Farmers threat

Stellify said:
it is funny to see the lefties one minute argue that because one family claim benefits when they shouldn't the rest of claiments should still get theirs but because one bloke buys land to avoid IHT all farmers should go bust to pay their share.

Really is a bad idea and I can't think of a benefit to UK plc. Class war.

500m it will raise, we send 12bn to other countries for climate aid. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Muttley said:
Eh? :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

Redwurzel said:
I noticed when Victoria D confronted him with the accusation he had bought a farm to avoid paying IHT tax, he could not disagree and responded "typical BBC" which had nothing to do with the accusation about his Farm purchase. When asked who should pay for the NHS he started pointing at office blocks and saying civil servants should be sacked i.e sacked to pay for his tax perk in effect.

If he wanted to help small farmers and the NHS he would have been better staying at home and paying a bit more tax.
Click to expand...
He will probably do a series on Commercial Agri business sales for Netflix, or finding away to take his money with him into the next life. If I were him Id hide under his chins.
 
Apparently The Housemartins are going to re-release one of their classic hits but from the point of view of a farmer called ‘Me and Keir Starmer’
 
Stellify said:
it is funny to see the lefties one minute argue that because one family claim benefits when they shouldn't the rest of claiments should still get theirs but because one bloke buys land to avoid IHT all farmers should go bust to pay their share.

Really is a bad idea and I can't think of a benefit to UK plc. Class war.

500m it will raise, we send 12bn to other countries for climate aid. Pathetic.
Click to expand...
Wow
Farage has certainly got into your brain
 
Stellify said:
it is funny to see the lefties one minute argue that because one family claim benefits when they shouldn't the rest of claiments should still get theirs but because one bloke buys land to avoid IHT all farmers should go bust to pay their share.
Click to expand...
Comprehension isn’t your thing is it, because literally no one said that all farmers should go bust, or any farmers should go bust and no one stated the ludicrous word salad about benefit cheats. That’s an easy block
 
sherlock said:
@Stellify I'm not sure what warranted a laughing emoji? I've just looked online and brand new combine harvesters can be had for a third of the price you stated: https://www.farmmachinerylocator.co...41599/2024-claas-trion-730-combine-harvesters

That's not even the cheapest one either.
Click to expand...
The only farms buying 1m combines that aren’t used for 48 weeks a year are the huge farms worth 10s of millions of pounds. The small family farmers that he’s alleging to be worried about, will either own “cheap” second hand combines, or will lease them. Therefore won’t appear as an ‘asset’ for taxation purposes, in fact they could be a cost that reduces tax
 
Last edited:
Nano said:
One of the big reasons that farmers are getting very little sympathy is that the very worst case scenario for them is that they can't afford the inheritance tax and have to sell their farm which will leave them with a minimum of £3m. That's if they can't afford a single penny of tax. An actual tax bill that they could struggle to pay is going to require a much larger estate. How can a group of people be so blindingly ignorant of their privilege?


This seems to be one of the major issues. There seems to be a complete lack of professionalism in a lot of cases. It is a business, a multi-million pound business but it's not being run like one. Most of the issues can be avoided by running the business side of things properly, separating home and farm and the father/son dynamic becoming employer/employee/owner. The family farmers think the big corporations will just buy and farm the land but they would only do that if it was profitable. If it can be profitable for the corporations it can be profitable for the family farmers if they run them in the same way. If it isn't then there is something amiss with their business practices.

I've not seen much mentioned but hasn't this change also affected all businesses? Currently someone can leave 100% of their assets within a business to their estate and there would be no IHT but this change will mean only £1m can now be left? Why aren't we hearing the same complaints from business owners as we are from farmers?
Click to expand...
It's seems you do not understand reservation of benefits and business belief.
 
sparkins said:
Some of the comments on here are pretty disgusting. I have dared to give an alternative view in a non confrontational and balanced way, to give people with zero knowledge or experience of the challenges that farmers actually face a different angle. I won't bother in future. As per usual it descends into vitriol and rhetoric here as it does every single time anything political is discussed here.
Click to expand...
Redwurzel said:
Possibly some fine tuning could be done to the tax rules so there is very little chance small family farms are caught up. If £3m is the decisive figure I don't see how small farms could be caught up. 200 acres even at £10k an acre is £2m. Maybe farm equipment can be excluded which I thought it was, but I was possibly wrong.
Click to expand...
So, I am broadly in favour of these changes but, having read quite a lot and listened to the more reasoned views of some farmers, I do think they could be tweaked to better target those large landowners and tax avoiders. It does sound like there might be a bit of an issue is limiting both agricultural land and business property relief to a combined £1m, when you take into account farm machinery and livestock, etc.

Inheritance Tax already gives an additional relief to those estates passing down residential property to direct descendants. I would propose to double the agricultural land/business property relief to £2m but ONLY where the farm is passed down to a direct descendant (child, grandchild, etc.) AND that those descendants continuously farm the land personally for at least a further 7 years. (I’m not sure how exactly you could prove the last bit, but I reckon Defra must have some info along those lines).

That would give an effective tax relief of £5m to family farms being passed down through the generations, but only where they are going to be actively farmed by those descendants. That must exempt the vast, vast majority of such working family farms.

You then, of course, have the issue of the tax revenue forgone by the above changes. What I would propose there is to limit the value of farmland upon which you only pay IHT at 20%. For example, any farm worth more than, say, £20m would have to pay IHT at 40% on anything above that £20m figure.

That would better target the Clarksons, Lloyd Webbers and Dysons, whilst exempting all (or nearly all) small and medium sized family farms. It would make the tax system more complicated, but this is an example of why it’s so complicated in the first place.
 
Just on a side note.
My father in law who was a small tenant farmer before retirement had a good response when the march was on the news " get this load of old b***ks off" ...there isn't necessary a lot of love between the different strata in the farming community.A lot do work really hard for little gain, but this isnt aimed at them.
 
sherlock said:
You can't deny that there are pile-ons on this board, surely?
Click to expand...
Aren't working class people with views on how they are continually ripped off by the non-working upper classes allowed an opinion? Especially on a message board for a town that has traditionally been left to fester after having it's own industries decimated after contributing so much to the economy that has made this country "rich".

I don't see a pile on, I see arguments in support of taxation of very rich people in a fairer way than they currently are.

The upper classes are allowed to retain and hoard wealth under tax measures that allow that wealth exempt from taxes that poorer classes pay.

It's immoral when children go hungry, the sick don't get proper treatment and the old aren't properly cared for. This is the reality for millions in this country because the social fund cannot afford to provide. Tax revenue needs to rise.

I'm a socialist, I believe in society and I believe that everyone should contribute fairly for the sake of a better society.

Greed in man is the absolute antithesis of society. It is ruining everything from our health, our happiness, our futures and even the planet itself.

It is time the hoarded wealth that some have is distributed more evenly so that everyone's future has a better outlook. After all most of the wealth only exists because of the work of the poorer classes.

The uber rich are using the fairly rich here to prevent taxing their wealth.

Plenty of convincing argument has been put forward to say why this change is fair, I have seen nothing arguing why it isn't.

Strong opinion is not a pile on, I have seen no personal insults. As I pointed out earlier, the right are using their usual tactic of disinformation to whip up a section of society into a frenzy over something in most cases will not impact them and in the few that it does can be reduced on proper estate management.

TBH I'm not overly bothered by this change, will it really contribute much to the pot? I would prefer the off shore tax arrangements and tax avoidance of the corporations and super rich to be legislated against first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top