What do we want to argue about next?
- Pirahna
- Posts: 1945
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2020 7:31 pm
- Has thanked: 1814 times
- Been thanked: 1164 times
- 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?
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.
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
- 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?
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 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.
Cornish Tart #1
Remember An Gof!
Remember An Gof!
- 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?
And then be subject to CGT on the sale to the ltdco?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.
-
- 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?
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.
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.
Re: What do we want to argue about next?
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!!!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.
-
- 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?
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.
And by the way, Labour did promise not to increase taxes on working people. I guess farmers don't qualify as working people.
- 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?
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 moneySaga 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.