What do we want to argue about next?

[Pirahna]

[wheelnut]

Owner/occupier farmers should be a different case and should be exempt. A farmer could be sat on land, say worth 5m, that he works on and farms. If it was me I'd sell it in a flash, put a chunk of it in a trust for the kids and fuck off to Barbados. But they don't do that, they choose to work it and produce food every year with unpredictable profits and a capricious government with ill thought out policies.

It will have the opposite effect of what the government want. Owned farms will gradually shrink in size as the next generation parcels it off to pay IHT and they will become tenant farmers on their previously owned land.

[Cousin Jack]

Owner/occupier farmers should be a different case and should be exempt. A farmer could be sat on land, say worth 5m, that he works on and farms. If it was me I'd sell it in a flash, put a chunk of it in a trust for the kids and fuck off to Barbados. But they don't do that, they choose to work it and produce food every year with unpredictable profits and a capricious government with ill thought out policies.

It will have the opposite effect of what the government want. Owned farms will gradually shrink in size as the next generation parcels it off to pay IHT and they will become tenant farmers on their previously owned land.

If they were sensible they would sell it to a family firm, drip feed the shares to the children, so when they popped their clogs they owned only a tiny fraction of it.

[wheelnut]

If they were sensible they would sell it to a family firm, drip feed the shares to the children, so when they popped their clogs they owned only a tiny fraction of it.

And then be subject to CGT on the sale to the ltdco?

[MyLittleStudPony]

Of course Starmer is going to hit die hard Tory voters - farmers and the toxic elderly. They're responsible for the current mess and even if they weren't, they'd be the ones to hit.

Nice and taxing, nice and wokery.

I'm surprised he hasn't slipped the northern poor some sort of crippler to teach them a lesson for their Brexity treachery. I guess they were excluded from the fancy high speed rail network.

[JamJar]

Owner/occupier farmers should be a different case and should be exempt. A farmer could be sat on land, say worth 5m, that he works on and farms. If it was me I'd sell it in a flash, put a chunk of it in a trust for the kids and fuck off to Barbados. But they don't do that, they choose to work it and produce food every year with unpredictable profits and a capricious government with ill thought out policies.

It will have the opposite effect of what the government want. Owned farms will gradually shrink in size as the next generation parcels it off to pay IHT and they will become tenant farmers on their previously owned land.

The problem with this whole argument is there a too many vested interests on both sides arguing about this and it is hard to get the true picture. Apparently the average farm is about 220 to 240 hectares which is worth between £2.5 and £3m, so the IHT would be between £0 if the farmers are a couple. The ones that seem to be at real risk are the single farmers where in the above example the IHT could be as high as £400k. Of course Clarkson, Lloyd Webber and Dyson are up in arms because their farm holdings are huge compared to an average farmer. Clarkson has 1000 acres, Lloyd Webber 5000 acres and Dyson owns a staggering 36 000!!!

[Saga Lout]

As I've said before, the law should apply to everybody equally. If inheritance tax is bad for farmers, it's bad for everybody. The logical thing to do is get rid of inheritance tax, not make special arrangements for special people.

And by the way, Labour did promise not to increase taxes on working people. I guess farmers don't qualify as working people.

[weeksy]

As I've said before, the law should apply to everybody equally. If inheritance tax is bad for farmers, it's bad for everybody. The logical thing to do is get rid of inheritance tax, not make special arrangements for special people.

And by the way, Labour did promise not to increase taxes on working people. I guess farmers don't qualify as working people.

I don't quite understand how inheritance tax ever was allowed. After all, you, I and everyone have already paid tax on the money used to buy things in the first place. Someone dropping dead shouldn't be a way for the government to make money

[cheb]

IHT used to only apply to the properly rich, paid by donating a couple of old paintings when the owner died.

Then we all became rich because of property prices and the taxman doesn't want pictures of dogs playing cards.

[Saga Lout]

As I've said before, the law should apply to everybody equally. If inheritance tax is bad for farmers, it's bad for everybody. The logical thing to do is get rid of inheritance tax, not make special arrangements for special people.

And by the way, Labour did promise not to increase taxes on working people. I guess farmers don't qualify as working people.

I don't quite understand how inheritance tax ever was allowed. After all, you, I and everyone have already paid tax on the money used to buy things in the first place. Someone dropping dead shouldn't be a way for the government to make money

You could make that argument against VAT, duties on fuel, alcohol and tobacco, etc. The tax system really does need to be simplified though. My suggestion: get rid of one tax a year until we're left with income tax and VAT.

[weeksy]

As I've said before, the law should apply to everybody equally. If inheritance tax is bad for farmers, it's bad for everybody. The logical thing to do is get rid of inheritance tax, not make special arrangements for special people.

And by the way, Labour did promise not to increase taxes on working people. I guess farmers don't qualify as working people.

I don't quite understand how inheritance tax ever was allowed. After all, you, I and everyone have already paid tax on the money used to buy things in the first place. Someone dropping dead shouldn't be a way for the government to make money

You could make that argument against VAT, duties on fuel, alcohol and tobacco, etc. The tax system really does need to be simplified though. My suggestion: get rid of one tax a year until we're left with income tax and VAT.

And where does the extra money come from that the government now don't have from dropping each tax?

[KungFooBob]

I don't quite understand how inheritance tax ever was allowed. After all, you, I and everyone have already paid tax on the money used to buy things in the first place. Someone dropping dead shouldn't be a way for the government to make money

You could make that argument against VAT, duties on fuel, alcohol and tobacco, etc. The tax system really does need to be simplified though. My suggestion: get rid of one tax a year until we're left with income tax and VAT.

And where does the extra money come from that the government now don't have from dropping each tax?

Increasing the VAT and income tax rates. Like in the Nordics.

The more you earn and the more you buy, they more tax you pay.

[Saga Lout]

I don't quite understand how inheritance tax ever was allowed. After all, you, I and everyone have already paid tax on the money used to buy things in the first place. Someone dropping dead shouldn't be a way for the government to make money

You could make that argument against VAT, duties on fuel, alcohol and tobacco, etc. The tax system really does need to be simplified though. My suggestion: get rid of one tax a year until we're left with income tax and VAT.

And where does the extra money come from that the government now don't have from dropping each tax?

You're already paying the tax, it's just disguised by being taken a bit here, a bit there and another bit somewhere else. Imagine there was just one tax, either income tax or VAT. The government spends about half of our money so for the government to raise the same amount as they do now, they'd have to tax income at 50% or spending at 100% (ish). Having all these different taxes means that you think somebody else is paying. Tesco, Sainsburys et al pay "their" taxes out of money they get from you and me.

[Cousin Jack]

If they were sensible they would sell it to a family firm, drip feed the shares to the children, so when they popped their clogs they owned only a tiny fraction of it.

And then be subject to CGT on the sale to the ltdco?

Yebut they could sell it in stages, to use the annual exemptions. And give half to the wife first, no CGT on transfers between spouses, but hey presto presto,twice the annual CGT exemption.

WTF, why am I advising you lot on taxation, you haven't got a farm between the lot of you.

[Pirahna]

WTF, why am I advising you lot on taxation, you haven't got a farm between the lot of you.

I own 6 acres of prime Spanish scrub land, does that count?

[Count Steer]

WTF, why am I advising you lot on taxation, you haven't got a farm between the lot of you.

I own 6 acres of prime Spanish scrub land, does that count?

+ there's a couple of people with hosses, stables, paddock etc I think. They'll qualify for the agricultural 'reliefs' provided either, they operate as a stud, the hosses get turned into meat (seriously!), or they use 'em for a bit of ploughing

But not if they're solely for leisure purposes - so the 30 acres of paddock, floodlit menage and showjumping course don't count.

[Mr. Dazzle]

The government spends about half of our money so for the government to raise the same amount as they do now, they'd have to tax income at 50% or spending at 100% (ish).

That assumes the only reason the government would ever tax stuff (or not) is to make money.

Which is not the case.

[Cousin Jack]

The government spends about half of our money so for the government to raise the same amount as they do now, they'd have to tax income at 50% or spending at 100% (ish).

That assumes the only reason the government would ever tax stuff (or not) is to make money.

Which is not the case.

Why else do they do it? Government was invented to collect taxes.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Why else do they do it?

It's, by miles, the biggest lever they have to influence behaviour. Short of direct action like Lockdowns I struggle to think of something which has more effect

[Cousin Jack]

But the reason they want to influence behaviour is because of money, eg smoking costs the NHS and the DWP money. Lockdown, all about costing the Govt money in NHS costs and lost tax revenue. Care about actual people is way down the list of considerations,