B628 - Agriculture Bill 2014 Watch

This discussion is closed.
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
B628 - Agriculture Bill 2014, TSR Government

Agriculture Act 2014
An act to provide greater incentives and future success for the agriculture industry.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1. Corporation Tax abolition
(1) Businesses in the Agriculture, Forestry and fishing sector are hereby exempt from paying corporation tax

2. Society of land development and rural settlement (SLDRS)
(1) The SLDRS will regulate the protection, sale and purchase of agricultural land in addition to overseeing a subsidiary named the Young Famers Instillation (YFL)
(2) The Young Farmers Instillation will provide loans to young farmers with the goal of aiding start-ups for the first three years of trading
(i) Government will guarantee £0.1bn of loans which will be distributed in co-ordination with the SLDRS and participating banks
(ii) The purpose of theses loans are to provide aid for agricultural start-ups for the first three years of trading and to allow existing farmers to purchase more agricultural land
(iii) The YFI will oversee the creation of 1000 agriculture based apprenticeships
(3) The SLDRS will be overseen by the department of Energy, Environment, Food, Rural Affairs and Climate Change

3. Devolution
(1) Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing policy is hereby devolved to the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies

4. Commencement, Extent and Short Title
(1) This Act may be cited as the Agriculture Act 2014
(2) This bill shall extend to England
(3) Shall come into force on April 1st 2014.

Notes and Costings
Spoiler:
Show
Society of Land Development and Rural Settlement (SLDRS)
A new governing body for the protection of agricultural land, purchase and sale of agricultural land, informing people on how to get into the business, will run the Young Farmers Installation (see below). They will also offer grants and loans at low rates to those wishing to purchase more agricultural land or for those wishing to get into the industry

It's remit will ensure that the most fertile agricultural land is not spoiled or sold for non-agricultural needs.

Young Farmers Installation (YFI)
This will be about bringing more young people into the world of farming, it will make provision for vocational routes. The YFI will not just try and bring in more young people but when it does it will give grants and loans to them at low rates to help them get off the ground.

Corporation Tax
A combination of the low rate of corporation tax and deductibles means that revenue from corporation tax receipts in the Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing industries amounts to just £0.3bn. It is a needless hindrance.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/ct.../table11-4.pdf

Costing
Corporation Tax abolition: -£0.3bn
Unfunded liabilities in the form of loans: -£0.1bn

Cost to treasury: -£0.3bn

0
SciFiRory
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
as I understand it farmers already get huge subsidies from the EU so I see no justification for giving them a tax cut.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
Aye.

A wonderfully pragmatic and innovative piece of legislation.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by SciFiRory)
as I understand it farmers already get huge subsidies from the EU so I see no justification for giving them a tax cut.
Truth be told i'd like to see CAP abolished or at any rate significantly reduced but that's not on the table right now.

As was seen with the milk story a year or so ago margins are very tight and since government makes so little from them it seems pointless to continue burdening them.
0
Will95206
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
An Aye for I!
0
That Bearded Man
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
No, as Sci-fi said it's another example of how money is redistributed from taxpayers to wealthy landowners.
0
Endless Blue
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
I am leaning towards Aye on this. Given that the revenue generated from the taxes is so low and that much of the produce in these sectors serves a hugely important purpose I think it is a good idea. It would also simplify the tax system which, even though by such a tiny degree, can only be a good thing.
1
PhysicsKid
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
Not all businesses no. If it were aimed at getting more independent, more local medium and small scale start-ups then yes, but as I see it, it'd also exempt and further subsidiselarge agribusiness and supply chains.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by That Bearded Man)
No, as Sci-fi said it's another example of how money is redistributed from taxpayers to wealthy landowners.
Bear in mind that's only one small part of the bill. By rejecting this bill your also also depriving 1000 prospective farmers of apprenticeships and aid for start-ups.
0
That Bearded Man
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by Rakas21)
Bear in mind that's only one small part of the bill. By rejecting this bill your also also depriving 1000 prospective farmers of apprenticeships and aid for start-ups.
In that case I'd need clauses to guard against that, so perhaps corporation tax is only applicable to farms where the owners earnings < 40k. Or some more inventive way of ensuring it's not overused.

On top of that, this doesn't even discuss the current farming subsidy system, when surely what your suggesting is exactly what they should have been for.

Unless it's reformed, or the current system is reformed, that first line is a No.
0
nikkoch
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by That Bearded Man)
In that case I'd need clauses to guard against that, so perhaps corporation tax is only applicable to farms where the owners earnings < 40k. Or some more inventive way of ensuring it's not overused.

On top of that, this doesn't even discuss the current farming subsidy system, when surely what your suggesting is exactly what they should have been for.

Unless it's reformed, or the current system is reformed, that first line is a No.
second that, rich farm owners shouldn't get tax benefits
0
Faland
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
A 'no' for the reasons others have put across. And for the repercussions further subsidies would have on agriculture in the Third World.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
Does this mean that Starbucks will start to be farmers and we'll be able to have trout sandwiches in their coffee shops?
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by barnetlad)
Does this mean that Starbucks will start to be farmers and we'll be able to have trout sandwiches in their coffee shops?
Rules are in place already to define what constitutes an agricultural business.
0
Republic1
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
This bill went under my radar it seems...

A nay from me for reasons mentioned by others. Agricultural subsidies (especially the huge ones the US government dishes out) have only served to devastate the third world.

(Also, 0.1billion? A rather unorthodox way of saying 100 million)
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by Republic1)
This bill went under my radar it seems...

A nay from me for reasons mentioned by others. Agricultural subsidies (especially the huge ones the US government dishes out) have only served to devastate the third world.

(Also, 0.1billion? A rather unorthodox way of saying 100 million)
I am all for a severe curtailing of global agricultural subsidies (China and the EU are actually much worse than the USA) however the entirety of the coalition could not need reach consensus and as such that policy is on hold and would require the MUN as well complicating matters (though the foreign secretary is happy to do so). In the meantime this policy costs very little but is beneficial.

Generally £100m is the limit at which costing should be included, i just write it an odd way.
0
Keckers
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
Putting on my farmers hat this is a great idea. However if the 100 million is so beneficial I would like to know why 100 billion would not be more beneficial?
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by Keckers)
Putting on my farmers hat this is a great idea. However if the 100 million is so beneficial I would like to know why 100 billion would not be more beneficial?
We had to be realistic.
0
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by Keckers)
Putting on my farmers hat this is a great idea. However if the 100 million is so beneficial I would like to know why 100 billion would not be more beneficial?
Putting on my bejewelled crown, I think adding me to the Civil List is a great idea.

For everyone else it's rather a bad idea, and the word(?) "Instillation" does not begin with "L".
0
chrisawhitmore
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
No. Protectionism from first world countries is doing enough damage to third world agriculture without heaping further subsidies on wealthy landowners.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (62)
15.12%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (41)
10%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (78)
19.02%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (60)
14.63%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (44)
10.73%
How can I be the best version of myself? (125)
30.49%

Watched Threads

View All