What do we want to argue about next?

Current affairs, Politics, News.
User avatar
Pirahna
Posts: 1945
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2020 7:31 pm
Has thanked: 1814 times
Been thanked: 1164 times

Re: What do we want to argue about next?

Post by Pirahna »

Docca wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2024 11:47 am Image
User avatar
wheelnut
Posts: 2229
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:36 pm
Has thanked: 907 times
Been thanked: 1001 times

Re: What do we want to argue about next?

Post by 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.
User avatar
Cousin Jack
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:36 pm
Location: Down in the Duchy
Has thanked: 2550 times
Been thanked: 2285 times

Re: What do we want to argue about next?

Post by Cousin Jack »

wheelnut wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2024 2:13 pm 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.
Cornish Tart #1

Remember An Gof!
User avatar
wheelnut
Posts: 2229
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:36 pm
Has thanked: 907 times
Been thanked: 1001 times

Re: What do we want to argue about next?

Post by wheelnut »

Cousin Jack wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2024 2:16 pm 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
Posts: 1151
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2020 9:28 pm
Has thanked: 615 times
Been thanked: 405 times

Re: What do we want to argue about next?

Post by 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. :thumbup:

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
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:00 am
Has thanked: 262 times
Been thanked: 271 times

Re: What do we want to argue about next?

Post by JamJar »

wheelnut wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2024 2:13 pm 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
Posts: 1833
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2020 3:38 pm
Location: North East Essex
Has thanked: 565 times
Been thanked: 754 times

Re: What do we want to argue about next?

Post by 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. :roll:
User avatar
weeksy
Site Admin
Posts: 23417
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2020 12:08 pm
Has thanked: 5450 times
Been thanked: 13085 times

Re: What do we want to argue about next?

Post by weeksy »

Saga Lout wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2024 5:11 pm 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. :roll:
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