Best Of

Note that the Netherlands elected it's most right wing gov't ever after their own gov'ts previous run in with farmers.

What we're seeing here is how a cliquey North London left-wing metropolitan Fabian set understands neither business nor farming, and how that so readily bleeds into policy.

I've been astonished at how politically inept they've been, but they've never done it before and lack the humility to listen to anyone who has.

Can you explain, in simple terms, why farmers deserve to pass on their farms to their heirs 100% tax free when others (with similar levels of assets in their estates) don’t?

It's not exactly 'deserve to'.

For us townies, in terms of beauty, conservation, recreational amenity, long-term stewardship of the countryside etc, it is seen as a better outcome if agriculture is done by family farmers with a long-term interest in the land rather than agribusinesses. It's not cut and dried, but I'm willing to buy that. The IHT dodge is a way of trying to keep farms in the hands of families with a long-term interest rather than agribusinesses.
I'm not convinced it's 100% effective, mind. But that's the reason for it.
What we should be arguing about is how we better effect that particular outcome (if we are agreed that the outcome is worthwhile - I think it is, but am open to persuasion.)

Unfortunately the net outcome of the IHT dodge has been to drive up the price of agricultural land even further out of reach of ordinary farmers.

It seems to me that this is a classic case of subsidising a proxy for the thing you want in the hope that you will get more of that thing & discovering that the market will very efficiently drive up the price of the proxy instead.

No it hasn't. We had this discussion yesterday. Farm land values didn't start to increase until almost 2 decades after the introduction of INT relief.

The rules on the taxation of trusts were changed in 2006. Look when farmland prices start to rocket: https://www.savills.co.uk/landing-pages/rural-land-values.aspx

It seems plausible that pre 2006, the wealthy were evading IHT by putting assets into trust. When trusts were hit with a 6% per decade asset tax, they started putting their money into one of the few UK assets that were still 100% free of inheritance tax: farmland.

THe IHT relief which is what we are talking about came in in the early 1980s.

I think you have missed my point: 100% relief on IHT for farmland may have been introduced in the 1980s, but the wealthy at that point could evade IHT by putting their assets into trust: they had no extra incentive to buy any more farmland than they already owned as it made no difference to their tax position.

When the tax treatment of trusts changed in 2006, suddenly farmland is one of the very few assets you can own that you can pass onto your heirs tax free & so the wealthy (& moderately weathly) start buying it in enough size to move the market significantly.

That’s the argument I’m making. It seems a plausible one?

Ah I see. I agree. But in that case deal with that directly by having tax rules specifically for those investors. We have already mentioned grandfathering. It is not difficult unless, like TSE, you have an abiding hatred of farmers.

Fake news.

I don’t hate farmers, I hate tax dodgers.

So because you hate tax dodgers you support a policy that will not penalise tax dodgers but will attack farmers.

I agree, the rate should be the 40% IHT rate that everyone else has to pay on their assets. None of this mealy-mouthed 20% nonsense.

And goodbye to all family owned businesses in Britain. Nice one.

Incidentally, family owned businesses are going to be hit with a 20% IHT as well, but no one seems to have clocked this yet.

Possibly because the vast majority of “family-owned” businesses are much smaller than the exemption threshold of £1million?

The most obvious way around it (as I’ve recommended clients), is gifting shares to children at an early stage.

You have the advantage of being able to do so without running foul of reservation of benefit rules.

Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027

Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.

I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.

Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.

Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.

We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.

We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land

Congratulations.

That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.

Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.

It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people

"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"

Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.

I think it's the best way to provide good quality food. I look at American produce quality and shudder.

And American food isn't even cheap now....

It was never as cheap as ours. Farms, combined with the highly competitive food retail sector have given us the best food for the money in the developed world - second to France I'd say, but nobody else. Saying how broken it all is and how we should put two fingers up to Farmer Giles and get Monsanto in to do it better is peak left wing hypocritical tribe.

Farmers have always had a rough deal from governments. Remember the campaigns over the milk price.

Successive governments have prioritised cheap food for the masses over farmers' economic wellbeing. And I don't necessarily disagree with that.

But hence the anger over this measure.

That's because there are 70 million people that consume food, and a few hundred thousand that produce it. And given that - especially for the poorest - their food costs are an enormous chunk of their income, then it would be politically brave to prioritize farmers' incomes over pensioners dinners.

Absolutely. As I said in my post so we are in violent agreement.

Farmers are often hammered on price but keep on buggering on. They aren't in that sense acting as homus economicus.

How will Monsanto respond to the same pressures I wonder.

Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027

Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.

I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.

Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.

Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.

We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.

We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land

Congratulations.

That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.

Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.

It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people

"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"

Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.

Yes because they are actually interested in conserving the land, preserving it for future generations and providing food for the nation even in time of war. Not making short term profits then buggering off elsewhere when there is no more profit to be had.

As I said, the current backlash against free market global liberalism in ballot boxes across the world is in part a reaction to its followers core beliefs such as that post from you

OK, that's a plausible mechanism... But is it the relevant mechanism? There are lots of family businesses that are pretty bad at providing whatever they provide, because they are badly undercapitalised and nobody can lift their heads from the day-to-day to think "is this the best way of doing things?" So corner shops have been overtaken by mini chain supermarkets and one-off cafes struggle against Costa et al. Because tiny businesses with no margin for error have a greater need to chase short term profit (to survive) than bigger organisations.

The rest of the argument is politics vs. economics. How far should we drive warm fuzzies out in order to get more efficiency? How much are the warm fuzzies a luxury that we can't really afford?

Plenty of supermarkets themselves started off as family businesses eg Tesco and M and S. There are also more one off cafes still than the likes of Costa.

On your final paragraph of course the global electoral war against free market globalist liberalism and swing to protectionism and tighter border controls has only just begun

I get so confused.

I was convinced you Tories were the free marketeering globalists.

Must be my mistake, I'm sure.

Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027

Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.

I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.

Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.

Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.

We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.

We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land

Congratulations.

That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.

Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.

It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people

"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"

Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.

I think it's the best way to provide good quality food. I look at American produce quality and shudder.

And American food isn't even cheap now....

It was never as cheap as ours. Farms, combined with the highly competitive food retail sector have given us the best food for the money in the developed world - second to France I'd say, but nobody else. Saying how broken it all is and how we should put two fingers up to Farmer Giles and get Monsanto in to do it better is peak left wing hypocritical tribe.

The left is all about corporate interests now here and in the US.

And Donald Trump is the shield that will protect us against those beastly corporate interests, is that right?

The doublethink is strong on here this evening.

Dan Neidle’s going for it on APR. I suspect his TwiX follower count is taking a hit.

Here’s what he’s just posted on LinkedIn.

The Country Land and Business Association says the new £1m cap on agricultural inheritance tax relief will "harm 70,000 farms". That's 1/3 of all farms.

What does the actual data show? Less than 500 farms/year will pay more tax as a result of this change every year. Possibly as few as 100.

Why 500? Because this table shows only 500 farm estates claimed agricultural property relief (APR) of more than £1m in 2022.

But that overstates the issue. Married couples can easily claim the £1m cap twice. Small farmers without other assets can use their nil rate band. So for a married couple running a farm, it could be worth £2.65m before the restriction on the relief costs them a penny.

That could mean as few as 100 farms per year are affected. And the 20% tax is only on the excess over the threshold, so for most of the 100, the additional tax will be reasonably small. Insure against it when you're young(ish). Give some/all to your kids when you get older.

And the data shows that most of the cost of the tax increase will be borne by a few very large estates. In 2022 2% of agricultural estates - just 37 - claimed an average of £6m.

That's what this is really about - not 70,000 farms. So let's drop the hyperbolic fake stats.

All of which means, of course, that it won’t raise much money either. Whereas BPR…

Neidle is talking bollocks - and of course doing so on behalf of the Labour Party as he sits on their National Constitutional Committee. The idea he is some sort of independent expert is garbage.

Which bit is bollocks? The numbers seem plausible enough and are taken from recent historical data, rather than hypotheticals.

Dan’s analysis on most topics in the last year or so has been pretty objective and usually technically spot on. He also makes use of a large range of tax specialists who prefer to keep out of the limelight when he’s commenting on areas he’s not an expert in. He has both publicly rubbished various allegations of tax avoidance or evasion against Tory MPs, and been extremely critical of the NI changes, so the evidence he’s just spouting Labour propaganda is pretty thin.