The Farmers Protests in London

bluethrunthru said:
which he himself doesn't buy on cost grounds
Click to expand...
It looks like it. Perhaps he doesn't earn as much money as you seem to think he does. Just because he produces the product, it doesn't mean he can afford to buy it.

If I worked in a Mercedes factory..........do I then have to buy a Mercedes to drive to and from work?
 
blueinsa said:
Ignore him or better still, trawl through his posts around 2016 when he was the farmers best friend and if Brexit was going to cost them a £1 he was up in arms over it as it spelt the end for British farming.

Zero consistency.
Click to expand...

The situations are not even remotely comparable. Brexit was about restricting the ability to trade. Trade restrictions and non tariff barriers hit small and large farmers equally. Inheritance tax will be paid by estates that meet the payment threshold, leaving smaller estates unaffected.

There was no argument to exempt wealthy farmers and landowners from IHT at the expense of everyone else.
 
Slipper One said:
It looks like it. Perhaps he doesn't earn as much money as you seem to think he does. Just because he produces the product, it doesn't mean he can afford to buy it.

If I worked in a Mercedes factory..........do I then have to buy a Mercedes to drive to and from work?
Click to expand...

If I owned the Mercedes factory I reckon I could comp myself a car or two. Same with the occasional lamb for Sunday lunch.
 
stonerblue said:
M daughter works minimum wage in a SEND school loking after other peoples severel ill kids. Her mum died and left her a few quid. she now has to spend 35k on IHT.
Should she piss and moan and demand she gives half of what everbodee else does?
Click to expand...
It's not quite the same comparison though, is it stonerblue.

For the farmers this tax affects, it's about being able to continue farming with the next generation and so on. It doesn't just affect the farmers, it's also the countryside and the quality of food.

There is this misconception that all farmers are wealthy, and some are, but that's the same in all walks of life. Just look on this forum, some appear to be comfortable and well off and others live from pay cheque to pay cheque. That's life, do you begrudge everybody that is better off than you?
Farmers have 'wealth', but it's the cash that is the issue.

Have you checked the price of machinery, vets bills or fertilizers these days. All part of running a business, but the other side which brings the money in is volatile and inconsistent. Look at the weather you've been having, try planting or harvesting crops around a dry enough day. It all affects your costs and profit.
(I know, 'profit' is a dirty word with some, although the word 'wages' seems OK).

These big corporations who would suck up these farms would immediately make the beautiful patchwork fields of rural England into bigger fields, because bigger fields are more efficient to work and more profit in them. The quality of food would go down, because as I said, the only thing that matters is maximizing profit at all cost and shareholders.

Go for that if you think that's the better option, or tr to maintain a lifestyle/business model that provides good quality food for the consumer.
 
BobKowalski said:
If I owned the Mercedes factory I reckon I could comp myself a car or two. Same with the occasional lamb for Sunday lunch.
Click to expand...
I didn't say 'owned' Bob, I said 'worked'.

Comping a car is very different to paying your weekly grocery bill. The grocery bill is coming out of the farmers profit........and who knows how much that is.

I believe the days have long gone where you could have one of your own animals slaughtered for the freezer. (Although I stand to be corrected).
 
bluethrunthru said:
Mate I live on the Nth Yks Moors - surrounded by farmers - when you meet them in the shop or the pub you learn the truth. At the weekend I saw a guy who I know is a sheep farmer buying frozen NZ lamb - I said hello why are you doing that when there it a butchers in the High Street and his response was its cheap.
Click to expand...
Is there any topic on here where you haven't just discussed it the day before with a neighbour or a random guy on the street that also happens to back up your political view.

It's an interesting street

A nurse, a farmer, a Councillor, a bank of england employee, a wealthy pensioner, a............

It's quite spooky.

Your must also live on the longest road in Britain:-)
 
There is a strange contradiction when looking at farm accounts. Farmers spend a huge amount on their land and equipment and make very little profit. In other businesses, companies would be valued based on a multiple of their turnover, or more likely, profits. If the profits were very low, the value of the company / farm should in theory be very low and attract little or no IHT.

So, why are farms so highly valued - its the price of the land, which is valued purely because if they sold it, thats the price they believe someone would pay (or they would write it down to a sensible price). So the value actually is more of an land banking investment than a business. This is not to ignore the huge amount of backbreaking work that farmers do, its just the "farm" value is considerably lower than the "land" value. Given all that, its understandable why they should be treated the same as other investors and businesses.

The main thing to bear in mind is that most of the farmers involved could take some easy steps to legally avoid IHT, the main one being to transfer ownership at least 7 years before they die so that they are so keen to protect to the next generation. They really should listen to their accontants rather than Clarkson.
 
jockblue said:
There is a strange contradiction when looking at farm accounts. Farmers spend a huge amount on their land and equipment and make very little profit. In other businesses, companies would be valued based on a multiple of their turnover, or more likely, profits. If the profits were very low, the value of the company / farm should in theory be very low and attract little or no IHT.

So, why are farms so highly valued - its the price of the land, which is valued purely because if they sold it, thats the price they believe someone would pay (or they would write it down to a sensible price). So the value actually is more of an land banking investment than a business. This is not to ignore the huge amount of backbreaking work that farmers do, its just the "farm" value is considerably lower than the "land" value. Given all that, its understandable why they should be treated the same as other investors and businesses.

The main thing to bear in mind is that most of the farmers involved could take some easy steps to legally avoid IHT, the main one being to transfer ownership at least 7 years before they die so that they are so keen to protect to the next generation. They really should listen to their accontants rather than Clarkson.
Click to expand...

also bear in mind that almost half of UK farms are tenanted or mixed owned ( part owned part tenant ) so if the value is in the land they don't own or own outright they shouldn't be liable for the tax. They are - like any other tenant - exposed to their tenancy be it whole or part being terminated so the owner can parcel the land up for development. Why aren't the tenants protesting about their perilous tenure?
 
jockblue said:
The main thing to bear in mind is that most of the farmers involved could take some easy steps to legally avoid IHT, the main one being to transfer ownership at least 7 years before they die so that they are so keen to protect to the next generation. They really should listen to their accontants rather than Clarkson.
Click to expand...
Because we all know when that's going to happen, don't we.
 
If the value of farm land could be brought down to a proper ratio to the revenue it produces, far fewer farmers would be liable to IT. As they merely wish to pass the farm on to their children (right?), the nominal value of the land is irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if it were 1p.

The villains of the piece are the tax-dodging wealthy, who have artificially increased land values by bidding them up as a way to avoid paying inheritance tax.
 
In many ways I hope this isn't true and if so someone is being a sick ****. If it is true where's the outrage from the anti-road blocking set?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top