Plight of Farmers.

[Spiderman]

They aren’t doing either. They are being misinformed by the people who are supposed to look after their interests but instead are protecting the mega rich. I wonder why?

Food security isn’t an issue. The land will still be there. Its value may decrease making it more affordable to new entrants. Family farms will survive perfectly well, with a little effort.

Not if Milliband, Rayner or Gates get their hands on it

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

have to agree, why should anyone pay tax just because they die?

Why should anyone inherit so much they have no need to contribute to society by working?

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

All Tax is theft.

But inheritance tax is aggravated theft.

This vibe.

View attachment 371

All tax is the consequence of democracy and the agreement made to share efforts because they are more effectively done together.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

If every farmer did as you suggest, the government would receive no tax. That method would be far easier for the mega-rich tax avoider to do as there is no danger in just owning land. Accidental deaths to agricultural workers is second only to construstion workers. The tax dodgers will pass on their land within the seven year allowance. The farmer 'killed in action' may not have that option. When a farm is gone, it is gone. It is simple to destroy a way of life. It takes centuries to create one.

I am not sure just how many pepeople this point applies to but it cannot be many.

It is though the only point I have read so far in this thread where a valid reason has been raised for a special exemption to be made.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

The Conservatives brought in the ABR in 1984. Since then land prices have risen four-fold on the strength of people investing in agricultural land to avoid inheritance tax. This is unsustainable and destructive of the industry itself.

There are no figures proving the majority of landowners will be affected by the new inheritance tax rules.

Someone leaving a farm worth £1.325m not to their own children or grandchildren will pay no tax. If left to family that figure is £1.5m. If a farm worth £3m was owned by a couple who both die no tax will be paid. It is very unlikely IHT will be payable on landholdings of less than 100 Hectares (current average price around £24,000 per hectare but this is likely to go down not up) where it is kept in the family. So the maximum number of farms affected by this change is 24%. But in reality it will be a lot less, especially as older people really should aim to transfer their farms to their children before they die. And even if at least one parent does not live for the subsequent 7 years, there is taper relief.

Surely moving farms on to the next generation in good time is to be encouraged.

So you support the idea of inheritance tax?

If the government stand to make so little money as you claim, then why bother to make such a controversial policy?

It is purely the politics of envy by a closet communist chancellor along with her closet communist Prime Minister.

 

[Mapletree]

Land and property prices are what they are. The idea that agriculture students can afford to buy farms is unrealistic (I expect the majority are from farming families anyway). But I agree with you about the ROCE, which is why I implied that no-one who has the resources to invest would do so under these circumstances, with a prospect of an extremely modest income. So will farmers steadily have to sell off bits of their farms each generation to pay the IHT, reducing the scale of their farms and reducing efficiency, making them steadily less viable and pushing up food prices. I know it's not quite that simple, but it illustrates the concern about this policy.

This is far more nuanced. Large landholdings are a major issue for biodiversity and the uk is performing dreadfully. No, the majority of students are definitely from farming backgrounds. The market is totally out of balance specifically due to the IHT reliefs.

 

[Matov]

I.H.T. applies to everyone.

All inheritance tax is immoral.

 

[Mapletree]

We know you have been everything from paperboy to UN Secretary- General but can’t remember you ever mentioning the trenches 😂

Unlike some, I tend to post on topics about which I have reasonable knowledge.

I was only a paperboy when my sister couldn’t do her round.

 

[silvertop]

Ok. Excellent. Can you show me some detatched houses with out buildings and four or five acres of land attached for £1/2m please. I will move in immediately. If there is the additional machinery to farm the land, that would be handy too, as I could likely sell that stuff for a few hundred grand too.

Typical townie...

Mapletree is commenting based on empirical evidence.

You are commenting based on the Daily Express opinion piece.

I still think the policy cannot surgically attack those yacht moorers (whose wealth and influence feeds into those editorial opinions you dogmatically believe) and there are bound to be victims who exist on the margins but I have no sympathy at all for the uber rich who exploit this loophole.

 

[georgenorman]

Mapletree is commenting based on empirical evidence.

You are commenting based on the Daily Express opinion piece.

I still think the policy cannot surgically attack those yacht moorers (whose wealth and influence feeds into those editorial opinions you dogmatically believe) and there are bound to be victims who exist on the margins but I have no sympathy at all for the uber rich who exploit this loophole.

It's all part of the delusion that if you take away money from people that somehow makes everything all right.

 

[Mapletree]

It's all part of the delusion that if you take away money from people that somehow makes everything all right.

Or that if you consume services - as part of a cooperative purchase - you need to pay for them. Take your pick.

 

[georgenorman]

Or that if you consume services - as part of a cooperative purchase - you need to pay for them. Take your pick.

Which of the shambolic 'services' we have are you talking about?

 

[Mapletree]

Which of the shambolic 'services' we have are you talking about?

They have all become shambolic recently. I wonder why. Partially bad management and partially underfunding. Pay peanuts...

 

[CrazyBadger]

There is a clear line here between Farmers and nonFarming Land Owners.
One is a benefit to the economy and the Country the other is not.
It is unfair on the Farmer to penalise him based on the questionable legitimacy and tax avoiding motives of the nonFarming Land Owner.

IHT is a controversial subject. Farmers are in the unenviable situation to own millions of pounds in assets (and it's not just land, but equipment, cattle etc all add up to millions to be included in the estate), but not actually be able to cash in any of those assets, as it'll seriously affect their sustainability. The no 'IHT for Land' was given to farmers as a way of easing this pressure. In a world where IHT exists, this is (was) OK. Now the landscape has changed (apologies for the pun) and created the nonFarming LandOwners, the IHT rule needs reviewing. The farmer still has the same cashflow issues as they did in 1984 and still needs financial help in order to provide the stability and food security that ANY country requires.

I have no problem removing this rule, so long as the farmers are compensated/helped in a different way. Surely it's better to target those nonFarming LandOwners using the land for tax avoidance purposes, and impose IHT on them?

Personally, I think Stamer and Co have just seen an opportunity, in the wake of their 'no tax rises' promise to get some more money in and go after those people who aren't going vote for them anyway.

 

[georgenorman]

They have all become shambolic recently. I wonder why. Partially bad management and partially underfunding. Pay peanuts...

It is a common characteristic of public 'services'. It is the primary reason why Socialism always fails.

 

[French eagle]

The government say this tax on farmers will raise £300 million and the withdrawal of winter fuel payment for pensioners will raise 1.2billion . If we are that strapped for cash how come we are able to dish out 8 billion in overseas aid ? It's like someone giving money to charity and then not having enough cash to pay the rent !

 

[Stirlingsays]

The problem with Labour.....not so much with new Labour but the type you have now.....they forget and disregard the simple realities of human nature.

They put up numbers and make claims about this being affordable and that being affordable and live in their own private fantasy world where you can move money from one set of people to another without negatives.....and a lot of that negative is in perception within the business world.

Now, I have little sympathy for the financial sector mainly because they were all behind Starmer and Labour before he came to power. All those champagne socialists can start living their principles as far as I'm concerned.

Farmers...serious thought and care should always be paramount when you start fecking with the food supply. Business owners with this change in national insurance.....Mmmmm...I think they have a point.

The biggest net negative to all this is in the impression it gives to Britain as a hub for investment. Labour talk a lot about growth but that's all it is.....warm words and wishful thinking. Their policies themselves seem to be in the opposite direction.....nice for their socialistic beliefs perhaps but not very keyed into the realities and risks that the business world lives in.

Government earns no money, literally all we have is the private sector and loaners' belief that we will continue to have a relatively successful and stable economy.

People like Starmer are more in love with their ideas than they are with the realities of the world.

 

[Badger11]

It is a common characteristic of public 'services'. It is the primary reason why Socialism always fails.

I have noticed that there are 2 common traits that impact peoples jobs.

1. Rewards including promotion, salary, bonuses etc.*
2. Fear of the sack, nuff said.

*I loved working at Citibank it was all about ability. Those that worked hard and did a good a job got the rewards, it was expected that people make suggestions on improving their job and the process. The shirkers and those resistant to change were soon found out and were eased out of the door.

As a shelf stacker at M&S I quickly realised that those who worked hard were not recognised and those who shirked pretty much got away with it. It was a top down organisation and there was no incentive to work hard or suggest how your job could be done better. It was the complete opposite of Citibank.

i was surprised at the unwillingness to adapt or change processed but really I shouldn't have been. Whilst working at Citibank I had an occasion to deal with M&S middle management at their Oxford Street branch. Normally I would deal with 1 person I found myself in a room with about 10 of their managers all demanding to be involved but none of whom were prepared to stick their necks out and make a decision.

In hindsight it was clear why on the shop floor nobody was interested in doing things better.

The problem with top down organisations is if they are mismanaged they became a bureaucracy where the shirkers use the rules to justify their existence.

 

[Mapletree]

There is a clear line here between Farmers and nonFarming Land Owners.
One is a benefit to the economy and the Country the other is not.
It is unfair on the Farmer to penalise him based on the questionable legitimacy and tax avoiding motives of the nonFarming Land Owner.

IHT is a controversial subject. Farmers are in the unenviable situation to own millions of pounds in assets (and it's not just land, but equipment, cattle etc all add up to millions to be included in the estate), but not actually be able to cash in any of those assets, as it'll seriously affect their sustainability. The no 'IHT for Land' was given to farmers as a way of easing this pressure. In a world where IHT exists, this is (was) OK. Now the landscape has changed (apologies for the pun) and created the nonFarming LandOwners, the IHT rule needs reviewing. The farmer still has the same cashflow issues as they did in 1984 and still needs financial help in order to provide the stability and food security that ANY country requires.

I have no problem removing this rule, so long as the farmers are compensated/helped in a different way. Surely it's better to target those nonFarming LandOwners using the land for tax avoidance purposes, and impose IHT on them?

Personally, I think Stamer and Co have just seen an opportunity, in the wake of their 'no tax rises' promise to get some more money in and go after those people who aren't going vote for them anyway.

There is no dichotomy between farmers and non-farming land owners at the level of big agriculture. Clarkson doesn't actually farm, he dabbles for the TV. Big farm owners don't stay up all night lambing or get up early to do the milking. They also care little about the environment providing their farms are profitable. They belch out 66% of total nitrous oxide emissions and 46% of all methane emissions in the UK. The main sources of phosphorus and nitrates in rivers and lakes in the UK are sewage effluent and run-off from agricultural land.

The people you are thinking of sit in the middle ground, really do get involved in their farms and probably won't be affected by this reversal of the 1984 introduction of Agricultural Business Relief.

Great stuff, we are going back to the old days.

 

[Mapletree]

The government say this tax on farmers will raise £300 million and the withdrawal of winter fuel payment for pensioners will raise 1.2billion . If we are that strapped for cash how come we are able to dish out 8 billion in overseas aid ? It's like someone giving money to charity and then not having enough cash to pay the rent !

I see you have no interest in trying to reduce immigration at source. But really this isn't the topic at hand.