The Protest Thread.

[mik]

View from Richard J Murphy. (I’ve not watched one of his vids before)

Link will take you to the closing summary - rewind if you want to understand the basis of his comments.

[Gavster]

Thanks for posting, that's precisely where I had been getting to on this subject. The farmer uproar is a result of a valuable asset being taxed and nobody likes their property being taxed.

Three of the major problems in farming are the extortionate price of agricultural land, low returns and ageing farming populations because younger generations are NOT continuing on the family farm. I know someone who has been trying to get into farming and it's incredibly difficult to find a farm to buy, and it doesn't make any economical sense either. However, the high value of the land makes it a great way to store money. This tax can certainly help tackle these issues.

The only problem is that this is a very pragmatic, long-term, financial argument that farmers, the people who will suffer under it, do not want. It's a bit like saying they need to take a hit for the team, when in fact, they are always taking hits for the team.

[mik]

A few points in this were interesting also

[dinny_g]

If Daddy buys a farm somewhere, leaves it to their child in a will and then child sells the farm, do they pay Capital gains on the sale?

thats the loop hole.

Right - gotcha.

Is there any time period or can the child sell immediately? (Not really read up on it to be honest - just the headlines)

[ZedLeg]

Thanks for posting, that's precisely where I had been getting to on this subject. The farmer uproar is a result of a valuable asset being taxed and nobody likes their property being taxed.

Three of the major problems in farming are the extortionate price of agricultural land, low returns and ageing farming populations because younger generations are NOT continuing on the family farm. I know someone who has been trying to get into farming and it's incredibly difficult to find a farm to buy, and it doesn't make any economical sense either. However, the high value of the land makes it a great way to store money. This tax can certainly help tackle these issues.

The only problem is that this is a very pragmatic, long-term, financial argument that farmers, the people who will suffer under it, do not want. It's a bit like saying they need to take a hit for the team, when in fact, they are always taking hits for the team.

It’s the same problem we see over and over. People work against their own interests because someone with influence tells them it’s a good idea.

Let’s see Clarkson and James Dyson go after the supermarkets for forcing the price of milk down.

They won’t because they don’t actually give a fuck.

[Beany]

A few points in this were interesting also

"I think you're a lefty liberal woke idiot"

That's how to get your point taken seriously

[Swervin_Mervin]

Thanks for posting, that's precisely where I had been getting to on this subject. The farmer uproar is a result of a valuable asset being taxed and nobody likes their property being taxed.

Three of the major problems in farming are the extortionate price of agricultural land, low returns and ageing farming populations because younger generations are NOT continuing on the family farm. I know someone who has been trying to get into farming and it's incredibly difficult to find a farm to buy, and it doesn't make any economical sense either. However, the high value of the land makes it a great way to store money. This tax can certainly help tackle these issues.

The only problem is that this is a very pragmatic, long-term, financial argument that farmers, the people who will suffer under it, do not want. It's a bit like saying they need to take a hit for the team, when in fact, they are always taking hits for the team.

There's an easy compromise here - IHT due only on farms/farmland that isn't passed to a direct family member. The fact that doesn't seem to be on the table should be telling in itself. I get this chap's argument, but it falls flat when there are large corporations waiting in the wings to hoover up those farms where the IHT bill is unaffordable.

One of the unintended (or is it really unintended?) consequences of the change is that it's likely to free up a lot of land on the outskirts of urban areas, where the land values will be higher and, as a consequence, the IHT bill likely to be more difficult to settle. Coupled with a change in planning to make it easier to develop in the Green Belt and hey presto - lots of new developable land on the fringes of existing built up areas. I'm sure that's definitely not something Labour would consider...

[Swervin_Mervin]

A few points in this were interesting also

"I think you're a lefty liberal woke idiot"

That's how to get your point taken seriously

Yeah, he should have just called him a c**t for accuracy and brevity.

[Swervin_Mervin]

Thanks for posting, that's precisely where I had been getting to on this subject. The farmer uproar is a result of a valuable asset being taxed and nobody likes their property being taxed.

Three of the major problems in farming are the extortionate price of agricultural land, low returns and ageing farming populations because younger generations are NOT continuing on the family farm. I know someone who has been trying to get into farming and it's incredibly difficult to find a farm to buy, and it doesn't make any economical sense either. However, the high value of the land makes it a great way to store money. This tax can certainly help tackle these issues.

The only problem is that this is a very pragmatic, long-term, financial argument that farmers, the people who will suffer under it, do not want. It's a bit like saying they need to take a hit for the team, when in fact, they are always taking hits for the team.

It’s the same problem we see over and over. People work against their own interests because someone with influence tells them it’s a good idea.

Let’s see Clarkson and James Dyson go after the supermarkets for forcing the price of milk down.

They won’t because they don’t actually give a fuck.

It seems that you're saying is that anyone with money and/or influence doesn't have empathy. This seems to pervade a lot of our society when someone with money and/or influence objects to something - a sense that they should STFU as they can afford it. The idea that only those that aren't affected are allowed to have a view on something and voice it, which is clearly perverse.

[ZedLeg]

Not at all, I’m sure that there are rich people with empathy for the people hurting, but (imo) protesting against a change in process that you caused by bending the rules is cheeky and as I said if they really cared about the state of farming there are bigger issues.

[ZedLeg]

I would say it’s incredibly hard to amass the kind of wealth Clarkson has without a ruthlessness beyond what most people are capable of.

[Gavster]

Thanks for posting, that's precisely where I had been getting to on this subject. The farmer uproar is a result of a valuable asset being taxed and nobody likes their property being taxed.

Three of the major problems in farming are the extortionate price of agricultural land, low returns and ageing farming populations because younger generations are NOT continuing on the family farm. I know someone who has been trying to get into farming and it's incredibly difficult to find a farm to buy, and it doesn't make any economical sense either. However, the high value of the land makes it a great way to store money. This tax can certainly help tackle these issues.

The only problem is that this is a very pragmatic, long-term, financial argument that farmers, the people who will suffer under it, do not want. It's a bit like saying they need to take a hit for the team, when in fact, they are always taking hits for the team.

There's an easy compromise here - IHT due only on farms/farmland that isn't passed to a direct family member. The fact that doesn't seem to be on the table should be telling in itself. I get this chap's argument, but it falls flat when there are large corporations waiting in the wings to hoover up those farms where the IHT bill is unaffordable.

One of the unintended (or is it really unintended?) consequences of the change is that it's likely to free up a lot of land on the outskirts of urban areas, where the land values will be higher and, as a consequence, the IHT bill likely to be more difficult to settle. Coupled with a change in planning to make it easier to develop in the Green Belt and hey presto - lots of new developable land on the fringes of existing built up areas. I'm sure that's definitely not something Labour would consider...

Surely farmland always does pass to direct family members, they then decide whether they decide to contract it out, or sell it. The 10 year window or whatever like Rich B suggested earlier would solve some of that. Not sure it would help bring down the price of agricultural land though... which would solve a lot of these problems.

[mik]

(imo) protesting against a change in process that you caused by bending the rules is cheeky

As explained in the first 35 seconds of this

[Swervin_Mervin]

Thanks for posting, that's precisely where I had been getting to on this subject. The farmer uproar is a result of a valuable asset being taxed and nobody likes their property being taxed.

Three of the major problems in farming are the extortionate price of agricultural land, low returns and ageing farming populations because younger generations are NOT continuing on the family farm. I know someone who has been trying to get into farming and it's incredibly difficult to find a farm to buy, and it doesn't make any economical sense either. However, the high value of the land makes it a great way to store money. This tax can certainly help tackle these issues.

The only problem is that this is a very pragmatic, long-term, financial argument that farmers, the people who will suffer under it, do not want. It's a bit like saying they need to take a hit for the team, when in fact, they are always taking hits for the team.

There's an easy compromise here - IHT due only on farms/farmland that isn't passed to a direct family member. The fact that doesn't seem to be on the table should be telling in itself. I get this chap's argument, but it falls flat when there are large corporations waiting in the wings to hoover up those farms where the IHT bill is unaffordable.

One of the unintended (or is it really unintended?) consequences of the change is that it's likely to free up a lot of land on the outskirts of urban areas, where the land values will be higher and, as a consequence, the IHT bill likely to be more difficult to settle. Coupled with a change in planning to make it easier to develop in the Green Belt and hey presto - lots of new developable land on the fringes of existing built up areas. I'm sure that's definitely not something Labour would consider...

Surely farmland always does pass to direct family members, they then decide whether they decide to contract it out, or sell it. The 10 year window or whatever like Rich B suggested earlier would solve some of that. Not sure it would help bring down the price of agricultural land though... which would solve a lot of these problems.

I'd imagine it does usually. But I can't see any sensible reason why you then couldn't just levy IHT on the sale. They will get 10yrs to settle the bill afaik, but that won't be enough for a lot of the more marginal farms I'd have thought.

I also wonder whether this will push farmers to more intensive farming and discourage some of the more innovative approaches there have been in recent years by some to mitigate their impact by increasing biodiversity etc., as leaving farmland unworked simply won't be viable. In effect, Rachel Reeves shooting Ed Milliband in the foot.

[mik]

The only problem is that this is a very pragmatic, long-term, financial argument that farmers, the people who will suffer under it, do not want. It's a bit like saying they need to take a hit for the team, when in fact, they are always taking hits for the team.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens to the land value though.

I know I'm repeating points made by Murphy - I guess I am just jiggling them round in my head - but on the basis that farming is no longer a highly profitable business, then you don't need to be one of the dragons to challenge how that business could subsequently be valued at £severalmillion?

As the value placed on the business 2 months ago was essentially floated on the IHT loophole that's existed for the last 40yrs, then we should see farms being far more realistically valued in the coming months. Which will also significantly reduce their (came out of nowhere) IHT burden.

I've said already that I think this is a shit sandwich for the farmers, but at the same time it's appears that it's just bringing them closer in line with everyone else in the UK.....

[GG.]

They didn't close a loophole they wholesale revoked/reduced an exemption that catches genuine farmers. As people have said, if they wanted to catch Dyson they could have. Jeremy is actually farming the land now so whatever his intention was in the past, that's irrelevant now. It's probably a better claim to keeping it as farmed land than many who are using the stewardship schemes to plant half their arable land with wildflowers ironically.

I think it was Harry M that said the numbers they've come up with are just wrong as they worked off just what was claimed for the farm exemption only and not the business relief which has also been removed and covered all the plant and equipment. If its anything like the VAT on private schools it will be way off the mark. The ridiculous thing is that this is all just done on back of fag packet maths without any actual studies being commissioned.

[GG.]

The only problem is that this is a very pragmatic, long-term, financial argument that farmers, the people who will suffer under it, do not want. It's a bit like saying they need to take a hit for the team, when in fact, they are always taking hits for the team.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens to the land value though.

I know I'm repeating points made by Murphy - I guess I am just jiggling them round in my head - but on the basis that farming is no longer a highly profitable business, then you don't need to be one of the dragons to challenge how that business could subsequently be valued at £severalmillion?

As the value placed on the business 2 months ago was essentially floated on the IHT loophole that's existed for the last 40yrs, then we should see farms being far more realistically valued in the coming months. Which will also significantly reduce their (came out of nowhere) IHT burden.

I've said already that I think this is a shit sandwich for the farmers, but at the same time it's appears that it's just bringing them closer in line with everyone else in the UK.....

Yes but closer in line with other disparate businesses does not work for the unique characteristics of farming land. Basically this tax grab makes fuck all money in the scheme of things - they probably were motivated by targeting big landowners but were too lazy/thick (delete as appropriate) to do it in an effective and targeted way.

That's the problem with labour is they set the bar of what they consider "affluence" well below what most people do. Unless you're a client of the state drawing more than you pay in, you're basically fair game to get clobbered, which of course pays no heed to the fact that that's the portion of the economy that keeps everything afloat.

[mik]

They didn't close a loophole they wholesale revoked an exemption.

Yes but closer in line with other disparate businesses does not work for the unique characteristics of farming land.

That's the problem with labour is they set the bar of what they consider "affluence" well below what most people do.

I won't argue with any of those points, but in principle it seems like farmers are now broadly aligned with everybody else

Inherit a farm worth £x million and now face an IHT bill of £y hundred thousand. You either pay that IHT and then own a farm worth £x million, or you sell off part of your inherited asset (a percentage of the land, brand new combine harvester you bought with the Wurzels, whatever) and effectively end up inheriting a farm worth (£x million minus £y hundred thousand), or you sell it and end up with a cash inheritance worth (£x million minus £y hundred thousand).

Unless I am missing something, that would appear to be "the same" dilemma that anyone else who inherits any other business faces today? (Ignoring trust funds and all the other "tax efficient" methodologies out there)

And it would appear to be similar to anyone inheriting a property, who will be hit with IHT.... they will have to pay that, and then need to decide whether they accept they now own a property and (worst case) have a mortgage covering the IHT amount, or they sell the property and end up with a cash inheritance worth (House value minus IHT).

[Swervin_Mervin]

They didn't close a loophole they wholesale revoked an exemption.

Yes but closer in line with other disparate businesses does not work for the unique characteristics of farming land.

That's the problem with labour is they set the bar of what they consider "affluence" well below what most people do.

I won't argue with any of those points, but in principle it seems like farmers are now broadly aligned with everybody else

Inherit a farm worth £x million and now face an IHT bill of £y hundred thousand. You either pay that IHT and then own a farm worth £x million, or you sell off part of your inherited asset (a percentage of the land, brand new combine harvester you bought with the Wurzels, whatever) and effectively end up inheriting a farm worth (£x million minus £y hundred thousand), or you sell it and end up with a cash inheritance worth (£x million minus £y hundred thousand).

Unless I am missing something, that would appear to be "the same" dilemma that anyone else who inherits any other business faces today? (Ignoring trust funds and all the other "tax efficient" methodologies out there)

And it would appear to be similar to anyone inheriting a property, who will be hit with IHT.... they will have to pay that, and then need to decide whether they accept they now own a property and (worst case) have a mortgage covering the IHT amount, or they sell the property and end up with a cash inheritance worth (House value minus IHT).

It comes down to a question of whether farming should be considered a business purely and simply in the same way as any other, or whether its role in ensuring food security should exempt it from that.

[Rich B]

Farmers are still getting special rates etc compared to someone handing down a b&b or something. It’s £3m (so 3x normal) and the rate payable is half everyone else has to pay. and it’s interest free over 10 years.