• Existing user of old message board?

    Your username will have transferred over to this new message board, but your password will need to be reset. Visit our convert your account page, to transfer your old password over.

Plight of Farmers.

Mapletree said:
It is very hard to find data on farm values. So let’s say you are correct and that figure is out of date. We have the current average from Government statistics. The average is just over £2m, well below the £3m figure. Look up farms for sale online. I just found 1,923 for up to £1m, £2,757 for up to £3m (834 extra) and 296 for over £3m which is less than 10%. Happy now?
Click to expand...
Not sure those figures are correct. The Treasury (accountants) state 24% of farms will be affected, but DEFRA (farming and environment department) state 66%. The NFU (farmers mates) reckon 70%.

It seems the bean counters may be a tad low on their estimates. Whereas the bean growers are far more aligned with their controllers.
 
Mapletree said:
Is it hard to give the assets to your children before you die? That likely would encourage them.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
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.
Click to expand...
When voters claim to vote for them selves you post it’s wrong not to vote for others needs. Now farmers may be trying to defend others with action it’s wrong. Blimey flip flop make your mind up !
 
Mapletree said:
Is it hard to give the assets to your children before you die? That likely would encourage them.
Click to expand...
It was in the Socialist Utopia of Soviet Russia, as people ended up eating their children during the famines caused by the progressives' agricultural policies.
 
Last edited:
Mapletree said:
I asked you to explain, can you do so or is this opinion simply intuition. And what makes you think I haven’t been in the trenches?

I have explained my viewpoint with facts and statistics, plus commentary from a top specialist in the appropriate field. Perhaps you could do likewise.
Click to expand...
We know you have been everything from paperboy to UN Secretary- General but can’t remember you ever mentioning the trenches 😂
 
Last edited:
Mapletree said:
20,000 people studying agriculture yet you doubt there is demand? Land prices have overheated due to the IHT advantage. As a result ROCE is very poor. This measure should never have been introduced by the Thatcher government and is preventing keen young people from gaining a foothold.
Click to expand...
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.
 
the silurian said:
have to agree, why should anyone pay tax just because they die?
Click to expand...


If I earn X (with the proviso that the money has been legimately earned and then taxed accordingly) it is down to me what I do with it. And if I wish to purchase something, again with the proviso of the transaction being legitmate) and then pass that on to whoever I want, it is NOTHING to with Government.

This is all about the forced transfer of land to corporate interests.

Still struggling to understand why Starmer has decided to fight on this issue because it will enrage a lot of people on a multitude of levels.

Part of me wants to believe all kinds of dark conspiracy theorys and I have zero doubts that a lot of corporations are rubbing their hands in delight at the thought of being able to land-bank vast amounts of acres for all sorts of purposes but I just think it is because we have a con-woman as a chancellor. She is fraud and not a very smart one.

She has to go, as does this policy, and perhaps this is the 4d chess angle I like to impose on any and everything politics related? (with all the usual proviso's about my over-active imagination).
 
Matov said:
If I earn X (with the proviso that the money has been legimately earned and then taxed accordingly) it is down to me what I do with it. And if I wish to purchase something, again with the proviso of the transaction being legitmate) and then pass that on to whoever I want, it is NOTHING to with Government.

This is all about the forced transfer of land to corporate interests.

Still struggling to understand why Starmer has decided to fight on this issue because it will enrage a lot of people on a multitude of levels.

Part of me wants to believe all kinds of dark conspiracy theorys and I have zero doubts that a lot of corporations are rubbing their hands in delight at the thought of being able to land-bank vast amounts of acres for all sorts of purposes but I just think it is because we have a con-woman as a chancellor. She is fraud and not a very smart one.

She has to go, as does this policy, and perhaps this is the 4d chess angle I like to impose on any and everything politics related? (with all the usual proviso's about my over-active imagination).
Click to expand...
I.H.T. applies to everyone.
 
Tim Gypsy Hill '64 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I see no sign farmers pass on the farms early at the moment. There is no incentive to do so.

Whilst the death stats are appalling they are not statistically meaningful (currently 27 per quarter) and include many farm workers rather than farm owners. Nearly 40% of deaths are over 65s, a good reason to encourage older people to pass the baton. In any case, where a farm is family owned it passes intact to the spouse.

I am not particularly focused on the fiscal effects of this measure, but rather the modernisation of farming and land reform.
 
Tim Gypsy Hill '64 said:
Not sure those figures are correct. The Treasury (accountants) state 24% of farms will be affected, but DEFRA (farming and environment department) state 66%. The NFU (farmers mates) reckon 70%.

It seems the bean counters may be a tad low on their estimates. Whereas the bean growers are far more aligned with their controllers.
Click to expand...
www.gov.uk

Agricultural facts: Summary

www.gov.uk www.gov.uk

Figure 1.4 is useful.
 
Mapletree said:
I see no sign farmers pass on the farms early at the moment. There is no incentive to do so.

Whilst the death stats are appalling they are not statistically meaningful (currently 27 per quarter) and include many farm workers rather than farm owners. Nearly 40% of deaths are over 65s, a good reason to encourage older people to pass the baton. In any case, where a farm is family owned it passes intact to the spouse.

I am not particularly focused on the fiscal effects of this measure, but rather the modernisation of farming and land reform. The UK is in the bottom 10% of countries in terms of nature depletion, a key reason for change.
Click to expand...
 
cryrst said:
When voters claim to vote for them selves you post it’s wrong not to vote for others needs. Now farmers may be trying to defend others with action it’s wrong. Blimey flip flop make your mind up !
Click to expand...
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.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
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.
Click to expand...
Food security is a huge issue. Yet it is being ignored. Why do you think a loaf of bread is so expensive, for example?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top