Why are Farmers Complaining

MattMattMattUK

Asimovs_nightfall said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Asimovs_nightfall said:

The fairest thing to do would be to abolish inheritance - not inheritance tax!

Ah yes, envy, a great way to make policy decisions. If I work hard all my life, if I pay my taxes, if I invest and accumulate from my taxed income I should get to decide where that goes at the end, not have it confiscated by the state. 

Asimovs_nightfall said:

That would reshape the economy and address the levels of inequality that ultimately affect lower income/revenue farmers just as everyone else.

It would reshape the economy by causing most of the best and brightest to leave, it would go against human nature as parents want to provide for their children, it would be an inherently bad policy on just about every level. 

Absolute not envy.  Just a simple idealised statement.  What better than everyone having exactly the same starting point? 

Very far from an idealised state. Dragging everyone down to the same low level is almost always fuelled by envy. You want to remove the very important part of human nature and childrearing, being able to help one's children and family members. If it cannot be inherited then people will be encouraged to waste it then rely on the state once the money is gone or just leave the country for somewhere better. 

Asimovs_nightfall said:

Although I don't know what I'd do if 'the best and brightest' left.  I'd be mortified.   No Charlie Mullins to fix my gas boiler on days like today.

** END

He is not the best and brightest. We already have a huge brain drain, medical staff going to Australia and New Zealand, top scientists going to the US and Singapore, top engineers going to Germany and South Korea. Do you really want a mass exodus of everyone with highly valued skills because you want to confiscate their property at the ends of their lives?

Inheritance tax is an inherently bad tax, just as SDLT tax is. Tax income in all it's forms, tax spending to both shape social policy and to generate income from international spending, but the idea of mass confiscation of property is truly evil authoritarianism. 

DoublePolaroid

OP's username checks out.

Cobbler_tone

Didn't the farmers protest and say it would be the end of farming if fox hunting was banned? 

This story has certainly divided public opinion.

artyboy

Given that farms are a business, and often quite a large one, is there a reason why their assets are not typically owned through limited companies (or another suitable legal entity structure) that the farmer and any relevant spouse/offspring could be directors of?

I admit I'm no expert in this field, but it seems to be the fact that the land etc is directly owned by the farmer as a personal asset that's what will cause IHT liability...

bjorn_toby_wilde

Cobbler_tone said:

Didn't the farmers protest and say it would be the end of farming if fox hunting was banned? 

This story has certainly divided public opinion.

No, they didn’t. It was hunters, not farmers who protested and it was about the livelihoods of those connected with hunting, not farming. Most farmers rightly have no time for the hunt. The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable.

The_Green_Hornet

eskbanker said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

Maybe because farmers were told before the election that inheritance tax rules wouldn't change.

Do you have an authoritative source for that?

The only reference to IHT in the Labour manifesto was "We will end the use of offshore trusts to avoid inheritance tax so that everyone who makes their home here in the UK pays their taxes here".

Steve Reed told two farmers' conferences a year ago, when he was shadow environment secretary, that Labour had no plans to change inheritance rules, including Agricultural Property Relief (APR), which gives them a 100% exemption.

I don't have links to transcripts for those conferences but this Sky news article also mentions that Mr Reed confirmed today that he had said it.

Environment Secretary Steve Reed says farmers are 'happily' wrong about how many farms affected by inheritance tax | Politics News | Sky News

But as, we all know, when a politician says they "have no plans" to do something it doesn't mean that they won't do it. In this case they appear to have been "forced" into it by the previous lot.

Cobbler_tone

bjorn_toby_wilde said:

Cobbler_tone said:

Didn't the farmers protest and say it would be the end of farming if fox hunting was banned? 

This story has certainly divided public opinion.

No, they didn’t. It was hunters, not farmers who protested and it was about the livelihoods of those connected with hunting, not farming. Most farmers rightly have no time for the hunt. The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable.

I live within that community. Plenty of farmers were involved in hunting and were certainly part of the rural protests.

https://www.countryside-alliance.org/resources/news/remembering-the-biggest-rural-protest-in-the-uk

Linton

MattMattMattUK said:

Asimovs_nightfall said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Asimovs_nightfall said:

The fairest thing to do would be to abolish inheritance - not inheritance tax!

Ah yes, envy, a great way to make policy decisions. If I work hard all my life, if I pay my taxes, if I invest and accumulate from my taxed income I should get to decide where that goes at the end, not have it confiscated by the state. 

Asimovs_nightfall said:

That would reshape the economy and address the levels of inequality that ultimately affect lower income/revenue farmers just as everyone else.

It would reshape the economy by causing most of the best and brightest to leave, it would go against human nature as parents want to provide for their children, it would be an inherently bad policy on just about every level. 

Absolute not envy.  Just a simple idealised statement.  What better than everyone having exactly the same starting point? 

Very far from an idealised state. Dragging everyone down to the same low level is almost always fuelled by envy. You want to remove the very important part of human nature and childrearing, being able to help one's children and family members. If it cannot be inherited then people will be encouraged to waste it then rely on the state once the money is gone or just leave the country for somewhere better. 

Asimovs_nightfall said:

Although I don't know what I'd do if 'the best and brightest' left.  I'd be mortified.   No Charlie Mullins to fix my gas boiler on days like today.

** END

He is not the best and brightest. We already have a huge brain drain, medical staff going to Australia and New Zealand, top scientists going to the US and Singapore, top engineers going to Germany and South Korea. Do you really want a mass exodus of everyone with highly valued skills because you want to confiscate their property at the ends of their lives?

Inheritance tax is an inherently bad tax, just as SDLT tax is. Tax income in all it's forms, tax spending to both shape social policy and to generate income from international spending, but the idea of mass confiscation of property is truly evil authoritarianism. 

In my view inheritance tax is essential unless you want great wealth and great poverty cascading down the generations with the resultant lack of social cohesion.  I cant see such a society continuing to exist in a democracy.  Apparently we have had taxation at death since 1796.

I dont think top engineers and scientists leave the country to avoid inheritance tax.  Most are surely interested in the jobs available now and the amount they get paid for doing them. Those that do emigrate would tend to be young, not the top people in their profession.

 From a quick search it would appear that the US has minimal allowances for inheritance taxation and its level is pretty similar to ours.

eskbanker

The_Green_Hornet said:

eskbanker said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

Maybe because farmers were told before the election that inheritance tax rules wouldn't change.

Do you have an authoritative source for that?

The only reference to IHT in the Labour manifesto was "We will end the use of offshore trusts to avoid inheritance tax so that everyone who makes their home here in the UK pays their taxes here".

Steve Reed told two farmers' conferences a year ago, when he was shadow environment secretary, that Labour had no plans to change inheritance rules, including Agricultural Property Relief (APR), which gives them a 100% exemption.

I don't have links to transcripts for those conferences but this Sky news article also mentions that Mr Reed confirmed today that he had said it.

Environment Secretary Steve Reed says farmers are 'happily' wrong about how many farms affected by inheritance tax | Politics News | Sky News

But as, we all know, when a politician says they "have no plans" to do something it doesn't mean that they won't do it. In this case they appear to have been "forced" into it by the previous lot.

Ah right, I understood 'before the election' to mean immediately before (e.g. when campaigning) rather than comments made last year.

The_Green_Hornet

eskbanker said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

eskbanker said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

Maybe because farmers were told before the election that inheritance tax rules wouldn't change.

Do you have an authoritative source for that?

The only reference to IHT in the Labour manifesto was "We will end the use of offshore trusts to avoid inheritance tax so that everyone who makes their home here in the UK pays their taxes here".

Steve Reed told two farmers' conferences a year ago, when he was shadow environment secretary, that Labour had no plans to change inheritance rules, including Agricultural Property Relief (APR), which gives them a 100% exemption.

I don't have links to transcripts for those conferences but this Sky news article also mentions that Mr Reed confirmed today that he had said it.

Environment Secretary Steve Reed says farmers are 'happily' wrong about how many farms affected by inheritance tax | Politics News | Sky News

But as, we all know, when a politician says they "have no plans" to do something it doesn't mean that they won't do it. In this case they appear to have been "forced" into it by the previous lot.

Ah right, I understood 'before the election' to mean immediately before (e.g. when campaigning) rather than comments made last year.

How you interpret the English language is up to you.