Plight of Farmers.

[Spiderman]

No sorry not a buffoon. He has almost single handedly raised the public perception of what people who farm in this country face day in day out. He now has a voice which he is making sure is heard, loud and clear. Let us all drop the idea that anyone who uses their talent to make money is to be derided and envied.

I think you may have missed understood me, I was not calling him a buffoon I was replying to Beak

 

[totoshkin]

I think you may have missed understood me, I was not calling him a buffoon I was replying to Beak

My apologies. I did not read it properly. Good man is Jezza.

 

[beak]

Before Blair Labour were always a one term government and this attitude is pretty much the reason why.

Blair, for all his faults, came from a conservative family and had a far better understanding of how far to push something and the language to use. In some areas his politics was more conservative than the conservatives he faced in parliament.....That success he had caused more long term damage to Britain than any other Labour politician.

At the very least.....as we see here, that type of person isn't in government anymore.

It won't last......If the right manage to sort out their differences or Clarkson decides to join one or the other..... Labour are toast.

I think I will remind you of that in five years time,when labour retain that HUGE majority.

 

[totoshkin]

I think I will remind you of that in five years time,when labour retain that HUGE majority.

That huge majority can disappear just as quickly as the Tories one did. Public loyalty is a very fragile thing and as ever it will be a case of ‘It’s the economy stupid’.

 

[Living In Hope]

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.

Genuine question Mapletree, but how would you see the imposition of IHT rebalancing the market ? As far as I can see, farmers do not generate enough income to pay IHT out of their earnings, so inevitably they will need to sell parcels of their farms to pay the IHT bill. There are then smaller, more inefficient farms generating even less income (possible benefit to biodiversity, but I think the majority would say more affordable food is higher priority), unless the traditional farmers all sell out to corporates who don't have to worry about IHT and can put larger farms together to work towards the ROCE they require. That would potentially reduce food prices but would likely be very damaging to the environment and countryside. Both outcomes are worse than what we have in my view. But I am probably not interpreting your comment as you intended.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I think I will remind you of that in five years time,when labour retain that HUGE majority.

Tell me something else that won't happen.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

When the person leaving the money/property has worked hard to get the means to buy property/businesses, using money that has already been taxed, why should they be taxed again, just because they died???...Id bet that if you got a large inheritance you would want to keep it? Or would you get in touch with the tax man and say come and help yourself my friend?? Of course you wouldnt!,Do you believe that Starmer/Reeves/Rayner (spit) will pay their inheritance tax as I had to when my mother died?? Dream on Wissie, dream on!!!!

The person who has died isn’t though taxed. They have paid their taxes. It’s those who inherit who do. People who have made no direct contribution to creating the assets. There are generous allowances. Spouses inherit everything without any tax. Leave your house to your children or grandchildren and the £325000 threshold increases to £500,000. Leave anything above the threshold to a charity or amateur sports club, no tax. Don’t use all your threshold and it transfers to your spouse. Give your wealth away 7 years before you die, no tax.

So there are plenty of opportunities to ensure your wealth isn’t subject to tax. However, why should anyone who has not earned the wealth be able just to live on it? I firmly believe everyone should be responsible for themselves and the current arrangements are more than fair. They enable some help to be given, for good planning for that to be substantial, and even total. It’s not unreasonable that we all get a share, via taxation, if no special arrangements are made.

 

[the silurian]

The person who has died isn’t though taxed. They have paid their taxes. It’s those who inherit who do. People who have made no direct contribution to creating the assets. There are generous allowances. Spouses inherit everything without any tax. Leave your house to your children or grandchildren and the £325000 threshold increases to £500,000. Leave anything above the threshold to a charity or amateur sports club, no tax. Don’t use all your threshold and it transfers to your spouse. Give your wealth away 7 years before you die, no tax.

So there are plenty of opportunities to ensure your wealth isn’t subject to tax. However, why should anyone who has not earned the wealth be able just to live on it? I firmly believe everyone should be responsible for themselves and the current arrangements are more than fair. They enable some help to be given, for good planning for that to be substantial, and even total. It’s not unreasonable that we all get a share, via taxation, if no special arrangements are made.

so youre happy to give away a arge chunk o any inheritance you may get? What about the lazy bastards who never work, never will work, why should my money be given to the feckless, those who never contribute to t5he common good.? Sorry but the £500k threshhold wasnt nearly enough......bet starmer reeves rayner and most MPs pay little or no tax....too easy to take it from us

 

[georgenorman]

People who inherit money will either invest it and pay taxes on it or spend it and pay taxes on it via VAT and other taxes while providing business for companies employing people to provide goods and services thus providing jobs and boosting the economy. If instead the money goes straight to the government in inheritance tax, most of it is just p'd up the wall by incompetent, profligate and often unnecessary spending by the state.

 

[Mapletree]

Genuine question Mapletree, but how would you see the imposition of IHT rebalancing the market ? As far as I can see, farmers do not generate enough income to pay IHT out of their earnings, so inevitably they will need to sell parcels of their farms to pay the IHT bill. There are then smaller, more inefficient farms generating even less income (possible benefit to biodiversity, but I think the majority would say more affordable food is higher priority), unless the traditional farmers all sell out to corporates who don't have to worry about IHT and can put larger farms together to work towards the ROCE they require. That would potentially reduce food prices but would likely be very damaging to the environment and countryside. Both outcomes are worse than what we have in my view. But I am probably not interpreting your comment as you intended.

I doubt it will significantly reduce land values or increase supply. For tax avoidance agricultural land remains beneficial. 20% not 40% IHT and an extra £2m nil rated. But it may become a hold not a buy recommendation. Land coming onto the market therefore could be more likely to be bought by farmers. I don’t see big farming selling, there is a decent margin for it plus the IHT benefit. Medium sized farming may benefit if they can grow with less competition from non-farming investors.

I know of multiple large holdings that are barely farmed. Just farmed enough to hit the necessary thresholds to be classed as agricultural. This may not change that but may discourage more wealthy people doing the same.

 

[Tim Gypsy Hill '64]

Agricultural facts: Summary

www.gov.uk

Figure 1.4 is useful.

It is. But apparently "Rachel from accounts" might have got the sums wrong according to this

BBC Verify Confuses Acres for Hectares in Farm Tax 'Fact-Check'

BBC Verify's main ‘fact-checking’ article on Reeves’ new farm tax this month deployed typical balance by quoting “independent tax expert” and senior

order-order.com

DEFRA dispute the treasury numbers, and Reeves really isn't very good at being chancellor.

 

[Tim Gypsy Hill '64]

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.

John Cooper-Clarke warned me off that rag a long time before I was interested in redtop newspapers. I mean, no Janie Jones!!!

But the "empirical evidence" seems to be flaky according to 'emerging' evidence. I too want to make the 'uber rich' pay what is due. Tax evasion should be punished. But passing on a working farm is not tax evasion. Farmers of medium sized farms, who WILL be affected mostly earn around £20-40k per annum. Now their heirs, who live and work on the farm already, and have likely won a degree in agriculture at university, will have to pay 20% tax on the estate. They won't be able to afford that, so they will have to sell some land off, which they will have to pay 40% CGT. So effectively 60% tax for their father/mother dying.

But that's OK by you, in your retirement house by the sea, reading the Guardian amongst the other rich townies who live in Portishead. You should come south a bit and speak to some real farmers in rural Somerset.