Budget 2024

[BlueAnorak]

None of this is relevant. What's relevant is that he IS a farmer, whether people want to dismiss that or not. People can sit around discussing about why he is this or that and it's a pointless debate because the entire crux is that he's not an illegitimate farmer. He's entitled to his opinion which also seems to be shared by the major bodies in the industry. It was a daft point.

You don't have to have much of a farm to incur the new IHT. Most small holdings are included.

 

[TinFoilHat]

Interesting the don't put a number on small family farms - its been falling year on year for decades btw - however the costs of farming and production are the same today as they were yesterday and will be tomorrow - any taxation changes only apply to inheritance or sale - Farming is being used like fishing was in Brexit and will be dropped the moment grifters can't make use of it any more and left to its fate

I wonder how many of those "small family farms" work off the books?

The NFU has always been the closest the Tories get a trade union.

 

[hinchcliffes bulbous conk]

But you ARE taxed whilst alive as well.

There’s income tax, national insurance, Value added tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty, council tax, dividend tax, savings interest tax and whatever you’ve managed to save after that gets taxed again and the cunts are now taxing your personal pension whereas it was IHT free previously.

Not to forget that once HMRC have forced the scheme trustees to pay the 40% tax and the fund is handed down, the beneficiaries will pay income tax on anything they draw. An effective tax rate of up to 67%...cnuts indeed.

 

[inbetween]

To be fair to him he is trying to run the farm as a legitimate money making business,showing how difficult it is, and he points out several times in the programme first he is learning the industry from others and that he is fortunate to have other incomes so not reliant on the farm, emphasising how hard it is for those that only have farming.
I'd also say his celebrity has held him back from diversifying,with plannig being refused over fear of crowds.

Yep understood, he has done more for farming than anyone else or the government that's for sure.

However, Clarkson spent the majority of the series criticising the government which at the time was the Tories. He is also a big opponent of Brexit which itself has heavily hit farming and that came from agitators on the Tory right.

Labour are more likely to do something about those issues so why is he now saying that farmers just need to wait 5 years until the Tories get back in? Is it about what's best for farming or what's best for farmers, ie, him?

 

[KS55]

Reeves repeatedly stated that this was a budget for growth, we can all debate the ins and outs on here, but it's that growth that she will be judged on over the next few years.

As an aside, I have just come out of our monthly finance teams meeting with our group financial controller amongst others. In that meeting we raised the issue of increasing salary offers to attract the best staff as recruitment is currently difficult. He told us to hold off to see what impact the budget would have, but he was clearly concerned about the NI rises. It was agreed that we couldnt absorb these costs and they would have to be passed on. I suspect most companies are having similar conversations this morning.

I don’t think increasing taxes on the supply side (as opposed to the demand side) is likely to lead to growth. We have a poor balance of trade and this budget is likely to make it worse. Taxes on the demand side do not harm exports and discourage imports. On the supply side, it is the opposite.
Increasing demand side taxes are unpopular, but if the chancellor really wants to inculcate fiscal reality, that is what she should do. Increasing income tax on middle incomes as well as on high incomes is necessary to achieve her stated aims.

 

[KS55]

What I don’t get is why people want to save up all that money rather than gifting it to their family when they need it? It seems a perverse way to show stature.

Personally, as I’ve already got a decent pension, most of my extra money goes to the kids to give them a better life. Affording housing isn’t cheap and with grandchildren, they need help now, not when I’ve kicked the bucket.

As for my house, that’ll be sold off and we’ll downgrade. Again, any spare cash will go to support the family.

I have done exactly that.

 

[mosssideblue]

They are still going to attack the sick and disabled and have set number of savings so it wont be if you need it and need to be left alone , it will be have they hit the targets they are given. ATOS part two

Personally, I think anyone with a genuine disability isn’t who Labour are targeting

 

[BerkshireBlue]

It’s the inheritance factor where people want their children to have it all. My sister in law recently said: “I’m going to spend it all. I’m not letting those layabouts have anything.”

they'll still get the vast majority of its just a tiny percent ie the very wealthy will pay any IHT.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Reeves repeatedly stated that this was a budget for growth, we can all debate the ins and outs on here, but it's that growth that she will be judged on over the next few years.

As an aside, I have just come out of our monthly finance teams meeting with our group financial controller amongst others. In that meeting we raised the issue of increasing salary offers to attract the best staff as recruitment is currently difficult. He told us to hold off to see what impact the budget would have, but he was clearly concerned about the NI rises. It was agreed that we couldnt absorb these costs and they would have to be passed on. I suspect most companies are having similar conversations this morning.

nope, I'm just paying it and paying my staff whatever increase they deserve as the business is profitable still and it sounds like you need a new CFO to me as they're not thinking clearly about growing the business themselves.

 

[bluethrunthru]

excellent

 

[TinFoilHat]

 

[bluethrunthru]

nope, I'm just paying it and paying my staff whatever increase they deserve as the business is profitable still and it sounds like you need a new CFO to me as they're not thinking clearly about growing the business themselves.

The thing to bear in mind is all we are hearing is dissenting voices - people with an agenda or people who can just shout the loudest in which case you would assume all business will collapse with zero wage increases and even dismissals from some businesses. However experience tells us that there will be as always winners and losers. If the winners can pay better wages they can recruit and headhunt the best from those crying poverty which will assist in growth and better staff working harder means they can probably poach business from them too

 

[Manc in London]

Isnt the rise in employers N.I just a stealth tax.
You would have to be naive to think Businesses will absorb the cost ,they will pass these on to the public so we all end up paying more anyway.

How else can the Government pay for the compensation to postmasters and victims of infected blood (I think it is around £14bn) following the Tories kicking the can down the road so they could look after their benefactors and supporters?

Businesses will pass on a proportion of the costs. Most won't be in a position to pass on all costs (e.g. company does that to me then I go to a competitor, based here or in another country). If this was funded through personal tax receipts, the full cost would be covered by the likes of you and me.

 

[Manc in London]

hung out to dry ???????? entitled cunts.

A couple who are pretty much single handedly ruining the housing market in and around Colchester ask for sympathy.

I hope the Government bring in rent controls to really squeeze them. I'd hope the Government enables authorities to double council tax on second properties, triple for third properties etc..

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

nope, I'm just paying it and paying my staff whatever increase they deserve as the business is profitable still and it sounds like you need a new CFO to me as they're not thinking clearly about growing the business themselves.

Haha, OK good for you and thanks for the advice! but it has obviously passed you by that every buiness is different. One size doesn't fit all my friend.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

excellent

That is quite funny.

 

[hammocity]

The thing to bear in mind is all we are hearing is dissenting voices - people with an agenda or people who can just shout the loudest in which case you would assume all business will collapse with zero wage increases and even dismissals from some businesses. However experience tells us that there will be as always winners and losers. If the winners can pay better wages they can recruit and headhunt the best from those crying poverty which will assist in growth and better staff working harder means they can probably poach business from them too

Ffs

 

[kaz7]

Personally, I think anyone with a genuine disability isn’t who Labour are targeting

Hope you are right , i am touchy because i have just been assessed for the 100th time and it took over a year to get the decision despite me chasing them up , i hate the power they have over me and the stress i get dealing with them

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Ffs

It's all so simple for some, but I believe people operating in business know that things are actually much more complicated and very different in the real world.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

hung out to dry ???????? entitled cunts.

Sometimes you read a story and you have to think the journalist has deliberately gone out the find out the most egregious example to wind everyone up. But surely no-one with 60 properties will ever need to work again if they don't want to. Even if they're absolute bottom-of-the-barrel houses, they've got to be worth something like £6 million. Even after taxes, if you can't retire on that (plus their private pension), then you need to reassess your lifestyle. Perhaps not if you want to use the rent of poorer people to fund your sailing around the world dreams though. Of course all of that assumes that they actually own all 60 houses, rather than being on the hook for a huge number of mortgage payments that are being paid by their tenants.

But since they insist that they are investors, it might be worth reminding them that investment is a risk. The value of your assets can go down as well as up. It's literally in huge letters on every stock-related product out there. Their 'meticulous planning' seems to have involved putting all of their investment in an asset that they were sure would provide a particular income indefinitely. No-one would invest money in a local business and automatically expect a return on that investment that would pay for their entire retirement. Everyone would recognise that that's a risk and the business might become very successful, but might go tits up. But landlords seem to have this attitude that they are entitled to some sort of risk-free investment opportunity.