To ask what should have been in the budget?

[dollopofsauce]

All I've seen do far, from reading threads on here and watching CNN, is doom and gloom.

So what should Labour have done to swerve the hate? What would have been an acceptable way of raising money to help fund health, social care and education?

Genuine answers, please.

@Morph22010

HMRC website.

Well it's early days so it's not clear what the implications are. 100% APR aims to keep farms together. But to do what you suggest means you would presumably actually have to legally seperate the farm into two seperate legal entities and work them as seperate businesses if you were going to try for two sets of APR as it follows the asset not the person. If you give a load of fields to the spouse to reduce the value you would then presumably have to rent those fields back at the going rate. I suspect it also will have been considered by the government as they will want their pound of flesh. The whole farm could end up belonging to the surving spouse on first death presumably so you are back where you started from. And the spouse miggt not want to farm it. Or one half to your kids which throws up all sorts of other issues re continuity. In any event most farms will be well over the threshold of £2million plus NRB/RNRB. I'd be interested in seeing what people come up with as its an unbelievable legal quagmire. Accountants like you will be busy!

I just feel that the farm issue is a land grab. There is not enough tax gain for it to be anything other.

Either to sell the small producers on to large farming conglomerates or to put the land to other use such as housing or as others have said solar or wind farms.

This is, in my mind, a fundamental error and is short sighted. We are an island nation and food security is essential. That's not to mention the specific knowledge and farming skills passed down generations that will be lost if families are forced to sell to afford IHT liabilities.

Ultimately we will all see a difference in the quality and price of food. Perhaps this is desirable to the Labour party or perhaps it is ill thought out but either way the impact of the relatively small tax gain to the government is disproportionate to the potential harm being done to food production.

The idea that any orphaned child under 18 should incur any inheritance tax at all is a total abomination.

@lifeturnsonadime totally agree

It’s what gets them out of bed in the morning.

What happened before the 1990s when 100% relief came in?

I think that the situation was different in the 1990s, 30 years ago.

I'm not sure that British farmers were facing the same squeeze from the supermarkets, and other price rises that impact their profitability.

In any event looking backwards is not the best way to deal with the situation, if farmers could consume the IHT costs without being forced to sell up 30 years ago it doesn't mean that it is sustainable for them to do so now.

Do you not value food security caridbach? Why is that?

Your question is a non-sequitur.
I asked a question about the application of the tax, that’s all. Though I might ask another back - don’t you value the work of other family businesses that get no IHT breaks?
See how that is disingenuous?

It is not illogical at all to ask what the cost/ benefit analysis of this tax is. Any sensible government ought to do just that before bringing in a tax that could impact food security.

I think that food security and the knowledge of farming families is more important for the nation than the relatively small amount of tax that will be gained from the forced sale of farming land.

This has nothing to do with other small businesses which the nation doesn't rely on for food source in the same way

I wonder why Labour doesn't value our small farmers and food security. I don't think they won't have considered it, well at least I hope that's not the case as that's almost worse.

I'm not a tax expert, but I'm almost certain there is Business Relief for other family businesses to exempt them from IHT, although I think this may also have been eroded by the latest budget from 100% to 50%.

I recently attended a few online business 'How can we improve our carbon footprint' seminars. Very slick presentations by a new dedicated department of a large financial institution.

As someone who is really interested in science and environmental matters instead of being comforted by this finally being on the corporate agenda, I found it deeply, deeply disturbing.

There is such a rush to offset carbon by companies that they essentially need to buy solutions - for other people to plant trees, invest in solar, wind power or to switch to electric fleets etc. Nothing wrong with that so far. And I have put my money where my mouth is and invested in solar. BUT whilst it all sounds great, how many people actually check to see carbon pay-back on producing the panels, to maintaining them, to disposing of them? How many people take into account the amount of water & chemical cleaning & cleaning truck miles & pesticides to keep them clean and weed free? If anyone knows the answer to this, I'd love to know. Plus the energy lost transferring it across remote locations. Plus energy storage solutions. To me, if we are genuine about sustainability and not some profit seeking greenwashing wheeze on the naive, then we should be focusing on urban regeneration/repurposement, with great insulation and integrated solar capture etc.

Otherwise the whole exercise becomes like the Drax Power Station Scandal - utterly sickening that something horrendous for the environment was promoted as something 'oh so green' - with plenty of not so naive people making £$ along the way.

This is my fear.

That it is so easy to feel virtuous about taking money from legitimate business (not understanding the levels of capital required, just seeing that there is £ in the balance sheet beyond most ordinary-working-person's comprehension) and giving it to those who promise that which is 'too good to be true'. Solar panel initatives on farmland need a great deal more scrutiny. I am hopeful that the science and technology will move on leaps & bounds, but to me, panels in fields does not make sense. And quickly thrown up housing on greenbelt, even less so. We have half empty office & commercial propery in hubs already with public transport connectivity- really not good for our social spaces to just let them lie idle. Surely we should be concentrating efforts there? Not taking things off people, but incentivising them to repurpose or rebuild with integrity and great design.

Watching the news re University fees going up I’m just wondering why 18plus apprentices get all of their tuition fees paid by others.

Up to 95% by the Government if the employer doesn’t pay the full amount.

Thats further education students being treated differently for a degree based apprenticeship.

So in the budget I would have liked to see all students who undertake further studies post 18 to pay for their own tuition and apprentices, like Uni students, to get a Student Loan for this.

Apprentices are working fulltime alongside their studies, and for way less than minimum wage (have seen some for less than £4ph).
A lot of apprenticeships are bullshit anyway, and are just a way to get cheap labour. There was one advertised where I live... a year long one, 37.5 hours a week, less than £4ph. And at the end you get a lvl 2 certificate in making hot drinks.
Why on earth should anyone pay for that themselves?

I’m referring to degree based apprenticeships.
Students spend a day a week at college/ uni studying and the fees are not paid by the students or through student loans.

Don't the employers pay for it?

No, not many
Many don’t belong to the ‘scheme’ and only pay 5% ( think this has recently gone up to 10% or is due to ).

So the Government pays the rest.

But the students are probably paying far more tax while studying than those who take a more traditional route. And also it’s an apprenticeship (which is on the job trsining) that happens to have a degree associated with it. Our organisation offers both degree and non-degree apprenticeships, funded by the apprenticeship levy.

If other students don’t like it, they could always do a degree - or other - apprenticeship themselves?

It’s got nothing to do with ‘other students not liking it’, it’s about treating everyone the same if they are using higher education.

ie…paying for it.

A student working 9/5 with an hour for lunch unpaid earns £9318/yr in four days. 20% of their time must be spent in college / uni so that figure is based on 80% of their time. Their salary based on minimum wage for an apprentice of 19yrs is not enough to warrant paying either tax or national insurance.

A lot of degree apprenticeships don’t pay minimum wage. Our apprenticeships - which are not all degree ones - pay £24k.

If you start charging tuition fees for degree apprenticeships do you also think fees should be charged for every other apprenticeships? Because that’s not been how apprenticeships work for centuries.

Yes of course.
All education post your 18th year.

All schooling up to the end of that year is free to students. ie to the end of the usual Alevel years.
All education beyond that is further education.

All further education should be funded by the students
It is for some ie those at University etc but others who take apprenticeships do not have to pay for their ‘time in the classroom’.

That’s clearly treating some more favourably than others.
As we have an issue with the country not having enough money charging for all further education equally and for everyone would be one way of saving the Government money and at the same time making further education fare and equal for all.

As such Student Loans could be available to cover the fees. Perhaps this would have the added benefit of being more affordable for more employers as well and lead to more availability for students.

Are the finance type apprenticeships - the £20+ k p.a Big 4 Accountancy firm apprenticeships funded 95% by the tax payer? If that's the case, what a wheeze! There is no shortage of self-funded degree students for those jobs, why on earth is the tax payer funding them?!

Where the UK has a shortage of expertise, those areas I have no problem with Government incentive. They should be allocated competitively, monitored for quality and valued by society accordingly - whether in trades, engineering, nursing etc.

No, those employers will pay an apprenticeship levy and then be able to claim it back to fund the apprentices (I think the government adds 10%). It’s apprenticeships offered by small firms that are more heavily subsidised.

Absolutely agree where we need to encourage people into certain industries…ie nursing.
We need doctors as well of course but there is no help for them on their longer than average degrees.
The country can’t afford it apparently.

If the companies annual pay bill exceeds £3million you have to pay the apprenticeship levy.
If it’s below, you don’t.

Just to throw some figures into the mix.

The Government budget to pay for apprenticeships in 24/25 is £2,729 billion.
That equates to the cost of training, for example, over 73,000 nurses.

The ‘so called’ black hole in finances is £22 billion
The winter fuel cuts will save a predicted £1.4 billion