To support UK Farmers

[TheHateIsNotGood]

And due to KS's inability to face them in Wales today they are now thinking of going on strike. Because the govt are being too stubborn to reconsider how they apply IHT on working family farms. By all means close the loophole that allows the 'landed gentry' to take advantage of the agricultural exception but not with so blunt an instrument.

I was hoping to add a post to an existing thread but there isn't one despite it being headline news today.

You could find that with lower tax breaks that the land value reduces, so that the amount the sibling continuing the farm actually needs pay less to buy his/her brother out.

Indeed. In fact, by the farmers' own logic, the optimum value of land for them would be £0 per acre. I wonder what the NFU would say if land values dropped by 90%?

These are no longer the little farm with an old man running around with an old grey fergie. They are large businesses.

I'm reminded of some of the arguments that have been wheeled out over the years to "protect the beloved local pub" in various places, regardless of the actual viability of said pub. Thankfully this seems to have diminished a bit over the last few years, as people have realised that even the most traditional pub is, in fact, just another hospitality business. Ye Olde Rose And Crowne is not all that dissimilar to a Wetherspoons — and if it is, it's because it's basically a mid-to-high-end restaurant that also has cask ales on a hand pump. People are less exposed to farms and will perhaps tend to believe the farmer's version more often, especially when they are up against the evil supermarkets ("oh, but did you see Tesco's has an amazing offer on beef mince this week? I don't know how they manage to do it at that price, but I'm going to get 3kg for the freezer!")

And people like this are the problem. No idea.

There's photos and articles of Bill Gates in Downing Street meeting with Starmer. He's America's largest farmer .

https://www.flickr.com/photos/number10gov/54072368612/

OH Rachel Reeves was present too 17th October 2024.

Just because this doesn't fit the narrative of the poor farmer, doesn't mean it is incorrect. There are thousands of farm workers or tenant farmers who would love to run their own place. They are priced completely out of it by the over inflated value of land.

This is the tagline to your picture:

''17/10/2024. London, United Kingdom. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves meet with Bill Gates and Chief Executive Officer of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Mark Suzman. 10 Downing Street. Picture by Kirsty O'Connor / No 10 Downing Street''

It was a meeting connected to Gates foundation.

As a caveat I know NOTHING about farming.

Using very basic numbers, if farmer Giles owns 100 acres of arable farmland in the north produces 10 tonnes of carrots,
Farmer Pete owns 100 acres also producing 10 tonnes of carrots in the SE, presumably their profits (or not) would be the same.

Yet farmer Pete's land is worth 10 times as much as farmer Giles up north.

So Farmer Pete would be liable for IHT but not farmer Giles.

Yet their net output is the same and both provide the nation with all the carrots they need.

Surely then the IHT should take into account acreage rather than value of land so that farmer Giles and Farmer Pete are treated on a level playing field.

It was a meeting connected to Gates foundation.

Yes, but we all reaaallllyyyy know that the point of the meeting was for Starmer to get his orders from the globalists. Klaus Schwab is just out of shot, making a phone call to Jeffrey Epstein (no way is he actually dead, are you nuts?). George Soros was present in the form of a disembodied brain in a vat, and the entire Rothschild family dialled in from Atlantis on Zoom, over their special 5G data connection that doesn't give them cancer, only us.

Fortunately for us Truth Seekers™, the globalists are too stupid and vain to remember not to have their photos taken with the so-called "democratically-elected" politicians who they anoint to pretend the run the show. Wake up, sheeple!

The question there should be, why on earth is Farmer Pete's land worth 10 times more if they both produce the same yield.

The new IHT rules will actually raise money from around 100 farm inheritances per year: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rlk0d2vk2o

In fact the Telegraph has already pivoted from "This is a massive tax grab that will devastate British farming" to "Huh, it'll hardly raise any money at all, so it's not worth doing": https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/11/03/reeves-we-cant-afford-farmers-to-die-tax-free/.

(Actually that's not quite true. The "massive tax grab" line is still getting trotted out alongside the "not all that massive, in fact tiny" line. It reminds me a bit of the people who said that Covid was a Chinese bioweapon, and also that it was part of the WEF's world depopulation plans, and also that it was harmless, and also that it didn't exist. But then, the Telegraph stopped being a serious newspaper quite some time ago.)

https://x.com/Phil_Atherton/status/1858088711960854715

So is this not true?

It reminds me a bit of the people who said that Covid was a Chinese bioweapon, and also that it was part of the WEF's world depopulation plans, and also that it was harmless, and also that it didn't exist. But then, the Telegraph stopped being a serious newspaper quite some time ago.)

@samarrange did the Telegraph write that about Covid being a Chinese bioweapon etc?
In fairness there was a lot of nonsense written about covid everywhere. IIRC firstly it was supposed to come from a wet market, then the rumours of a lab leak, hotly denied by WHO, then it was true it was a lab leak and since then I think it may have been denied again.

The question there should be, why on earth is Farmer Pete's land worth 10 times more if they both produce the same yield?

Arealitycheck because Farmer Pete’s land would have more value for housing development.

Getting planning permission to build a housing estate on green field land is incredibly difficult.

In what way have I got no idea? I live in the country, surrounded by farms and farmers. Several farms have been snapped up by ex-bankers - and the IHT dodge was a significant factor. There are other farmers who are well into their seventies, who are barely farming but don't want to sell because their heirs would have to pay IHT on the proceeds (and they're not sure they'll last seven years, so don't want to sell, split proceeds and pass it on as cash). It's very hard to think of a single farm locally that couldn't quite easily be significantly more productive (which makes a nonsense of the whole "you'll starve without family farms" -- palpably nonsense especially with the aging generation of farmers). You like to think I've got "no idea", but I'm just telling you that there's no reason why everyone else should support your lifestyle choices. If you're not enjoying farming, sell your farm for the over-inflated amount it's worth thanks to the IHT dodge. If you are enjoying it, why on earth should I be subsidising your children't lives to that extent?

Getting planning permission to build a housing estate on green field land is incredibly difficult.

Really? We live near a market town in the south west and farm land is being built on in all directions. Admittedly it’s at the edge of the town next to houses and an industrial estate but nonetheless when the new residential areas are finished they’ll be part of the town so there’ll be a new edge to build on again.

Because it's not necessarily the land that is valuable. South West Surrey, local farmer, producing organic eggs, chicken, beef, pork, in a small scale, but has farm shop, goes to all the farmers markets, provides sausages and burgers for all the local events, including his own van for some.

He had a stroke, is in his eighties, his wife now wants to retire, children don't want to run the farm. It is on the market for £3.5 million, and that really is just the value of the farmhouse, not the land, which is green belt agricultural tied.

Farmer opposite me, and a couple up the hill. Small farms, arable. Fields planted to rape and wheat. All in their eighties. AONB, green belt, Surrey Hills. Very valuable, but not available for housing. They make so little money that they all share resources ie: combined, tractors. But their asset base is very valuable, because South East.

They have to make extra money by keeping grass and hedgerows cut, lending out lorrys, doing stuff on the side. The lorry makes more money than the crops!!

These are not wealthy people. Although on paper they are millionaires.

I don't quite understand your point. The farm's for sale for 3.5million and the kids don't want to run the farm. But the kids def do want 3.5million and no IHT? Well, we'd all like that. Why are farmers special?

Heat pumps are only no use in an older properties Ones that are drafty and not insulated well. Usually listed buildings as they are more difficult to upgrade. New buildings are required to have good insulation.

What new builds are not viable for air source heat pumps.?

Whilst solar panels work best on south facing roofs they can be installed on East and West facing as well. They do not produce as many kWh but do produce some. Every little bit helps in order to reduce the need for solar panels on farmland.

Agree.
Labours manifesto said they would free up Green belt land!!
Labour are making it much easier to build anywhere developers want to.

I don't quite understand your point. The farm's for sale for 3.5million and the kids don't want to run the farm. But the kids def do want 3.5million and no IHT? Well, we'd all like that. Why are farmers special?

Sorry, not clear. The point is that if the children DID want to carry on, that is the value of the farm. So they would have to find the IHT. You could only do that by selling land, which not the main value in this case. So where would they find the cash??

Farmer opposite me, and a couple up the hill. Small farms, arable. Fields planted to rape and wheat. All in their eighties. AONB, green belt, Surrey Hills. Very valuable, but not available for housing. They make so little money

Sorry for another question @KnittedCardi , but why is the land so valuable?

The value of assets is usually based on the income which they can generate, but you say that the land itself makes very little money. It would have enormous value with residential planning permission, but that's not an option. The truth is that the value of agricultural land is artificially inflated because of its value as an IHT avoidance strategy. Without that the land would return to a value where the price to buy it plus the work taken to farm it would be justified by the income produced. Why would anyone pay anything more? I can get 2% on UK index-linked gilts without having to get out of bed.

Yes, but a) they don't want to carry on, so they're exactly the sort of people who really shouldn't have access to a massive IHT avoidance anyway. And b) you've specifically said that the value of the asset is mainly in the house, so it's exactly the same as anyone with an extremely valuable house in that there is a chance they'll have to sell it to pay IHT. You seem to think this is a case where people shouldn't have to pay IHT. I think it's EXACTLY the case where people should have to. If these people were frantic to carry on farming, which they're not, they could sell the house (like everyone facing an IHT bill) and retain the land and still have well over 2million quid to live off while hobby farming (as their parents have). Why on earth should this group of people be avoiding IHT?

It's so much easier in England than Wales now. Although there are resistance pockets in plaid areas

I've a relation working in planning in England, basically everything is getting a pass. Angela Raynor promised three million homes.

They're not going to be built in the clouds