This is misdiagnosis with a bit of cap doffing imo. Firstly we should never just accept tax loopholes that the rich take advantage of. It can only ever be a source of greater inequality. More importantly this whole thing is dealing with a symptom rather than a root cause. Farming doesn’t pay apparently. Or at least it doesn’t at a scale that family farming is comfortable. I’ll leave aside the argument over whether the state owes people comfort or whether its primary responsibility is to get best value for money for the rest of society. But if the goal is to make family farming more viable, is IHT really the lever we should pull? Not in my view. It’d be far more effective to use subsidy for that. It’s far more flexible and allows us to target the things that society really needs. We had a great source of subsidy readily available to farmers up until recently. What we absolutely shouldn’t do is to artificially inflate land value beyond its value to society. That seems like a fundamentally bad idea.
Well, it has nothing to do with cap doffing and isn't misdiagnosis at all, imo. I don't believe that anyone is saying that not imposing this measure will make farming more viable. What it will do is, in the current circumstances, potentially (and it is only potentially, because it hasn't happened yet) increase the financial pressure on some farms. Measures do need to be taken to improve the viability of farming. If that were to happen, then this might not cause farmers as much concern (although I'm sure they'd still moan about a tax increase). Of course we shouldn't accept tax loopholes. But neither should we accept any detrimental impacts on hardworking families because of closing them. That also leads to inequality.
I'm most astounded that the working man has been conditioned into campaigning on the 'rich ****ers' behalf..
But if we’re talking about farming it HAS to be a question of viability. If farming isn’t viable why is land value so high? If farming is made more viable - or the assets of a farm retain other value - then farmers can pay their taxes like everyone else. You’ve said that £500m into the public purse isn’t worth a single family farm going bump in your view. How can that not be to the detriment to society as a whole but of benefit to the wealthy users of tax shelters (plus that single farm)? That’s the very definition of ‘for the few and not the many’.
I think the vast majority of people prefer family farms over international conglomerates corporatising farming, we also only produce around 60% of the food needed to feed the country, at least the last time I saw the data and that was pre covid admittedly. Support non-international non-conglomerate farming and help increase its output, it's that simple.
Land value is high because much of it can be used for other things, like building on it. The amount available is also diminishing due to the expansion of towns, as well as people buying it up. The argument about farms retaining value through land and assets is pretty much key to the argument. Many farms have low turnover so paying inheritance tax on the value of assets will be difficult for them without selling those assets, most of which are key to the functioning of the farm. £502 million is a drop in the ocean in government budgets. They brought in £302 billion from income tax last year. That £502 million could be found elsewhere. I'm not saying that they shouldn't close the loophole, I just don't believe that the benefit to society of this measure in this form is worth taking someone's livelihood away from them.
I can't see a world where £500m to be used for the benefit of 70 odd million people can't be. In a world where the government baulks at the idea of free school meals for disadvantaged children, how can that not be a better use of our limited resources?
"Sorry lads, we've got to sell the farm, so you're all out of a job but don't worry, because of this you'll each get an extra 71 quid per year in your income support".
This is a good analysis of the problems with farm income and how the IHT changes should help family farmers. https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog...eal-farmers-but-not-for-financial-whizz-kids/
How would they be out of a job when the buyer would need them ... ... the farmers are always claiming they can't find workers. Ironically they voted to leave Europe and lost all the poorly paid Romanians they accommodated in sheds
The new owner's only buying it to wander round and shoot anything that moves and hide his millions, isn't he?
Yep exactly. Society needs to work for the majority. It would be great if all are provided for. However if there are casualties I’d rather it was a minuscule number of individual farmers rather than kids not being able to eat. Plus all these farmers can always just sell the land to get themselves under the limit or find another way round IHT (maybe via the 7 year rule). The typical farm will get in excess of £2.5m tax free to inherit. Above that they’ll be taxed at half the tax that you or I will incur - and be given 10 years to pay it. I’m a fair distance beyond the average wage for this country and I’ll be lucky if I can hand over a fifth of the asset value that a farmer will be permitted when I shuffle off this mortal coil. Personally I think they should just suck it up tbh.
I’m sure we’d love to have family farms produce all we need but do we have the luxury of caring where we get our food from? And is food security the ability to produce 100% of what we need as you imply or is it simply the ability to securely source the necessary volumes (via a mix of production and trade)? In a world where the state must choose very carefully where we want to spend our money, is it really important that Jeremy Clarkson gets to fulfil a fantasy of driving a Massey Ferguson?
Fair enough. I believe a government that doesn't heed warnings that there may be avoidable casualties as a result of its performative pursual of a small number of individuals for very little overall gain doesn't care as much about its citizens as it claims.
"performative pursual of a small number of individuals" - ensuring tax revenue from individuals who collectively own the majority of all UK farmland "very little overall gain" - enough to pay for free school meals for the entire UK for half a year Understood.
You're inferring something more than intended. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/28/vegetables-losing-nutrients-biofortification Food nutrition has been steadily declining due to mass farming techniques and chemical use, usually imposed by governments who receive their information from international NGOs. We need to go back, we need a complete change of how we are thinking about food. People are so unhealthy, I was in Sunderland a month back, first time for a while and I sat in the town centre with a coffee people watching whilst I was waiting to meet someone, some people in their 30's and 40's now have the mobility of a 70 year old from 20 years ago, something has went very wrong.
Now who is inferring? So anecdotal evidence from your visit into town is proof that society is being negatively affected due to some shadowy conspiracy between governments and international NGOs? It's not any one of a myriad of other contributory factors - or coincidence or even your own personal bias? And the solution for this is inheritence tax breaks for family farms?
How is this a conspiracy theory? Is the population not becoming more obese and unhealthy? Do NGOs not function internationally to form consensus on what is best practice and then lobby? Do govs not take this information and pass legislation on it?
