Jump to content
kaihoka

Cow farmers AFB moment

Recommended Posts

When these animals are destroyed the farmer can then put in a claim to the Govn for compensation.  When beehives are destroyed if they have AFB, beekeepers are not able to make a claim.  I don't see much difference between the two scenarios - so why is this?  Is it just historically how it has been, or a function of the importance of farming to NZ and the strength of their lobbying.  Because if you follow this through, if farming is important to NZ, then surely beekeeping and bees are equally if not more important given the role of bees in pollinating those very same farmers crops and pasture.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, CraBee said:

When these animals are destroyed the farmer can then put in a claim to the Govn for compensation.  When beehives are destroyed if they have AFB, beekeepers are not able to make a claim.  I don't see much difference between the two scenarios - so why is this?  Is it just historically how it has been, or a function of the importance of farming to NZ and the strength of their lobbying.  Because if you follow this through, if farming is important to NZ, then surely beekeeping and bees are equally if not more important given the role of bees in pollinating those very same farmers crops and pasture.

i agree with you.As far as I know we have not lobbied and being a "Wild West ' bunch of beekeeper unless we are united things will stay the same.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two seasons ago , before MPI brought in its manuka test , the industry may have had enough clout to push for more resourses from the govt .

But its too late now . 

It will be everyman for himself in the struggle to survive a collapse in honey prices.

There will be no united front .

  • Agree 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CraBee said:

When these animals are destroyed the farmer can then put in a claim to the Govn for compensation.  When beehives are destroyed if they have AFB, beekeepers are not able to make a claim.  I don't see much difference between the two scenarios - so why is this?  Is it just historically how it has been, or a function of the importance of farming to NZ and the strength of their lobbying.  Because if you follow this through, if farming is important to NZ, then surely beekeeping and bees are equally if not more important given the role of bees in pollinating those very same farmers crops and pasture.

right now they are still in the eradication phase, when they come to the live with it stage, there will be no more compensation for them. AFB been around since bees been in NZ, we in the live with it stage.

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CraBee said:

When these animals are destroyed the farmer can then put in a claim to the Govn for compensation.  When beehives are destroyed if they have AFB, beekeepers are not able to make a claim.  I don't see much difference between the two scenarios - so why is this?  Is it just historically how it has been, or a function of the importance of farming to NZ and the strength of their lobbying.  Because if you follow this through, if farming is important to NZ, then surely beekeeping and bees are equally if not more important given the role of bees in pollinating those very same farmers crops and pasture.

A Beehive full of Bees is a consumable in the production of Honey and its cost is claimed as an expense in that production.

A cattle beast is a capital asset
A bit like the Bake House and the Flour    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, frazzledfozzle said:

@Philbee can you dumb that down about the beehive being a consumable 

In our tax law a Beehive is treated like flour in bread.
Simply an ingredient in Honey making.

This means that the expense of buying a hive is a direct annual cost and is deducted from your profit in the same way that the expense of Flour would be  in the making of Bread.
A capital asset on the other hand  is generally one that has an expected life span of more than 1 year and is legally identifiable with for example a life ear tag, title etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought my hives were assetts with a write off schedule? Would have to ask the accountant.

 

In my case a lot of the hiveware was put down as consumables because most of it was being sold with bees in it within a year. But now I'm not doing that i had this discussion with the accountant.

Edited by Alastair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alastair said:

I thought my hives were assetts with a write off schedule? Would have to ask the accountant.

 

Yes ours have been on the books as assets as well I'm sure 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Alastair said:

I thought my hives were assetts with a write off schedule? Would have to ask the accountant.

 

In my case a lot of the hiveware was put down as consumables because most of it was being sold with bees in it within a year. But now I'm not doing that i had this discussion with the accountant.

So the bees must be the assets .

  • Good Info 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Alastair I am not sure how you go about depreciating your bees .

Its kind of ridiculous  .LOL 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Straight up, I'm not sure what the accountant does with it i don't read the small print any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Philbee said:

capital asset on the other hand  is generally one that has an expected life span of more than 1 year and is legally identifiable with for example a life ear tag, title etc.

 

 

It’s interesting how the current extraction requirements are moving towards this - boxes marked and traceable etc. I haven’t been following that carefully so maybe have misunderstood it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, cBank said:

 

It’s interesting how the current extraction requirements are moving towards this - boxes marked and traceable etc. I haven’t been following that carefully so maybe have misunderstood it.

Separate things.
Marked supers are about traceability
However Ive been thinking about the flour comparison and a better example may be electricity.
The Bees are a consumable like electricity or cleaning compounds
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Philbee said:

Separate things.
Marked supers are about traceability
However Ive been thinking about the flour comparison and a better example may be electricity.
The Bees are a consumable like electricity or cleaning compounds
 

You said a cattle beast was an asset .

Whats the difference .

The life span .?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the bees are a consumable ..... then the running cost of the hive rises dramatically and few beekeepers this side of the black stump are ever gonna post a profit .... Perfect for money laundering .....?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jamesc said:

If the bees are a consumable ..... then the running cost of the hive rises dramatically and few beekeepers this side of the black stump are ever gonna post a profit .... Perfect for money laundering .....?

Some of the tax rules are really tricky and you wonder how the IRD came to that conclusion.

You just have to have faith in the intelligent reasoning of the people who made them up .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kaihoka said:

You just have to have faith in the intelligent reasoning of the people who made them up .

How can you say Intelligent Reasoning and IRD in the same post.

  • Agree 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Trevor Gillbanks said:

How can you say Intelligent Reasoning and IRD in the same post.

The other option was a bunch of people in a room throwing coloured darts at ideas written on the walls .

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, kaihoka said:

You said a cattle beast was an asset .

Whats the difference .

The life span .?

Life span and tracabilility are probably the two main drivers of the rule
If Bees were an Asset on a balance sheet  then Beeks would be claiming deductions for loses annually which would lead to all sorts of issues

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compensation for AFB hives would be fine if it was only paid to competent beekeepers but then who decides who is competent. The other problem with compensation is all industries have downturns and there have been plenty of times when it was difficult to give hives away let alone sell them and a decent compensation package at these times could easily lead to a remarkable amount of AFB turning up. Personally I would like to see it go the other way with massive fines for those found with robbed out AFB with equally massive fines for unregistered hives to help keep people honest.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jamesc said:

If the bees are a consumable ..... then the running cost of the hive rises dramatically and few beekeepers this side of the black stump are ever gonna post a profit .... Perfect for money laundering .....?

there are plenty of good money laundering options out there. Bees are a very good option, especially if you own land that can 'legitimately' charge a hive rental. Two crews of people brainstorming this stuff, the crims and the regulators. Cash eh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Trevor Gillbanks said:

How can you say Intelligent Reasoning and IRD in the same post.

it's good to have publicly funded hospitals and policing eh.

Tax policy is easy to criticise, and it's easy to identify edge-cases that appear crazy, but I challenge most people out there to successfully design something better.

Some of the fiercest critics of tax are also the fiercest critics of any slip-ups in public services struggling for public funding...

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current system is fine.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×