Starmer's vision quest

[CXRAndy]

Another leftie, pissing off the citizens

View: https://x.com/i/status/2002802743363375481

 

[CXRAndy]

Another U turn from Labour

Farmers inheritance tax threshold raised to £2.5 million from £1 million.

It should be more like £10 million to remove all family farms except for the mega conglomerate farms

Must be going soft-I AGREE WITH THE LIBDEMS ON THIS.!

Scrap it all together

It is utterly inexcusable that family farmers have been put through over a year of uncertainty and anguish since the government first announced these changes.

 

[Dorset Boy]

Labour still fail to get it.
The change that was needed is simple. If you own the land and farm it, it is exempt.
If you own the land and rent it out, it should be liable to Inheritance Tax at the same rate as every other investment.
That immediately removes working farms, but hits those who invested in land for the tax exemption.

 

[First Aspect]

Labour still fail to get it.
The change that was needed is simple. If you own the land and farm it, it is exempt.
If you own the land and rent it out, it should be liable to Inheritance Tax at the same rate as every other investment.
That immediately removes working farms, but hits those who invested in land for the tax exemption.

This seems a bit arbitrary. Why would owning a land based business be any different from any other type of family business?

 

[CXRAndy]

Labour still fail to get it.
The change that was needed is simple. If you own the land and farm it, it is exempt.
If you own the land and rent it out, it should be liable to Inheritance Tax at the same rate as every other investment.
That immediately removes working farms, but hits those who invested in land for the tax exemption.

Why, if you are a land owner you can do as you please. I know several farmers who cant afford staff or machines to do their work on thr land, so lease the land to be farmed.

A new mid tier tractor starts from £100k, thats before buying attachments to work with it

 

[CXRAndy]

This seems a bit arbitrary. Why would owning a land based business be any different from any other type of family business?

Because it's almost zero profit, with yearly unpredictability in income.
Just because a farmer has 100/300/500 acres doesn't make them rich. Asset rich, yes but generally cash poor with less than minimum wage in lots of cases for the hours they put in.

 

[Pross]

Labour still fail to get it.
The change that was needed is simple. If you own the land and farm it, it is exempt.
If you own the land and rent it out, it should be liable to Inheritance Tax at the same rate as every other investment.
That immediately removes working farms, but hits those who invested in land for the tax exemption.

Not really, the likes of Clarkson and Dyson technically farm the land themselves (albeit using paid labour). They aren’t renting the land out and they didn’t buy the farms primarily to become farmers. It’s a tax dodge for them and they don’t like the loophole being closed. Unfortunately closing it has also affected ‘real’ farmers.

 

[BoldonLad]

This seems a bit arbitrary. Why would owning a land based business be any different from any other type of family business?

Exactly!

 

[Dorset Boy]

If you rent the land out, it is an investment, and should be taxed as such. Just like any commercial property investment.
Dyson doesn't farm much of his overall estate, but those acres he does farm either driving the tractor himself or by employing a farm management company should be exempt. He is putting up his own money to farm those acres.
Clarkson is actually putting his own money into the farm so his farm should be exempt - he isn't renting the land out to another business.

Labour shouldn't have messed around with Business Property Relief either

My scheme isn't 'very arbitary' - it's simple and logical.
It's also pretty much the solution proposed by the NFU I think.

 

[PurplePenguin]

Labour still fail to get it.
The change that was needed is simple. If you own the land and farm it, it is exempt.
If you own the land and rent it out, it should be liable to Inheritance Tax at the same rate as every other investment.
That immediately removes working farms, but hits those who invested in land for the tax exemption.

If Dyson grows a few tomatoes in his garden how much relief does he get?

 

[Pblakeney]

If you rent the land out, it is an investment, and should be taxed as such. Just like any commercial property investment.
Dyson doesn't farm much of his overall estate, but those acres he does farm either driving the tractor himself or by employing a farm management company should be exempt. He is putting up his own money to farm those acres.
Clarkson is actually putting his own money into the farm so his farm should be exempt - he isn't renting the land out to another business.

Labour shouldn't have messed around with Business Property Relief either

My scheme isn't 'very arbitary' - it's simple and logical.
It's also pretty much the solution proposed by the NFU I think.

Still doesn't explain why a farming business should be treated differently from any other business.
All business should be doing similar financial planning. If farmers are a bit lax then that is on them. If it's a tax dodge then boo hoo.

 

[CXRAndy]

Not really, the likes of Clarkson and Dyson technically farm the land themselves (albeit using paid labour). They aren’t renting the land out and they didn’t buy the farms primarily to become farmers. It’s a tax dodge for them and they don’t like the loophole being closed. Unfortunately closing it has also affected ‘real’ farmers.

He may have bought it initially for inheritance. You can see he's become a proper farmer, loves it, finds it physically demanding, more so after his heart troubles

Clarkson farms his land, very fortunate to be able to have alternative income streams.

The profits, or lack of are real for a 1500 acres farm.

Dyson has a different approach with it being a sideline to his main businesses

 

[Ian H]

Still doesn't explain why a farming business should be treated differently from any other business.
All business should be doing similar financial planning. If farmers are a bit lax then that is on them. If it's a tax dodge then boo hoo.

The solution isn't to let farmers off tax liabilities, it's to pay them a decent income for producing food or otherwise acting in the public interest (rewilding or whatever). The supermarkets have been allowed to get pretty much complete control of prices paid to farmers, and the farming subsidies are a mess in both concept and execution. The trouble is that it's a tiny percentage of GDP, so has little clout with the treasury.

 

[Dorset Boy]

Still doesn't explain why a farming business should be treated differently from any other business.
All business should be doing similar financial planning. If farmers are a bit lax then that is on them. If it's a tax dodge then boo hoo.

Any other business can claim Business Property Relief.

With your tax planning wisdom, what should the farmer be doing?
And what are the implications to both their income and the IHT position of your advice to the farmer?

 

[Pblakeney]

The solution isn't to let farmers off tax liabilities, it's to pay them a decent income for producing food or otherwise acting in the public interest (rewilding or whatever). The supermarkets have been allowed to get pretty much complete control of prices paid to farmers, and the farming subsidies are a mess in both concept and execution. The trouble is that it's a tiny percentage of GDP, so has little clout with the treasury.

True, but that is a separate issue.