Following on from the Budget, why shouldn't Farmers pay inheritance tax like the rest of us?

[JohnfromUK]

7 minutes ago, oowee said:

How many of the £520m are farms? 

 

Land is being taken from farming now precisely because of its tax advantages. 

Most taken for that reason is actually available to the farm rental market, so helps younger 'new' farm businesses.  one of the big local estates lets out more than half it's acreage to tenant farmers.

[oowee]

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

Most taken for that reason is actually available to the farm rental market, so helps younger 'new' farm businesses.  one of the big local estates lets out more than half it's acreage to tenant farmers.

Where is that data?

[JohnfromUK]

7 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

TTK is stating that the BBC are backing the Farm IHT issue.

It is the BBCs duty to report facts, not back policies.

Just now, oowee said:

Where is that data?

I know the local estate well - that's my local knowledge.

[oowee]

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

It is the BBCs duty to report facts, not back policies.

I know the local estate well - that's my local knowledge.

Seems to me this has generated an awful lot of froth amongst Tory farmers, but I have no data for that either. 

It would be good to hear from accountants as to the ways around this IHT for true farmers. Even the seven year transfer rule is an apparently possible option. 

Adjacent to one of my farms are three large rewilding areas, the smallest being 70 acres and the largest being 600. No farming takes place. This from Savills about forming a syndicate for purchase.https://www.savills.co.uk/blog/article/217949/rural-property/buying-in-a-syndicate-to-secure-the-rural-dream.aspx

[amateur]

5 minutes ago, oowee said:

Where is that data?

Don't worry. If you quoted any data, he would tell you that it is wrong.

The Sir Humphrey on here only acknowleges data that supports his fairytale socialist vision where the lazy and feckless, together with the Channel Crossers, by some miracle now that there is a Labour government, suddenly become incentivised and support themselves, rather than the reality, which is that Labour would prefer us all to be poor supplicants, dependent upon their handouts

[oowee]

2 minutes ago, amateur said:

Don't worry. If you quoted any data, he would tell you that it is wrong.

The Sir Humphrey on here only acknowleges data that supports his fairytale socialist vision where the lazy and feckless, together with the Channel Crossers, by some miracle now that there is a Labour government, suddenly become incentivised and support themselves, rather than the reality, which is that Labour would prefer us all to be poor supplicants, dependent upon their handouts

Do you have any data for that 🤣

 

[amateur]

3 minutes ago, oowee said:

........It would be good to hear from accountants as to the ways around this IHT for true farmers. Even the seven year transfer rule is an apparently possible option. ......

Any transfer, other than to a spouse, which is not the main residence (so most of the land and farm buildings) would attract CGT, unless it were deemed to be a wasting asset.

3 minutes ago, oowee said:

Do you have any data for that 🤣

 

Historical precedent.

[oowee]

4 minutes ago, amateur said:

Any transfer, other than to a spouse, which is not the main residence (so most of the land and farm buildings) would attract CGT, unless it were deemed to be a wasting asset.

Lots of chat on the farming forum (as you might imagine) https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/iht-and-cgt.418541/

[mellors]

Spoke to one of my farmers last night. 

He said any farm of 150 acres with machinery and house will be close or on 3 million value and getting that 3 million relief looks very difficult it will be more like 1.35 million allowance taking the wife's allowance into account so 400 thousand tax to paid over ten years after death will be the end of any of those farms. 

Coupled with that most farms that size rely on rented land to remain viable. 

Should then a private landlord die those farms will go with him. 

[ShootingEgg]

1 hour ago, oowee said:

It does not mean they pay IHT. Lots of chomping on the bit here without a lot of knowledge. 

Ah insult knowledge. Well done.

[oldypigeonpopper]

5 minutes ago, mellors said:

Spoke to one of my farmers last night. 

He said any farm of 150 acres with machinery and house will be close or on 3 million value and getting that 3 million relief looks very difficult it will be more like 1.35 million allowance taking the wife's allowance into account so 400 thousand tax to paid over ten years after death will be the end of any of those farms. 

Coupled with that most farms that size rely on rented land to remain viable. 

Should then a private landlord die those farms will go with him. 

Hello, There is going to be a lot more Farms than predicted by Labour on the News yesterday

[mellors]

13 minutes ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

Hello, There is going to be a lot more Farms than predicted by Labour on the News yesterday

Very little has been mentioned about the future of tenet farmers so far. 

With there uncertain future after private landlords death and land sold for IHT. 

 

 

[JohnfromUK]

1 hour ago, amateur said:

Any transfer, other than to a spouse, which is not the main residence (so most of the land and farm buildings) would attract CGT, unless it were deemed to be a wasting asset.

Correct - and the elephant in the room no one mentions.  And potentially if you pay CGT, transfer under 7 year rule, and don't live the full 7 years, you may pay BOTH CGT and IHT.

CGT is a probably a big sum for family farms since the land will have been in ownership for a long time (effectively since the last probate reset in most cases) - whereas land bought recently for (legal) tax avoidance purposes may show a much lower gain - hence less CGT.

[oldypigeonpopper]

9 minutes ago, mellors said:

Very little has been mentioned about the future of tenet farmers so far. 

With there uncertain future after private landlords death and land sold for IHT. 

 

 

Hello, Your right, Nothing much has been said about Tenant Farmers 

Edited Wednesday at 10:41 by oldypigeonpopper

[oowee]

1 hour ago, ShootingEgg said:

Ah insult knowledge. Well done.

🤣

But you are red through and through so no point in having these discussions.

You seriously have to ask this .. case and point your just a labour luvvy...

[LeadWasp]

Saved from the 2010 General Election. Posted as relevant to taxation.

Edited Wednesday at 14:22 by LeadWasp

[oowee]

 Between 2018 and 2020, nearly £600m in inheritance tax relief went to about 200 estates with an average value of £6m. Each claimed more than £1m in relief. Even once the changes are brought in, agricultural land will be taxed at 20% – half the rate of other assets.

[murray smith]

Govts. intention seems to me to make us all cold, poor and hungry, we will then be entirely dependent on the Govt and obedient. Dunno who the Govt is working for but IMO it isnt us. Any one else have a better explanation of UK Govt. actions?

[Penelope]

9 minutes ago, murray smith said:

Govts. intention seems to me to make us all cold, poor and hungry, we will then be entirely dependent on the Govt and obedient. Dunno who the Govt is working for but IMO it isnt us. Any one else have a better explanation of UK Govt. actions?

Uncle Klaus and Larry Fink would be a good bet.

[amateur]

17 minutes ago, murray smith said:

Govts. intention seems to me to make us all cold, poor and hungry, we will then be entirely dependent on the Govt and obedient. Dunno who the Govt is working for but IMO it isnt us. Any one else have a better explanation of UK Govt. actions?

Don't worry, Oowee'll trot out the Party line.

[JohnfromUK]

7 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

The Government and the Chancellor seem to feel very few farms will actually be troubled, BUT they also say the move will raise and awful lot of money, it CAN'T be both?

One quite illuminating point on this;

Total Gov't tax revenue is around £790 B a year.

Of that total IHT revenue is around £7 B a year or 1% of total.

Of the £7B IHT apparently £0.52 B will come from farms, so rather under 0.1% of the total.  Note that the NHS would consume all of that £520M in 2.5 days.

So we are to bankrupt a large number of farms for an additional 0.1% of tax.  It is either economic madness or pure socialist dogma of jealousy and spite against hard working people (but as we know Kier Starmer doesn't know what a 'working person' is - and many of the Labour party don't even seem to know what work is).

[old man]

6 hours ago, oowee said:

How many of the £520m are farms? 

 

Land is being taken from farming now precisely because of its tax advantages. 

Mm, being entirely contentious?

520 million set against the spiraling costs of housing etc required towards  rubber boat brigade? 

If the sums don't match they can always whack our older population with another gem?

[JohnfromUK]

17 minutes ago, old man said:

520 million set against the spiraling costs of housing etc required towards  rubber boat brigade? 

If the sums don't match they can always whack our older population with another gem?

The sums don't match - and by a LONG way;

1. Expected revenue from new IHT rules on farms - £520 million
2. Expected expenditure on housing refugees - please make sure you are sitting down before reading this ........"The estimated cost of asylum accommodation and support for the financial year 2023/24 is £4.7 billion." Source - Google.

So the farm IHT receipts will bay for about 11%  of the asylum seekers bill, or put another way, pay for about 1 month of asylum seeker costs.

You make now get up and have a stiff drink.

[old man]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

The sums don't match - and by a LONG way;

1. Expected revenue from new IHT rules on farms - £520 million
2. Expected expenditure on housing refugees - please make sure you are sitting down before reading this ........"The estimated cost of asylum accommodation and support for the financial year 2023/24 is £4.7 billion." Source - Google.

So the farm IHT receipts will bay for about 11%  of the asylum seekers bill, or put another way, pay for about 1 month of asylum seeker costs.

You make now get up and have a stiff drink.

Thanks John, a revelation!

How proud they must be?

Edited Wednesday at 17:22 by old man

[Scully]

23 hours ago, oowee said:

 

We are always taxed retrospectively. Its still closed loophole or not 🙂 

You know exactly what I meant. 
It can’t be described as a loophole if what the farmers were doing was legal, and allowable by government policy. The policy existed for a reason, and has been changed due to a wealth envious political party. 
Changing that policy smacks of spite to me; allowing farmers to do what any other person in business would do, then shutting that door knowing damn fine it will render some farms unworkable, whilst claiming it won’t effect the majority of farms! 

I don’t care how wealthy some farmers are, I genuinely couldn’t care less. There are small trundling along farms here which have been passed down through generations, but that may come to an end following this.
I know many at both ends of the scale ( my BIL was one of those at the poorer end ) and I’m fully aware of the hours of daily trudge they put in, 365 days a year, because that’s what they do, and they love it.
 I think they deserve every penny they get. I wouldn’t do it, nor would any of those spineless politicians who think up policy and the civil servants who make it possible.
Spite, that’s all it is.