The Labour Government

[Churchlawtonblue]

No. A child who inherits a farm doesn't have to be working on the farm beforehand so may not necessarily 'lose their livelihood'

True, but in family owned farms that is the scenario for many , and the issue that is causing the main problem as far as I can see.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Any farm that has produced food use there fields should be exempt. it's the likes of Dyson who owns 1000 of acres of land for tax dodge reasons should be hit hard!

He would just start token farming.

 

[waspish]

I'd tend to disagree because the tax dodge could continue if like Dyson you have 36k acres and let them out to tenant farmers. Those farms produce food and in the meantime provide the actual land owner with a tool to avoid tax.

So producing food for our country giving job opportunities for people to farm the land?

For we should be as self sufficient as possible in this country!

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

True, but in family owned farms that is the scenario for many , and the issue that is causing the main problem as far as I can see.

Can they not sell off or lease out parcels of land?

If you inherit a house you don't have the option of selling off the extension.

In rare cases people, might have the option of selling off the back end of a long garden or letting out an annex.

 

[waspish]

I'm not sure I agree.

For a start, it's a fairly niche case that you would have to sell an entire farm to pay an IHT bill. By the time you get into the bills being really significant, it's almost certainly because you have a lot of land, and would only need to sell a small amount to pay the IHT. I still think we're being asked to conflate two contradictory 'farmers', the ones who earn no money are almost certainly not the ones who will have huge IHT bills.

Losing their livelihood is also a bit of a red herring. If they absolutely had to sell, then they'd be potentially be losing a business they care about, but surely they'd then be a very wealthy person? If we're being asked to accept that hugely valuable farms make almost no money, then they'd be a lot better off financially selling up.

Losing a longstanding family business may be tough, but if you come out of it as a multi-millionaire, who can retire the next day, then that's a better position than most of the country are in.

100% agree with all this! What we should not do is lose a producing farm to then becomes a housing estate!

 

[bluethrunthru]

So producing food for our country giving job opportunities for people to farm the land?

For we should be as self sufficient as possible in this country!

Nothing wrong with that I was just explaining how the posters proposal would mean doing that would mean a Singapore based tax exile could continue to avoid tax without lifting a finger

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I'm not sure I agree.

For a start, it's a fairly niche case that you would have to sell an entire farm to pay an IHT bill. By the time you get into the bills being really significant, it's almost certainly because you have a lot of land, and would only need to sell a small amount to pay the IHT. I still think we're being asked to conflate two contradictory 'farmers', the ones who earn no money are almost certainly not the ones who will have huge IHT bills.

Losing their livelihood is also a bit of a red herring. If they absolutely had to sell, then they'd be potentially be losing a business they care about, but surely they'd then be a very wealthy person? If we're being asked to accept that hugely valuable farms make almost no money, then they'd be a lot better off financially selling up.

Losing a longstanding family business may be tough, but if you come out of it as a multi-millionaire, who can retire the next day, then that's a better position than most of the country are in.

I didn't expect you to agree to be honest. Clearly there are going to be scenarios where what I said didn't apply. That's why I said may have to sell. Also why should a person be forced to sell a buiness they love, a family business to pay IHT.

That goes against all the arguments that have been discussed on here by others who have used the argument that IHT is fair as it doesn't affect the person who leaves it and the person who pays, as they are always better off. I don't recall anyone on here saying that people would have to sell their livelihood to pay the IHT bill?

Lots of people on here are using Clarkson and Dyson as examples as to why this is a suitable change in the IHT rules. Those people are completely missing the wider issue and the negative impacts this change will have on many others.

I notice many have the same stance over the NI rise and the WFA. Many of the same people see no issues with these changes simply as they have been brought in by the party they support. It's a bizarre combination of blind loyalty mixed with the politics of envy.

Reeves could could announced in the budget that the retirement age was being raised to 75 for everyone with immediate affect, and anyone who goes to the opera or ballet would have to pay 10% more in income tax. I gaurantee the usual suspects on here would be on here defending it.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Can they not sell off or lease out parcels of land?

If you inherit a house you don't have the option of selling off the extension.

In rare cases people, might have the option of selling off the back end of a long garden or letting out an annex.

They could but would the farm be viable?

 

[hilts]

The new flat screen tv and latest mobile phone on contract argument.

The lack of self awareness these last few months has been very amusing.

It's hard to look in a mirror when you live in a thick purple bubble.

 

[hilts]

No need to arrest them the thick pricks are displaying number plates. Just note them down and rather JSO them rock up on their doorsteps in a few weeks time like the Police do with racist rioters. I mean number plates for fucks sake - all revolutionaries had state registered identifiable plates don't they lol ???

Not scared off by copper blowing whistle, these people really having nothing to lose.