It's OK if some people working in farming lose homes that may have been in their families for decades, lose their income, and lose their way of life, potentially changing the character of some rural communities in order to bring in an extra £7 per person, per year.
Tax experts have looked at how this will work and if the farm is owned by two people, husband and wife, or any other combination of gender and they use their transferable allowances, it might effect as few as 86 estates a year, those being mainly land bought to be used as a financial asset for tax purposes.
If that's true, that would be fantastic. But I've seen some of this stuff, including Richard Murphy's stuff, and I don't believe him to be giving an accurate representation of the situation. He missed out or glossed over some crucial information and his tendencies would be to support the government on this. I still can't see any fault in the logic that asset rich, low turnover farms might struggle to absorb the cost of paying inheritance tax. I believe that the government could alter all of this slightly to have largely the same positive benefits (closing the tax loophole etc. and therefore what you describe above) but none of the negative ones (owners of multigenerational farms being concerned about their farms being lost).
It's mostly the suggestion that these activities cause that result, rather than the far more plausible explanation of poverty, wage inequality and the gradual transfer of resources from the poorest to the richest. Shadowy global groups malignly shaping the future of society behind a veil of secrecy is virtually always the refuge of absolute ****ing woo-woos
We probably agree on more than you think. I too think Richard Murphy is mostly a gobshite. However, Dan Neidle is much more even handed and he has consistently put the expected impact of these measures on between 100-200 farms since the measure was first floated - and only then on the farm value above approx £2.65m. Given I'll never see that wealth in multiple lifetimes, my sympathy on this topic is therefore somewhat limited!
Sadly this doesn’t look like a British farmThis is getting too serious for me
Anyway, I support the farmers (and a bit of light relief) . . . .
You must log in or register to see images
My mate has just sold 200 acres of his farm near County Durham. £2.4 million. I think he’s happy, tax bill or notWe probably agree on more than you think. I too think Richard Murphy is mostly a gobshite. However, Dan Neidle is much more even handed and he has consistently put the expected impact of these measures on between 100-200 farms since the measure was first floated - and only then on the farm value above approx £2.65m. Given I'll never see that wealth in multiple lifetimes, my sympathy on this topic is therefore somewhat limited!
If the Ford workers take any sort of industrial action Jezza will suggest putting them up against a wall and shooting them probably
Some of those losses will happen very close to where I live. Maybe I'll see Jezza round here. Doubt it somehow.
I think its brilliant that you can read a five page thread of fairly tedious (and I am talking about myself here) arguing about this subject and still reach the conclusion that anyone has any concern for Clarkson or Lloyd-Webber in all of this.I am sure that the Great British public who are struggling to pay bills and afraid to turn on their heating will have great sympathy for those hard working farmers Jeremy Clarkson (net worth £55 million) and Andrew Lloyd-Webber (net worth £820 million). These lads need a helping hand.
Oh right. I'd have said that they're pretty unrepresentative of your average farmer.
Exactly, they are being wheeled out as poster boys for any genuine farmers who will be affected by this. I would suggest that very few people will have sympathy for mega rich people. And they are basically the same people who have caused the change in laws in the first place with their tax avoiding purchases. They are the last people who should be fronting any protests quite simply because they caused all this in the first place. It isn't difficult to understand.
