OV9

It’s not the government that’s hurting farmers like your friend. It’s dicks like that and they’ll pretend they’re on your side while they do it.

OK, so you'll admit that some my friend's family will be hit by this, and this lefty rag has a good explanation of why the government's estimate of affected farms is bollocks.

See, what you’re doing now is making shit up.

I never said that people wouldn’t be affected, I said it was unfortunate but there was a loophole that needed closed.

GG. wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2024 10:38 am

Also Dan and Rich's snide comments are getting a bit tiresome.

Not as remotely tiresome as listening to wealthy 'woe is me' folks complaining about shit that mostly has nothing to do with them. I pop on here occasionally for a bit of light relief and should know better than clicking the politics thread, but I did it anyway, and fuck me its tiresome.

Clearly we're all experts though, my expert opinion is I have no sympathy for cunts like clarkson that landbanked that farm to avoid tax before realising it gave him a hobby.

Its fucking weird that the tiny percentage this affects are having their corner fought by people that it has nothing at all to do with. But I suppose thats the raison d'etre of a forum after all.

Isn't there a fundamental point here that this is a tax loophole that is being exploited for tax avoidance purposes. It was never intended to allow this avoidance, and just like any other tax avoidance scheme that diminishes tax revenue it will (and should) be closed. Otherwise you're basically saying that certain people should be allowed to avoid tax at will.

To my point earlier, this should be done in such a way that avoids the people intended to receive the benefit from becoming collateral damage. This is where the government appears to have failed, the closure of the loophole in itself us right and proper.

Furthermore, this will be one of many avoidance schemes that people of wealth will be running, and they'll find others, and so the game continues. No point in people like James Dyson crying about it, I'm sure it's not the first time he's had an avoidance loophole closed on him, possibly just more emotive because it's affecting his kids.

I say that as somebody who would happily avoid tax myself, it's not illegal. There's a system put in place and we operate within it, but when you're benefiting from a loophole you must accept that at some point it's going to be closed. The unfortunate situation in this case is that it was a long term rather than cyclical benefit which means that until it comes to fruition (when you die) you are exposed. I think that if you were advised to follow this path without understanding or being made aware of that risk, you were poorly advised.

Duncs is correct.

duncs500 wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2024 8:59 am Isn't there a fundamental point here that this is a tax loophole that is being exploited for tax avoidance purposes. It was never intended to allow this avoidance, and just like any other tax avoidance scheme that diminishes tax revenue it will (and should) be closed. Otherwise you're basically saying that certain people should be allowed to avoid tax at will.

To my point earlier, this should be done in such a way that avoids the people intended to receive the benefit from becoming collateral damage. This is where the government appears to have failed, the closure of the loophole in itself us right and proper.

That. Up until recently I had no idea that farmers were subject to different IHT rules, or that these rules were being exploited by the very wealthy. Fully agree that loopholes should be closed, as we should all be subject to the same rules.

Like some others however I object to IHT in principle. It's a tax on wealth that has already been taxed multiple times. For your house (the primary trigger of IHT for the vast majority) all your earnings that allowed you to purchase the property have already been taxed, and the purchase of the property was also subject to chunky Stamp Duty (or rather chunkier LBTT in Scotland). And then you pay huge tax on this again after you die? That appears fundamentally wrong to me.

ZedLeg wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2024 9:09 am Duncs is correct.

Come on, I don't believe for a minute that you'd happily avoid paying tax!

For the sake of avoiding having the same argument over and over I soft pedal over that part

mik wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2024 9:17 am Like some others however I object to IHT in principle. It's a tax on wealth that has already been taxed multiple times. For your house (the primary trigger of IHT for the vast majority) all your earnings that allowed you to purchase the property have already been taxed, and the purchase of the property was also subject to chunky Stamp Duty (or rather chunkier LBTT in Scotland). And then you pay huge tax on this again after you die? That appears fundamentally wrong to me.

I'd be inclined to agree. I don't know how much the government pulls in from IHT, but I assume in the say way that some wealthy people have grown accustomed to not paying certain taxes and are therefore upset when things change, the government has grown accustomed to receiving IHT money. Therefore they would have to find another source to fill the void, which could be the same people whose kids will receive the IHT benefit (only now they'll be alive), or indeed someone else such as business (indirectly either the same wealthy people or the employees of said business), or just other working people.

Not saying this because I have any answer to it, but until they start finding operational savings the tax burden will be the same and whether you rob Peter and pay Paul or vice versa someone has to foot the bill.

ZedLeg wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2024 9:25 am For the sake of avoiding having the same argument over and over I soft pedal over that part

There are a lot of small farms in the fens and it’s going to be a kick in the guts.

The only winner will be big businesses with money.

Dave!

mik wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2024 9:17 am Like some others however I object to IHT in principle. It's a tax on wealth that has already been taxed multiple times. For your house (the primary trigger of IHT for the vast majority) all your earnings that allowed you to purchase the property have already been taxed, and the purchase of the property was also subject to chunky Stamp Duty (or rather chunkier LBTT in Scotland). And then you pay huge tax on this again after you die? That appears fundamentally wrong to me.

VAT paid on goods out of taxed income, CGT on items which were paid for from taxed income - there is no intrinsic rule that you only get taxed once.

I don't particularly like IHT but in a macro-economic way I do think it is important. Plenty of families with wealth manage to avoid it anyway by planning; this cuts buying a particular designation of property out of that IHT planning process.

I don't think it is going to affect multi-generational family farms greatly. I do think it is going to affect wealthy people who bought farms as an IHT shelter, which is entirely the intended purpose. And they're vociferous, but they're not standing up for multi-generational farmers; they're using that argument to justify the tax loophole they benefited from.

Dyson is a poor example in this; he’s worth over £16bn and only has £500m in farming.. bit like being taxed on your 32nd house.

I agree with Duncs and Mik, and am in favour of replacing IHT with an annual wealth tax. That way you pay it whilst living as opposed to leaving the issue to your family upon your demise. Plus it’s instantaneous, so the Gov doesn’t have to wait for people to die (which will always be an emotive subject anyway).

IanF wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2024 10:05 am replacing IHT with an annual wealth tax

Ooh, ouch! Taxing dead people once sounds politically much more palatable than taxing alive people once a year. Imagine if you had to sell assets each year - triggering CGT as well potentially - simply to pay your wealth tax.

It’s funny, when I used Clarkson as an example on twitter he was also a bad one and I should’ve been looking at folk like James Dyson.

I wonder who a good example would be, King Charles?

ZedLeg wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2024 10:09 am It’s funny, when I used Clarkson as an example on twitter he was also a bad one and I should’ve been looking at folk like James Dyson.

I wonder who a good example would be, King Charles?

Duke of Westminster...

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/ ... y-billions

Isn’t most of their land in London?

Different loophole?

Jobbo wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2024 10:09 am

IanF wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2024 10:05 am replacing IHT with an annual wealth tax

Ooh, ouch! Taxing dead people once sounds politically much more palatable than taxing alive people once a year. Imagine if you had to sell assets each year - triggering CGT as well potentially - simply to pay your wealth tax.

I imagine people would learn, erm efficient ways to handle this pretty quickly. Having a tax bill every year is something we already have. Norway did this and it seems inherently fairer than the previous system of IHT. Graduated with a max 1% for people worth over £2.9mn is their scheme ~ so £10k per £mn seems affordable. Would also stop people sitting in big assets when cash poor so could free up some property.. maybe?

https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/norway/ind ... introduced.

Anyway, no taxation will be perfect, because it typically only affects middle earners.. the really rich just buy a house/island elsewhere and get a free passport and zero tax regime.

ZedLeg wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2024 6:26 am See, what you’re doing now is making shit up.

Are you new to the internet?