By making Jeremy Clarkson their spokesperson, Farmers have shot themselves in the foot

But it's not straightforward at all. That's the huge issue.

Fully agree OP. Today we had Clarkson begging Starmer to reverse his decision. Yet weeks ago we had Clarkson famously bar Starmer from his newly opened pub as he famously can't stand the man.

ExtraOnions · Today 17:40
He’s also one of these clowns along with other Refarmers, who were screaming about “eco zealots” bringing London to a standstill … but apparently ok if you are in a tractor though

@ExtraOnions are you going to answer my question about which grouse shoots left dead birds rotting?
Given the cost of grouse - as a pp has pointed out - I think that’s very unlikely but if you have proof then I’d like to see it.

But the massive question must be, why the hell is land valued at that?

@CurlewKate ignore my question. Funnily enough a list of dukes and their land popped up on twitter - did you see it too?

I was impressed by him as he highlighted how hard farmers had it. He showed that yes he has an income but as he said ‘the farm itself needs an income or it’s unsustainable.’

I didn't know the climate here was suitable for growing rice.

A quick Google says it isn't, but perhaps you have some inside info?

My feeling is the same on land prices. People like Clarkson, Dyson etc have played a large role in keeping land values far in excess of their real value. I'd rather see some young farm worker being in the position to run his own place than a tax dodger.

He’s also one of these clowns along with other Refarmers, who were screaming about “eco zealots” bringing London to a standstill … but apparently ok if you are in a tractor though ..

I believe massive estates are exempt if they are judged heritage sites.

@CurlewKate

Nor the other 19 Dukes who are major landowners- several of them significantly more substantial than Devonshire.

Apart from the Duke of Buccleuch which other dukes are more substantial than Devonshire? (Presumably you mean amount of land owned).

( BtW , grouse moorland is very poor in nutrients and not much else will grow there, nor do many other birds or animals find it a prosperous environment for ‘bio diversity’ . So the grouse moors are a pretty good use for that land. )

Whilst I agree with the negative thoughts on grouse shooting, you do show a complete lack of knowledge of moorland management and the effects it would have if they were no longer managed. Unfortunately grouse shooting, heather burning and the impact on moorland biodiversity, water, carbon storage from peat is pretty much essentially entwined and it's a catch 22 conundrum.

I take it you understand why light heather burns are essential, or the lack of managed moorland would result in one example a deep heather burn on peat land, which more often than not is a result of uncontrolled moorland fires. Resulting in massive impacts to our environment, water catchment and carbon impacts, for years to come?

More than happy to discuss the ecological impacts and webs of it if you want to argue otherwise.

Given there is an allowance for £1 million which is doubled for married couple, and a further £!m allowance for a house, if the farm is owned by a married couple it does indeed need to be very big before any IHT will be payable.

Then the government needs to legislate about foreign ownership of land.
But they won't, being globalist free-marketeers.

Not relevant to the tax issue though.

Who owns England?

Huge tracts of agricultural land is held in offshore companies. Almost all of the land, for miles in every direction (>19,000 acres), around here is owned by a Swedish billionaire. no one seems to raise an eyebrow. i'm pretty sure he didn't buy it because he cares about food security in the UK

@ExtraOnions which grouse shoot left rotting birds?

The problem is that you have two types of farmer (for simplicity). One is the type whose family has been farming for years, the farm will (hopefully) be passed on down the line, and those are the ones to feel sorry for,
The other type are the clarksons of the group that are hobby farmers and doing this to avoid tax.
Ending up with a hobby farmer as the face of this is not going to help the cause.

As an aside farmers are generally tory voters( or they are where I lived so Labour will lose very few votes over this.

I heard someone explain how they do it in Ireland. If 80% of the land isn't used productively for the 6 years before the owner's death then inheritance tax is due.

Incidentally some of my siblings and friends new houses were on farmers fields that were sold off....

As Jeremy Clarkson himself pointed out, he has an army of accountants and will just put his in trust. As will many other wealthy Dukes and landowners. They are rich enough to pay for the best estate planning advice and will minimise their tax bill accordingly.

As with much of government policy, it’s the ordinary people who are “rich” enough - with land in this scenario, not cash - who will pay while the extremely rich pivot to a new scheme.

Not dissimilar to the private schools stuff, all the really rich people paid upfront for years in advance and it’s the people just about affording it who will pay the tax.

Well the Chinese are busy buying up British farms to grow rice to send back to China.

This.

He's amusing and all but yes, a buffoon. It is a tad embarrassing now that his admission has come back to haunt him.

As far as I'm concerned, if average Joe has to pay inheritance tax on a property then farmers should, too.

Nobody, be they land owners, share holders, CEO's or bloody royalty should be getting out of paying taxes that the average person on the street has to.

Totally agree

But you are comparing Apples and Oranges. Your children's inheritance will be spent on whatever it is they want. A deposit for their own house, home improvements, a large holiday, a new car, even drugs if that is what they want I hope not, but that is there option!)

Farms are a different beast. All one farmer is passing down to their child is the responsibility of looking after the land / animals, to continue to farm and to continue to produce the food that will go on your children's plates. They don't have the option of doing what they like - they are simply inheriting a massive responsibility.

There is likely no cash to pass down. (OK, likely to be something in the business account, but likely a lot less than your children will get from you, and will be needed for the purpose of farming). And if you now saddle the farmers child with massive inheritance tax, that farm will have to be sold off - and probably for housing. And where is that food now coming from? Oh yes, being shipped in from abroad.

This whole "I'm poor, so should everyone else" attitude stinks, and completely misses the point. If you want food, it has to be produced by someone! And preferably in this country!

Can't eat your farmhouse or your view from the back bedrooms, either.