Plight of Farmers.

[Mapletree]

Labour’s figures which they are using to try and justify this hogwash simply don’t add up. While the Treasury claims that only a quarter of farms will be affected, the DEFRA figures contradict this, showing it to be around two thirds of farms.
It is deeply concerning that the Chancellor has announced this Budget measure without seeming to check whether the figures used by the Treasury are accurate.

Please provide a link. I suspect you are confusing 'will' with could.

 

[georgenorman]

Who?

I am pro farmer. I want to see more of them.

Collective farmers presumably.

 

[Willo]

Please provide a link. I suspect you are confusing 'will' with could.

With respect, no confusion between 'Will' and 'Could'.

The Conservatives are committed to abolish the 'Family Farm Tax' .This policy commitment has been made by Kemi Badenoch.

 

[CrazyBadger]

So Reading this topic, lots of valid views.

I'm pro farmer, and believe they(the ones who farm stuff) are hardworking, underpaid and often one rainy Spring away from bankruptcy.
The government have tried to give them breaks to help them out, i.e. IHT benefits, and some unscrupulous greed driven rich types have seen a tax loophole and exploited it, giving the Gvmt the Bird with one hand and lovingly stroking their overprivileged kids head with the others. These people aren't Farmers, but it seems many of the Left sided representatives on here believe they are.

Surely the solution is not to stop the benefits, but to stop the misuse of them?

 

[kingdowieonthewall]

joseph starmer is now rattling on about his first job being on a farm.
what job does he not have a connection too?
we already know tool making & sausages
what next.. " lived in shoe box by side 'T road " pythonesque style.

 

[dreamwaverider]

There is no good reason why a farmer should get preferential treatment.

Google what Stalinism did to agriculture back in the 1930s and you will start to understand what Stalin's, I mean Starmer's, hidden agenda is.

 

[Mapletree]

With respect, no confusion between 'Will' and 'Could'.

The Conservatives are committed to abolish the 'Family Farm Tax' .This policy commitment has been made by Kemi Badenoch.

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.

 

[Spiderman]

What I don’t understand is why all the farmers I have seen interviewed, who have stated how bad this is, didn’t just read the HOL and then they would realise it is all fine.

 

[Rudi Hedman]

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 could say what’s the bl00dy point then if you don’t think it’s going to affect many and won’t make very much tax? However, really it’ll be more than 24% of farming in the country that’ll be affected because they’ll be larger farms meaning more output than this 24% estimate. And actually that’s enough of a dent in the nation’s food supply. A nation that keeps population increasing because of their policies and they’re going to, because it looks like they want to decrease food produced for wind farms etc. Good one. If you told a business that revenue is going to fall by 24% many would wind up the business if they couldn’t diversify, but this is apparently fine.

 

[beak]

As millionaires i'm quite happy that the farmers visit will incur congestion fee charges which will help the NHS.Neglecting such an important task as farming tells us what we need to know about them.

 

[Spiderman]

As millionaires i'm quite happy that the farmers visit will incur congestion fee charges which will help the NHS.Neglecting such an important task as farming tells us what we need to know about them.

Yep none of them will have left any workers looking after their farms for the day. Are all those millionaires.?

 

[beak]

Yep none of them will have left any workers looking after their farms for the day. Are all those millionaires.?

Tugging their forelock one presumes.

 

[Spiderman]

Tugging their forelock one presumes.

Ah the politics of envy 👌

 

[Mapletree]

So you could say what’s the bl00dy point then if you don’t think it’s going to affect many and won’t make very much tax? However, really it’ll be more than 24% of farming in the country that’ll be affected because they’ll be larger farms meaning more output than this 24% estimate. And actually that’s enough of a dent in the nation’s food supply. A nation that keeps population increasing because of their policies and they’re going to, because it looks like they want to decrease food produced for wind farms etc. Good one. If you told a business that revenue is going to fall by 24% many would wind up the business if they couldn’t diversify, but this is apparently fine.

Some strange uses of numbers there. Why would there be a negative effect on the output from the large farms? If some land must be sold to pay IHT, which I don't think will happen much, I see that as good for smaller.farmers, allowing them to grow. So overall no diminution in agricultural output.

 

[Rudi Hedman]

Some strange uses of numbers there. Why would there be a negative effect on the output from the large farms? If some land must be sold to pay IHT, which I don't think will happen much, I see that as good for smaller.farmers, allowing them to grow. So overall no diminution in agricultural output.

I was firstly saying if it isn’t that much as you say, then why bother? I then went on to say 24% is actually a lot under threat. While we’re on it, if they aren’t under threat as a large corporation then they don’t pay IHT anyway, but that’s another point.

It’s very clear in today’s England that any available land isn’t going to go straight into farming without considering other offers when selling. It’s a way of life and lifestyle business to keep in the family. If they sell it out of the family to pay IHT then why would they turn down the wealthy property developers higher offer or the offer to set it up as a wind farm?

 

[Mapletree]

I was firstly saying if it isn’t that much as you say, then why bother? I then went on to say 24% is actually a lot under threat. While we’re on it, if they aren’t under threat as a large corporation then they don’t pay IHT anyway, but that’s another point.

It’s very clear in today’s England that any available land isn’t going to go straight into farming without considering other offers when selling. It’s a way of life and lifestyle business to keep in the family. If they sell it out of the family to pay IHT then why would they turn down the wealthy property developers higher offer or the offer to set it up as a wind farm?

You say that like they haven't already done the analysis. All large farms constantly consider where they can make the most money. That is why all of the owners' children study REALM. The City is packed out with real estate asset managers who came from their parents' holdings. There is really no commitment to farming, just to maximising income from land holdings. You are confusing land owners with farmers. Old money or new money, makes no difference. Big farming is owned by wealthy business people. It is ruthless and stewardship of the land is not big on the agenda. That lies with small and medium sized farming, which is why land reform is critically needed and the choices Government makes on subsidies will affect our children's futures so dramatically.

 

[Spiderman]

I was firstly saying if it isn’t that much as you say, then why bother? I then went on to say 24% is actually a lot under threat. While we’re on it, if they aren’t under threat as a large corporation then they don’t pay IHT anyway, but that’s another point.

It’s very clear in today’s England that any available land isn’t going to go straight into farming without considering other offers when selling. It’s a way of life and lifestyle business to keep in the family. If they sell it out of the family to pay IHT then why would they turn down the wealthy property developers higher offer or the offer to set it up as a wind farm?

As I previously said Milliband must be licking his lips at the thought of all that available land, or perhaps Gates will be in the frame as he likes to stockpile farmland ( maybe this was discussed at the cosy dinner with Starmer?)

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Could it be that farmers who have not been impacted this time around are protesting because they are concerned that this is just the thin end of the wedge, changes in impacted thresholds & %ages may follow in future budgets.

If that proved true then their protests would have merit. These don’t. They are making a noise about something that is extremely unlikely to affect any of those involved. Indeed it could benefit them because these hoarding land as a way to avoid inheritance tax could be forced to sell some. It might decrease the price of farmland if more comes on the market than there are buyers for.

 

[Mapletree]

Paul Cheshire, emeritus professor of Economic Geography at the London School of Economics, said:

“The inheritance tax loophole on farmland, introduced in 1984, simply pushed up the price of land without improving returns to active farmers.

“This is because, like most agricultural subsidies, the value of the relief was capitalised into land values. As tax planners cottoned on to its role as a licence to avoid IHT, they advised their super-rich clients to buy land and take advantage of it. In the 20 years to 2012, the price of farmland increased fourfold.

“This turned landowning farmers into millionaires but — especially since land represents a cost of production — did no good to the incomes of food producers. It created impoverished millionaires who claimed a need for more support. At the same time, because more expensive land had to be squeezed even harder for the last drop of revenue, the environmental damage caused by intensive agriculture was made worse. Taking at least some of this tax loophole away will do no harm to family farmers but will help both public revenues and the environment.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

It apparently affects very few, just like axing the WFA, and therefore raises very little, so what’s the point?

It does affect very few, but those it will affect have been avoiding inheritance tax by buying farms. Not to farm themselves.

The average small to medium sized family farm won’t be impacted at all. Some good advice about the way to structure their business might be needed and this is surely what the NFU ought to now be doing rather than misinforming their members on behalf of the super rich.

This measure is designed to stop tax avoidance by the very wealthy. It’s not intended to impact the hard working farming community whose protests seem entirely misplaced and have been encouraged by those who are actually affected. People who will often be renting the farms out to those protesting. Why the NFU are encouraging the protests needs to be examined.