit IJNS
Yamato, with the wave motion cannon fully charged.


--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"Let me get this straight. You're the KGB's core AI, but you're afraid
of a copyright infringement lawsuit over your translator semiotics?"
From "Lobsters" by Charles Stross.

In article ,
says...
On Monday, in article

"Torsten Brinch" wrote:

On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 20:36:29 -0000, David P
wrote:

Yes. If we are talking of tenanted farms/land.
No. If we are talking of freehold farms/land as they have no rent burden
to carry.

What, are we not talking about UK farm profitability in terms of
Net Farm income?

Remember, you are talking to an estate agent, though far from the worst.


Rarely have I been damned with fainter praise g
--
David
Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk for your local farmgate food supplies.
FAQ's, Glossary, Farming Year and more!

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 20:36:29 -0000, David P
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 16:57:56 -0000, David P
wrote:

In article ,
says...
From what I have seen so far, I am unconvinced, that the AHA rents
track the agricultural value significantly more accurately than land
sales values. The response in either case seems to be biased, slow,
and incomplete, and you point to some of the reasons this is so.

I also omitted to point out that the AHA rent is based on the productive
capacity of the *land*. Most farms will have a dwelling on them.

Sorry, please can you rephrase/expound?

Elementary my dear Watson. A farm comprises, in the main, land and
dwellings. The rent has regard to both the dwelling and the land. The
land value is 'restricted' by having regard to its productive capacity.
There is no such restriction imposed when considering the value of the
dwelling.
Residential values have been rising quite dramatically in the UK.

So, if I understand you, if the agricultural value of the land drops
like a rock, while the residential value rises dramatically, the
combined effect may be that AHA rents stays the same.

That is correct.

The increasing
part of AHA rent which represent rent of dwellings would not be
included in the farm account, its increase would therefore not affect
farm income.

I am not an accountant nor a farmer so couldn't possibly comment.

To get back to our line of inquiry, might it have had an adverse
effect on UK farm profitability to 2002, that land rents have been
kept at or close to historic high levels, while farm income fortunes
dropped to scraping the bottom?

Yes. If we are talking of tenanted farms/land.
No. If we are talking of freehold farms/land as they have no rent burden
to carry.

What, are we not talking about UK farm profitability in terms of
Net Farm income?

If I owned a farm outright I would be able to calculate my profitability
quite easily - why would I need to deduct a rent that I don't pay?
--
David
Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk for your local farmgate food supplies.
FAQ's, Glossary, Farming Year and more!

On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 22:41:55 -0000, David P
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 20:36:29 -0000, David P
wrote:
Yes. If we are talking of tenanted farms/land.
No. If we are talking of freehold farms/land as they have no rent burden
to carry.

What, are we not talking about UK farm profitability in terms of
Net Farm income?

If I owned a farm outright I would be able to calculate my profitability
quite easily - why would I need to deduct a rent that I don't pay?

David, are we not talking about UK farm profitability in terms of
Net Farm income?

In article , David P
writes
What, are we not talking about UK farm profitability in terms of
Net Farm income?

If I owned a farm outright I would be able to calculate my profitability
quite easily - why would I need to deduct a rent that I don't pay?

I am not an accountant but I understand that published figures for
profitability often include a *rent equivalent*. This is presumably to
make comparisons easier.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 10:17:34 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , David P
writes
What, are we not talking about UK farm profitability in terms of
Net Farm income?

If I owned a farm outright I would be able to calculate my profitability
quite easily - why would I need to deduct a rent that I don't pay?

I am not an accountant but I understand that published figures for
profitability often include a *rent equivalent*.

Net Farm income figures, per definition, come with the rental value of
owner occupied land deducted.

******
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002 08:55:13 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:
In article , Oz
writes

Ave net farm income (that is BEFORE drawings and investment) is 15-20
UKP/ac, and has fallen 300 UKP/Ha since 1995.
******

In article ,
says...
In article , David P
writes
What, are we not talking about UK farm profitability in terms of
Net Farm income?

If I owned a farm outright I would be able to calculate my profitability
quite easily - why would I need to deduct a rent that I don't pay?

I am not an accountant but I understand that published figures for
profitability often include a *rent equivalent*. This is presumably to
make comparisons easier.

Oh I quite agree that to compare across freehold and tenanted adjustments
have to be made to the figures. To compare like with like in many
different areas adjustments have to be made.
--
David
Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk for your local farmgate food supplies.
FAQ's, Glossary, Farming Year and more!

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 22:41:55 -0000, David P
wrote:


If I owned a farm outright I would be able to calculate my profitability
quite easily - why would I need to deduct a rent that I don't pay?

David, are we not talking about UK farm profitability in terms of
Net Farm income?

It is at this point that I will say that my view of profitability is
different to yours. I can see what you are looking at but I remain
holding my position that the profit of a freehold farm does not deduct a
rent.

It may be that my approach can be explained by David G Bell's explanation
of my job g.
--
David
Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk for your local farmgate food supplies.
FAQ's, Glossary, Farming Year and more!