Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Sherlock Mar 5 2012, 09:04 PM

This story doesn't seem to have received much coverage locally:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1360998/Wealthy-minister-earns-2m-EU-farm-subsidies-department-tried-cover-up.html

Interesting that it was run by the Daily Mail. They do rather seem to have it in for Prime Minister Dave and his pals.

Thoughts, anyone?

Posted by: On the edge Mar 5 2012, 09:21 PM

Hardly secret or hidden is it? Not surprised nothing was made of it locally - it's not exactly a story. Its the family business that's gained here - not him personally. At least it maintains jobs in West Berkshire. Anyway, about time some English farmers started to benefit.

Posted by: Strafin Mar 5 2012, 09:52 PM

The story isn't about who gained anything though, it's about the attempted cover up.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 5 2012, 10:28 PM

Must've been a quiet day for news, as this non-story ran last year and was discussed on here at length.....

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 5 2012, 10:55 PM

It would seem we went to great lengths to try to 'protect' the recipients of the bonus.

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 5 2012, 10:57 PM

Yeah, the Daily Mail... of course, the integrity that paper has accumulated over the years...read almost exclusively by racist everything seems to mention immigrants, the EU or Princess Diana..

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Mar 6 2012, 12:10 AM

It's a classic example of why information should be made public. By hiding things (or attempting to hide them) DEFRA and it's ministers are easily accused of corruption.

It would be interesting to see if Benyon declared any interests in any meetings associated with the issue. If he failed to declare interests in these issues then he could quite rightly be accused of inappropriate behaviour and even corruption.

Why are the farm subsidies paying up for very rich estates? Time for reform of the CAP.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 6 2012, 12:28 AM

"Mr Benyon has declared his family business in the Commons register of interests. ... Mr Benyon resigned his chairmanship of the family business, Englefield Estate Trust Corporation Limited, when he became a Minister"

What the article says is that the EU only required the privacy of individuals be upheld, but the government went further and protected the privacy of industrial farming enterprises, such as the Englefield Estate.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Mar 6 2012, 03:43 AM

'Resigning Chairmanship' is different from 'not receiving benefit from'.

Posted by: Sherlock Mar 6 2012, 07:29 AM

I was unaware of the coverage of this here last year. As I say, it's interesting that the Mail should pick up on this. Perhaps Cameron and co aren't quite right wing enough for them but the Mail have run some really good campaigns - notably the long term one related to the prosecution of Steven Lawrence's murderers.

On the EU handouts, it does seem a little hypocritical that Englefield should be taking so much taxpayer's money at a time when such severe cuts are being pushed through by the government to which Mr Benyon belongs.

We long ago gave up the idea that we should be self sufficient in food in this country so I fail to see why we are giving handouts to farmers but not, for example, to town centre retailers. And even if a handout is available surely there's no compulsion to actually fill in the form and take it?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 6 2012, 09:39 AM

It is in fact, but his interests receiving the money isn't the issue, it is the government's 'eagerness' to protect those that have received it that is concerning.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 6 2012, 10:10 PM

The attempted cover up was down to the Civil Servants - who would doubtless claim they were simply trying to be 'helpful'. The three main parties all say they want 'open government' - but its the hired help that stops it.

So its a bit rich to throw words like corruption about which simply devalues the word and the argument.

Of course, our own dear local Council isn't exactly immune from such behaviour - covering up all sorts of things we really ought to know about.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 7 2012, 01:30 PM

http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=1201&hl=englefield+estates

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 7 2012, 02:14 PM

What difference does it make whether it has been reported before or not? I assume the issue still exists, and I think these things should be kept in the public's consciousness.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 7 2012, 08:38 PM

Reported, and discussed. I wonder at the motivation for raising it again (I don't like to assume, but I trust the story has developed in some way since last year).
There will be many farmer MPs in the same situation. What makes the Benyon situation so attractive to the DM?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 7 2012, 08:50 PM

Higher profile subject?

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 7 2012, 09:03 PM

Given the range of 'interests' MPs will have, I wonder if that is so? That he is the highest profile Member?
I see nothing added to the story run last year that makes the situation any more sinister.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 7 2012, 09:26 PM

To maintain the veil of secrecy, where one might not be necessary could be one reason. There is a growing concern that the government might be seeking to increase secrecy in some areas.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Mar 9 2012, 12:06 PM

I find it funny that he has no issue ensuring his family receives "subsidies" but the rest of us will lose benefits. I will lose 134 quid a month in child benefits based on my income, which will be no where what his family receives.

Double standards at it's best.

Posted by: Darren Mar 9 2012, 01:01 PM

You too can be a Daily Mail editor

http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Mar 9 2012, 01:10 PM

What else do you call it then? It's ok for him to and his famil to reap the rewards of the various benefit systems, and at alot more than the average Joe gets, but the rest of us can get scr*wed..

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 9 2012, 03:12 PM

Buy a farm, then.....

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Mar 9 2012, 03:59 PM

There you go.

Lets see, let me buy a farm, get loads of migrants workers in under the new gov't plan to put people back to work, which I think the gov't will subsidise. Claim EU farm benefits, get more free cash. The I can pack it in after 5 or so years, but first sneakingly transfer the money into someone else's account so I can start claiming benefits.

Of I continue to try and retain the only universal benefit my family is entitled to. But I must not question why the man who is representing us in the Commons is collecting 1000 times plus more than in EU benefits, but is supporting cutting off 134 quid a month.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 9 2012, 05:10 PM

Is he?

Posted by: Vodabury Mar 9 2012, 05:33 PM

Quite. A bit of a strong allegation there by Phil, methinks.

Posted by: blackdog Mar 9 2012, 06:20 PM

But he, like you, will be losing the child benefit he receives (probably more than £134 a month).

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 9 2012, 07:08 PM

I suspect he'll cope.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Mar 9 2012, 08:32 PM

Not much point in a debate here - Tories and their Etonian pets will vote the same way (though say different things to keep their core voters happy) and Labour are just hoping to stay part of the debate.

But the debate is a bit of ideology. You either want to pursue privatisation (through one route or another) or you don't. Add the generalisation that, Tory members (the 1% at least) stand to gain the most through privatisation, Labour voters stand to loose the most as cost/wages/people are driven out. You could also add to the mix the pressure of donors to the various parties - which party stands to gain the most and loose the most financially.

There must be a formula out there somewhere that works out who gains what?

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 9 2012, 08:44 PM

If you need me to help subsidise your family perhaps you can't afford to have one.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 9 2012, 08:57 PM

Who will support you and your children, if you or they ever need it?

Posted by: Vodabury Mar 9 2012, 09:01 PM

To me , "loose" means not tight. Do you mean "lose" as in not to have anymore?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 9 2012, 09:08 PM

I think this forum demonstrates some of the qualities one must have if one wishes to enter politics: you have to contend with some of the electorate who seem to be still stuck in the playground.


'tis no-wonder people don't bother.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Mar 10 2012, 12:53 AM

Yes, I did over estimate a little bit. What was received in the 10 years in EU subsidies is only about 600 times more than what we would receive in 22 years if both kids stayed on in full time education.



You don't get it do you..

One earner family over 42K loses, while two earners making 40K each keep their benefits. Show me how that is fair.

The best one is I don't get the benefit, my wife is the one who receives it. My wife makes less than 6000 a year as she works 3 hours a day part time and doesn't claim tax credits. This is the only tax credit/benefit that is received in the household.

You use your private medical benefits, your taxed on them. I got a 3 percent pay raise last year, but I take home less and I am spending more on the basics.

At what point is enough enough?

Posted by: Penelope Mar 10 2012, 01:49 AM

Yeah well my heart bleeds for you, it really does. I mean its not like anyone else is suffering is it?

Posted by: gel Mar 10 2012, 07:33 AM

What a bigotted view you have. Perhaps you should go down to newsagents and advise all
those who buy the paper that they're racists; I bet you the majority will be shocked to hear that, & the odd few will flatten you.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Mar 10 2012, 07:39 AM

Wow, if that doesn't sound like sarcasm what does..

There are other ways to raise revenue other that continually hitting the pockets of the families. They won't revamp the tax system because it would be to hard, or complicated to do so.

One that I suggested months ago is for tourists to pay 5 pound visa fee when they land in the UK. With the Olympics coming up that would raise a fair bit of money. How about 25 pounds for a student visa.

Shame no one in the gov't has had the foresight to do so.

Maybe those affected by this change, some 15 percent of the population should just strike and protest, then what would the impact to the economy be?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2012, 09:43 AM

Yes, I wonder how the ecconomy would cope without all those middle-managers.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Mar 10 2012, 10:23 AM

I think you will find that most skilled I.T. jobs fall into the 45 to 50K range. How would it be that all the major computer systems in the UK would stop for one day..

Posted by: JeffG Mar 10 2012, 10:49 AM

Then you would put yourself in the same camp as Bob Crow and his cronies, threatening to hold the country to ransom if British Rail tried to make any efficiency savings.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 10 2012, 10:54 AM

Which allegedly is what the governemnt were worried the RBS board of directors would do if their HUGE bonuses were not honoured.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Mar 10 2012, 10:58 AM

What would you suggest, writing to the MP's? I did that one and got a somebody's gotta suck it up letter in response.

If there was some sort of fairness to this madness, then direct action would not be an answer. However, the decision seems to have been made without any sort of consultation. I am tired of constantly being hit for more and more and getting less and less in return.

Has the NWN or the WBC actually done a study and find out how many household's the loss of child benefit will affect in this area? I would imagine this area would be hit pretty good, not that our MP cares, or show's he cares.

If I don't act on my behalf, who then will???

Posted by: JeffG Mar 10 2012, 11:06 AM

OK, so how about retired people like me with savings who have been hit since March 2009 with a record low interest rate of 0.5%, while people like you (presumably) with mortgages have been enjoying vast benefits from the same low rates.

There are swings and roundabouts with everything. As an aside, do you have the figures for the percentage of the population that benefits from the "dual income less than 40%" anomaly? I agree that's not totally fair, but how many does it affect?

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Mar 10 2012, 11:11 AM

There are other ways to invest money other than savings. Have you looked into that, and I would assume you would benefit from the tax breaks as well.

As for the dual incomes that less than 40%, I am not sure of the number, but they are already paying less tax already, and still keeping their child benefits, as well as probably getting tax credits...

Posted by: Penelope Mar 10 2012, 11:20 AM

Simple answer is to abolish all child benefit. Simple really. Stop the inherent unfairness. I thought people had kids cos they wanted them, not to get the cash benefits. People will go back to stuffing them up chimneys to make up the shortfall.

How many people whinging about this have 2 cars ,flat screens, and still manage to go out to the pub I wonder. Need or want, there is a difference.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 10 2012, 12:35 PM

And a certain overpowering primeval instinct.


There's not enough menial work for adults, let alone kids!


Judging by the 'government's pub closure program': not many!

Posted by: Penelope Mar 10 2012, 04:23 PM

Good point.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Mar 10 2012, 07:08 PM

If the gov't would change the tax laws and have children as a deduction, thus lowing the the tax I pay (as in the U.S.), then yes, abolish the child benefit.

We use our child benefit for things such as paying for our oldest's bus fare, as the WBC doesn't provide a bus you would expect with the money paid via council tax. Also, there are things such as braces, and the impeding amount of money we will be paying for their university education.

Two cars are needed in our household, as I use my car to go to work as it's more cost effective than using public transport. BTW, what's a pub. We are lucky if we can afford one day out a month with the kids.

I really am grateful for being able to afford a home, food, and ensuring my kids are clothed properly. I would imagine that I could cut back on the amount of money (3%) I put into my pension each month, but then what would be the effect in the long term?

However when you start to single out a sector of the country without putting alot of thought into what is fair, that is when people start to get angry.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2012, 07:58 PM

Phil, you're argument is flailing so wildly it's hard to give it much serious thought. I believe both in free public transport to school and that the state should pay university fees and a subsistence allowance, but only for the brightest 5% with everyone else doing on-the-job training, but goodness, that's two complex arguments there and we haven't even got to child benefit. Explain to me why I should be taxed to pay for your child benefit because from where I'm standing I can't for the life of me see why you're more deserving of my hard-earned cash than I am, and if you can explain to me what it's got to do with Richard Benyon's farm subsidy that would be good too.

Posted by: user23 Mar 10 2012, 08:03 PM

Perhaps he thinks giving a little bit now, to support the generation that will be working in twenty years time and therefore who's tax will be supporting those who are retired then, is a positive thing.

Posted by: Penelope Mar 10 2012, 08:45 PM

But he's taking not giving. I just hav a mental image of people standing with a pregnancy testing kit in one hand and a "how to claim your benefits" booklet in the other.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Mar 10 2012, 09:40 PM

I believe that at minimum my council tax should also be used to get my child to school if they have to use a bus. As for on the job training, I did it, but it turns out my kids will probably be smarter than me and if they have a chance to go to university, I want to make sure they do...



What my wife receives in child benefit doesn't even make 10 percent in the overall amount of money I pay in taxes. When we use our medical benefits to jump the NHS (as they don't provide some treatments as they don't deem them necessary)and get medical treatment promptly when needed. I am not going to wait 6 to 8 months for treatment on arthretic shoulders and knees. This is where we are getting hosed, paying for the NHS and not being able to use it, then having to pay extra because we don't/can't use it. I don't get reimbursed for not using the NHS, but I end up paying more in taxes when something can't be provided promptly.

As for your paying for our child benefits, we pay for our child benefits, and I am also paying for your retirement, as I know **** well when it comes to me retireing I am sure that my retirement benefits would be slashed because I am preparing for the future. My comparision to our MP's farm subsidy, why would a multimillionaire need farm subsides provided by EU? That is the same as someone making 200K a year receiving child benefits. He has no issues taking BIG money for his family business. especially if they are entitled to it, but in the same line he tells me to suck it up.



I don't want to be a burden on my kids in my retirement, nor do I want to live hand to mouth. I want to be able to enjoy just a little bit my last years without having to worry about turning down the heat in the dead of winter. As for my kids, I don't want them to be burdened with large debts if they do go to uni. I didn't mind paying over 40 percent tax because the tution fees before they were raised to 9K a year were very managable. The fact is the squeeze is starting to really be felt, and it's gonna suck telling the kids sorry but we can't help you go to Uni.




When I was laid off in 2002, all I got in "benefits" was 25 quid a week. Why, because I had savings, and I received a redundancy payment. I guarntee you that I paid alot more in taxes than 25 quid a week.

To find another job we had to move to a different country because there was nothing here at the time, and only moved back due to an internal transfer with the same company after 3 years being aboard.

My wife is only getting what is entitled to us. I am sure with a clever accountant I could find a loophole and pay less tax, but that would be dishonest, even if is legal. All I am asking is for is fairness, not a handout. If your gonna take more aware from me, then at least give me the opportunity to recover some of it back for my family.

Posted by: Sherlock Mar 11 2012, 08:12 AM

Meanwhile:

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/newbury-mp-against-cap-on-farming-subsidies

In the light of this, the cuts in front line police and its demolition of the NHS the government should just give up on the idea that it has any principles.

Posted by: user23 Mar 11 2012, 08:26 AM

What I'm saying is I don't mind giving a bit now to support those who will be paying tax to fund my state pension and therefore supporting me, when I retire.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Mar 11 2012, 09:44 AM

If your paying a higher rate of income tax, over 40%, then realistically you should be funding your own state pension, of the gov't was investing wisely. I personally have taken out a pension in every place I worked, and I know this will work against me when I retire, but I planned for it.



Eventually Mr. MP is a long time compared to the 7 months we have left collecting our child benefit. I wonder if these subsides are taken into account in the farmers income, and whether they collect child benefits.

Posted by: user23 Mar 11 2012, 10:58 AM

I'm not paying a higher rate of income tax, I don't see where I might of insinuated I was.

All I'm saying is paying child benefit is investing in our future.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Mar 12 2012, 09:58 AM

The original comment was:

I am sorry if you got the impression I was implying you were paying the higher rate of tax, what I am saying is those of use who are paying that tax are paying for our own retirement. I am sure that you are contributing to your retirement as well.

It's unfair that those who are paying the higher rate of tax are being pushed to the limit at the moment with the various custs to child benefits and various other cuts to pension credits, etc. Again I don't mind paying, but the level of fairness is down to nothing...

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Mar 12 2012, 03:08 PM

We should all try to pay our fair share, but there seems little fair in the removal of child benefit from middle income earners, especially when Benyon does his best to ensure his family estate keeps as much CAP payments as possible - it's not like they *need* it. The top 1% need to make a fair contribution, yet through the use of trusts, companies and tax avoidance they pay less than middle England. It's a simple thing - lets all pay fairly.

Treasure Islands by Nicholas Shaxson is a good read on the subject of tax avoidance - opens the eye's to the dealings of the mega rich 1%.