Why is nobody in media even mentioning that £1m IHT agriculture relief is in addition to the £1m IHT relief any (married) person gets when leaving property to children.
ie If you live on a farm and want to leave it to your son you pay no IHT on the first £2m (assuming you are / were married and spouse not using their exemption for anything else).
Was listening to lengthy debate hosted by Chorley on R5L yesterday with farmers complaining - going on about almost all farms are worth over £1m - at no point did anyone say farmers can leave £2m tax free.
Why not? Hopeless media reporting - nobody appears to have even the most basic understanding of how tax system works.
Let's get real. It appears no political journalist has the faintest idea.
How many people even on this website (one of the most informed places for political debate) were aware of this?
I'm sure I read it can go up to £3m if there's a home on the farm.
The likes of Clarkson, pretending he cares about other people, when it's actually his inheritance plans that have been affected, will moan. But if the policy doesn't effect many in practice, the outrage from the kind of family farmers people actually care about, will disappear over time.
In her budget speech Reeves made the direct claim that three-quarters of farms would be unaffected by the inheritance tax changes. Since then there's been a lot of sound and fury suggesting that this was not true, and that small family farms will have to be sold.
If Reeves has misled the House on this it should be a very big deal. I would expect her to be forced to come grovelling to the House to correct the record, at the very least.
Can anyone definitively show that Reeves misled the House?
If Reeves was being truthful then I do not think that expecting the largest quarter of farms to pay 20% IHT is problematic. Those at the bottom of that range will only pay 20% on a small fraction of the farm, and so the IHT bill will be modest. The very largest farms - the top eighth or so - should be large enough enterprises that they can pay the larger IHT due.
There isn't 100% tax relief on inheritance (capital acquisitions) tax on farmland or businesses in Ireland, but I believe much more farmland in Ireland is owner-occupied than in Britain. If Irish family farms can pay a form of IHT, then so can the largest quarter of British family farms.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
Well it was just a part of the budget rather than an announcement as such wasn’t it? The media will do what they will do.
Why is nobody in media even mentioning that £1m IHT agriculture relief is in addition to the £1m IHT relief any (married) person gets when leaving property to children.
ie If you live on a farm and want to leave it to your son you pay no IHT on the first £2m (assuming you are / were married and spouse not using their exemption for anything else).
Was listening to lengthy debate hosted by Chorley on R5L yesterday with farmers complaining - going on about almost all farms are worth over £1m - at no point did anyone say farmers can leave £2m tax free.
Why not? Hopeless media reporting - nobody appears to have even the most basic understanding of how tax system works.
The media are as enshittified as everything else, whether in the public or private sectors. Too many hours/pages to fill, not enough money to pay people to fill them with anything good.
(What's happening at the serious end of the BBC is bad, what's happening in the press, especially the local press, is far worse.)
BBC pay big big salaries , but churn out crap. No problem when you are using public's cash.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
I don't know what happened to my previous post so will state it here whilst affirming that what Labour are doing is badly announcing things and not thinking them through. Expect more of this. Large majorities lead to bad governance. Ergo... The Private Schools body is suing the Govt over VAT on School fees.. the Govt is being challenged over Winter Fuel Allowance
Why is nobody in media even mentioning that £1m IHT agriculture relief is in addition to the £1m IHT relief any (married) person gets when leaving property to children.
ie If you live on a farm and want to leave it to your son you pay no IHT on the first £2m (assuming you are / were married and spouse not using their exemption for anything else).
Was listening to lengthy debate hosted by Chorley on R5L yesterday with farmers complaining - going on about almost all farms are worth over £1m - at no point did anyone say farmers can leave £2m tax free.
Why not? Hopeless media reporting - nobody appears to have even the most basic understanding of how tax system works.
Let's get real. It appears no political journalist has the faintest idea.
How many people even on this website (one of the most informed places for political debate) were aware of this?
I'm sure I read it can go up to £3m if there's a home on the farm.
The likes of Clarkson, pretending he cares about other people, when it's actually his inheritance plans that have been affected, will moan. But if the policy doesn't effect many in practice, the outrage from the kind of family farmers people actually care about, will disappear over time.
In her budget speech Reeves made the direct claim that three-quarters of farms would be unaffected by the inheritance tax changes. Since then there's been a lot of sound and fury suggesting that this was not true, and that small family farms will have to be sold.
If Reeves has misled the House on this it should be a very big deal. I would expect her to be forced to come grovelling to the House to correct the record, at the very least.
Can anyone definitively show that Reeves misled the House?
If Reeves was being truthful then I do not think that expecting the largest quarter of farms to pay 20% IHT is problematic. Those at the bottom of that range will only pay 20% on a small fraction of the farm, and so the IHT bill will be modest. The very largest farms - the top eighth or so - should be large enough enterprises that they can pay the larger IHT due.
There isn't 100% tax relief on inheritance (capital acquisitions) tax on farmland or businesses in Ireland, but I believe much more farmland in Ireland is owner-occupied than in Britain. If Irish family farms can pay a form of IHT, then so can the largest quarter of British family farms.
Suspect there are a few things going on.
Part is the fear that everyone has of Inheritance Tax. We hear the FORTY PERCENT (which for most people is a huge rate) but not the (above a threshold that is pretty high so most of your estate won't be touched by it).
Part of it is the real, but impossible to quantify, emotional attachment of a family to a patch of land. Which, right now, feels like another luxury the nation can't afford to indulge.
Partly, it's shit-stirring by the opposition and their chunk of the media. Which may not be nice, bit is part of the game.
But also, there's an awkard point which I think Dan the Taxman made. If you have a farm, and the value of that farm is over £2 million, and that capital and the sweat equity of the farmers isn't producing enough profit to support this much tax once a generation... It's not a great business. And that's a horrible thing to say to people who work harder than I do for less reward. But it's where we are. And as with some other things the nation ducks, it boils down to a simple question. Do we want Britain to be a productive place, with all the benefits that entails, or not?
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
Well it was just a part of the budget rather than an announcement as such wasn’t it? The media will do what they will do.
The likes of Sky News and BBC are getting hysterical. No one worried about farmer welfare when the supermarkets were screwing down on the price of milk and food in the past to the detriment of small producers. I wonder if this is all a consequence of the lack of enthusiasm for Labour in the period up to the election. The media have been running around like a pack of wolves since then. Maybe it is a reaction to their inability in the earlier years to call out Johnson and co, or maybe it's a leach over from the atmosphere/media in the US?
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
I don't know what happened to my previous post so will state it here whilst affirming that what Labour are doing is badly announcing things and not thinking them through. Expect more of this. Large majorities lead to bad governance. Ergo... The Private Schools body is suing the Govt over VAT on School fees.. the Govt is being challenged over Winter Fuel Allowance
I hope the Telegraph are bashing those liberal lefty lawyers using judicial review to challenge the elected will of the people on WFA.
This talk of farmers. The simple point is that Starmer and Steve Reed lied to them, to get elected in various rural seats. An immediate loss of trust like this will not be forgotten and they will pay for it.
I must have forgotten the line in the manifesto that said they won't raise tax on farmers?
Where would you raise the money from instead?
Are farmers not working people? The ones I know seem to work harder than most.
And I would raise the money by not spending it - public sector needs the fat trimming, not plumping up further.
And I would engage in massive deregulation, that's the only thing which will fix the real underlying problem of no growth - because we're strangling growth at birth with regulatory costs, and that's why the economy has stopped growing.
Anyone inheriting farmland didn't work for it, no. If they did, they should have paid income tax when they earned it.
Most farmers and their sons get up before 6am and work until dusk for average pay at best. They may have a lot of assets but those form their business, they certainly aren't lazy.
You have written some ridiculous posts in your time but that one takes the biscuit!!
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that most of those who actually farm the land also own the land.
Only 14% of farms are tenanted. 31% are mixed tenanted and owner farmed and 54% are fully farmer owned. So yes, most of those who farm the land own the land.
Why is nobody in media even mentioning that £1m IHT agriculture relief is in addition to the £1m IHT relief any (married) person gets when leaving property to children.
ie If you live on a farm and want to leave it to your son you pay no IHT on the first £2m (assuming you are / were married and spouse not using their exemption for anything else).
Was listening to lengthy debate hosted by Chorley on R5L yesterday with farmers complaining - going on about almost all farms are worth over £1m - at no point did anyone say farmers can leave £2m tax free.
Why not? Hopeless media reporting - nobody appears to have even the most basic understanding of how tax system works.
Let's get real. It appears no political journalist has the faintest idea.
How many people even on this website (one of the most informed places for political debate) were aware of this?
I'm sure I read it can go up to £3m if there's a home on the farm.
The likes of Clarkson, pretending he cares about other people, when it's actually his inheritance plans that have been affected, will moan. But if the policy doesn't effect many in practice, the outrage from the kind of family farmers people actually care about, will disappear over time.
In her budget speech Reeves made the direct claim that three-quarters of farms would be unaffected by the inheritance tax changes. Since then there's been a lot of sound and fury suggesting that this was not true, and that small family farms will have to be sold.
If Reeves has misled the House on this it should be a very big deal. I would expect her to be forced to come grovelling to the House to correct the record, at the very least.
Can anyone definitively show that Reeves misled the House?
If Reeves was being truthful then I do not think that expecting the largest quarter of farms to pay 20% IHT is problematic. Those at the bottom of that range will only pay 20% on a small fraction of the farm, and so the IHT bill will be modest. The very largest farms - the top eighth or so - should be large enough enterprises that they can pay the larger IHT due.
There isn't 100% tax relief on inheritance (capital acquisitions) tax on farmland or businesses in Ireland, but I believe much more farmland in Ireland is owner-occupied than in Britain. If Irish family farms can pay a form of IHT, then so can the largest quarter of British family farms.
Suspect there are a few things going on.
Part is the fear that everyone has of Inheritance Tax. We hear the FORTY PERCENT (which for most people is a huge rate) but not the (above a threshold that is pretty high so most of your estate won't be touched by it).
Part of it is the real, but impossible to quantify, emotional attachment of a family to a patch of land. Which, right now, feels like another luxury the nation can't afford to indulge.
Partly, it's shit-stirring by the opposition and their chunk of the media. Which may not be nice, bit is part of the game.
But also, there's an awkard point which I think Dan the Taxman made. If you have a farm, and the value of that farm is over £2 million, and that capital and the sweat equity of the farmers isn't producing enough profit to support this much tax once a generation... It's not a great business. And that's a horrible thing to say to people who work harder than I do for less reward. But it's where we are. And as with some other things the nation ducks, it boils down to a simple question. Do we want Britain to be a productive place, with all the benefits that entails, or not?
It's the right question and the answer is we don't. Necessarily.
There is nothing that will convince people (Covid didn't) that we need to be self-sufficient in all kinds of things including energy and food and perhaps that is the right call we can always get stuff from UkraineChinaNorth Korea Africa.
Farms are cyclical businesses and sometimes make money and sometimes don't. I would like to see some kind of long-term profitability assessment otherwise I do think that hundreds of thousands of acres will end up in Dyson's hands or someone similar although as noted, we don't seem to think this is a bad thing.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
I don't know what happened to my previous post so will state it here whilst affirming that what Labour are doing is badly announcing things and not thinking them through. Expect more of this. Large majorities lead to bad governance. Ergo... The Private Schools body is suing the Govt over VAT on School fees.. the Govt is being challenged over Winter Fuel Allowance
I hope the Telegraph are bashing those liberal lefty lawyers using judicial review to challenge the elected will of the people on WFA.
I hear there is a rumour that a fox killing lawyer is going to try and take a case to the Supreme Court. To limit the "wrong kind of judicial challenge"
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
Well it was just a part of the budget rather than an announcement as such wasn’t it? The media will do what they will do.
The likes of Sky News and BBC are getting hysterical. No one worried about farmer welfare when the supermarkets were screwing down on the price of milk and food in the past to the detriment of small producers. I wonder if this is all a consequence of the lack of enthusiasm for Labour in the period up to the election. The media have been running around like a pack of wolves since then. Maybe it is a reaction to their inability in the earlier years to call out Johnson and co, or maybe it's a leach over from the atmosphere/media in the US?
No Tory leader makes it hard to have a go at them. So that leaves attacking the govt as the only play in town for the domestic political media.
Meanwhile Darren Jones seems like a decent-enough operator but needs to learn how to lie or dissemble more convincingly and adeptly as he admitted in an interview on Sky that "working people" will suffer on account of the budget.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
I don't know what happened to my previous post so will state it here whilst affirming that what Labour are doing is badly announcing things and not thinking them through. Expect more of this. Large majorities lead to bad governance. Ergo... The Private Schools body is suing the Govt over VAT on School fees.. the Govt is being challenged over Winter Fuel Allowance
I hope the Telegraph are bashing those liberal lefty lawyers using judicial review to challenge the elected will of the people on WFA.
To tack off a touch, I don't think Labour's school policy is great, mainly because it won't raise much money. But there's far too much judicial review/going to the courts when something isn't liked too much in this country and this just adds to that. It's going to be like the blimmin' house of Lords. Cheered on by one side till it started making the wrong decisions then loved by the other side because it suddenly started doing stuff they liked. If there's one thing that really makes me feel ill it's when that sort of nonsense happens.
I haven’t changed my mind on Kamala Harris winning comfortably. And I’m looking forward to the elaborate explanations from the polling companies on why they failed to predict the result.
I know it's a bit hypocritical, but there's something off about most British politicians/pundits who pose as experts on US elections. I can't take them seriously.
oh no, if he's predicting a comfortable Harris win, she must be in trouble.......
Why is nobody in media even mentioning that £1m IHT agriculture relief is in addition to the £1m IHT relief any (married) person gets when leaving property to children.
ie If you live on a farm and want to leave it to your son you pay no IHT on the first £2m (assuming you are / were married and spouse not using their exemption for anything else).
Was listening to lengthy debate hosted by Chorley on R5L yesterday with farmers complaining - going on about almost all farms are worth over £1m - at no point did anyone say farmers can leave £2m tax free.
Why not? Hopeless media reporting - nobody appears to have even the most basic understanding of how tax system works.
Let's get real. It appears no political journalist has the faintest idea.
How many people even on this website (one of the most informed places for political debate) were aware of this?
I'm sure I read it can go up to £3m if there's a home on the farm.
The likes of Clarkson, pretending he cares about other people, when it's actually his inheritance plans that have been affected, will moan. But if the policy doesn't effect many in practice, the outrage from the kind of family farmers people actually care about, will disappear over time.
In her budget speech Reeves made the direct claim that three-quarters of farms would be unaffected by the inheritance tax changes. Since then there's been a lot of sound and fury suggesting that this was not true, and that small family farms will have to be sold.
If Reeves has misled the House on this it should be a very big deal. I would expect her to be forced to come grovelling to the House to correct the record, at the very least.
Can anyone definitively show that Reeves misled the House?
If Reeves was being truthful then I do not think that expecting the largest quarter of farms to pay 20% IHT is problematic. Those at the bottom of that range will only pay 20% on a small fraction of the farm, and so the IHT bill will be modest. The very largest farms - the top eighth or so - should be large enough enterprises that they can pay the larger IHT due.
There isn't 100% tax relief on inheritance (capital acquisitions) tax on farmland or businesses in Ireland, but I believe much more farmland in Ireland is owner-occupied than in Britain. If Irish family farms can pay a form of IHT, then so can the largest quarter of British family farms.
Suspect there are a few things going on.
Part is the fear that everyone has of Inheritance Tax. We hear the FORTY PERCENT (which for most people is a huge rate) but not the (above a threshold that is pretty high so most of your estate won't be touched by it).
Part of it is the real, but impossible to quantify, emotional attachment of a family to a patch of land. Which, right now, feels like another luxury the nation can't afford to indulge.
Partly, it's shit-stirring by the opposition and their chunk of the media. Which may not be nice, bit is part of the game.
But also, there's an awkard point which I think Dan the Taxman made. If you have a farm, and the value of that farm is over £2 million, and that capital and the sweat equity of the farmers isn't producing enough profit to support this much tax once a generation... It's not a great business. And that's a horrible thing to say to people who work harder than I do for less reward. But it's where we are. And as with some other things the nation ducks, it boils down to a simple question. Do we want Britain to be a productive place, with all the benefits that entails, or not?
Farming is not a high reward per unit capital industry.
However, the government has spent vast amounts of time, effort etc on making sure that you can't use that capital (the land) for much else.
So if the farmers stop farming, then the asset (the land) won't be used for more productive (more GDP uses).
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
I don't know what happened to my previous post so will state it here whilst affirming that what Labour are doing is badly announcing things and not thinking them through. Expect more of this. Large majorities lead to bad governance. Ergo... The Private Schools body is suing the Govt over VAT on School fees.. the Govt is being challenged over Winter Fuel Allowance
I hope the Telegraph are bashing those liberal lefty lawyers using judicial review to challenge the elected will of the people on WFA.
To tack off a touch, I don't think Labour's school policy is great, mainly because it won't raise much money. But there's far too much judicial review/going to the courts when something isn't liked too much in this country and this just adds to that. It's going to be like the blimmin' house of Lords. Cheered on by one side till it started making the wrong decisions then loved by the other side because it suddenly started doing stuff they liked. If there's one thing that really makes me feel ill it's when that sort of nonsense happens.
Id be surprised if they get any traction but don't mind them trying. And at least I can still trust our judges to make rational and law based decisions, accepting I won't agree with them all.
Are there odds on him calling Kamala a c*** by next Tuesday? You just know he does it in private anyway.
I don't think he is that vulgar. Non-drinking, non-smoking/drug-taking.
Plus of that age. I don't think it is in his vernacular.
But we can have a bet if you would like.
Lol, a man who calls his opponents stupid bastards, scum and garbage, mentions the size of a famous sportsman's cock & does an impersonation of a disabled journalist during speeches, and boasts about grabbing women by the pussy isn't 'that vulgar'. A judgment for the ages.
I haven’t changed my mind on Kamala Harris winning comfortably. And I’m looking forward to the elaborate explanations from the polling companies on why they failed to predict the result.
I know it's a bit hypocritical, but there's something off about most British politicians/pundits who pose as experts on US elections. I can't take them seriously.
oh no, if he's predicting a comfortable Harris win, she must be in trouble.......
One of us
Nathan is in SF 🔍 @NathanpmYoung · 8h I still think you should bet £100 on it, and very good prices atm. Rory Stewart @RoryStewartUK · 7h Have done
Are there odds on him calling Kamala a c*** by next Tuesday? You just know he does it in private anyway.
I don't think he is that vulgar. Non-drinking, non-smoking/drug-taking.
Plus of that age. I don't think it is in his vernacular.
But we can have a bet if you would like.
Lol, a man who calls his opponents stupid bastards, scum and garbage, mentions the size of a famous sportsman's cock & does an impersonation of a disabled journalist during speeches, and boasts about grabbing women by the pussy isn't 'that vulgar'. A judgment for the ages.
This talk of farmers. The simple point is that Starmer and Steve Reed lied to them, to get elected in various rural seats. An immediate loss of trust like this will not be forgotten and they will pay for it.
I must have forgotten the line in the manifesto that said they won't raise tax on farmers?
Where would you raise the money from instead?
Are farmers not working people? The ones I know seem to work harder than most.
And I would raise the money by not spending it - public sector needs the fat trimming, not plumping up further.
And I would engage in massive deregulation, that's the only thing which will fix the real underlying problem of no growth - because we're strangling growth at birth with regulatory costs, and that's why the economy has stopped growing.
Anyone inheriting farmland didn't work for it, no. If they did, they should have paid income tax when they earned it.
Most farmers and their sons get up before 6am and work until dusk for average pay at best. They may have a lot of assets but those form their business, they certainly aren't lazy.
You have written some ridiculous posts in your time but that one takes the biscuit!!
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that most of those who actually farm the land also own the land.
Only 14% of farms are tenanted. 31% are mixed tenanted and owner farmed and 54% are fully farmer owned. So yes, most of those who farm the land own the land.
I'd be interested to see that broken down by size. Varies massively even just in Scotland.
Why is nobody in media even mentioning that £1m IHT agriculture relief is in addition to the £1m IHT relief any (married) person gets when leaving property to children.
ie If you live on a farm and want to leave it to your son you pay no IHT on the first £2m (assuming you are / were married and spouse not using their exemption for anything else).
Was listening to lengthy debate hosted by Chorley on R5L yesterday with farmers complaining - going on about almost all farms are worth over £1m - at no point did anyone say farmers can leave £2m tax free.
Why not? Hopeless media reporting - nobody appears to have even the most basic understanding of how tax system works.
Let's get real. It appears no political journalist has the faintest idea.
How many people even on this website (one of the most informed places for political debate) were aware of this?
I'm sure I read it can go up to £3m if there's a home on the farm.
The likes of Clarkson, pretending he cares about other people, when it's actually his inheritance plans that have been affected, will moan. But if the policy doesn't effect many in practice, the outrage from the kind of family farmers people actually care about, will disappear over time.
In her budget speech Reeves made the direct claim that three-quarters of farms would be unaffected by the inheritance tax changes. Since then there's been a lot of sound and fury suggesting that this was not true, and that small family farms will have to be sold.
If Reeves has misled the House on this it should be a very big deal. I would expect her to be forced to come grovelling to the House to correct the record, at the very least.
Can anyone definitively show that Reeves misled the House?
If Reeves was being truthful then I do not think that expecting the largest quarter of farms to pay 20% IHT is problematic. Those at the bottom of that range will only pay 20% on a small fraction of the farm, and so the IHT bill will be modest. The very largest farms - the top eighth or so - should be large enough enterprises that they can pay the larger IHT due.
There isn't 100% tax relief on inheritance (capital acquisitions) tax on farmland or businesses in Ireland, but I believe much more farmland in Ireland is owner-occupied than in Britain. If Irish family farms can pay a form of IHT, then so can the largest quarter of British family farms.
Suspect there are a few things going on.
Part is the fear that everyone has of Inheritance Tax. We hear the FORTY PERCENT (which for most people is a huge rate) but not the (above a threshold that is pretty high so most of your estate won't be touched by it).
Part of it is the real, but impossible to quantify, emotional attachment of a family to a patch of land. Which, right now, feels like another luxury the nation can't afford to indulge.
Partly, it's shit-stirring by the opposition and their chunk of the media. Which may not be nice, bit is part of the game.
But also, there's an awkard point which I think Dan the Taxman made. If you have a farm, and the value of that farm is over £2 million, and that capital and the sweat equity of the farmers isn't producing enough profit to support this much tax once a generation... It's not a great business. And that's a horrible thing to say to people who work harder than I do for less reward. But it's where we are. And as with some other things the nation ducks, it boils down to a simple question. Do we want Britain to be a productive place, with all the benefits that entails, or not?
Farming is not a high reward per unit capital industry.
However, the government has spent vast amounts of time, effort etc on making sure that you can't use that capital (the land) for much else.
So if the farmers stop farming, then the asset (the land) won't be used for more productive (more GDP uses).
So that argument doesn't work.
I suspect that you and I agree on the way out of that conundrum. My hope is still that the new government agrees and is tone-deaf enough to ignore the incoming protests. Because I don't see any other solution to the cul-de-sac we are in but to build another way out.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
I don't know what happened to my previous post so will state it here whilst affirming that what Labour are doing is badly announcing things and not thinking them through. Expect more of this. Large majorities lead to bad governance. Ergo... The Private Schools body is suing the Govt over VAT on School fees.. the Govt is being challenged over Winter Fuel Allowance
So two sets of lawyers finding a set of fools willing to pay money on no hope cases because unless I'm mistaking
1) The law they are using for private schools doesn't talk about the cost of it just that its allowed 2) age discrimination doesn't work when you have to be 67 to get the WFA...
This talk of farmers. The simple point is that Starmer and Steve Reed lied to them, to get elected in various rural seats. An immediate loss of trust like this will not be forgotten and they will pay for it.
I must have forgotten the line in the manifesto that said they won't raise tax on farmers?
Where would you raise the money from instead?
Are farmers not working people? The ones I know seem to work harder than most.
And I would raise the money by not spending it - public sector needs the fat trimming, not plumping up further.
And I would engage in massive deregulation, that's the only thing which will fix the real underlying problem of no growth - because we're strangling growth at birth with regulatory costs, and that's why the economy has stopped growing.
Anyone inheriting farmland didn't work for it, no. If they did, they should have paid income tax when they earned it.
Most farmers and their sons get up before 6am and work until dusk for average pay at best. They may have a lot of assets but those form their business, they certainly aren't lazy.
You have written some ridiculous posts in your time but that one takes the biscuit!!
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that most of those who actually farm the land also own the land.
Only 14% of farms are tenanted. 31% are mixed tenanted and owner farmed and 54% are fully farmer owned. So yes, most of those who farm the land own the land.
I'd be interested to see that broken down by size. Varies massively even just in Scotland.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
I don't doubt but it is getting everyone agitated. Plus ISAs are a good tax avoidance wheeze.
I haven’t changed my mind on Kamala Harris winning comfortably. And I’m looking forward to the elaborate explanations from the polling companies on why they failed to predict the result.
Does Rory have form on correctly predicting election results?
I would favour 538, Sean Trende, John Ralston, and Nate Silver on US politics, over and above any wishcasting British commentator.
We know Trump is disgusting. That doesn't mean that Harris is destined to win comfortably.
Agreed. But I take issue with the assumption that everyone who both wants Harris to win comfortably and thinks that she will is wish-casting. Some will be, and perhaps Rory is, but others will be basing their view on a bit more than just "oh god I hope so".
Also the opposite of wish-casting is common. This manifests as people of a naturally pessimistic bent overstating the chances of something they fear happening happening. The emotional hedge, doom-casting, whatever you want to call it, you get a lot of this.
And then there's the polls. We have no idea if they're right. They certainly weren't in 2016 or 2020, and particularly at the crucial state level. The aggregator sites aren't necessarily neutral and pollsters themselves (stupidly, IMO) often have political leanings of their own. The electorate changes each time, both because of registration rules and ease of voting, and also because of how demographics are engaged and the issues / personalities involved, so past correcting for errors in performance won't necessarily mean the next one will be right - fighting the last war is no guarantee of winning the next one.
Early voting figures might be giving us a bit of a clue but in an election where 1% could prove decisive, again, partial results can be misleading without the fuller picture.
Will women swing it? Maybe. But Harris would have had more chance with that strategy if she's campaigned on the pertinent issues earlier and harder. My gut feeling still says Trump.
Are there odds on him calling Kamala a c*** by next Tuesday? You just know he does it in private anyway.
I don't think he is that vulgar. Non-drinking, non-smoking/drug-taking.
Plus of that age. I don't think it is in his vernacular.
But we can have a bet if you would like.
Lol, a man who calls his opponents stupid bastards, scum and garbage, mentions the size of a famous sportsman's cock & does an impersonation of a disabled journalist during speeches, and boasts about grabbing women by the pussy isn't 'that vulgar'. A judgment for the ages.
Topping was in the army though. Those barracks can hum a bit, I bet.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
I don't know what happened to my previous post so will state it here whilst affirming that what Labour are doing is badly announcing things and not thinking them through. Expect more of this. Large majorities lead to bad governance. Ergo... The Private Schools body is suing the Govt over VAT on School fees.. the Govt is being challenged over Winter Fuel Allowance
I hope the Telegraph are bashing those liberal lefty lawyers using judicial review to challenge the elected will of the people on WFA.
To tack off a touch, I don't think Labour's school policy is great, mainly because it won't raise much money. But there's far too much judicial review/going to the courts when something isn't liked too much in this country and this just adds to that. It's going to be like the blimmin' house of Lords. Cheered on by one side till it started making the wrong decisions then loved by the other side because it suddenly started doing stuff they liked. If there's one thing that really makes me feel ill it's when that sort of nonsense happens.
Id be surprised if they get any traction but don't mind them trying. And at least I can still trust our judges to make rational and law based decisions, accepting I won't agree with them all.
See the car finance thing from this week - the result of that has been obvious since Wood v Commercial First Business Ltd and Others in 2021..
Why is nobody in media even mentioning that £1m IHT agriculture relief is in addition to the £1m IHT relief any (married) person gets when leaving property to children.
ie If you live on a farm and want to leave it to your son you pay no IHT on the first £2m (assuming you are / were married and spouse not using their exemption for anything else).
Was listening to lengthy debate hosted by Chorley on R5L yesterday with farmers complaining - going on about almost all farms are worth over £1m - at no point did anyone say farmers can leave £2m tax free.
Why not? Hopeless media reporting - nobody appears to have even the most basic understanding of how tax system works.
Let's get real. It appears no political journalist has the faintest idea.
How many people even on this website (one of the most informed places for political debate) were aware of this?
I'm sure I read it can go up to £3m if there's a home on the farm.
The likes of Clarkson, pretending he cares about other people, when it's actually his inheritance plans that have been affected, will moan. But if the policy doesn't effect many in practice, the outrage from the kind of family farmers people actually care about, will disappear over time.
In her budget speech Reeves made the direct claim that three-quarters of farms would be unaffected by the inheritance tax changes. Since then there's been a lot of sound and fury suggesting that this was not true, and that small family farms will have to be sold.
If Reeves has misled the House on this it should be a very big deal. I would expect her to be forced to come grovelling to the House to correct the record, at the very least.
Can anyone definitively show that Reeves misled the House?
If Reeves was being truthful then I do not think that expecting the largest quarter of farms to pay 20% IHT is problematic. Those at the bottom of that range will only pay 20% on a small fraction of the farm, and so the IHT bill will be modest. The very largest farms - the top eighth or so - should be large enough enterprises that they can pay the larger IHT due.
There isn't 100% tax relief on inheritance (capital acquisitions) tax on farmland or businesses in Ireland, but I believe much more farmland in Ireland is owner-occupied than in Britain. If Irish family farms can pay a form of IHT, then so can the largest quarter of British family farms.
Suspect there are a few things going on.
Part is the fear that everyone has of Inheritance Tax. We hear the FORTY PERCENT (which for most people is a huge rate) but not the (above a threshold that is pretty high so most of your estate won't be touched by it).
Part of it is the real, but impossible to quantify, emotional attachment of a family to a patch of land. Which, right now, feels like another luxury the nation can't afford to indulge.
Partly, it's shit-stirring by the opposition and their chunk of the media. Which may not be nice, bit is part of the game.
But also, there's an awkard point which I think Dan the Taxman made. If you have a farm, and the value of that farm is over £2 million, and that capital and the sweat equity of the farmers isn't producing enough profit to support this much tax once a generation... It's not a great business. And that's a horrible thing to say to people who work harder than I do for less reward. But it's where we are. And as with some other things the nation ducks, it boils down to a simple question. Do we want Britain to be a productive place, with all the benefits that entails, or not?
They also have ten years to pay the IHT bill due.
No one else gets a £2m exemption, a 20% rate after that and gets ten whole years to pay up.
And if the sons are really interested in taking on the farm, then hand it on when you reach retirement age and live 7 years.
Why is nobody in media even mentioning that £1m IHT agriculture relief is in addition to the £1m IHT relief any (married) person gets when leaving property to children.
ie If you live on a farm and want to leave it to your son you pay no IHT on the first £2m (assuming you are / were married and spouse not using their exemption for anything else).
Was listening to lengthy debate hosted by Chorley on R5L yesterday with farmers complaining - going on about almost all farms are worth over £1m - at no point did anyone say farmers can leave £2m tax free.
Why not? Hopeless media reporting - nobody appears to have even the most basic understanding of how tax system works.
Let's get real. It appears no political journalist has the faintest idea.
How many people even on this website (one of the most informed places for political debate) were aware of this?
I'm sure I read it can go up to £3m if there's a home on the farm.
The likes of Clarkson, pretending he cares about other people, when it's actually his inheritance plans that have been affected, will moan. But if the policy doesn't effect many in practice, the outrage from the kind of family farmers people actually care about, will disappear over time.
In her budget speech Reeves made the direct claim that three-quarters of farms would be unaffected by the inheritance tax changes. Since then there's been a lot of sound and fury suggesting that this was not true, and that small family farms will have to be sold.
If Reeves has misled the House on this it should be a very big deal. I would expect her to be forced to come grovelling to the House to correct the record, at the very least.
Can anyone definitively show that Reeves misled the House?
If Reeves was being truthful then I do not think that expecting the largest quarter of farms to pay 20% IHT is problematic. Those at the bottom of that range will only pay 20% on a small fraction of the farm, and so the IHT bill will be modest. The very largest farms - the top eighth or so - should be large enough enterprises that they can pay the larger IHT due.
There isn't 100% tax relief on inheritance (capital acquisitions) tax on farmland or businesses in Ireland, but I believe much more farmland in Ireland is owner-occupied than in Britain. If Irish family farms can pay a form of IHT, then so can the largest quarter of British family farms.
Suspect there are a few things going on.
Part is the fear that everyone has of Inheritance Tax. We hear the FORTY PERCENT (which for most people is a huge rate) but not the (above a threshold that is pretty high so most of your estate won't be touched by it).
Part of it is the real, but impossible to quantify, emotional attachment of a family to a patch of land. Which, right now, feels like another luxury the nation can't afford to indulge.
Partly, it's shit-stirring by the opposition and their chunk of the media. Which may not be nice, bit is part of the game.
But also, there's an awkard point which I think Dan the Taxman made. If you have a farm, and the value of that farm is over £2 million, and that capital and the sweat equity of the farmers isn't producing enough profit to support this much tax once a generation... It's not a great business. And that's a horrible thing to say to people who work harder than I do for less reward. But it's where we are. And as with some other things the nation ducks, it boils down to a simple question. Do we want Britain to be a productive place, with all the benefits that entails, or not?
I think there's a lot in that.
I would never claim to be particularly knowledgeable, but I do know that my wife's uncle has done very well with the family dairy farm. It's grown a huge amount over the decades.
One factor might be that, just over a century ago, it helped to form a cooperative of local farmers. That cooperative, with four or five other cooperatives in the wider area, co-owns a major cheese factory (and more besides, they also have stores for feed and agricultural equipment, and we bought our TV from them). So the farmers own a big chunk of the value chain. They aren't simply selling milk into the market.
I feel like it's this level of mutual organisation that is particularly lacking in Britain at the moment. The state is not the only option for mutual cooperation.
I haven’t changed my mind on Kamala Harris winning comfortably. And I’m looking forward to the elaborate explanations from the polling companies on why they failed to predict the result.
I know it's a bit hypocritical, but there's something off about most British politicians/pundits who pose as experts on US elections. I can't take them seriously.
Rory teaches politics at Yale, so he's perhaps more qualified than most of his British counterparts.
He's not beating the "those that can't" stereotype.
Why is nobody in media even mentioning that £1m IHT agriculture relief is in addition to the £1m IHT relief any (married) person gets when leaving property to children.
ie If you live on a farm and want to leave it to your son you pay no IHT on the first £2m (assuming you are / were married and spouse not using their exemption for anything else).
Was listening to lengthy debate hosted by Chorley on R5L yesterday with farmers complaining - going on about almost all farms are worth over £1m - at no point did anyone say farmers can leave £2m tax free.
Why not? Hopeless media reporting - nobody appears to have even the most basic understanding of how tax system works.
Let's get real. It appears no political journalist has the faintest idea.
How many people even on this website (one of the most informed places for political debate) were aware of this?
I'm sure I read it can go up to £3m if there's a home on the farm.
The likes of Clarkson, pretending he cares about other people, when it's actually his inheritance plans that have been affected, will moan. But if the policy doesn't effect many in practice, the outrage from the kind of family farmers people actually care about, will disappear over time.
In her budget speech Reeves made the direct claim that three-quarters of farms would be unaffected by the inheritance tax changes. Since then there's been a lot of sound and fury suggesting that this was not true, and that small family farms will have to be sold.
If Reeves has misled the House on this it should be a very big deal. I would expect her to be forced to come grovelling to the House to correct the record, at the very least.
Can anyone definitively show that Reeves misled the House?
If Reeves was being truthful then I do not think that expecting the largest quarter of farms to pay 20% IHT is problematic. Those at the bottom of that range will only pay 20% on a small fraction of the farm, and so the IHT bill will be modest. The very largest farms - the top eighth or so - should be large enough enterprises that they can pay the larger IHT due.
There isn't 100% tax relief on inheritance (capital acquisitions) tax on farmland or businesses in Ireland, but I believe much more farmland in Ireland is owner-occupied than in Britain. If Irish family farms can pay a form of IHT, then so can the largest quarter of British family farms.
Suspect there are a few things going on.
Part is the fear that everyone has of Inheritance Tax. We hear the FORTY PERCENT (which for most people is a huge rate) but not the (above a threshold that is pretty high so most of your estate won't be touched by it).
Part of it is the real, but impossible to quantify, emotional attachment of a family to a patch of land. Which, right now, feels like another luxury the nation can't afford to indulge.
Partly, it's shit-stirring by the opposition and their chunk of the media. Which may not be nice, bit is part of the game.
But also, there's an awkard point which I think Dan the Taxman made. If you have a farm, and the value of that farm is over £2 million, and that capital and the sweat equity of the farmers isn't producing enough profit to support this much tax once a generation... It's not a great business. And that's a horrible thing to say to people who work harder than I do for less reward. But it's where we are. And as with some other things the nation ducks, it boils down to a simple question. Do we want Britain to be a productive place, with all the benefits that entails, or not?
Farming is not a high reward per unit capital industry.
However, the government has spent vast amounts of time, effort etc on making sure that you can't use that capital (the land) for much else.
So if the farmers stop farming, then the asset (the land) won't be used for more productive (more GDP uses).
So that argument doesn't work.
How about some of these houses we're supposed to be building?
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
I don't know what happened to my previous post so will state it here whilst affirming that what Labour are doing is badly announcing things and not thinking them through. Expect more of this. Large majorities lead to bad governance. Ergo... The Private Schools body is suing the Govt over VAT on School fees.. the Govt is being challenged over Winter Fuel Allowance
So two sets of lawyers finding a set of fools willing to pay money on no hope cases because unless I'm mistaking
1) The law they are using for private schools doesn't talk about the cost of it just that its allowed 2) age discrimination doesn't work when you have to be 67 to get the WFA...
The interesting point to my mind is how do the government exempt universities? Both provide education, similar charitable set-up in many cases, an overlap in ages for eighteen year olds etc.
I haven’t changed my mind on Kamala Harris winning comfortably. And I’m looking forward to the elaborate explanations from the polling companies on why they failed to predict the result.
I know it's a bit hypocritical, but there's something off about most British politicians/pundits who pose as experts on US elections. I can't take them seriously.
Rory teaches politics at Yale, so he's perhaps more qualified than most of his British counterparts.
I've slightly enjoyed his overblown "looking at it from Australia" recent commentary, having been based there for an entire fortnight.
He's still far more credible on local issues for his former constituency, and on overseas aid given the development charities he is personally involved in running.
Why is nobody in media even mentioning that £1m IHT agriculture relief is in addition to the £1m IHT relief any (married) person gets when leaving property to children.
ie If you live on a farm and want to leave it to your son you pay no IHT on the first £2m (assuming you are / were married and spouse not using their exemption for anything else).
Was listening to lengthy debate hosted by Chorley on R5L yesterday with farmers complaining - going on about almost all farms are worth over £1m - at no point did anyone say farmers can leave £2m tax free.
Why not? Hopeless media reporting - nobody appears to have even the most basic understanding of how tax system works.
Let's get real. It appears no political journalist has the faintest idea.
How many people even on this website (one of the most informed places for political debate) were aware of this?
I'm sure I read it can go up to £3m if there's a home on the farm.
The likes of Clarkson, pretending he cares about other people, when it's actually his inheritance plans that have been affected, will moan. But if the policy doesn't effect many in practice, the outrage from the kind of family farmers people actually care about, will disappear over time.
In her budget speech Reeves made the direct claim that three-quarters of farms would be unaffected by the inheritance tax changes. Since then there's been a lot of sound and fury suggesting that this was not true, and that small family farms will have to be sold.
If Reeves has misled the House on this it should be a very big deal. I would expect her to be forced to come grovelling to the House to correct the record, at the very least.
Can anyone definitively show that Reeves misled the House?
If Reeves was being truthful then I do not think that expecting the largest quarter of farms to pay 20% IHT is problematic. Those at the bottom of that range will only pay 20% on a small fraction of the farm, and so the IHT bill will be modest. The very largest farms - the top eighth or so - should be large enough enterprises that they can pay the larger IHT due.
There isn't 100% tax relief on inheritance (capital acquisitions) tax on farmland or businesses in Ireland, but I believe much more farmland in Ireland is owner-occupied than in Britain. If Irish family farms can pay a form of IHT, then so can the largest quarter of British family farms.
Suspect there are a few things going on.
Part is the fear that everyone has of Inheritance Tax. We hear the FORTY PERCENT (which for most people is a huge rate) but not the (above a threshold that is pretty high so most of your estate won't be touched by it).
Part of it is the real, but impossible to quantify, emotional attachment of a family to a patch of land. Which, right now, feels like another luxury the nation can't afford to indulge.
Partly, it's shit-stirring by the opposition and their chunk of the media. Which may not be nice, bit is part of the game.
But also, there's an awkard point which I think Dan the Taxman made. If you have a farm, and the value of that farm is over £2 million, and that capital and the sweat equity of the farmers isn't producing enough profit to support this much tax once a generation... It's not a great business. And that's a horrible thing to say to people who work harder than I do for less reward. But it's where we are. And as with some other things the nation ducks, it boils down to a simple question. Do we want Britain to be a productive place, with all the benefits that entails, or not?
They also have ten years to pay the IHT bill due.
No one else gets a £2m exemption, a 20% rate after that and gets ten whole years to pay up.
And if the sons are really interested in taking on the farm, then hand it on when you reach retirement age and live 7 years.
Estates will get same leeway for businesses under BPR as for farms under APR.
I haven’t changed my mind on Kamala Harris winning comfortably. And I’m looking forward to the elaborate explanations from the polling companies on why they failed to predict the result.
I know it's a bit hypocritical, but there's something off about most British politicians/pundits who pose as experts on US elections. I can't take them seriously.
Rory teaches politics at Yale, so he's perhaps more qualified than most of his British counterparts.
He's not beating the "those that can't" stereotype.
You mean “those that can’t teach don’t really understand their subject”?
I haven’t changed my mind on Kamala Harris winning comfortably. And I’m looking forward to the elaborate explanations from the polling companies on why they failed to predict the result.
Does Rory have form on correctly predicting election results?
I would favour 538, Sean Trende, John Ralston, and Nate Silver on US politics, over and above any wishcasting British commentator.
We know Trump is disgusting. That doesn't mean that Harris is destined to win comfortably.
Agreed. But I take issue with the assumption that everyone who both wants Harris to win comfortably and thinks that she will is wish-casting. Some will be, and perhaps Rory is, but others will be basing their view on a bit more than just "oh god I hope so".
Also the opposite of wish-casting is common. This manifests as people of a naturally pessimistic bent overstating the chances of something they fear happening happening. The emotional hedge, doom-casting, whatever you want to call it, you get a lot of this.
And then there's the polls. We have no idea if they're right. They certainly weren't in 2016 or 2020, and particularly at the crucial state level. The aggregator sites aren't necessarily neutral and pollsters themselves (stupidly, IMO) often have political leanings of their own. The electorate changes each time, both because of registration rules and ease of voting, and also because of how demographics are engaged and the issues / personalities involved, so past correcting for errors in performance won't necessarily mean the next one will be right - fighting the last war is no guarantee of winning the next one.
Early voting figures might be giving us a bit of a clue but in an election where 1% could prove decisive, again, partial results can be misleading without the fuller picture.
Will women swing it? Maybe. But Harris would have had more chance with that strategy if she's campaigned on the pertinent issues earlier and harder. My gut feeling still says Trump.
Still Harris for me. I'd be more confident if it weren't for the NV early and mail data though. That's a bit discomforting.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
I don't know what happened to my previous post so will state it here whilst affirming that what Labour are doing is badly announcing things and not thinking them through. Expect more of this. Large majorities lead to bad governance. Ergo... The Private Schools body is suing the Govt over VAT on School fees.. the Govt is being challenged over Winter Fuel Allowance
So two sets of lawyers finding a set of fools willing to pay money on no hope cases because unless I'm mistaking
1) The law they are using for private schools doesn't talk about the cost of it just that its allowed 2) age discrimination doesn't work when you have to be 67 to get the WFA...
The interesting point to my mind is how do the government exempt universities? Both provide education, similar charitable set-up in many cases, an overlap in ages for eighteen year olds etc.
You see that would be a far better approach to the court case - these items (universities) you want exempt shouldn't be exempt is a case I think there would be more chance of winning (and the consequences far more likely to result in the issue going away).
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
I don't know what happened to my previous post so will state it here whilst affirming that what Labour are doing is badly announcing things and not thinking them through. Expect more of this. Large majorities lead to bad governance. Ergo... The Private Schools body is suing the Govt over VAT on School fees.. the Govt is being challenged over Winter Fuel Allowance
I hope the Telegraph are bashing those liberal lefty lawyers using judicial review to challenge the elected will of the people on WFA.
I hear there is a rumour that a fox killing lawyer is going to try and take a case to the Supreme Court. To limit the "wrong kind of judicial challenge"
Great Jumping Jolyon, the Suburban Samurai with a Baseball Bat.
Why is nobody in media even mentioning that £1m IHT agriculture relief is in addition to the £1m IHT relief any (married) person gets when leaving property to children.
ie If you live on a farm and want to leave it to your son you pay no IHT on the first £2m (assuming you are / were married and spouse not using their exemption for anything else).
Was listening to lengthy debate hosted by Chorley on R5L yesterday with farmers complaining - going on about almost all farms are worth over £1m - at no point did anyone say farmers can leave £2m tax free.
Why not? Hopeless media reporting - nobody appears to have even the most basic understanding of how tax system works.
Let's get real. It appears no political journalist has the faintest idea.
How many people even on this website (one of the most informed places for political debate) were aware of this?
I'm sure I read it can go up to £3m if there's a home on the farm.
The likes of Clarkson, pretending he cares about other people, when it's actually his inheritance plans that have been affected, will moan. But if the policy doesn't effect many in practice, the outrage from the kind of family farmers people actually care about, will disappear over time.
In her budget speech Reeves made the direct claim that three-quarters of farms would be unaffected by the inheritance tax changes. Since then there's been a lot of sound and fury suggesting that this was not true, and that small family farms will have to be sold.
If Reeves has misled the House on this it should be a very big deal. I would expect her to be forced to come grovelling to the House to correct the record, at the very least.
Can anyone definitively show that Reeves misled the House?
If Reeves was being truthful then I do not think that expecting the largest quarter of farms to pay 20% IHT is problematic. Those at the bottom of that range will only pay 20% on a small fraction of the farm, and so the IHT bill will be modest. The very largest farms - the top eighth or so - should be large enough enterprises that they can pay the larger IHT due.
There isn't 100% tax relief on inheritance (capital acquisitions) tax on farmland or businesses in Ireland, but I believe much more farmland in Ireland is owner-occupied than in Britain. If Irish family farms can pay a form of IHT, then so can the largest quarter of British family farms.
Suspect there are a few things going on.
Part is the fear that everyone has of Inheritance Tax. We hear the FORTY PERCENT (which for most people is a huge rate) but not the (above a threshold that is pretty high so most of your estate won't be touched by it).
Part of it is the real, but impossible to quantify, emotional attachment of a family to a patch of land. Which, right now, feels like another luxury the nation can't afford to indulge.
Partly, it's shit-stirring by the opposition and their chunk of the media. Which may not be nice, bit is part of the game.
But also, there's an awkard point which I think Dan the Taxman made. If you have a farm, and the value of that farm is over £2 million, and that capital and the sweat equity of the farmers isn't producing enough profit to support this much tax once a generation... It's not a great business. And that's a horrible thing to say to people who work harder than I do for less reward. But it's where we are. And as with some other things the nation ducks, it boils down to a simple question. Do we want Britain to be a productive place, with all the benefits that entails, or not?
Farming is not a high reward per unit capital industry.
However, the government has spent vast amounts of time, effort etc on making sure that you can't use that capital (the land) for much else.
So if the farmers stop farming, then the asset (the land) won't be used for more productive (more GDP uses).
So that argument doesn't work.
I suspect that you and I agree on the way out of that conundrum. My hope is still that the new government agrees and is tone-deaf enough to ignore the incoming protests. Because I don't see any other solution to the cul-de-sac we are in but to build another way out.
Even if my solution was adopted - start building 8 million properties, right now. With schools, hospitals, libraries to match - the amount of farm land required would be a small percentage of the total.
And there has never been much trouble (or cost) in acquiring farmland for infrastructure projects.
I haven’t changed my mind on Kamala Harris winning comfortably. And I’m looking forward to the elaborate explanations from the polling companies on why they failed to predict the result.
I know it's a bit hypocritical, but there's something off about most British politicians/pundits who pose as experts on US elections. I can't take them seriously.
Yes it is. But I don't take your pro-Trump ramping seriously either. That's not to say your guess might not be a good one.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
I don't know what happened to my previous post so will state it here whilst affirming that what Labour are doing is badly announcing things and not thinking them through. Expect more of this. Large majorities lead to bad governance. Ergo... The Private Schools body is suing the Govt over VAT on School fees.. the Govt is being challenged over Winter Fuel Allowance
I hope the Telegraph are bashing those liberal lefty lawyers using judicial review to challenge the elected will of the people on WFA.
I hear there is a rumour that a fox killing lawyer is going to try and take a case to the Supreme Court. To limit the "wrong kind of judicial challenge"
Great Jumping Jolyon, the Suburban Samurai with a Baseball Bat.
It’s seen as kicking people when they’re down, and taking another chunk out of what has already been taxed.
I'm sitting on a majority UK shareholding that will now incur a very large IHT bill and I have made peace with the changes on the basis that they could instead have scrapped rebasing for CGT on death, and that would have resulted in a not-too-dissimilar overall tax take, just deferred to point of actual disposal.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
I don't know what happened to my previous post so will state it here whilst affirming that what Labour are doing is badly announcing things and not thinking them through. Expect more of this. Large majorities lead to bad governance. Ergo... The Private Schools body is suing the Govt over VAT on School fees.. the Govt is being challenged over Winter Fuel Allowance
So two sets of lawyers finding a set of fools willing to pay money on no hope cases because unless I'm mistaking
1) The law they are using for private schools doesn't talk about the cost of it just that its allowed 2) age discrimination doesn't work when you have to be 67 to get the WFA...
The interesting point to my mind is how do the government exempt universities? Both provide education, similar charitable set-up in many cases, an overlap in ages for eighteen year olds etc.
You see that would be a far better approach to the court case - these items (universities) you want exempt shouldn't be exempt is a case I think there would be more chance of winning (and the consequences far more likely to result in the issue going away).
In the case of the private schools, the SEND issue will bring in all kinds of problems, I suspect.
Why is nobody in media even mentioning that £1m IHT agriculture relief is in addition to the £1m IHT relief any (married) person gets when leaving property to children.
ie If you live on a farm and want to leave it to your son you pay no IHT on the first £2m (assuming you are / were married and spouse not using their exemption for anything else).
Was listening to lengthy debate hosted by Chorley on R5L yesterday with farmers complaining - going on about almost all farms are worth over £1m - at no point did anyone say farmers can leave £2m tax free.
Why not? Hopeless media reporting - nobody appears to have even the most basic understanding of how tax system works.
Let's get real. It appears no political journalist has the faintest idea.
How many people even on this website (one of the most informed places for political debate) were aware of this?
I'm sure I read it can go up to £3m if there's a home on the farm.
The likes of Clarkson, pretending he cares about other people, when it's actually his inheritance plans that have been affected, will moan. But if the policy doesn't effect many in practice, the outrage from the kind of family farmers people actually care about, will disappear over time.
In her budget speech Reeves made the direct claim that three-quarters of farms would be unaffected by the inheritance tax changes. Since then there's been a lot of sound and fury suggesting that this was not true, and that small family farms will have to be sold.
If Reeves has misled the House on this it should be a very big deal. I would expect her to be forced to come grovelling to the House to correct the record, at the very least.
Can anyone definitively show that Reeves misled the House?
If Reeves was being truthful then I do not think that expecting the largest quarter of farms to pay 20% IHT is problematic. Those at the bottom of that range will only pay 20% on a small fraction of the farm, and so the IHT bill will be modest. The very largest farms - the top eighth or so - should be large enough enterprises that they can pay the larger IHT due.
There isn't 100% tax relief on inheritance (capital acquisitions) tax on farmland or businesses in Ireland, but I believe much more farmland in Ireland is owner-occupied than in Britain. If Irish family farms can pay a form of IHT, then so can the largest quarter of British family farms.
Suspect there are a few things going on.
Part is the fear that everyone has of Inheritance Tax. We hear the FORTY PERCENT (which for most people is a huge rate) but not the (above a threshold that is pretty high so most of your estate won't be touched by it).
Part of it is the real, but impossible to quantify, emotional attachment of a family to a patch of land. Which, right now, feels like another luxury the nation can't afford to indulge.
Partly, it's shit-stirring by the opposition and their chunk of the media. Which may not be nice, bit is part of the game.
But also, there's an awkard point which I think Dan the Taxman made. If you have a farm, and the value of that farm is over £2 million, and that capital and the sweat equity of the farmers isn't producing enough profit to support this much tax once a generation... It's not a great business. And that's a horrible thing to say to people who work harder than I do for less reward. But it's where we are. And as with some other things the nation ducks, it boils down to a simple question. Do we want Britain to be a productive place, with all the benefits that entails, or not?
Farming is not a high reward per unit capital industry.
However, the government has spent vast amounts of time, effort etc on making sure that you can't use that capital (the land) for much else.
So if the farmers stop farming, then the asset (the land) won't be used for more productive (more GDP uses).
So that argument doesn't work.
How about some of these houses we're supposed to be building?
What average dwelling density are we looking at ?
2 million dwellings at 13/acre ~= 150,000 acres of farmland needed. You'll need some roads and infrastructure (More land) but also there might be conversions and upwards build elsewhere (less land).
The estimate for farmland looks to be 40 million acres. So that only affects 0.3% of farmland. However you cook the numbers the truth is most farmland isn't going to be used for housing any time soon.
Are there odds on him calling Kamala a c*** by next Tuesday? You just know he does it in private anyway.
I don't think he is that vulgar. Non-drinking, non-smoking/drug-taking.
Plus of that age. I don't think it is in his vernacular.
But we can have a bet if you would like.
Lol, a man who calls his opponents stupid bastards, scum and garbage, mentions the size of a famous sportsman's cock & does an impersonation of a disabled journalist during speeches, and boasts about grabbing women by the pussy isn't 'that vulgar'. A judgment for the ages.
Topping was in the army though. Those barracks can hum a bit, I bet.
So what's the bet. Happy to have £20 with each of you let me know the odds.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
I don't doubt but it is getting everyone agitated. Plus ISAs are a good tax avoidance wheeze.
An ISA is not tax avoidance.
“Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage, that parliament never intended.” (HMRC, 2015)
For clarity, I'm not forecasting armed insurrection in America because I want it or find it entertaining. The opposite. I just struggle to see how they avoid that in any scenario other than a big Trump win. And even in that scenario it just flips the other way - Trump does everything he says he is going to do and you're going to get armed militias imposing Gilead as they round up Jake Tapper and illegals and 'that guy down the street who looks funny'.
So time to plan a hoilday there. Could be good value soon if lot's of people avoid it. Road trip.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
It is something of a revelation that during the Johnson era the likes of the BBC were very much in tune with Government activity, particularly Johnson's Cenotaph faux pas correction, but post Truss have been extremely hostile to all stripes of Government.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
From the Samaritans’ guidance on reporting suicide: “Speculation about the ‘trigger’ or cause of a suicide can oversimplify the issue and should be avoided. Suicide is extremely complex and most of the time there is no single event or factor that leads someone to take their own life.”
Why is nobody in media even mentioning that £1m IHT agriculture relief is in addition to the £1m IHT relief any (married) person gets when leaving property to children.
ie If you live on a farm and want to leave it to your son you pay no IHT on the first £2m (assuming you are / were married and spouse not using their exemption for anything else).
Was listening to lengthy debate hosted by Chorley on R5L yesterday with farmers complaining - going on about almost all farms are worth over £1m - at no point did anyone say farmers can leave £2m tax free.
Why not? Hopeless media reporting - nobody appears to have even the most basic understanding of how tax system works.
Let's get real. It appears no political journalist has the faintest idea.
How many people even on this website (one of the most informed places for political debate) were aware of this?
I'm sure I read it can go up to £3m if there's a home on the farm.
The likes of Clarkson, pretending he cares about other people, when it's actually his inheritance plans that have been affected, will moan. But if the policy doesn't effect many in practice, the outrage from the kind of family farmers people actually care about, will disappear over time.
In her budget speech Reeves made the direct claim that three-quarters of farms would be unaffected by the inheritance tax changes. Since then there's been a lot of sound and fury suggesting that this was not true, and that small family farms will have to be sold.
If Reeves has misled the House on this it should be a very big deal. I would expect her to be forced to come grovelling to the House to correct the record, at the very least.
Can anyone definitively show that Reeves misled the House?
If Reeves was being truthful then I do not think that expecting the largest quarter of farms to pay 20% IHT is problematic. Those at the bottom of that range will only pay 20% on a small fraction of the farm, and so the IHT bill will be modest. The very largest farms - the top eighth or so - should be large enough enterprises that they can pay the larger IHT due.
There isn't 100% tax relief on inheritance (capital acquisitions) tax on farmland or businesses in Ireland, but I believe much more farmland in Ireland is owner-occupied than in Britain. If Irish family farms can pay a form of IHT, then so can the largest quarter of British family farms.
Suspect there are a few things going on.
Part is the fear that everyone has of Inheritance Tax. We hear the FORTY PERCENT (which for most people is a huge rate) but not the (above a threshold that is pretty high so most of your estate won't be touched by it).
Part of it is the real, but impossible to quantify, emotional attachment of a family to a patch of land. Which, right now, feels like another luxury the nation can't afford to indulge.
Partly, it's shit-stirring by the opposition and their chunk of the media. Which may not be nice, bit is part of the game.
But also, there's an awkard point which I think Dan the Taxman made. If you have a farm, and the value of that farm is over £2 million, and that capital and the sweat equity of the farmers isn't producing enough profit to support this much tax once a generation... It's not a great business. And that's a horrible thing to say to people who work harder than I do for less reward. But it's where we are. And as with some other things the nation ducks, it boils down to a simple question. Do we want Britain to be a productive place, with all the benefits that entails, or not?
Farming is not a high reward per unit capital industry.
However, the government has spent vast amounts of time, effort etc on making sure that you can't use that capital (the land) for much else.
So if the farmers stop farming, then the asset (the land) won't be used for more productive (more GDP uses).
So that argument doesn't work.
How about some of these houses we're supposed to be building?
What average dwelling density are we looking at ?
2 million dwellings at 13/acre ~= 150,000 acres of farmland needed. You'll need some roads and infrastructure (More land) but also there might be conversions and upwards build elsewhere (less land).
The estimate for farmland looks to be 40 million acres. So that only affects 0.3% of farmland. However you cook the numbers the truth is most farmland isn't going to be used for housing any time soon.
And with the law passed by the last government, planning uplift (the increase in value for granting planning permission) can be set aside on compulsory purchase of farmland.
So the government can go round buying any land it feels like, at agricultural land prices, if it wants to.
For clarity, I'm not forecasting armed insurrection in America because I want it or find it entertaining. The opposite. I just struggle to see how they avoid that in any scenario other than a big Trump win. And even in that scenario it just flips the other way - Trump does everything he says he is going to do and you're going to get armed militias imposing Gilead as they round up Jake Tapper and illegals and 'that guy down the street who looks funny'.
So time to plan a hoilday there. Could be good value soon if lot's of people avoid it. Road trip.
I haven’t changed my mind on Kamala Harris winning comfortably. And I’m looking forward to the elaborate explanations from the polling companies on why they failed to predict the result.
Does Rory have form on correctly predicting election results?
I would favour 538, Sean Trende, John Ralston, and Nate Silver on US politics, over and above any wishcasting British commentator.
We know Trump is disgusting. That doesn't mean that Harris is destined to win comfortably.
Agreed. But I take issue with the assumption that everyone who both wants Harris to win comfortably and thinks that she will is wish-casting. Some will be, and perhaps Rory is, but others will be basing their view on a bit more than just "oh god I hope so".
Also the opposite of wish-casting is common. This manifests as people of a naturally pessimistic bent overstating the chances of something they fear happening happening. The emotional hedge, doom-casting, whatever you want to call it, you get a lot of this.
And then there's the polls. We have no idea if they're right. They certainly weren't in 2016 or 2020, and particularly at the crucial state level. The aggregator sites aren't necessarily neutral and pollsters themselves (stupidly, IMO) often have political leanings of their own. The electorate changes each time, both because of registration rules and ease of voting, and also because of how demographics are engaged and the issues / personalities involved, so past correcting for errors in performance won't necessarily mean the next one will be right - fighting the last war is no guarantee of winning the next one.
Early voting figures might be giving us a bit of a clue but in an election where 1% could prove decisive, again, partial results can be misleading without the fuller picture.
Will women swing it? Maybe. But Harris would have had more chance with that strategy if she's campaigned on the pertinent issues earlier and harder. My gut feeling still says Trump.
Still Harris for me. I'd be more confident if it weren't for the NV early and mail data though. That's a bit discomforting.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
I don't doubt but it is getting everyone agitated. Plus ISAs are a good tax avoidance wheeze.
An ISA is not tax avoidance.
“Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage, that parliament never intended.” (HMRC, 2015)
I recall several people got banned from Richard Murphys blog for pointing out that as IFAs, they have a *legally imposed duty* to tell people to setup and pay into pensions and use ISAs.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
From the Samaritans’ guidance on reporting suicide: “Speculation about the ‘trigger’ or cause of a suicide can oversimplify the issue and should be avoided. Suicide is extremely complex and most of the time there is no single event or factor that leads someone to take their own life.”
Perhaps the government should have thought twice before bringing pension funds into IHT from April 2027 - a proper Dick Turpin measure which will result in suicides ahead of that date I guarantee it.
For clarity, I'm not forecasting armed insurrection in America because I want it or find it entertaining. The opposite. I just struggle to see how they avoid that in any scenario other than a big Trump win. And even in that scenario it just flips the other way - Trump does everything he says he is going to do and you're going to get armed militias imposing Gilead as they round up Jake Tapper and illegals and 'that guy down the street who looks funny'.
So time to plan a hoilday there. Could be good value soon if lot's of people avoid it. Road trip.
For clarity, I'm not forecasting armed insurrection in America because I want it or find it entertaining. The opposite. I just struggle to see how they avoid that in any scenario other than a big Trump win. And even in that scenario it just flips the other way - Trump does everything he says he is going to do and you're going to get armed militias imposing Gilead as they round up Jake Tapper and illegals and 'that guy down the street who looks funny'.
So time to plan a hoilday there. Could be good value soon if lot's of people avoid it. Road trip.
I haven’t changed my mind on Kamala Harris winning comfortably. And I’m looking forward to the elaborate explanations from the polling companies on why they failed to predict the result.
Harris winning comfortably is within the margin of error for the pollsters.
"The error was comparable to past elections and better than some. We do not see the need for an enquiry" "It was within MOE" "There was a late surge" "People didn't make their minds up until the day" "Our methodology was correct but turnout/response rates were low or skewed by nonresponse" "We have adjusted our weights to compensate and are confident we will get it right next time"
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
From the Samaritans’ guidance on reporting suicide: “Speculation about the ‘trigger’ or cause of a suicide can oversimplify the issue and should be avoided. Suicide is extremely complex and most of the time there is no single event or factor that leads someone to take their own life.”
Perhaps the government should have thought twice before bringing pension funds into IHT from April 2027 - a proper Dick Turpin measure which will result in suicides ahead of that date I guarantee it.
What part of “Speculation about the ‘trigger’ or cause of a suicide can oversimplify the issue and should be avoided. Suicide is extremely complex and most of the time there is no single event or factor that leads someone to take their own life.” do you not understand?
Are there odds on him calling Kamala a c*** by next Tuesday? You just know he does it in private anyway.
I don't think he is that vulgar. Non-drinking, non-smoking/drug-taking.
Plus of that age. I don't think it is in his vernacular.
But we can have a bet if you would like.
Lol, a man who calls his opponents stupid bastards, scum and garbage, mentions the size of a famous sportsman's cock & does an impersonation of a disabled journalist during speeches, and boasts about grabbing women by the pussy isn't 'that vulgar'. A judgment for the ages.
His musings about executing Liz Cheney by firing squad is quite startling. I do wonder whether Trump will enact his wet dreams and take the ultimate action against anyone he believes have dimished him over the years. The list, I suspect will be incredibly long.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
From the Samaritans’ guidance on reporting suicide: “Speculation about the ‘trigger’ or cause of a suicide can oversimplify the issue and should be avoided. Suicide is extremely complex and most of the time there is no single event or factor that leads someone to take their own life.”
Perhaps the government should have thought twice before bringing pension funds into IHT from April 2027 - a proper Dick Turpin measure which will result in suicides ahead of that date I guarantee it.
What part of “Speculation about the ‘trigger’ or cause of a suicide can oversimplify the issue and should be avoided. Suicide is extremely complex and most of the time there is no single event or factor that leads someone to take their own life.” do you not understand?
I don't care. I don't share societies' stigma about it. The terminology should change for one thing; committing suicide implies wrongdoing and is a religious hangover.
His musings about executing Liz Cheney by firing squad is quite startling. I do wonder whether Trump will enact his wet dreams and take the ultimate action against anyone he believes have dimished him over the years. The list, I suspect will be incredibly long.
We know he already asked about using American troops against American citizens...
I haven’t changed my mind on Kamala Harris winning comfortably. And I’m looking forward to the elaborate explanations from the polling companies on why they failed to predict the result.
Does Rory have form on correctly predicting election results?
I would favour 538, Sean Trende, John Ralston, and Nate Silver on US politics, over and above any wishcasting British commentator.
We know Trump is disgusting. That doesn't mean that Harris is destined to win comfortably.
Agreed. But I take issue with the assumption that everyone who both wants Harris to win comfortably and thinks that she will is wish-casting. Some will be, and perhaps Rory is, but others will be basing their view on a bit more than just "oh god I hope so".
Also the opposite of wish-casting is common. This manifests as people of a naturally pessimistic bent overstating the chances of something they fear happening happening. The emotional hedge, doom-casting, whatever you want to call it, you get a lot of this.
And then there's the polls. We have no idea if they're right. They certainly weren't in 2016 or 2020, and particularly at the crucial state level. The aggregator sites aren't necessarily neutral and pollsters themselves (stupidly, IMO) often have political leanings of their own. The electorate changes each time, both because of registration rules and ease of voting, and also because of how demographics are engaged and the issues / personalities involved, so past correcting for errors in performance won't necessarily mean the next one will be right - fighting the last war is no guarantee of winning the next one.
Early voting figures might be giving us a bit of a clue but in an election where 1% could prove decisive, again, partial results can be misleading without the fuller picture.
Will women swing it? Maybe. But Harris would have had more chance with that strategy if she's campaigned on the pertinent issues earlier and harder. My gut feeling still says Trump.
Still Harris for me. I'd be more confident if it weren't for the NV early and mail data though. That's a bit discomforting.
Are there odds on him calling Kamala a c*** by next Tuesday? You just know he does it in private anyway.
I don't think he is that vulgar. Non-drinking, non-smoking/drug-taking.
Plus of that age. I don't think it is in his vernacular.
But we can have a bet if you would like.
Lol, a man who calls his opponents stupid bastards, scum and garbage, mentions the size of a famous sportsman's cock & does an impersonation of a disabled journalist during speeches, and boasts about grabbing women by the pussy isn't 'that vulgar'. A judgment for the ages.
His musings about executing Liz Cheney by firing squad is quite startling. I do wonder whether Trump will enact his wet dreams and take the ultimate action against anyone he believes have dimished him over the years. The list, I suspect will be incredibly long.
I mean his lawyers were asked by the Supreme Court if ordering a Seal team to execute an opponent would be covered by immunity and he essentially said yes, though it might depend. And surely acting as commander and chief is immune or presumed immune under the courts interpretation, as it would be an official act.
Regardless, the double standard applied by media and the public about what language to get upset about is preposterous.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
From the Samaritans’ guidance on reporting suicide: “Speculation about the ‘trigger’ or cause of a suicide can oversimplify the issue and should be avoided. Suicide is extremely complex and most of the time there is no single event or factor that leads someone to take their own life.”
Perhaps the government should have thought twice before bringing pension funds into IHT from April 2027 - a proper Dick Turpin measure which will result in suicides ahead of that date I guarantee it.
What part of “Speculation about the ‘trigger’ or cause of a suicide can oversimplify the issue and should be avoided. Suicide is extremely complex and most of the time there is no single event or factor that leads someone to take their own life.” do you not understand?
I'm not sure that clause should be use to inhibit discussions of the number of suicides. They are public record after all.
Are there odds on him calling Kamala a c*** by next Tuesday? You just know he does it in private anyway.
I don't think he is that vulgar. Non-drinking, non-smoking/drug-taking.
Plus of that age. I don't think it is in his vernacular.
But we can have a bet if you would like.
Lol, a man who calls his opponents stupid bastards, scum and garbage, mentions the size of a famous sportsman's cock & does an impersonation of a disabled journalist during speeches, and boasts about grabbing women by the pussy isn't 'that vulgar'. A judgment for the ages.
His musings about executing Liz Cheney by firing squad is quite startling. I do wonder whether Trump will enact his wet dreams and take the ultimate action against anyone he believes have dimished him over the years. The list, I suspect will be incredibly long.
Only if he can make money from it by selling on a pay-per-view basis. He says it at his rallies because people will cheer it, and it makes him feel like a big tough guy. Actually doing it in office would be too much like real work.
The risk is that an underling takes the boss seriously and puts in the effort to make it happen to impress him. Trump's hardly likely to put in the effort to stop it from happening either.
I haven’t changed my mind on Kamala Harris winning comfortably. And I’m looking forward to the elaborate explanations from the polling companies on why they failed to predict the result.
Does Rory have form on correctly predicting election results?
I would favour 538, Sean Trende, John Ralston, and Nate Silver on US politics, over and above any wishcasting British commentator.
We know Trump is disgusting. That doesn't mean that Harris is destined to win comfortably.
Agreed. But I take issue with the assumption that everyone who both wants Harris to win comfortably and thinks that she will is wish-casting. Some will be, and perhaps Rory is, but others will be basing their view on a bit more than just "oh god I hope so".
Also the opposite of wish-casting is common. This manifests as people of a naturally pessimistic bent overstating the chances of something they fear happening happening. The emotional hedge, doom-casting, whatever you want to call it, you get a lot of this.
And then there's the polls. We have no idea if they're right. They certainly weren't in 2016 or 2020, and particularly at the crucial state level. The aggregator sites aren't necessarily neutral and pollsters themselves (stupidly, IMO) often have political leanings of their own. The electorate changes each time, both because of registration rules and ease of voting, and also because of how demographics are engaged and the issues / personalities involved, so past correcting for errors in performance won't necessarily mean the next one will be right - fighting the last war is no guarantee of winning the next one.
Early voting figures might be giving us a bit of a clue but in an election where 1% could prove decisive, again, partial results can be misleading without the fuller picture.
Will women swing it? Maybe. But Harris would have had more chance with that strategy if she's campaigned on the pertinent issues earlier and harder. My gut feeling still says Trump.
Still Harris for me. I'd be more confident if it weren't for the NV early and mail data though. That's a bit discomforting.
Why is nobody in media even mentioning that £1m IHT agriculture relief is in addition to the £1m IHT relief any (married) person gets when leaving property to children.
ie If you live on a farm and want to leave it to your son you pay no IHT on the first £2m (assuming you are / were married and spouse not using their exemption for anything else).
Was listening to lengthy debate hosted by Chorley on R5L yesterday with farmers complaining - going on about almost all farms are worth over £1m - at no point did anyone say farmers can leave £2m tax free.
Why not? Hopeless media reporting - nobody appears to have even the most basic understanding of how tax system works.
Let's get real. It appears no political journalist has the faintest idea.
How many people even on this website (one of the most informed places for political debate) were aware of this?
I'm sure I read it can go up to £3m if there's a home on the farm.
The likes of Clarkson, pretending he cares about other people, when it's actually his inheritance plans that have been affected, will moan. But if the policy doesn't effect many in practice, the outrage from the kind of family farmers people actually care about, will disappear over time.
In her budget speech Reeves made the direct claim that three-quarters of farms would be unaffected by the inheritance tax changes. Since then there's been a lot of sound and fury suggesting that this was not true, and that small family farms will have to be sold.
If Reeves has misled the House on this it should be a very big deal. I would expect her to be forced to come grovelling to the House to correct the record, at the very least.
Can anyone definitively show that Reeves misled the House?
If Reeves was being truthful then I do not think that expecting the largest quarter of farms to pay 20% IHT is problematic. Those at the bottom of that range will only pay 20% on a small fraction of the farm, and so the IHT bill will be modest. The very largest farms - the top eighth or so - should be large enough enterprises that they can pay the larger IHT due.
There isn't 100% tax relief on inheritance (capital acquisitions) tax on farmland or businesses in Ireland, but I believe much more farmland in Ireland is owner-occupied than in Britain. If Irish family farms can pay a form of IHT, then so can the largest quarter of British family farms.
Suspect there are a few things going on.
Part is the fear that everyone has of Inheritance Tax. We hear the FORTY PERCENT (which for most people is a huge rate) but not the (above a threshold that is pretty high so most of your estate won't be touched by it).
Part of it is the real, but impossible to quantify, emotional attachment of a family to a patch of land. Which, right now, feels like another luxury the nation can't afford to indulge.
Partly, it's shit-stirring by the opposition and their chunk of the media. Which may not be nice, bit is part of the game.
But also, there's an awkard point which I think Dan the Taxman made. If you have a farm, and the value of that farm is over £2 million, and that capital and the sweat equity of the farmers isn't producing enough profit to support this much tax once a generation... It's not a great business. And that's a horrible thing to say to people who work harder than I do for less reward. But it's where we are. And as with some other things the nation ducks, it boils down to a simple question. Do we want Britain to be a productive place, with all the benefits that entails, or not?
Farming is not a high reward per unit capital industry.
However, the government has spent vast amounts of time, effort etc on making sure that you can't use that capital (the land) for much else.
So if the farmers stop farming, then the asset (the land) won't be used for more productive (more GDP uses).
So that argument doesn't work.
How about some of these houses we're supposed to be building?
What average dwelling density are we looking at ?
2 million dwellings at 13/acre ~= 150,000 acres of farmland needed. You'll need some roads and infrastructure (More land) but also there might be conversions and upwards build elsewhere (less land).
The estimate for farmland looks to be 40 million acres. So that only affects 0.3% of farmland. However you cook the numbers the truth is most farmland isn't going to be used for housing any time soon.
Most of that sort of land area would be available from scrub, brown belt, or former sites in the countryside such as mines, airfields etc, I would think.
His musings about executing Liz Cheney by firing squad is quite startling. I do wonder whether Trump will enact his wet dreams and take the ultimate action against anyone he believes have dimished him over the years. The list, I suspect will be incredibly long.
We know he already asked about using American troops against American citizens...
I haven’t changed my mind on Kamala Harris winning comfortably. And I’m looking forward to the elaborate explanations from the polling companies on why they failed to predict the result.
Harris winning comfortably is within the margin of error for the pollsters.
"The error was comparable to past elections and better than some. We do not see the need for an enquiry" "It was within MOE" "There was a late surge" "People didn't make their minds up until the day" "Our methodology was correct but turnout/response rates were low or skewed by nonresponse" "We have adjusted our weights to compensate and are confident we will get it right next time"
No hiding for US pollsters this time round. A comfortable victory for either candidate leaves them with a massive amount of egg on their face. If they're as bad as our polls were (For Lab/Con) at the recent GE then it's basically a landslide either way and they'll be crucified. They need it to be close to preserve their reputation. It might not be !
His musings about executing Liz Cheney by firing squad is quite startling. I do wonder whether Trump will enact his wet dreams and take the ultimate action against anyone he believes have dimished him over the years. The list, I suspect will be incredibly long.
We know he already asked about using American troops against American citizens...
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
I don't know what happened to my previous post so will state it here whilst affirming that what Labour are doing is badly announcing things and not thinking them through. Expect more of this. Large majorities lead to bad governance. Ergo... The Private Schools body is suing the Govt over VAT on School fees.. the Govt is being challenged over Winter Fuel Allowance
I hope the Telegraph are bashing those liberal lefty lawyers using judicial review to challenge the elected will of the people on WFA.
I hear there is a rumour that a fox killing lawyer is going to try and take a case to the Supreme Court. To limit the "wrong kind of judicial challenge"
Great Jumping Jolyon, the Suburban Samurai with a Baseball Bat.
Ha.
I think it was on this website that the kimono crusader was referred to the Max Bialystock of the judicial review (or words to that effect). It amused me greatly - and every time he comes up in conversation it reminds me of that great musical (even though I was notionally supportive of some of actions he and his organisation took on).
Are there odds on him calling Kamala a c*** by next Tuesday? You just know he does it in private anyway.
I don't think he is that vulgar. Non-drinking, non-smoking/drug-taking.
Plus of that age. I don't think it is in his vernacular.
But we can have a bet if you would like.
Lol, a man who calls his opponents stupid bastards, scum and garbage, mentions the size of a famous sportsman's cock & does an impersonation of a disabled journalist during speeches, and boasts about grabbing women by the pussy isn't 'that vulgar'. A judgment for the ages.
His musings about executing Liz Cheney by firing squad is quite startling. I do wonder whether Trump will enact his wet dreams and take the ultimate action against anyone he believes have dimished him over the years. The list, I suspect will be incredibly long.
I mean his lawyers were asked by the Supreme Court if ordering a Seal team to execute an opponent would be covered by immunity and he essentially said yes, though it might depend. And surely acting as commander and chief is immune or presumed immune under the courts interpretation, as it would be an official act.
Regardless, the double standard applied by media and the public about what language to get upset about is preposterous.
That's a laughable suggestion. If he ordered a Seal team to kill his opponents, it would take at least four years for them to start the mission.
Those book and film deals don't just write themselves you know. Plus most of them would be serving 4 years+ in prison for various crimes and hijinks....
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
I don't doubt but it is getting everyone agitated. Plus ISAs are a good tax avoidance wheeze.
An ISA is not tax avoidance.
“Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage, that parliament never intended.” (HMRC, 2015)
Yup I just had to endure some very boring training on financial crime so I know categorically that ISAs do not fall under the umbrella of tax avoidance, let alone evasion. Using the tax rules in the way they were intended is not tax avoidance, even if technically you are avoiding taxes.
Why is nobody in media even mentioning that £1m IHT agriculture relief is in addition to the £1m IHT relief any (married) person gets when leaving property to children.
ie If you live on a farm and want to leave it to your son you pay no IHT on the first £2m (assuming you are / were married and spouse not using their exemption for anything else).
Was listening to lengthy debate hosted by Chorley on R5L yesterday with farmers complaining - going on about almost all farms are worth over £1m - at no point did anyone say farmers can leave £2m tax free.
Why not? Hopeless media reporting - nobody appears to have even the most basic understanding of how tax system works.
Let's get real. It appears no political journalist has the faintest idea.
How many people even on this website (one of the most informed places for political debate) were aware of this?
I'm sure I read it can go up to £3m if there's a home on the farm.
The likes of Clarkson, pretending he cares about other people, when it's actually his inheritance plans that have been affected, will moan. But if the policy doesn't effect many in practice, the outrage from the kind of family farmers people actually care about, will disappear over time.
In her budget speech Reeves made the direct claim that three-quarters of farms would be unaffected by the inheritance tax changes. Since then there's been a lot of sound and fury suggesting that this was not true, and that small family farms will have to be sold.
If Reeves has misled the House on this it should be a very big deal. I would expect her to be forced to come grovelling to the House to correct the record, at the very least.
Can anyone definitively show that Reeves misled the House?
If Reeves was being truthful then I do not think that expecting the largest quarter of farms to pay 20% IHT is problematic. Those at the bottom of that range will only pay 20% on a small fraction of the farm, and so the IHT bill will be modest. The very largest farms - the top eighth or so - should be large enough enterprises that they can pay the larger IHT due.
There isn't 100% tax relief on inheritance (capital acquisitions) tax on farmland or businesses in Ireland, but I believe much more farmland in Ireland is owner-occupied than in Britain. If Irish family farms can pay a form of IHT, then so can the largest quarter of British family farms.
Suspect there are a few things going on.
Part is the fear that everyone has of Inheritance Tax. We hear the FORTY PERCENT (which for most people is a huge rate) but not the (above a threshold that is pretty high so most of your estate won't be touched by it).
Part of it is the real, but impossible to quantify, emotional attachment of a family to a patch of land. Which, right now, feels like another luxury the nation can't afford to indulge.
Partly, it's shit-stirring by the opposition and their chunk of the media. Which may not be nice, bit is part of the game.
But also, there's an awkard point which I think Dan the Taxman made. If you have a farm, and the value of that farm is over £2 million, and that capital and the sweat equity of the farmers isn't producing enough profit to support this much tax once a generation... It's not a great business. And that's a horrible thing to say to people who work harder than I do for less reward. But it's where we are. And as with some other things the nation ducks, it boils down to a simple question. Do we want Britain to be a productive place, with all the benefits that entails, or not?
Farming is not a high reward per unit capital industry.
However, the government has spent vast amounts of time, effort etc on making sure that you can't use that capital (the land) for much else.
So if the farmers stop farming, then the asset (the land) won't be used for more productive (more GDP uses).
So that argument doesn't work.
How about some of these houses we're supposed to be building?
What average dwelling density are we looking at ?
2 million dwellings at 13/acre ~= 150,000 acres of farmland needed. You'll need some roads and infrastructure (More land) but also there might be conversions and upwards build elsewhere (less land).
The estimate for farmland looks to be 40 million acres. So that only affects 0.3% of farmland. However you cook the numbers the truth is most farmland isn't going to be used for housing any time soon.
Most of that sort of land area would be available from scrub, brown belt, or former sites in the countryside such as mines, airfields etc, I would think.
That emphasises the point even more, even if Labour exceed their housing target it won't materially cut into the UK's farmland.
For clarity, I'm not forecasting armed insurrection in America because I want it or find it entertaining. The opposite. I just struggle to see how they avoid that in any scenario other than a big Trump win. And even in that scenario it just flips the other way - Trump does everything he says he is going to do and you're going to get armed militias imposing Gilead as they round up Jake Tapper and illegals and 'that guy down the street who looks funny'.
So time to plan a hoilday there. Could be good value soon if lot's of people avoid it. Road trip.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
I don't know what happened to my previous post so will state it here whilst affirming that what Labour are doing is badly announcing things and not thinking them through. Expect more of this. Large majorities lead to bad governance. Ergo... The Private Schools body is suing the Govt over VAT on School fees.. the Govt is being challenged over Winter Fuel Allowance
I hope the Telegraph are bashing those liberal lefty lawyers using judicial review to challenge the elected will of the people on WFA.
I hear there is a rumour that a fox killing lawyer is going to try and take a case to the Supreme Court. To limit the "wrong kind of judicial challenge"
Great Jumping Jolyon, the Suburban Samurai with a Baseball Bat.
Ha.
I think it was on this website that the kimono crusader was referred to the Max Bialystock of the judicial review (or words to that effect). It amused me greatly - and every time he comes up in conversation it reminds me of that great musical (even though I was notionally supportive of some of actions he and his organisation took on).
Hah! I won’t ever be able to think of him as anything else now.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
I don't doubt but it is getting everyone agitated. Plus ISAs are a good tax avoidance wheeze.
An ISA is not tax avoidance.
“Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage, that parliament never intended.” (HMRC, 2015)
"It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law".
So in other words it is perfectly legal and this description is designed a) to give The State more power over you at their sole discretion and whim; and b) scare you. Which latter it appears to have done.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
I don't doubt but it is getting everyone agitated. Plus ISAs are a good tax avoidance wheeze.
An ISA is not tax avoidance.
“Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage, that parliament never intended.” (HMRC, 2015)
"It involves operating within the letter, butnot the spirit, of the law".
So in other words it is perfectly legal and this description is designed a) to give The State more power over you at their sole discretion and whim; and b) scare you. Which latter it appears to have done.
If the State doesn't want you to use ISA's, it has the power to stop you.
His musings about executing Liz Cheney by firing squad is quite startling. I do wonder whether Trump will enact his wet dreams and take the ultimate action against anyone he believes have dimished him over the years. The list, I suspect will be incredibly long.
We know he already asked about using American troops against American citizens...
Like we do under MACP, you mean.
No he's thinking out loud about his options for retribution against his political, personal and business opponents
SCOTUS have already given him the green light, an understanding unavailable to him prior to January 20th 2021.
A council is considering a city centre ban on cyclists to protect pedestrians, with fines for people who do not comply.
Birmingham City council has become the latest local authority to discuss barring cyclists from pedestrian-only areas to curb anti-social cycling.
A report by the council’s regulation and community safety executives has raised concerns that food and parcel couriers on e-bikes, travelling “at speed and without care for pedestrians”, pose a particular danger to the public in areas of high footfall.
The report, published earlier this month, proposes extending the city’s public spaces protection order to encompass cycling. The move would add it to a list of anti-social behaviours that includes graffiti, street drinking, large gatherings, and excessive noise.
The report said cycling could be “restricted by time periods” or banned outright, with the issue being put to a public consultation.
I'm surprised that this has taken so long to hit the national media. Telegraph article in the Telegraph; more rounded piece in the Groan; I have not checked the Daily Wail. Disabled charities on my network (TBF this is focused on active travel, of course) have been contacting Birmingham Council with their concerns for 2-3 weeks, as it will impact their members / supporters / clients who use cycles or adapted cycles as their mobility aid, and cannot walk, who will be targeted for harassment by Council or BID officers (this happens routinely), who are never trained properly. This is Council Officers as Jesus: Pick up your Mobility Aid and Walk.
TLDR: I don't see this happening, because BCCs evidence does not support the claims. Cycling has been normal in Brum City Centre for 50-70 years, and the Council Report specifically - as mentioned by @Big_G_NorthWales - talks about food delivery and parcel couriers travelling at high speed, probably on mopeds not pedal-cycles, and mini van style cargo bikes (think Postman Pat)also at speed.
The former are a problem of supply chain and business regulation, with laws in place that can manage it, and the latter can be regulated. The way Scotland does it is by treating delivery riders as Street Traders needing a licence. The current UK Govt, unlike the last one, will get onto that. As a PSPO it needs one against ASB, not a ban on things that the Council's evidence do not identify as a problem.
One problem is the PSPO process, which legally requires evidence, but practically they can be pushed though with none, and are set up to be almost impossible to stop. The only one I have ever seen stopped was the Mansfield one about 5 years ago, where 5 locals targeted by it threatened a High Court legal action and forced them to moderate it. The Mansfield one was in reaction to a couple of occasions where kids had been wheelying around the outdoor market, and Captain Mainwaring jerked his knee.
The PSPO process needs reform to address problems and not address prejudices. At present these style of PSPO tend to exist in Reform type, or Blue Rinse type, coastal towns, or in fairly leafy country places. And one or two places where LD or Lab have gone local populist.
There already exist good inclusive models in Leicester, and to an extent Coventry, which Brum can follow. If they try and persist, I think they are big enough to get a challenge - but we shall see. I think they will take a via media.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
I don't know what happened to my previous post so will state it here whilst affirming that what Labour are doing is badly announcing things and not thinking them through. Expect more of this. Large majorities lead to bad governance. Ergo... The Private Schools body is suing the Govt over VAT on School fees.. the Govt is being challenged over Winter Fuel Allowance
So two sets of lawyers finding a set of fools willing to pay money on no hope cases because unless I'm mistaking
1) The law they are using for private schools doesn't talk about the cost of it just that its allowed 2) age discrimination doesn't work when you have to be 67 to get the WFA...
The interesting point to my mind is how do the government exempt universities? Both provide education, similar charitable set-up in many cases, an overlap in ages for eighteen year olds etc.
You see that would be a far better approach to the court case - these items (universities) you want exempt shouldn't be exempt is a case I think there would be more chance of winning (and the consequences far more likely to result in the issue going away).
In the case of the private schools, the SEND issue will bring in all kinds of problems, I suspect.
I think it would be fair for Labour to point out that it's a deeply unfair system that requires charity to step in to provide SEND education.
And they've just increased SEND funding by £1 billion, which rather backs them up.
I haven’t changed my mind on Kamala Harris winning comfortably. And I’m looking forward to the elaborate explanations from the polling companies on why they failed to predict the result.
Harris winning comfortably is within the margin of error for the pollsters.
"The error was comparable to past elections and better than some. We do not see the need for an enquiry" "It was within MOE" "There was a late surge" "People didn't make their minds up until the day" "Our methodology was correct but turnout/response rates were low or skewed by nonresponse" "We have adjusted our weights to compensate and are confident we will get it right next time"
No hiding for US pollsters this time round. A comfortable victory for either candidate leaves them with a massive amount of egg on their face. If they're as bad as our polls were (For Lab/Con) at the recent GE then it's basically a landslide either way and they'll be crucified. They need it to be close to preserve their reputation. It might not be !
I actually disagree. What it boils down to is that polling US presidential elections can be very difficult. If they have a fault, it's not stating the real level of uncertainty regarding their predictions.
Which is where Jon Ralston again scored this year, by admitting he was unusually stumped.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
From the Samaritans’ guidance on reporting suicide: “Speculation about the ‘trigger’ or cause of a suicide can oversimplify the issue and should be avoided. Suicide is extremely complex and most of the time there is no single event or factor that leads someone to take their own life.”
Perhaps the government should have thought twice before bringing pension funds into IHT from April 2027 - a proper Dick Turpin measure which will result in suicides ahead of that date I guarantee it.
What part of “Speculation about the ‘trigger’ or cause of a suicide can oversimplify the issue and should be avoided. Suicide is extremely complex and most of the time there is no single event or factor that leads someone to take their own life.” do you not understand?
Bit different discussing a particular suicide, and some of the triggers which might result in suicides in general.
It's entirely reasonable to discuss policy measures which might result in suicides, especially policy measures where there could be a very strong financial incentive to die before a certain cut off date.
Comments
(You could explain this by the theory of evolution -- if that's still legal in the UK.)
If Reeves has misled the House on this it should be a very big deal. I would expect her to be forced to come grovelling to the House to correct the record, at the very least.
Can anyone definitively show that Reeves misled the House?
If Reeves was being truthful then I do not think that expecting the largest quarter of farms to pay 20% IHT is problematic. Those at the bottom of that range will only pay 20% on a small fraction of the farm, and so the IHT bill will be modest. The very largest farms - the top eighth or so - should be large enough enterprises that they can pay the larger IHT due.
There isn't 100% tax relief on inheritance (capital acquisitions) tax on farmland or businesses in Ireland, but I believe much more farmland in Ireland is owner-occupied than in Britain. If Irish family farms can pay a form of IHT, then so can the largest quarter of British family farms.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
You just know he does it in private anyway.
Ergo...
The Private Schools body is suing the Govt over VAT on
School fees.. the Govt is being challenged over Winter Fuel Allowance
Plus of that age. I don't think it is in his vernacular.
But we can have a bet if you would like.
Part is the fear that everyone has of Inheritance Tax. We hear the FORTY PERCENT (which for most people is a huge rate) but not the (above a threshold that is pretty high so most of your estate won't be touched by it).
Part of it is the real, but impossible to quantify, emotional attachment of a family to a patch of land. Which, right now, feels like another luxury the nation can't afford to indulge.
Partly, it's shit-stirring by the opposition and their chunk of the media. Which may not be nice, bit is part of the game.
But also, there's an awkard point which I think Dan the Taxman made. If you have a farm, and the value of that farm is over £2 million, and that capital and the sweat equity of the farmers isn't producing enough profit to support this much tax once a generation... It's not a great business. And that's a horrible thing to say to people who work harder than I do for less reward. But it's where we are. And as with some other things the nation ducks, it boils down to a simple question. Do we want Britain to be a productive place, with all the benefits that entails, or not?
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
There is nothing that will convince people (Covid didn't) that we need to be self-sufficient in all kinds of things including energy and food and perhaps that is the right call we can always get stuff from
UkraineChinaNorth KoreaAfrica.Farms are cyclical businesses and sometimes make money and sometimes don't. I would like to see some kind of long-term profitability assessment otherwise I do think that hundreds of thousands of acres will end up in Dyson's hands or someone similar although as noted, we don't seem to think this is a bad thing.
Labour: 30% (+1)
Conservatives: 24% (=)
Liberal Democrats: 14% (+1)
Reform UK: 18% (-1)
Greens: 7% (=)
SNP: 2% (=)
Others: 5% (-1)
https://www.techneuk.com/tracker/
If there's one thing that really makes me feel ill it's when that sort of nonsense happens.
However, the government has spent vast amounts of time, effort etc on making sure that you can't use that capital (the land) for much else.
So if the farmers stop farming, then the asset (the land) won't be used for more productive (more GDP uses).
So that argument doesn't work.
A judgment for the ages.
Nathan is in SF 🔍
@NathanpmYoung
·
8h
I still think you should bet £100 on it, and very good prices atm.
Rory Stewart
@RoryStewartUK
·
7h
Have done
1) The law they are using for private schools doesn't talk about the cost of it just that its allowed
2) age discrimination doesn't work when you have to be 67 to get the WFA...
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
Early voting figures might be giving us a bit of a clue but in an election where 1% could prove decisive, again, partial results can be misleading without the fuller picture.
Will women swing it? Maybe. But Harris would have had more chance with that strategy if she's campaigned on the pertinent issues earlier and harder. My gut feeling still says Trump.
They also have ten years to pay the IHT bill due.
No one else gets a £2m exemption, a 20% rate after that and gets ten whole years to pay up.
And if the sons are really interested in taking on the farm, then hand it on when you reach retirement age and live 7 years.
I would never claim to be particularly knowledgeable, but I do know that my wife's uncle has done very well with the family dairy farm. It's grown a huge amount over the decades.
One factor might be that, just over a century ago, it helped to form a cooperative of local farmers. That cooperative, with four or five other cooperatives in the wider area, co-owns a major cheese factory (and more besides, they also have stores for feed and agricultural equipment, and we bought our TV from them). So the farmers own a big chunk of the value chain. They aren't simply selling milk into the market.
I feel like it's this level of mutual organisation that is particularly lacking in Britain at the moment. The state is not the only option for mutual cooperation.
"Representation" isn't a particularly good way of describing what that was about.
He's still far more credible on local issues for his former constituency, and on overseas aid given the development charities he is personally involved in running.
It’s seen as kicking people when they’re down, and taking another chunk out of what has already been taxed.
Massive IMO.
And there has never been much trouble (or cost) in acquiring farmland for infrastructure projects.
2 million dwellings at 13/acre ~= 150,000 acres of farmland needed. You'll need some roads and infrastructure (More land) but also there might be conversions and upwards build elsewhere (less land).
The estimate for farmland looks to be 40 million acres. So that only affects 0.3% of farmland. However you cook the numbers the truth is most farmland isn't going to be used for housing any time soon.
tia
“Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage, that parliament never intended.” (HMRC, 2015)
So the government can go round buying any land it feels like, at agricultural land prices, if it wants to.
https://x.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1852327135811113063
https://www.fidelity.co.uk/markets-insights/personal-finance/personal-finance/qa-new-double-tax-on-inherited-pensions/#:~:text=The change isn't happening,how this change will work.
"It was within MOE"
"There was a late surge"
"People didn't make their minds up until the day"
"Our methodology was correct but turnout/response rates were low or skewed by nonresponse"
"We have adjusted our weights to compensate and are confident we will get it right next time"
Regardless, the double standard applied by media and the public about what language to get upset about is preposterous.
The risk is that an underling takes the boss seriously and puts in the effort to make it happen to impress him. Trump's hardly likely to put in the effort to stop it from happening either.
Though I still prefer the version of the fable where the tortoise is a cheat.
Those book and film deals don't just write themselves you know. Plus most of them would be serving 4 years+ in prison for various crimes and hijinks....
How much effect this has hard to tell as most polling won’t have time to include that in its fieldwork before the election .
Whether mitigations such as the two hurricanes and Boeing strike can moderate some of the impact , Harris will hope so.
So in other words it is perfectly legal and this description is designed a) to give The State more power over you at their sole discretion and whim; and b) scare you. Which latter it appears to have done.
But it doesn't.
SCOTUS have already given him the green light, an understanding unavailable to him prior to January 20th 2021.
TLDR: I don't see this happening, because BCCs evidence does not support the claims. Cycling has been normal in Brum City Centre for 50-70 years, and the Council Report specifically - as mentioned by @Big_G_NorthWales - talks about food delivery and parcel couriers travelling at high speed, probably on mopeds not pedal-cycles, and mini van style cargo bikes (think Postman Pat)also at speed.
The former are a problem of supply chain and business regulation, with laws in place that can manage it, and the latter can be regulated. The way Scotland does it is by treating delivery riders as Street Traders needing a licence. The current UK Govt, unlike the last one, will get onto that. As a PSPO it needs one against ASB, not a ban on things that the Council's evidence do not identify as a problem.
One problem is the PSPO process, which legally requires evidence, but practically they can be pushed though with none, and are set up to be almost impossible to stop. The only one I have ever seen stopped was the Mansfield one about 5 years ago, where 5 locals targeted by it threatened a High Court legal action and forced them to moderate it. The Mansfield one was in reaction to a couple of occasions where kids had been wheelying around the outdoor market, and Captain Mainwaring jerked his knee.
The PSPO process needs reform to address problems and not address prejudices. At present these style of PSPO tend to exist in Reform type, or Blue Rinse type, coastal towns, or in fairly leafy country places. And one or two places where LD or Lab have gone local populist.
There already exist good inclusive models in Leicester, and to an extent Coventry, which Brum can follow. If they try and persist, I think they are big enough to get a challenge - but we shall see. I think they will take a via media.
And they've just increased SEND funding by £1 billion, which rather backs them up.
What it boils down to is that polling US presidential elections can be very difficult. If they have a fault, it's not stating the real level of uncertainty regarding their predictions.
Which is where Jon Ralston again scored this year, by admitting he was unusually stumped.
It's entirely reasonable to discuss policy measures which might result in suicides, especially policy measures where there could be a very strong financial incentive to die before a certain cut off date.