Why are Farmers Complaining

eskbanker

The_Green_Hornet said:

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.

But the degree of interpretation needed is determined by the writer....

The_Green_Hornet

eskbanker said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

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.

But the degree of interpretation needed is determined by the writer....

You can use whatever linguistic gymnastics you wish to meet your own interpretation of what was written.

oldernonethewiser

Clarkson came across well when interviewed by Victoria Derbyshire.

Disputing comments you made when quoted back to you and belittling the questions and questioner is really not a good look.

Be better if the protestors found another person to speak for them

movilogo

IHT rates around the world

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inheritance_tax_rates

Many countries don't have it. UK has one of the highest rates - yet we have one of the widest rich poor gap in UK among developed countries. 

In USA there is no federal IHT, but some states have it. 

I am against IHT in principle. 

If farmers demand to abolish IHT altogether they'd get full public support.

The way house price is going up, nearly everyone within 100 miles of London will end up paying IHT in near future.

bjorn_toby_wilde

Cobbler_tone said:

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

Absolutely they were but they didn’t say it would be “the end of farming”. That would be daft.

daveyjp

artyboy said:

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...

If you are working in a non IHT business environment there is no incentive to look at avoidance measures.  The proposed budget changes will lead to changes such as the above being considered by farmers.

There's a similar group of people who own very expensive assets, are subject to weather and market prices to make a living with no guarantee of a return, but will also be expected to pay IHT - the fishing community.  What do they do to avoid the tax?  That's who farmers need to be speaking to.

Baldytyke88

MattMattMattUK said:

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?

There are some countries with a higher IT than the UK, but what the wealthy do is put their assets in a trust.

That is what Margaret Thatcher did, gone are the days when the rich were taxed fairly.

I think a tax rate of 40% is rather high, because people avoid it, but the farmers are getting a 20% rate.

Baldytyke88

artyboy said:

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...

I have read that almost 50% of farmers rent their land, so maybe some do avoid IT in that way?

DairyQueen

Albermarle said:

One point I do not get is that farmers constantly complain that costs are high, prices low and therefore they have very skinny margins .
Why then would you want your heirs to run such a difficult low margin business?

I suspect that farming is a more lucrative business than they make out, and they just like moaning a lot ( especially about the weather !) 

No, it isn't, and they don;'t. I assume that you are an urban-dweller? If not you would understand that family farms are more than about inheritance and cash flow.

QrizB

Baldytyke88 said:

I have read that almost 50% of farmers rent their land, so maybe some do avoid IT in that way?

You've got that back-to-front.

Farmers have to rent their land from the IHT-dodgers who own it.

If owning farmland wasn't attractive as a way of avoiding IHT, fewer IHT-dodgers would want to own it, prices would fall and farmers would have a chance of buying their own.