horse tax.........am I the only person?

ester

ester

Not slacking multitasking
Joined
31 December 2008
Messages
64,141
Location
Cambridge
Visit site
given that this continues to fill up my inbox.........

am I the only person who doesn't see it as a bad thing if it is used to improve exotic disease control and more funding to act quickly if we were to get an outbreak, particularly as arguably horses may be lower down in economical importance in comparison to the rest of farming industry (not sure about the tb industry) and I should think food animals will be deemed more important funding wise.


I know full well that due to climate change much of defras funding has been rerouted that way reducing that sent to animal health leaving the national herd (of whatever animal and I do include horses in that) at a certain degree of risk due to reduced monitoring etc. (until we get an out break then they will panic about it)

we seem to moan that horses aren't 'agricultural' for the purposes of grazing/land use but don't want them classed as agricultural for something like this?

anyone else or just me?!
grin.gif
 
TBH, I haven't really paid much attention to it
blush.gif
or what the government plan to do with the revenue generated.

What I do think though is that it is the thin end of the wedge. OK, so £10:50 is nothing compared to what we pay out on our horses but once it's been implemented, I can see it going up and up and up.

Next, we'll be paying tax for our dogs, cats, hamsters ... where will it ever stop.
 
If the money was used for disease prevention/control I might agree with you.
For single horse owners it will cost more to collect than it is worth.

I went to Carlisle DEFRA Consultation meeting
They (DEFRA) intend to split Welfare from Disease--oh let me see, what a stupid idea, when were welfare conditions the worst--during FMD.

Two Depts, oh let me see--more jobs for the boys.

My point I left with the DEFRA officials was horse owners would not be willing to pay this until DEFRA tightened up on the Tripartite Agreement--originally set up to facilitate competition horses going in and out of the country but now used by every Tom, Dick and Harry to bring in horses without health checks.
Our doors are wide open to AHS, WNV, Equine Piroplasmosis etc etc.
 
thanks cuffey, I know our doors are wide open hence why it wouldn't bother me putting extra money in the pot so to speak. whether it actually went to its intended end is hard to say but am not sure that is a reason to be against it, or maybe it is.

It just seemed (from my email and fb) that everyone is automatically against it and I wondered if they had thought it through.

There is already splitting with some of the managment/ dealing with outbreaks anyway though since FMD I know efforts have been made to get them to work together more slickly.
 
[ QUOTE ]


we seem to moan that horses aren't 'agricultural' for the purposes of grazing/land use but don't want them classed as agricultural for something like this?

anyone else or just me?!
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

There's a huge difference though between the rate for a cow to a horse; if it was a level playing field it would not be so bad but they're just seeing easy money. You can bet the gypsies and others that don't passport their animals aren't going to bother with this little problem, it will be the law abiding ones who will cough up once again and we already pay enough taxes on anything needed for horses that I, for one, won't be paying it until they put their house in order and get the passport fiasco sorted out properly. If they are so dead set on getting this tax through then they should confiscate any horse who hasn't got a passport first or fine the owners and raise the money that way before they come back on law abiding us.
 
There will always be those that don't play the rule book but I I don't see that as a reason for me not to.

agreed they should get passports sorted though.

not many horse owners have a hundred + head of horse in comparison to cattle owners so not sure that bothers me

will have to think about it some more.
 
Put it this way then - it's very easy for them to have suddenly changed the goalposts by categorizing horses as an agricultural animal in this respect but it hasn't changed anything as regards the concessions the agricultural sector get regarding building and planning regulations. They can't have it both ways; horses are either agricultural and as such have the same criteria regarding building/planning regulations, business tax, no tax on feedstuffs and so on as other farm animals have, or they're not, in which case it's a very unfair tax and completely for their benefit.
NED online is meant to be their pigeon and it is very flawed, you only have to read posts on here and we're the tip of the iceberg. If DEFRA put their own house in order and ran a very tight ship, then we might be more amenable to this tax but while they insist on frittering money away with too many chiefs and not enough indians who haven't a clue regarding horses at all (NED is a prime example), then I'm afraid I for one, will carry on revolting against it.
 
[ QUOTE ]
given that this continues to fill up my inbox.........

am I the only person who doesn't see it as a bad thing if it is used to improve exotic disease control and more funding to act quickly if we were to get an outbreak, particularly as arguably horses may be lower down in economical importance in comparison to the rest of farming industry (not sure about the tb industry) and I should think food animals will be deemed more important funding wise.


I know full well that due to climate change much of defras funding has been rerouted that way reducing that sent to animal health leaving the national herd (of whatever animal and I do include horses in that) at a certain degree of risk due to reduced monitoring etc. (until we get an out break then they will panic about it)

we seem to moan that horses aren't 'agricultural' for the purposes of grazing/land use but don't want them classed as agricultural for something like this?

anyone else or just me?!
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Because the rate they are proposing won't be anywhere near enough to do anything meaningful and will at best cover a sporadic and unevenly enforced collection of the said "tax".

Because the dangers of it being administered heavy handedly and ill advisedly in the event of any outbreak are high.

Because exotice disease prevention isn't really a problem in this country so why make an issue where there isn't one?

Because government spending is going to be substantially reduced any day now and projects like this will disappear but you can bet the "horse tax" will remain.

Because every time a government agency gets involved in horses it ends up causing misery for horse owners, mainly in terms of piecemeal heavy handed jobsworth enforcement, with no compensating benefit.

Because its utterly ridiculous to classify horses as non-agricultural for some purposes, such as planning law and tax deductions, but as agricultural in order to tax them?
 
'Because exotice disease prevention isn't really a problem in this country so why make an issue where there isn't one?'

I completely disagree, exotic diseases are getting progressively closer. particularly AHS
 
[ QUOTE ]
'Because exotice disease prevention isn't really a problem in this country so why make an issue where there isn't one?'

I completely disagree, exotic diseases are getting progressively closer. particularly AHS

[/ QUOTE ]

But the present system seems perfectly adequate to deal with it? Lets face it, DEFRA or their predecessors hardly have a good record of performance when it comes to preventing outbreaks esclating or dealing with them once they have done. And just why did BSE develop in this country?...
 
[ QUOTE ]
'Because exotice disease prevention isn't really a problem in this country so why make an issue where there isn't one?'

I completely disagree, exotic diseases are getting progressively closer. particularly AHS

[/ QUOTE ]

But this risk would surely be lessened if Defra were to close the loopholes in the tripartate agreement!
 
I would support it if I thought the money would be spent on improving welfare and disease prevention. However it is no good if it will actually be funding yet more civil servants to have final salary pensions...

Sorry, but given that my road tax does not get spent on transport, my national insurance does not all get spent on healthcare, etc... I just don't buy it, you cannot trust the government to use money efficiently.

It would be much better if it was done by a mutal organisation where the money raised actually went into the cause as it were. Then I would happily and voluntarily pay in excess of the rates currently being discussed.
 
I think I agree with you cyber horse, but just kinda accept that I have to give the government then I can't really control exactly what they do with it.

HH I don't think BSE is a good example due to its unusual method of transmission. In a previous job I have however seen some changes that concern me about our levels of surveillance and the current system. Hopefully lessons have been learnt from FMD about who has the greater capacity to do the testing accurately and at speed should a similar situation arise.

I would also like defra to sort out the tripartite agreement.

Thanks for all your views I have found it really interesting, though perhaps still alone
grin.gif
 
Of course the tax money will be used to fund disease cure and prevention, just like all the money you pay for your road tax gets spent on the roads and transport.
 
but there is money to spend on roads even if it doesn't only/all come from road/fuel tax so is that really a huge issue, or shoould we just have toll roads instead? - off topic there!
 
[ QUOTE ]
but there is money to spend on roads even if it doesn't only/all come from road/fuel tax so is that really a huge issue, or shoould we just have toll roads instead? - off topic there!

[/ QUOTE ]

The trouble is that in Britain theres a tendency towards what I term "double taxation" - you pay for something once and then you pay for it again. eg healthcare. I pay my NHS contributions but when I need the physio I have to pay for it privately, at the same time paying the various taxes for private healthcare as I do so. So I end up paying twice. Just like my parents paid twice for my education. And just like we would end up doing in this country if we had toll roads - and we already have several.

I've worked as a solicitor in local government and I know the consultation system they use and how flawed, pointless and non-neutral it can be (ask only the questions you want answered). I have seen the horrendous wastage at first hand. But what really gets my goat, and speaking here as a jurisprudent, is the piecemeal approach to law enforcement. How can anyone as a UK citizen know with any certainty whether the law relating to them is going to be enforced or not? Horse tax IMHO is just giving the quite often dire public sector in this country yet another chance to make money out of those who are decent enough to pay. In the private sector, this would be known as a scam.

And what about the likely cuts in public spending Ester? What if DEFRA's nice horse tax suddenly finds itself downgraded just to that? Theres no guarantee that they will actually do what they say they will. And of course it will all be done by stealth, sorry secondaray legislation, anyway, so our democratically elected MPs will never get the chance to debate on it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top