You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Given what's happened in Europe and the likes of Clarkson's "ethnic cleansing" comment it looks like it's going to be eventful.
Whatever you think of the farmers concerns, if of kicks off no-one wins, least of all the farmers.
So they'll have a protest, block the roads and we wont get the same level of criticism off GB news looking to arrest protestors like they were with JSO
And as for refusing to transport produce or meat. I dont think thats going o work as both are perishable goods, and also farmers and other such businesses would be hurt by those actions
But if they want to cut off their noses to spite their faces then go for it. When they lose a lot of income or face going out of business, they'll only have themselves to blame and those smaller farms will be bought up by the giant farms
It is amusing having Clarkson and his fellow celeb ****s who having brought farms to dodge inheritance tax (clarkson even admits to it) and hence pushing up prices for actual farmers now are front and ****ing centre of protecting farmers from operating under the same rules as everyone else.
I wish they’d stop using the word farmers and call them what they are… landowners
An interesting article by Will Hutton in today’s Observer
Farmers have hoarded land for too long. Inheritance tax will bring new life to rural Britain
I wish the press would stop suggesting that everyone who lives in the countryside is a farmer or related to one, or works for one. About 1%* of the rural population is concerned with farming, the rest of us just live beside it.
* made up statistic by me, but you take my point.
I’m looking forward to the right wing campaign to defend South Asian shopkeepers from paying inheritance tax when they leave their business to their children.
I don’t understand why they expect to be treated differently from any other family business that is passed on.
Because they are farmers of course!
I mean its obvious and I am not sure why you are questioning the fact that the removal of a privilege isnt the same thing as actually attacking them. Lets skip over the minor detail they are still being treated better but just not quite as much as before.
I do hope the police are checking any tractors joining in a protest for red diesel since I am pretty sure whining about removal of partial privileges doesn't count as a legitimate reason.
To be fair I guess many are annoyed that most of the side benefits of the bribes for French farmers no longer now apply post Brexit but perhaps the farming community might want to reflect on their general support for brexit.
Obviously there are plenty of poor sods caught up in it but overall I have the same sympathy as for people in living in Cornwall whining about how the EU schemes have vanished.
This isn't just about farmers is it? There are changes to APR (Agricultural Property Relief) but also BPR (Business Property Relief).
Are we going to see businesses in general needing to borrow, take on shareholders, or sell off chunks? Or shut up shop completely because none of those are affordable from profits or result in the business no longer being viable due to missing key parts or being too small.
Can farm/business owners not gift their farms/business to their children when they retire. Then if they live more than 7 years no IHT is due. This doesn't even feel dodgy - passing business on at retirement rather than death seems wholly reasonable
Am missing something obvious?
binnersFull Member
I wish they’d stop using the word farmers and call them what they are… landownersAn interesting article by Will Hutton in today’s Observer
Farmers have hoarded land for too long. Inheritance tax will bring new life to rural Britain
Christ, that's something of an eye opener if it even vaguely resembles the truth on how few farmers will be effected by these changes?
The obvious thing you are missing is that farmers don’t have pensions. So they hold out until the end. If you gift the farm and still derive benefit, you will still have an interest and be liable to IHT. Perhaps they will now take out pensions and life assurance like the rest of us.
Will DC pensioners also be protesting that their pots when passed on will now be taxed for IHT and income tax on withdrawal?
made up statistic by me, but you take my point.
12 million people live in rural areas in England and 0.285 million work in agriculture. Thats 2.3%. As a percentage of the 68 million total, it’s 0.4%. Three million work in retail and another three million work in hospitality.
Can farm/business owners not gift their farms/business to their children when they retire. Then if they live more than 7 years no IHT is due. This doesn’t even feel dodgy – passing business on at retirement rather than death seems wholly reasonable
Am missing something obvious?
That works if you're 65 today, but most owners will be older and made plans to hand over at death.
I heard that it was unwise to hand down to your 35 year old child at when you're 65 because there's a chance they could get divorced, losing half the farm in the process. Or all of it if selling half makes it too small to be viable.
Of course - it was something obvious I was missing.
It is amusing having Clarkson and his fellow celeb **** who having brought farms to dodge inheritance tax (clarkson even admits to it)
I thought it slightly odd Clarkson got into farming - I just figured he knew the TopGear gig had had its hay day, so he did the Clarksons farm thing as a nice little TV show, earner into retirement, even if the farm doesn't make money the TV show income would be enough to cover it plus some?
But it makes even more sense now! lol! and why he's a bit angry about it!
The obvious thing you are missing is that farmers don’t have pensions.
That also applies to other businesses so why are farmers special?
Will DC pensioners also be protesting that their pots when passed on will now be taxed for IHT and income tax on withdrawal?
Unless I am missing something the change is to bring the farmers in line with those DC pensioners?
Which brings us back to the key point. Its not that farmers are being victimised but that one of their privilges is being withdrawn.
In no small part to the Clarksons and Dysons of this world who have gone into farming to protect themselves from the taxes mere mortals who aint farmers have to pay.
That also applies to other businesses so why are farmers special?
Well, yeah.. anyone who is self employed can choose, or not choose, to pay into a private pension, even in employment you can opt out of paying into the company pension provider if you really want to?...
And a fair few round here (anecdotal) aren’t farming other than turning their barns into light industrial or small office park
It’s called diversification: it’s what farmers were encouraged to do to make up for the loss of earnings from traditional farming practices, like sheep, crops, etc. For example, one might think that wool, as a natural, biodegradable material that doesn’t use petrochemicals, can be used to make a wide variety of clothing, and in the case of Herdwick sheep, which have a very coarse, wiry fleece, the fleece can be chopped up, mixed with a bio-resin and moulded into furniture. The truth is, farmers make bugger-all from wool, humans quite happily carry on buying synthetic fleeces which shed microfibres into the environment, into humans, and apparently into the air, which is affecting the weather, and us, because those microfibres are turning up in human brains.
Those complaining about farmers might look at which industry has the highest suicide rates nationally. And ask why that might be.
It’s also why many farmers are jumping at the chance to turn otherwise unproductive land, (why might it be unproductive, one might ask), and allow solar farms to be built on the fields. To the intense annoyance of the local NIMBIES who then start bleating on about the destruction of ‘their’ beautiful landscape, the loss of food producing land, blah, blah, blah, like the sheeple they are.
Putting solar panels across a field doesn’t destroy it, farmers often put sheep into the field to control the grass, and the sheep enjoy the protection from the weather. And the panels have a finite life, and will be removed leaving a grassy field behind. The income from the solar often means the difference between the survival of the farm, or it’s loss and another family farm broken up and sold to rich commercial concerns.
Christ, that’s something of an eye opener if it even vaguely resembles the truth on how few farmers will be effected by these changes?
Have a listen to the latest "The Rest Is Money" podcast to get the verdict of a tax expert on that very subject. Spoiler - it resembles the truth quite closely, few farmers are likely to be affected, the near-mythical "small family farm" outfits least of all. A lot of Reeves' other tax changes get something of a hard time too.
12 million people live in rural areas in England and 0.285 million work in agriculture. Thats 2.3%. As a percentage of the 68 million total, it’s 0.4%. Three million work in retail and another three million work in hospitality.
Hang on. Apparently, there are 12M in predominantly rural local authorities. But of those 12M how many are economically active? So you need to take out all the under 16 year olds and the retirees...sure it's not a huge proportion, but 2.3% doesn't sound right. Plus there are many people who live in urban areas but work in agriculture or supporting it.
And 0.4% sounds wrong too. There are 27.8M economically active people in England and Wales, so using (presumably) the entire population of the UK at 68M as a denominator is a bit skewed!
I think it's around 1% of the workforce from memory.
Clarkson is getting off on helping shine the light on farmers but always remember first and foremost he's getting paid to make a television programme.
It doesn't really have much in common with being an actual farmer.
He's waxing on about buying and eating British (which I'm good with) but he's spent his whole career attacking everything and anything that would taint the free-market gods.
Hypocrisy to a deadline.
All that said this government has made an absolute mess of its taxation targets and that coupled with the fact that in reality few people in are happy paying more tax - we have a real battle on with all this stuff.
A lot of Reeves’ other tax changes get something of a hard time too.
Disasters waiting to happen.
According to the ons, 63% of the population of England and wales are of working age (16-65). So you can multiply those percentages by 1.6. I was only replying to the “made up” statistic denominator. So 3.7% of the rural population and 0,6% of the total. There are 10x more people working in retail and hospitality.
Why would the farmers be attempting to subvert their protest. (Innocent emoji)
At least based on the vast majority around here.
Those complaining about farmers might look at which industry has the highest suicide rates nationally. And ask why that might be.
Low skilled construction workers seem to have a higher suicide risk. Diversification is fine but the point is it's not then farming it's being a landlord like many others who may face a harsher tax regime than farmers do.
Is there a reason that passing on a farming business is different tax wise to passing on any other family business? Genuine question.
The changes are intended to tackle a minority, the likes of Clarkson. The majority of small family farms will (hopefully) not be affected. As ever some will fall either side of the line, fairly or unfairly.
There is a perception that "all farmers" are rich, have new Range Rovers and their kids go to private schools. The fact is most farmers struggle to break even working 7 days a week and they have been screwed over by the supermarkets.
Its not that farmers are being victimised but that one of their privilges is being withdrawn.
And this tax exemption was created in 1984 by Mrs Thatcher's Govt.
I asked somebody the other day, if this tax 'change' is the death of the "family farm" as you claimed, how come you're telling me these farms have been passed down for "generations", when the exemption only came in 40 years ago - how did they cope before the change?
Not had an answer to that one...
Interesting take from people here. The thread title is broadly the working title of my PhD.
I'm pitching an article about the protests to the conversation on Wednesday, although it looks like the Guardian beat me to it somewhat!
I was at their protest on Saturday and I'll be there on Tuesday too. Tuesday is going to be a huge turnout.
It's a shame we won't get to see Tommy Robinson roll up on his trusty Massey Ferguson with his flat cap and pipe. Damn you, British justice system!
I always find it funny when Telegraph readers get to find out just how uncouth their 'allies' are. I suppose a proportion of the well-heeled rural types have their 'hunt supporters' though, so they're more used to being surrounded by thugs.
Against the wishes of the organisers and many of the farmers, a few hunts are turning up on Tuesday. The far right have been sniffing around since the early days, and the group No Farmers No Food was setup by James Melville a climate change denier/conspiracy theorist.
Many farmers live in real precarity though and make little if any money from actual farming. The whole food system in the UK is totally ****ed and is actually liable to be very problematic in years to come.
Farmers are the salt of the earth and we must tug our forelocks when they allow us the privilege of passing over their land (that we pay them handsomely to sit and look at).
When the chips on your shoulders are so big that they become blinkers....
Is there a reason that passing on a farming business is different tax wise to passing on any other family business? Genuine question.
The argument is - Farms as a 'business' appear to have a high value - because the land they reside on is worth huge amounts of money. However the income generated from this very expensive 'business' is very low.
If you went to the bank and asked to borrow 10 million quid to buy business that might net you 50k in profit a year ...Oh and I need another 250k to spend on all the kit and equipment I need. Sorry, one more thing, if the weather is wrong then I'll make a loss...
They'd laugh you out of the door!
The problem, in reality, is two-fold - the on paper value of the land being ridiculously high, plus the fact that this change is being brought in too quick. If you have enough years left working your farm before you plan to hand it to your kids, you can plan, fund, and potentially use other methods (gifting) to manage the tax bill. Those hit hard now, are the ones who planned to hand the farm on the in the next couple of years, and havent got any cash in the bank to pay this bill. Its understandably not great to be in the position of "Now Son, all this you can see is now yours, oh and heres a bill for 300 thousand pounds to the inland revenue"
Its no doubt its highly contentious, and easy to see both sides. Dont listen to Clarkson the oaf - he plays a character and he'll say what he wants as long as he is in the news (The Michael O'leary of the farming world now maybe....!?) but its worth having a watch of some of the videos by Harry Metcalfe, who whilst clearly has his own agenda, does explain some of the facts pretty well. Latest here, but its also been covered previously:
My opinion? Yes, something needs to be done about it, all the rest of us have to pay it, however as ever, its the way its been implemented that is typically awful, and symbolic of the short sightedness of a system that only thinks as far as the end of the current 4 year political cycle.
For some perspective on the size of the farming sector we all rely on, Outputs were about £40bn and inputs about £33bn making a Total Income From Farming in 2023 of £7bn. One presumes tax is payable on some of this income. If farming was a FTSE listed company, it would not quite make the top 10 of largest companies in the UK. The government collected £829bn in tax revenue in 2023, £443bn from income tax and NI. Farming returns less than air passenger duty (4bn), Inheritance tax is about £7bn. On the economic scheme of things, the budget changes, including farming, were rounding errors.
I asked somebody the other day, if this tax ‘change’ is the death of the “family farm” as you claimed, how come you’re telling me these farms have been passed down for “generations”, when the exemption only came in 40 years ago – how did they cope before the change?
Not had an answer to that one…
Perhaps because supermarkets have squeezed the price of food to the point that lots of farms are now only viable through subsidy. Land prices are also significantly higher other than brief a peak in the 70s.
I live and work in a rural community, my shop is used by the farming and much wider community and is a bit of a hub for talk and chatter... Being in the Cotswolds we have a range of customers from multi,multi millionaires right down to below the poverty line.
Loads of people have been coming in talking about the iht changes - but not one farmer. The ones most up in arms are the millionaires or multi millionaires, generally the ones that own the vast majority of the land In the area, but don't farm it themselves - so landowners.
The Cotswolds is horrendously expensive for land, but at an agricultural level it's not great. It's rocky, poor soil and quite hilly. Traditionally it's been used for grazing, specifically sheep (when wool was a commodity), now it's mixed use. So a working farm doesn't have a great deal of income due to low yields.
So you have poor yield on high cost land - putting all working farms above the iht bracket. Most farmhouses are well north of 1mil+ the average house price for a 2 bed is 1/2 a million.... As a result almost all land has been bought up for investment or by big farms and estates. Within a few miles of my shop the lre are 4 estate farms as well as land owned by Princess Anne, King Charles, Zara Tindal etc. There are a few cottage farmers, but most don't have farming as a primary income.
So you make broadly there a point that I think is really interesting TiRed. Wtf are Labour thinking here.....they will undoubtedly lose a small bit of political capital, it'll make things tricky for their rural MPs, and it will net a miniscule amount of money! It just seems like a crazy political decision.
I still don't understand this land valuation thing.
If you have a business that is valued at £2 million and you can't make minimum wage working 7 days a week, then why would you keep it?
£2 million is £30,000 a year for over 60 years.
£2 million invested in any other business would create a greater income.
From what I understand, it won't even affect many farms worth less than £3.5 million.
It's complete nonsense.
**** them. They should pay tax the same as the rest of us.
The far right have been sniffing around since the early days, and the group No Farmers No Food was setup by James Melville a climate change denier/conspiracy theorist.
See also their attempts to worm their way into control of the National Trust.
I agree that the changes appear to be a bluntish instrument which need to be fine tuned to pick out those who are hoarding land for investment/tax avoidance purposes or using it as a non-agricultural asset. Perhaps with more generous allowances and deferments based on farm income and type rather than purely land value.
The media still holds an idealised view of every farm being a tiny bucolic haven, rather than the rather more diverse collection ranging from massive estates to tiny tenanted hill farms. Take the coverage of the burglary at the Windsor estate this morning - it was presented as if someone had snuck into William and Kate's yard and taken their quadbike, rather than a premises somewhere miles away on the 15,000 acres dotted with palaces, stables, and dozens of farms.
But the recent changes in NI for anything other than tiny businesses is liable to have a far more damaging and instantaneous change on the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, but the disseminated nature of this means that the voices of a far smaller but politically connected lobby are grabbing the attention.
It just seems like a crazy political decision.
Introducing tax changes which will make life harder for a lot of small business and their soon-to-be ex-employees while ignoring tax abuse elsewhere seems equally unwise.
The obvious thing you are missing is that farmers don’t have pensions. So they hold out until the end.
https://www.farminguk.com/news/proportion-of-farmers-saving-for-later-life-increases_60277.html
Approximately three-quarters (75%) of farmers in the UK now have pensions, reflecting a steady increase in retirement planning among this group. This growth is supported by initiatives like automatic enrollment for workplace pensions and a broader emphasis on financial planning within the farming community. For employees within agriculture, the proportion participating in workplace pensions rose from 16.6% in 2012 to 64.3% in 2021
If you have a business that is valued at £2 million and you can’t make minimum wage working 7 days a week, then why would you keep it?
+1, just sell the land and keep the machinery etc; those buying the land for investment still need someone to work it - my Great Uncle was in the agricultural contracting business years ago, they rented land across a quite wide area.
But the recent changes in NI for anything other than tiny businesses is liable to have a far more damaging and instantaneous change on the lives of hundreds of thousands of people
When something is implemented that impacts every business in a sector, it's the more efficient ones that gain (the advantage).
Having spoken to a couple of farmers. They dont object to the principle. However they do object to:
1. No prior negotiation or warning.
2. The threshold is set far too low ie no farm today is less than the threshold put in place. It will capture every farm, not just those that are bought up by rich people as a tax loophole.
They said everything is bought on loans, using the land and family home as the guarantee. They are not cash rich. So yes on paper the assets of the farm will be way in excess of £1m but profit margins are negligible and then they are supposed to find money to pay inheritance tax out of the none existent profits.
They both said it will actually just mean that more land goes to the superrich as the tax is still a drop in the ocean for them.
This forum has always been a very bitter and twisted place when it comes to people who have created wealth or perceived to be wealthy, the facts are almost irrelevant if it allows sweeping generalisations to be made and the politics of envy to be played out.
As to Clarkson, both of them said he has done a lot to showcase how farming works in the UK, and how hard it can be.
If you have a business that is valued at £2 million and you can’t make minimum wage working 7 days a week, then why would you keep it?
I thought STW was full of socialists? They see themselves as doing a vocation and custodians of the land, its been handed down through generations. There are still quite a few privately owned farms where I live, but one owned by https://yareal.co.uk/
The local farmers help people out, maintain the local area. Yareal have broken planning rules, discharge to the local river, destroyed roads etc. They dont care about the local community,
They said everything is bought on loans, using the land and family home as the guarantee.
I had an interesting discussion about this, customer said that a combine is worth 750k so just the equipment in a farm can be well over the exemption bracket. But if it's bought on a loan, wouldn't the loan right off some of the iht value?
5mil in assets, 2mil in debts = 3mil so inheritance taxable value would be between 400k and 2mil (after exemption) not 4?
Customer didn't know the answer to this and neither do I.
But the recent changes in NI for anything other than tiny businesses is liable to have a far more damaging and instantaneous change on the lives of hundreds of thousands of people
I'd agree - the farming iht changes are getting far too much attention in comparison to this. Lots of small businesses in my area are talking of job cuts, introduction of ai replacement and slimming of the workforce. My daughter, currently looking for work, has noticed a post budget drop in advertised positions.
When something is implemented that impacts every business in a sector, it’s the more efficient ones that gain (the advantage).
That is indeed a solid capitalist principle, but if my memory from the 80s serves me, it can involve a lot of pain for individuals while this transition to a leaner, more efficient model takes place. And at a time when many businesses are struggling with a variety of economic shocks - Brexit, energy costs etc - this has the potential to devastate relatively efficient and potentially profitable businesses alongside the basket cases.
twisted place when it comes to people who have created wealth or perceived to be wealthy
Not sure about everyone else, but I'd just like them to pay their fair share!
Most people with this level of wealth won't have paid income tax, and now they put it into a tax free assets that get handed down indefinitely. Seems wrong to me.
I had an interesting discussion about this, customer said that a combine is worth 750k so just the equipment in a farm can be well over the exemption bracket. But if it’s bought on a loan, wouldn’t the loan right off some of the iht value?
Yep we had similar conversations as they cannot afford to employ a tax accountant.
One of them was telling me how TB wiped out 50 of their cows, which cost them £250k last year ie to purchase new cows.
I've "created wealth".
I have 3 small businesses, that are worth more now than what I paid for them.
Between me and Mrs, we work "hard" and have took risk. We have a decent income and employ people.
I pay personal income tax, corporation tax and whoever get's them when I die will pay inheritance tax.
Why should a farm be any different?
Rightly or wrongly, we are in a (sort of) free market economy.
How can something be worth £2,000,000 if it can only generate a return of 1.5% annually and also involves constant hard work?
Either the income generated is incorrect, (a lie?), or it isn't worth £2,000,000.
Sell the land and invest the money into a property portfolio.
Only the insane would work an "asset" that generated so little return.
One of them was telling me how TB wiped out 50 of their cows, which cost them £250k last year ie to purchase new cows.
Bought on loan or cash?
A loan investment for a business is very different to cash.
If a farm makes very little per head of cattle, a loan seems a bad idea, if it's 250k in cash then its either not a small business or cash heavy.
I have 3 small businesses, that are worth more now than what I paid for them.
Edit*
I pay personal income tax, corporation tax and whoever get’s them when I die will pay inheritance tax.
If they are limited companies they will be subject to business relief and exemption from iht I believe?
Why should a farm be any different?
Again putting the socialist hat on, they are custodians of the land, and look after the land and community. Big business does neither, and most farms will go big business because of this change
Bought on loan or cash?
Loan, they simply wouldnt have £250k to buy new ones !
If they are limited companies they will be subject to business relief and exemption from iht I believe?
Not 100%. Although I haven't really looked at as we don't have any children.
Also, there's nothing to stop a farm being held by a Limited Company.
Sell the land and invest the money into a property portfolio.
Only the insane would work an “asset” that generated so little return.
It's a good job there are a few of those insane people though. It would be difficult to feed a country of 70 million people on student lets etc.
One of them was telling me how TB wiped out 50 of their cows, which cost them £250k last year ie to purchase new cows.
Did they not get the government compensation for this TB loss?
I know a few small farmers they accept that farming is no longer sustainable as a sole source income and have other jobs ( they also have succession planning in place, as much as any farmer will tell you about their business, profits etc 😉 ).
That's not how economics works. The agricultural land is still there for food production. What may change is the business model by which the land is cultivated for that food production. And almost half (46%) of the food for those 70 million is already imported.
It’s a good job there are a few of those insane people though. It would be difficult to feed a country of 70 million people on student lets etc.
I am not suggesting that the land is destroyed.
I would argue that the value of a business that can only generate a return of 1.5%, after a great deal of hard work, then that business is grossly overvalued.
If the business was valued at something more realistic then the IHT issue goes away for a huge number of them.
the assets of the farm will be way in excess of £1m but profit margins are negligible
One of the unintended consequences of doing this back in the eighties is that arable land prices are out of step with reality, and every farm has to be sweated for profit simply becasue of it's book worth. If nothing else re-aligning these will allow new entrants to the market.
That’s not how economics works. The agricultural land is still there for food production.
The land might still be there, but it still needs to be farmed. I was replying to a poster who suggested anyone who was willing to do is "insane" and should do something else. But thanks for explaining economics to me. Yes, a significant proportion of our food is imported, with the associated food miles, sometimes dubious animal welfare etc. I'm not sure increasing that by suggesting farmers should quit is a good thing.
I’m not sure increasing that by suggesting all farmers should do something else that’s a good thing.
I am not suggesting that.
I am arguing that the valuations and returns being quoted in the media are utter nonsense.
A £2,000,000 asset that can only generate £30,000 annual profit, after a great deal of hard work, is not worth £2,000,000.
Can you identify any other business sector where this would be considered an accurate valuation?
Again putting the socialist hat on, they are custodians of the land, and look after the land and community.
So this is wrong in terms of being socialist.....what you're doing here is invoking a phenomenon called farmer or agricultural exceptionalism. Ie, agriculture should be treated differently because they're protecting the country's land. They're businesses, many of the smaller ones make a loss through agriculture and rely on subsidy. They still operate as businesses first and foremost though, rather than 'land custodian's.
Isn't there a bit of a circular argument going on with the land valuation?
It's worth so much as (at least partly) people are buying it as a tax free investment.
Now a tax is proposed, people are saying it's unfair as valuable land doesn't produce much income.
But that was mostly the case because it was a tax free investment.
Never mind all this economics malarkey, what every true patriot will be asking on tomorrow's demo is, did those feet in ancient time walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God on England's pleasant pastures seen?
Again putting the socialist hat on, they are custodians of the land, and look after the land and community.
There's loads of socialist's in my area, that care so much about the land and community, that they carefully raise thousands of pheasants, to generate a sustainable food source for working people. Absolute men of the people.
Since when is turning out to support a protest counted as trying to hijack it ?
but it still needs to be farmed.
Does it? There's an argument that says modern farming as it exists in the UK now is largely a legacy of WW2. So much land was put back into production and so much of modern farming (chemicals, over-production etc) was created. We could really do with having a conversation about the fact that hunger in the world today is mostly a distribution problem rather than a production problem, and keeping land in production in rich countries is a way of keeping poorer countries from earning export dollars.
Since when is turning out to support a protest counted as trying to hijack it ?
When your goals are very different to the goals of those organising the protest?
Hijacking is generally defined as changing the destination.
Again putting the socialist hat on, they are custodians of the land, and look after the land and community
Some do but others dont treating the land as a disposable asset kept going by massive application of chemicals.
For example even if the water companies started acting as custodians of the rivers several would still be screwed due to all the effluent from farms.
A £2,000,000 asset that can only generate £30,000 annual profit, after a great deal of hard work, is not worth £2,000,000.
it is if it was a useful vehicle for transferring wealth without IHT.
I see the royals were mentioned up there, I assume they are exempt from any of this...
In this study of 523 farmers, the overall Brexit voting behaviours were not significantly different from the general population. Cereal farmers voted to remain and dairy farmers voted to leave. Education, age and sex were all in line with national trends too . I would hesitate to say that there was a strong Leave intent and that farmers were little different to anyone else.The NUF was in favour of Remain too. Curb your stereotypes.
With regards to valuations, a 1.5% return on investment implies an overvaluation of approx 3x. Hardly anyone has mentioned in the media that falling land prices might benefit these asset rich farmers to mitigate their IHT liabilities. But by the next elections, with data in hand, IHT changes will be irrelevant. The removal of DC pension exemption will likely make far more tax revenue than agricultural IHT (note the TOTAL IHT receipts were £7.5bn - less than 1% of all revenue). See how that trends upwards over the next five years. Of course there is no perspective in the media!
It appears challenging to separate the agricultural land overvaluation from the fact it's currently bought as a refuge from inheritance taxes. Beginning to address that distortion appears to be a good place to start on fixing that issue.
But the new tax dodgers like Clarkson are only the most obviously egregious in the tax breaks they expect, we don't need special laws for them... all land owners should pay inheritance tax if their wealth (yes, land is wealth) is large enough. Because someone was born into land ownership, rather than bought into at after a long career earning money by means other than working the land, shouldn't exclude their family from wealth taxes.
Since when is turning out to support a protest counted as trying to hijack it ?
Erm, when farmers say don't turn these protests into a culture war, then shitheads like Clarkson start talking about immigrants. That's a co-option. When climate change deniers start mobilising and calling into question science, when farmers are concerned merely about the payments from sustainability subsidies. There are other examples....
If we want to close a tax loophole where people buy a nominal but not really productive farm, but we also want to ensure farms aren't closing due to this because we want to keep domestic food production, is there some way of closing the loophole by implementing inheritance tax partly based on the turnover of the farms? Presumably any decent sized arable, dairy or meat farm is going to have a pretty massive turnover even if they are not particularly profitable, whereas someone who just has a load of empty fields of grass to avoid tax won't.
Or is that economically naive of me?
it is if it was a useful vehicle for transferring wealth without IHT.
But how is it transferring wealth?
Something is only worth what people are willing to pay for it.
If they are only earning a return on investment, after a load of hard work, of 1.5%, then the land is totally over valued.
This whole farmland thing seems to defy any normal economic principles.
Or maybe the farmers aren't as skint as they say they are?
I hope no one is looking at Zimbabwe as a way of redistributing the farms for the greater good....
none existent profits.
There are profits. If not what are these farmers living on, paying their domestic bills with like everyone else?
I suspect that a lot of the fuss is because land has become overpriced as investors and those looking to use it as a tax shelter have pushed up the price simply by increasing the competition for the land. I wonder how many of those complaining are not only unhappy with loosing the tax shelter but that this will lead to a drop in land prices and maybe a loss on their investment. The genuine farmers won’t care about the latter because they have no intention of ever selling it.
But how is it transferring wealth?
Land is wealth. Don’t let the likes of James Dyson persuade you that it isn’t.
As a socialist, environmental scientist and part of a farming family, the idea that farmers are successful "custodians of the land" is absolute nonsense. They absolutely trash the land - they compact soil, they trash biodiversity, they cause masses of erosion, they are the biggest source of eutrophication causing nutrients washing into watercourses, they're a huge source of endocrine disruptors in watercourses, they ruin soil carbon stocks and damage soil's ability to prevent floods and reduce the impact of droughts.
My family is perhaps a little unusual as the main family farm is only on its second generation of owners, and the others were bought by the current generation. None of them are poor, largely because farming isn't the only thing they do, but they're also very smart at the farming they do do, and could definitely afford the inheritance tax hit. But given that the Guardian article posted on page 1 points out that the law changes will only impact 500 farms, and they'll have ten years to pay off the tax bill, it's going to impact so few people it doesn't matter.
To follow up TiRed's post, my family are on the whole a massive bunch of anti-immigration gammons but even then half the ones owning farms and land didn't vote for Brexit - on a personal level they approved, but knew it'd be bad business.
We also don't really pay enough for food at the till in the UK - market forces need to change to make farming a more viable living without subsidies. But for now we have the subsidies, so we just pay for it from our taxes instead.
There is a perception that “all farmers” are rich, have new Range Rovers and their kids go to private schools. The fact is most farmers struggle to break even working 7 days a week and they have been screwed over by the supermarkets
Having done the accounts of many farmers over the years I can indeed confirm that they are not struggling at all. Or maybe it's just sheep farmers here in the borders. Anecdotally, the cereal and vegetable farmers where I'm from in Lincolnshire are doing very well too.
.
.
Anyway, what really gets to me is the tax breaks and subsidies given to ****ing grouse moors, they should be the number one target over and above wealthy farmers who at least produce some food