Your argument seems to always purport to ridicule the political leanings of the individual regardless of the Facts. Your link shows farmland prices rising. Shock horror. Tell that to the youth of today trying to buy a property. I'm sick of hearing about the so called "farmers" or should I say the million/billionaire fake farmers who buy land as a tax loophole. Clarkson a particularly irritating wánker (typical tory hypocrite) who wanted striking transport and health workers shot in front of their families for daring to ask for a few pounds more FFS. Oh and the same mouthy prick who wanted protesters strung up. Irony.
I know quite a lot of farmers. All pretty well off, all whinging tight fookers In fact my mother's side were farmers .
Since you discredit everyone else's claims, post up where you got this information. If farmers are exempt, shouldn't everyone be ?
No one is ridiculing anything. But the point is that people distort facts to support their world view. Richard Murphy in the video is a case in point. If you want to understand something, you have to look at a range of views, not just one from a well known left-leaning academic. He implies in the video that land prices are only high because rich people are using it as a way of avoiding inheritance tax. From that he makes the conclusion that if only you got rid of the inheritance tax relief on farmland, farmers would be better off. The link I posted shows that land prices are high for a greater number of reasons than that and the situation is more complicated. Murphy, therefore, can be seen to be presenting an incomplete view of the situation in order to reach the conclusion that he wants to. I'm sure there are right-leaning economists out there who will similarly distort the facts to reach the conclusion that they want to. Again, not discrediting anyone's claims, just filling in gaps in information to provide balance. The treasury claim 500 farms, the NFU claim 70,000 farms. You just have to look at the reasoning that they give.
They may very well be, which is the point that I'm making. The government are making out that 500 farms will be affected. But they are talking about farms that will be affected per year. The NFU are saying that 70,000 farms will be affected. But they are talking about the number of farms that could be affected in total. So, to take it back to the point of the post in which I originally mentioned those numbers, the discrepancy comes from the different sides presenting information in different ways. Or to support their claims.
It's a meaningless figure though isn't it, do they mean until the end of time ... ... it just makes people roll their eyes and lose interest imo. How can 70,000 farming couples die within the next four years?
Yes and no. It's very unlikely that 70,000 farms will be passed on through inheritance in that period. But it means that as many 70,000 farming families (in reality the number will be lower due to age and other circumstances) have the potential for their livelihoods to be affected by this. Obviously, the side that are opposed to this will exaggerate things to support their argument, just as the side that are proposing it will downplay things to support their argument (as Richard Murphy has done in his video).
It's impossible in reality. I watched some of the video and didn't particularly pay attention to the figures tbh, just the general theme. The NFU have a duty to their members, and totally represent one side, whereas this fella is doing a video that most people will never see, I wouldn’t if it wasn’t posted here. He isn’t ’the other side’ and, in fact, supports farmers in parts of the clip. It’s the hysterical rhetoric and fictional facts that lose the argument imo and Clarkson typifies that. He can’t just go to hospital for a routine op that thousands have, it has to be ‘close to death, rushed to hospital and life saving heart surgery’. Just stop gorging yourself and boasting about it … … then expecting the NHS to help everyone despite tax dodgers like yourself.
Yeah, I'd agree that rhetoric and lies, which are usually very easy to spot, don't help any argument. Which is basically what I keep saying. Both sides do it though, and I find it a little odd that people don't always see that. In reality, you have to pick out what truth you can from the situation. It's true that many farms are worth a lot in terms of assets but don't have a high turnover. So it seems a reasonable argument that some farms could potentially go out of business. Its also true that the threshold is quite high. So it seems a reasonable argument that only a very small number of farms will be affected. The Treasury have said (so let's believe it to be true) that the measure is designed to stop a small number of very rich people exploiting a tax loophole and that this will bring in £502 million a year. What we have to consider is whether £502m a year (which is a very small amount in terms of government income) and frustrating some rich people is worth even just one farming family losing their income. Personally, I don't think that's a worthwhile risk and that the government should look at other ways of closing that tax loophole.
Good points, but who's to blame for this tax avoidance... the few always seem to spoil it for the majority... Bingo
This pretty much sums up the so called farmers that are whinging about it. Andrew Lloyd weirdo FFS. The bottom line is the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I really can't understand anyone who isn't a multi million/billionaire buying into any of this shìt tbh. Divide and conquer backed by biased media. The working man getting shafted in every orifice. I am astounded at the bare faced arrogance of these rich wànkers like Clarkson, Webber etc. complaining about the fact the working man wants fair pay and shouldn't be allowed to protest then crying like bitches when they are expected to dip into their own massive coffers. Fùck em
Would have thought these farmers would welcome measures to drive the inflationary pressures of the likes of Clarkson using farmland as a tax shelter from the market. They don't care about land value after all - they just want to be able to pass their farms on to their children.
But as has been posted previously, its not just people looking for a tax loophole that has driven the value of farmland. And what's wrong with the bit in bold? Some farms have been in families for generations and not necessarily rich families. Farms aren't just businesses, they are a way of life. People know the land and feel real attachment to it. If you've seen your father, your grandfather work and care for a farm, it seems a perfectly natural reaction to want to take that on yourself. It seems unfair to prevent someone from doing that just to close a tax loophole. The government could tweak this policy and change it so that the tax relief doesn't come in until the land is passed to a third generation. That would (hopefully) remove the incentive for people like Clarkson to buy up farmland but would also ensure that farming families who've worked the same land for generations don't lose their farms. That is, obviously, an imperfect solution but it seems fairer than the current proposal.
All of that emotional attachment stuff is true regardless of land value - and lives entirely outside of it. Either the land is currently overvalued (as evidenced by the low yields that the talking heads are so keen to tell us about) and they should welcome the ongoing removal of inflationary pressures from the markets. Or the land retains intrinsic value as an asset regardless of yields, in which case pay your tax.
Defra is designed to protect farming and rural affairs and their figure is miles away from the Tory/Reform supporting farmers union. Funny how people hammered mick lynch but support the farmers union.
It's mostly anti labour fomenting by the usual suspects. We're seeing the support evaporate in real time as more info/understanding is revealed
Like I've said previously, it's a case of looking at the claims of the two sides and making a decision about what's more important. Is the minimal amount that this will bring into the government coffers and the foiling of the dastardly plans of a handful of rich people worth risking the livelihoods and ways of life of farming families? Personally, I don't think it is. When the livelihoods and ways of life of people working in other sectors have been put at risk because a government thinks there is a benefit in doing so there have rightly been huge protests. What makes farming different?
