Why are a tiny number of rich farmers dominating the news cycle?

[InvisibleRadiator]

I've been reading around this inheritance tax issue, and the more I read the more I agree with government policy!

For starters the government thinks this will only affect the 500 richest farms and some think this could be as low as 100 farms!
x.com/DanNeidle/status/1852064433738256394

How on earth have such a rich elite managed to whip everyone up into such a frenzy, making it sound like poor old farmer Giles's kids are going to have to sell the family farm when he dies.
The following article explains how when taking into account the IHT property exemption, a married farming couple would not pay IHT unless their assets exceeded £3 million!
www.independent.co.uk/news/business/inheritance-tax-farmers-protest-maths-b2649181.html

And there are so many concessions such as having 10 years to pay, and being half the rate most others pay! And there are many ways to legally reduce the impact of the tax.

It's clear that wealthy investors have been pushing up land prices, and apparently farmers are involved in less than half the land sales now, when compared to 15 years ago.

And now this tiny band of super rich are trying to plead poverty? I don't believe a word of it.

This final article puts it far more eloquently than I ever could.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/17/farmers-have-hoarded-land-for-too-long-inheritance-tax-will-bring-new-life-to-rural-britain

Good on Labour for standing up for the average person and trying to claw back a tiny portion of generations of inherited wealth for our public services!

Farmers are asset rich and cash poor.

Let's say they own 3m worth of land to make 50k a year profit.

IHT means they have to pay the government 600k. Most will have to sell land to do that.

Then they won't have enough land left to make the 50k profit.

So they have to sell the farm, probably to a large corporation.

It will be the end of family farms. Once the land is sold much of it will be built on and we'll have to rely on food being imported.

Much like we do with fossil fuels. And that hasn't gone so well for most of us. Food prices will soar as a result.

>So you can't pass it on and remain living in the farmhouse for example.

So you pass on the land and outbuildings but not the farmhouse? Why are the opponents of this assuming 'family' farmers are too thick to avoid any impact?

If this is so bad why aren't they coming up with realistic options to stop the non-farmers using this as a dodge?

Seems to me the media are focusing on Jeremy Clarkson and a small number of cash wealthy farmers to manipulate the general public into exactly the kind of thinking in the original post.

We should defend our farmers - they do a really important job, and work extremely hard. I don’t actually care if done of them make money doing their job.They deserve every penny they earn.

Land prices won't come down. If farms are sold they'll still be bought by the super rich. 20% is still better than 40%, and there'll be no small farms left. Changing the countryside for ever. I can't afford to find £200k when my dad dies (200 acres), so land will have to be sold making an already small farm too small.

Developers aren't going round buying all the random bits of land in the countryside, most of it wouldn't have a chance in hell of getting planning permission on it, thank goodness.

What would be a good policy? Raise the ceiling, or go back to scrapping the tax entirely? Is there a way to tax the Dyson / Clarksons and no one else? Thanks to informed posters for making the case.

The same type of ignorant and nasty comments on here as on the threads about tax on private schools.
A lot of people are intelligent enough to realise that all farmers are not James Dyson and all private schools are not Eton, but as this thread shows, many are not and just see someone they percieve as having something they don't and want to stop it. AKA the politics of envy.
A lot of farmers will earn substantially less than train drivers (who have just had a massive pay rise) and yes, even teachers and nurses, who contrary to a pp, should not have to use food banks on a minimum salary of around £30k.

@InvisibleRadiator

I see you have tried to distort the numbers to support your argument. Dan Neidle makes it clear that it’s 500 (or low as 100) per year.

Farmers are also employers, a big plus in rural areas where there may be few other opportunities for work. Even the much vilified Jeremy Clarkson has around 20 employees. So apart from the farming families who may have to sell up, others could be faced with unemployment if farms are broken up to pay these taxes.

Every other type of business has to pay taxes though.

Because of in a lot of cases the farm house is tied to the farmland

@FreshLaundry

Why should struggling farmers whose families have worked 24/7 to feed the country for hundreds of years in some cases be taxed more than they can afford just because a few farmers do have a lot of money? In Clarkson's case, his profits do not come from the farm itself. If he hadn't been a celebrity with millions in the bank, his farm venture would have crashed and burned.

So yes, the criteria for which farmers do get taxed needs a massive overhaul.

@WindsurfingDreams

Most other businesses are making a profit. Farmers often barely cover their costs.

"Every other type of business has to pay taxes though."

No they didn't. Unquoted trading companies shares are generally passed on iht exempt. That also changed in the budget - limit of £1m

And it's the two changes together that could impact farmers. So for assets used in the farm which didn't qualify for Apr, could get bpr. Until now, no limit. Now it's £1m combined limit.

Probably no CGT, likely SDLT, but they’d still pay IHT on the shares in the limited company.

Totally agree OP. I really, really hope the government hold their position on this. Otherwise they will look weak and every tax change will be met with howls of protest, when my understanding is that the entire tax system needs overhaul.

All sorts of people struggle. Why should some have to pay IHT but not others.

Lots of people would love to pass millions down to their children tax free.

But it strikes me absolutely above time that assets and inheritance started to be taxed more, and ideally income can be taxed less.

many are not and just see someone they percieve as having something they don't and want to stop it. AKA the politics of envy.

Anyone reading MN would know there is an almost limitless appetite for this. People have patiently explained on numerous threads starting the day the budget was announced why this is a concern for all of us, and still we get people going on about wealthy farmers, no sympathy, I’d have to pay IHT, etc.

I think many people at least think they would be happier if life were more difficult so long as it was “fair”. Fair in this context always means taking advantages you don’t have away from others. Consequences be damned.

My role is partly in the farming community.

The picture that's is painted on here of the elite and super rich is false.

My family families are farming to pass on, they have a livelihood but do not afford the luxury lifestyle you all assume.

If they are caring for animals is 24/7 the grinding responsibility of keeping animals ensuring they are safe and are well. The supermarkets put ever increasing pressure on them and behave like Gods with their requests.

If you have a farm to support a family you need a certain amount of land for cattle and slurry. If they have to sell to pay off IHT then the farm will reduce each generation.

We have had the privilege of a stable farming supply of British food. Those skills can't be read in a book. We are about to see the shrinkable of a community. Our children will be worse off because of this

And this is exactly what the government is advising them to do.

Um…

“a comparatively wealthy peasant who employed hired labor or possessed farm machinery and who was viewed and treated by the Communists during the drive to collectivize agriculture in the 1920s and 1930s as an oppressor and class enemy.”

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/kulak

I hope there really is some hard economic logic to the proposed change to IHT, and that isn’t being driven in part by the ideology of a few old school Labour thinkers..

In respect of selling off land and farmers not wanting that/no longer being profitable. The largest landowner in Lincolnshire now is James Dyson. So clearly he has not found it difficult to persuade farmers to sell their land, nor has it caused lots of suicides/hike in food prices/us all to starve ?

The media has done farmers no favours here. They’ve prioritised talking to Farage, Clarkson and wealthy “names” rather than the bog standard farmers who will be affected by this.

As ever people who don’t know any better have sucked it all in without questioning why thousands of farmers took themselves to London to protest.

For most farmers their income does not match their assets. A £4m farm often brings in an income of less than £30k with working hours that mean this is well below minimum wage. Farms typically have much lower returns than other businesses.

We’re bombarded now with the messages that all farmers drive range rovers, have kids in private school, wear Barbour jackets. Having lived in a farming community all my life this is so far from the truth it would be funny if it wasn’t so spitefully harmful.

There are wealthy farmers, of course, but this decision affects the poorer farmers, whose assets will still be worth over £3m.

Had this decision genuinely only affected those who make lots of money then it wouldn’t feel quite so desperate. As it is Labour have cast a wide net to catch a few big fish and they don’t give a shit who else it affects.

Someone on another thread pointed out that people are assuming all farmers are wealthy, and that it’s like telling all business owners that they are Alan Sugar. It’s short sighted and mean spirited.

We are living in quite unstable times. Food security should be a top priority and protected. We only produce around 60% of our own food, with production capacity being lowered every year (fertile land taken up with solar panels, farms sold to wealthy people wanting a weekend home in the country) this puts us all in a precarious position.

This.

Just FYI the tax at 20% is on anything above the threshold, so if the farm is worth £3.1M and is owned by a couple the inheritance tax on that is £20K not £600K and can be paid over 10 years.
The farm would have to be worth £6M to pay £600K tax.

This is exactly it. It’s bloody scary. As town dwellers we should be very afraid AND writing to our MPs to say so. Do not leave this to busy, dispersed, and badly paid small farmers to protest alone. We all eat food. Nobody wants to volunteer to eat a lot less of it. But with each farm we lose from farming, eating less is what’s going to be inflicted on the poorest and most vulnerable in the UK because prices will soar. Where are the big supermarkets and community groups supporting the protesting about this?! We should have pickets outside food shops raising awareness.

All the innovative regenerative farming practices that we desperately need, to save land from adding to environmental damage in this climate emergency will be lost, if their land is sold into big intensive farming or for housing. See this film for hope coming from small farms (hope which Labour are now fucking over). https://www.sixinchesofsoil.org/screeningdates Anyone can host a screening locally- please do it if you can.

Again, I am writing this as a non rural, non farming Labour voter. I am very concerned, as someone who eats food and wants to be able to continue to feed my family. Loads and loads of dairy farmers for example, have already been pushed out of the trade by the costs of running a farm. Let’s not keep making these same mistakes. Climate change and food security affect us all. Politically I’m appalled at seeing this stupid own goal happen to the new Labour government. also. They need to show humility and listen.

Note to protesters- we need to be asking the government loudly, where is the impact assessment that tells us only 500 farms affected by this change in the law? That would already be 500 farms we don’t want to lose- but the reality of what would happen seems way worse. I haven’t seen the 500 claim backed up by evidence from the government . That is essential that they provide. The impact assessment needs to look at the impact on climate change, food security, social impacts, economic impacts, all of it. We need to see the evidence for what the government claims. Good government proceeds on clear evidence not just on political assumptions.