Why aren't farmers seen as scroungers?

[Cismyass]

If someone is in receipt of benefits they are seen as a scrounger and if their business doesn't make them minimum wage it is seen as unviable. When some farmers receive huge EU subsidies and make very little money themselves through actual farming why are they seen as any different?

The majority of EU subsidies in agriculture (two third precisely) goes to big Companies like Nestle and rich land owners. Leave the poor british farmer alone, they have peanuts and work like horses. I'm not even British. This is too much. Women had to fight for Education. Gasp. Read.

We need lots of things- doesn’t mean we have to subsidise their production. Farming is a hard job. Doesn’t mean we should subside it.

If I read the question as if the OP is not intending a dig at farmers (I don't know it reads both ways)..

Because of public perception.

Farmers - salt of the earth, hard grafters, up at bed at 9pm, up at 2am, working the laaaaaaaand.......

Out of work/disabled benefit recipients - lazy idle work-shy scum, out of bed at 2pm, can of Special Brew in hand, down the dole office for a lovely hand out then off to the pub or the drug dealers

Our media have had a huge hand in this - look at the tv programsa nd the headlines 'benefits britain, look at mrs benefits scrounger in her benefits house driving her benefits car on her benefits big shop...'

Farm related stuff? 'Look at the ruddy cheeked farmer cuddling this lamb or driving this massive tractor'..

The truth, as ever is .. it depends. Some farmers are working their arses off trying to make a living and keep the farm going, because its what they love and its all they know.

They live their lives in debt, with huge machines on payment plans and loans, with the production costs of meat and milk being higher than what the supermarkets will actually pay, or with the risk that the weather can change any minute and a half a million quid wheat crop can become worthless overnight.

Some farmers are basically guardiansa nd keepers of large amounts of land and do bugger all but swan about in shiny rangerovers and jags shooting things and drinking gin like its water.

Some benefits recipients are idle fuckers and some have genuine claims.

I think it is easier, particularly with the media pushing the case, to single out and villify one group of 'bad guys' than the other though, and human nature to do so!

SecretSquirrel101

The short answer is because we need farmers otherwise we would all starve and they reason there's such little money in farming is because the suppliers and big supermarkets pay them a pittance - without subsidies most would go under and if most farmers went under, there would be no food

Stop buying chocolate, cereals, biscuits and cornflakes in protest, and the organic stuff from the Prince of Wales in off the chart too princess.

my friend grew lettuces and cabbages for tesco and made 1p profit per lettuce and cabbage then Tesco decided they wanted to cut the price of lettuces so told the farmer supplies that they were now going to be paying 10p less per crop and tough shit you have to supply us at that price.

(supermarkets are monoplanes of the worst order the only ones that actually pay a fair price to farmers are places like M + S waitrose and the Co-op the other big ones don't)

Oh when the dairy farmers protested the price cut that the big supermarkets decided to do the supermarkets and papers branded the dairy farmers as greedy bastards holding the nation to ransom about prices of milk, and they were the cause of the shortage of milk, cheese and yogut no mention of the big supermarkets unilatrally all deciding they were going to pay less then cost of malfunctioning to the farmers and were making out that the farmers should adapt to cheaper prices....

I think the OP is asking the right question, but in the wrong way.
Farming is hard work, with few of the benefits that 'regular' jobs have, long hours, hard physical work. They do an important job and have the added responsibility and obligation to look after land, landscape and biodiversity.
But much of this is due to subsidy, Food production is a global business and making money out of agriculture for a small farmer is hard, especially if you are in dairy or lamb.
I'm not sure how farming will cope post Brexit to be honest.
A lot of money is made through subsidy by very large firms and investment companies because subsidy works really wel for them and there are big tax advantages (initially designed to help farms pass between generations) this changing might actually benefit smaller farmers. Because the value of land might go down, because it will be worth less as a money spinner from the EU.
Without subsidies, either food prices will have to go up and/or standards lower.
Whilst subsidy goes to farmers, the benefit is more for the consumers.

Try to grow some tomatoes in your garden, maybe this is too high level, just some herbs, and gain respect for your fellow countrymen.

Here, have my first ever

I think the OP is asking the right question, but in the wrong way.

Is that a diplomatic way of saying the op is being goady as fuck to make a point?

Most of our food is imported. Like our medicines and medical devices. And many other essential goods. That’s basic economics (as women we can learn!). We don’t need to subsidise farmers to have food . As for all the “are you thick “ posters - it’s not me or the op who are thick....

I suspect If you added up the hours that a farmer worked in a week they wouldn't even be on minimum wage. It's not scrounging if you are working for it and providing a resource that we all need.

England does not have to reinvent the wheel, Switzerland subsidises heavily agriculture and it is still very expensive but everybody understand the causes and the consequences. Everybody likes French food, there is a reason behind that.

The OP is a very recent poster, which might account for the combative nature of their first thread.

And these arguments are ridiculous. Steel workers work hard. Coal miners work hard. Lots of people work hard. That’s not a reason in itself to give them taxpayers money.

They maintain the countryside which we see outsid,e our car or train windows.
If you leave the land it will revert to scrub/ ferns/brambles/self seeding trees like ash, hazel, oaks eventually. Imagine no grassy fields or hedgerows. No country walks asyou won't get through the undergrowth. We need grazing animals and farmers to maintain it.

Because we need food! don’t be so idiotic

Farmers should absolutely not be subsidised in order to keep food prices down. (As far as I know, which isn't very far, production is no longer subsidised, the subsidies are for other reasons, such as maintaining the environment.)

Food should cost what it costs. If we have to pay £5 for a litre of milk, so be it. If some people can't afford it, that's a problem for the benefits system to solve.

I've reported this goady post. Maybe there is a point about subsidies but the way the OP was worded is very offensive to those farmers who have to work such long hours.

Indeed lizzie. Even if not a troll, it’s deliberately goady. And really offensive to any farmers.

Although I am not saying farmers are scrounging to be clear. Just that we should not have a blanket subsidy for farming.

What's with the symbol thing can someone explain?

And OP you need your head examined.

This has got to be a wind up .

imagine being this stupid? Yes, exactly the same.