Land Based Farm Subsidy

Stop paying farmers a land based subsidy and rerun to a through put subsidy based on livestock sent to the IOM  meat plant.

Why the contribution is important

Farmers are getting paid a per acreage subsidy some have no livestock at all and still receive a payment others produce livestock but are able to ship them away and receive a higher price than they can here and still receive their subsidy.

by Vickyackers on April 05, 2017 at 08:32PM

Current Rating

Average score : 4.6
Based on : 12 votes


  • Posted by Litigant April 05, 2017 at 23:21

    Absolutely. Some acreage subsidy goes to millionaires who have bought farms to build mansions, and have no interest on whether the land is farmed.
  • Posted by Aadvark April 06, 2017 at 10:39

    Make it a subsidy specifically and only for food production and directly related costs (including boundary management), with subsidy proportional to production - though with a system to recognise where production might be adversely affected by factors factors outside the farmer's control, such as bad weather at harvest time. Any land not actively used for food production deserves no subsidy, and if landowners don't look after their boundaries they should be forced to do so at their own cost - and if they can't afford to then sell the land.
  • Posted by dpfellows April 06, 2017 at 14:20

    Why are subsidies needed at all? Maybe a subsidy can help a young new farmer into the business. But if someone has been farming for 20 years and cannot make it pay without taxpayer support then it is not a viable business. Is it the job of taxpayers to support non viable commercial activity? If it is viable then it does not need support.
  • Posted by ManxVoter April 10, 2017 at 16:13

    Government must not involve itself in the funding of a 'national herd', it's not it's place

    Subsidise (& tax, where appropriate) high tech infrastructure
  • Posted by Sickandtired April 12, 2017 at 02:37

  • Posted by Woodyboyo April 12, 2017 at 20:04

    Maybe the scheme should be amended to give incentives for the landowners to facilitate greater access to their land for leisure use, such as a network of cycle paths or even public footpaths to properly link up the read ny foillan for those coastal stretches where the walker is forced inland due to lack of access to the coast. If the scheme is defended by some for its aesthetic countryscape benefits, then should we not be allowing/encouraging greater leisure/tourist use of this asset.
  • Posted by Fairforall April 12, 2017 at 21:59

    One wonders at the mentality of the people that brought this scheme in. Some of our political members are recipients of very large yearly amounts of money that they are never even called upon to explain how it good it benefits our Island. Stop the payments.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas

Idea topics