Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

The FACTS about the farming IHT issues

343 replies

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 15:52

Decided to write a post to kind of myth bust a lot of what is being said around the agricultural Inheritance Tax issue. Because this issue is important to EVERYONE and will affect all of us.
It’s going to be a long post but please read it in full.

What has changed?
So with the budget the government has removed both APR relief and BPR relief from all businesses.
APR = Agricultural Property Relief - this covers the land, the buildings and the farmhouse.
BPR = Business Property Relief - this covers the machinery, equipment, livestock, consumables such as seed and fertiliser and crop in the ground.
Now the first million of combined assets from both APR and BPR is IHT free and anything over 1 million is taxed at 20%.
Under certain conditions it MIGHT be possible for SOME farms to get up to 3 million tax free. But that doesn't work for all. It’s a case of if your circumstances meet the exact criteria your ok if not you won’t get the full 3 million.

When the government talk about 500 farms per year being affected they are only talking about the APR proportion of the tax. They have deliberately excluded talking about the fact that BPR is also included and taxed.

The NFU are saying that 75% of family farms will be affected.

• it will also include a significant number of tenant farmers as they still will be affected by BPR.
BPR will also affect a number of other industries as well.
Haulage firms, Contractors and any businesses with high asset values comparative to income will be badly affected.

At the same time subsidies are being cut by 70% in some cases
Tax on fertiliser is going up by £50 per ton.
Tax on domestic vehicles is going up over 200%
NI for employers is going up.

Why shouldn't farmers pay tax like every other business?
Because quite simply farming doesn't work like any other business does. Most businesses work out their pricing by working out the cost of production + profit and tax. They are in control of who they sell to. When component prices go up so to does the selling price.
Farming doesn't work like that. Farmers have little to no control over prices.
The combination of global markets, supermarket competition and subsidized food control the prices.
At the same time input costs and yields are not controllable either. Weather conditions play a huge role in how good the harvest is. Unless you are able to grow all your feed for your livestock there can be huge variation year to year on feed prices.

Farming is a high asset value to low income business. It is unique purely because it is a rubbish business model. But it is a necessary business. Without it quite simply we would have no food.

Why do farms make so little return?

A lot of the foods you buy are subsidised by the government and has been for decades.
if we had to pay the full costs we would have an even more serious poverty issue than we have already.

After the war in the 1950s we had a serious issue with malnutrition and issues like rickets. Food was short and expensive. The country on its knees after the horrors of the 1940s. In order to combat that the government subsidised lots of essential foods. So the public were paying artificially low prices for things like milk. They then paid the farmers a subsidy to partially make up the shortfall

For context in the 1980s people were paying approximately 25% of their household income on average on food.
Today it is approximately 13% so half.

A pint of milk was equal to two pints of beer
Now beer per pint is 13 x more expensive than a pint of milk.

If people want farmers to go back to paying IHT then they will need to double what they pay for food.

Can you afford that? Can everyone you know afford it?

It’s important to note too that even with subsidies farmers still do not get the full value of what they produce.

What about people buying land to avoid paying tax?
The likes of Clarkson and Dyson buying land is a red herring. That land is still in the business production of food. It's doing what's needed.

Many many big landowners rent agricultural land out at very reasonable rates for tenant farmers. They do so because they don't need the money for the rent (it needs to cover its cost not much more) because the payoff comes in the form of reduced IHT.

I personally know a farmer who rented land for 17 years from a landowner. Then when landowner was considering selling up he sold it to the farmer at a really good price and guaranteed the farmers mortgage!

That said though this budget will do nothing to deter those who seek to reduce their IHT bill as it will still be the cheapest way of reducing IHT bill.

But farmers voted for Brexit
farmers voted for brexit in no greater numbers percentage wise than any other profession.
Don't make sweeping judgments without actually knowing the FACTS.

Farmers are no more responsible for brexit than any other profession

What about Gifting the farm?

The trouble is you don't know when you're going to die.
If you gift it on then you can't benefit from the farm in anyway after that. So you can't pass it on and remain living in the farmhouse for example. Even if the person you pass it on to is also living there.

And what if people don't die in the right order. Farming is considered to be the most dangerous profession in the UK now. What if the oldest generation pass it on and the younger generation die first?

Putting land in trusts is also complicated. For large landowners that is probably what they will do. So therefore the very wealthy will still avoid IHT.

But for the majority of farms putting it in a trust doesn’t work because once it’s in a trust you can’t borrow against it. So you can’t raise a loan or mortgage against it. This will slow or halt development and progression.

What are the potential consequences of this?
If we lose too many family farms due to this tax then they are likely gone forever. Other farmers won’t be able to buy up all the available land - they simply don’t have the money especially now.

If food production here reduces we become even more vulnerable to the instability of global markets.
At best it would mean price hikes at worst if there were to be another major war or global disaster we could have serious food shortages. You only have to think back to the panic in 2020 with covid to see the potential for chaos.

The predicted income from this tax is approximately 500million a year.
We are currently sending 536million a year abroad to develop agriculture in other parts of the world. Brazil being one of the largest recipients of our money - Brazil is the 11th largest economy in the world.

Stop sending more money abroad and leave farmers alone

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
derxa · 26/11/2024 16:50

RedPony1 · 26/11/2024 16:44

@unsync
" I'm afraid you're wasting your time. We live in a time of envy. People don't want to understand the issues, they just see land ownership, big vehicles etc and equate that with excess wealth which seems to trigger a lot of people. "

Absolutely!! i have never, and will never understand the jealousy around generational wealth, or even earned wealth! Baffles me.

Me neither.

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 16:51

@HeadNorth you can prefer those 'Facts' if you wish.
Right now I feel a bit like I did as a remain voter before the referendum. People want to put their hands over their ears and not listen to reason because they are so blinded by their own prejudice.
We have become so out of touch with how food is produced and the true cost of food production.

OP posts:
notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 16:53

Summernightsinthe21stcentury · 26/11/2024 16:48

Correct doctors do not need to own land but their families often can fall into the bracket paying IHT at 40% immediately on death

This also needs to change. I am totally in agreement that this is wrong.

OP posts:
EasternStandard · 26/11/2024 16:53

Thanks op ignore the snarky comments over caps in the thread title

FrippEnos · 26/11/2024 16:54

Do we need the wealthy to own land that is farmed by others and produces food? Yes we do.

Why?

Also machines etc. are eventually written off over years of use as there initial cost is paid off, meaning that eventually they will just be in profit (other than maintenance costs)

EasternStandard · 26/11/2024 16:56

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 16:51

@HeadNorth you can prefer those 'Facts' if you wish.
Right now I feel a bit like I did as a remain voter before the referendum. People want to put their hands over their ears and not listen to reason because they are so blinded by their own prejudice.
We have become so out of touch with how food is produced and the true cost of food production.

I agree with you, I think it's a pity people think more about Labour not being taken to task on this over what will impact everyone

More than a pity actually, once those farms are sold off the families won't get them back and food security will go down

derxa · 26/11/2024 16:56

Summernightsinthe21stcentury · 26/11/2024 16:50

I am not in the least envious, I would rather eat my hat than be a farmer, I appreciate it is a lot of very hard work in all weathers.
But I also work hard and so does my husband in fairly critical roles and our children will get a bill when we die. At 40%.

But unless there is a tragedy and your children are orphaned very young then it is likely they will have their own homes. The family business and home will not have to be sold. I don’t agree with any inheritance tax. Lots of countries don’t have it.

quantumbutterfly · 26/11/2024 16:56

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 16:51

@HeadNorth you can prefer those 'Facts' if you wish.
Right now I feel a bit like I did as a remain voter before the referendum. People want to put their hands over their ears and not listen to reason because they are so blinded by their own prejudice.
We have become so out of touch with how food is produced and the true cost of food production.

Most people are clueless about the food supply chain, they only complain when the shelves are empty or the prices go up or the next food scare, without a clue about what it actually takes to feed them and how tight the margins are.

BarbaraHoward · 26/11/2024 16:57

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 16:53

This also needs to change. I am totally in agreement that this is wrong.

Inherited wealth is unearned wealth. DH and I are likely to inherit significant amounts from both parents, and it will have a life changing effect on our financial comfort in retirement and in how we can set our DC up for life. Just as our parents helped us.

This is what I mean about the inequality of inherited wealth - the affects span generations.

It is right that we pay a hefty chunk of it into the pot, in the hopes of improving those who work as hard as we do and have studied as hard as we do but who won't have the same level of financial comfort simply because we have different parents.

I'm happy to pay it, and I think farmers should pay it too for exactly the same reasons.

This isn't me sticking my fingers in my ears and not listening to reason - this is my having a different opinion to you.

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 16:58

@ExtraOnions your missing the point.

A nurse doesn't need the asset to continue to do their job. A farmer does. You can't just sell a % of the land off because then the farm becomes unviable.

And the assets value is only on paper. It's only worth that if you choose to sell it. The white point is that they don't want to sell. They want to continue to farm in order to pass it on.

If they do sell they are hit by capital gains taxes anyhow.

If this was about making money there are a hell of a lot better ways to make and keep money!

OP posts:
EasternStandard · 26/11/2024 16:59

Summernightsinthe21stcentury · 26/11/2024 16:50

I am not in the least envious, I would rather eat my hat than be a farmer, I appreciate it is a lot of very hard work in all weathers.
But I also work hard and so does my husband in fairly critical roles and our children will get a bill when we die. At 40%.

This doesn't help food security which will benefit you though, and your dc

I'd be happy to support farmers keep their farms as it's incredibly important we increase food security not decrease it

JeremiahBullfrog · 26/11/2024 17:02

If you gift it on then you can't benefit from the farm in anyway after that. So you can't pass it on and remain living in the farmhouse for example. Even if the person you pass it on to is also living there.

This is interesting; I didn't know about this. I see though you have slightly misrepresented things: you can stay living in the farmhouse provided you pay rent at market rate.

I think the "you don't know when / in what order you will die" thing isn't the biggest deal. Of course you don't, but nevertheless in the great majority of cases gifting property in your sixties will mean no tax is due (and even if it is due, it will generally be less than it would have been otherwise). Surely by the time you reach state pension age most of the work on the farm is being done by your presumed heirs anyway? So why shouldn't they be the one to have the title legally at that point?

derxa · 26/11/2024 17:03

BarbaraHoward · 26/11/2024 16:57

Inherited wealth is unearned wealth. DH and I are likely to inherit significant amounts from both parents, and it will have a life changing effect on our financial comfort in retirement and in how we can set our DC up for life. Just as our parents helped us.

This is what I mean about the inequality of inherited wealth - the affects span generations.

It is right that we pay a hefty chunk of it into the pot, in the hopes of improving those who work as hard as we do and have studied as hard as we do but who won't have the same level of financial comfort simply because we have different parents.

I'm happy to pay it, and I think farmers should pay it too for exactly the same reasons.

This isn't me sticking my fingers in my ears and not listening to reason - this is my having a different opinion to you.

But your inheritance is a bonus- a positive. The farm inheritance tax is a negative. It will put people out of business. It’s also bad for the environment because farmers will have to go hell for leather on production to pay the tax.

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 17:03

FrippEnos · 26/11/2024 16:54

Do we need the wealthy to own land that is farmed by others and produces food? Yes we do.

Why?

Also machines etc. are eventually written off over years of use as there initial cost is paid off, meaning that eventually they will just be in profit (other than maintenance costs)

Because the capital investment is staggeringly high. Nobody would be able to raise the level of capital needed in order to start farming.

Most people who are successful in getting started start by renting land off a landowner. Usually for fairly low rents comparable to value. And slowly build up over decades.

Landowners often charge so little because they don't need an income from the land. So they are prepared to take a reduction in income for a later payoff (in reduced IHT)

OP posts:
ExtraOnions · 26/11/2024 17:03

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 16:58

@ExtraOnions your missing the point.

A nurse doesn't need the asset to continue to do their job. A farmer does. You can't just sell a % of the land off because then the farm becomes unviable.

And the assets value is only on paper. It's only worth that if you choose to sell it. The white point is that they don't want to sell. They want to continue to farm in order to pass it on.

If they do sell they are hit by capital gains taxes anyhow.

If this was about making money there are a hell of a lot better ways to make and keep money!

i’m sure they can keep thier home within those £3,000,000 worth of tax free assets. Any tax over that is payable over 10 years, so nobody is getting chucked out of thier home …

BarbaraHoward · 26/11/2024 17:06

derxa · 26/11/2024 17:03

But your inheritance is a bonus- a positive. The farm inheritance tax is a negative. It will put people out of business. It’s also bad for the environment because farmers will have to go hell for leather on production to pay the tax.

Inheriting a functioning business worth millions, that includes free lodgings, is a massive positive. Very view people are handed such an advantage. Confused

Birdscratch · 26/11/2024 17:07

Land is an asset that can be borrowed against or sold off for profit. Why shouldn’t you be taxed on it?

hairbearbunches · 26/11/2024 17:07

@notanothernamechange24 one thing you forgot to mention and hardly anyone knows about because the media haven't drawn any attention to it at all,is that the big country estates - some of the largest landowners in the country - are able to sidestep IHT on land altogether if they designate their land as a national heritage asset, which they can do.

So Labour are not actually going after real wealth. It's little more than a publicity stunt. Real wealth always gets left alone. And they're the fuckers who should be led to the treasury and made to tip their sodding pockets out.

CompleteOvaryAction · 26/11/2024 17:08

Dontcallmescarface · 26/11/2024 16:30

You missed the FACT that farmers, unlike everybody else, have 10 years to pay the IHT owed.

Everyone can spread iHT on non-liquid assets over ten years. You (and farmers) would also pay interest on the instalments at 7.25%

derxa · 26/11/2024 17:10

BarbaraHoward · 26/11/2024 17:06

Inheriting a functioning business worth millions, that includes free lodgings, is a massive positive. Very view people are handed such an advantage. Confused

But it won’t be a functioning business. It will be a failing business

redalex261 · 26/11/2024 17:10

I think the IHT on working farms is ludicrous and very short sighted. It's a hard, unstable demanding job (it's not a job, it seems to be a vocation with many of them) they may be asset rich but I don't think many farmers are living the high life. (I actually don't know any farmers with all ten fingers ...)

Most ordinary people could not cope with the physical demands, the dirt and the sometimes gruesome and distressing aspects of animal husbandry and very antisocial hours. That's before you factor in the physical risk from machinery, chemicals and the like. Yes, there must be fabulous bits of it, but farming is 365 days a year, regardless of weather, no sick or duvet days allowed. I'd love to see a wee newborn calf IRL but I'm not sure I'm equal to putting my full arm up the heifer's bum to manouvere the calf out at 3 in the morning.

As far as the rest of the population is concerned, UK farming is imperative for food security. We've all seen the impact of "just in time" supply chains failing during covid - yes they couldn't supply everything but that really is a big risk - no locally grown produce. If farmers sell up their land will be built over by (probably foreign investors) developers who are the only ones who could afford it. For no other reason than food security the IHT insane - even if you genuinely resent them owning land because you don't.

If a farmer wants to sell their land then yes, by all means tax them heavily on the capital realised, but if it's being passed on to be worked commercially then no.

The IHT rules are short sighted and won't raise enough to justify the damage. If there are landowners dodging tax then address that, don't hammer everyone else.

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 17:10

JeremiahBullfrog · 26/11/2024 17:02

If you gift it on then you can't benefit from the farm in anyway after that. So you can't pass it on and remain living in the farmhouse for example. Even if the person you pass it on to is also living there.

This is interesting; I didn't know about this. I see though you have slightly misrepresented things: you can stay living in the farmhouse provided you pay rent at market rate.

I think the "you don't know when / in what order you will die" thing isn't the biggest deal. Of course you don't, but nevertheless in the great majority of cases gifting property in your sixties will mean no tax is due (and even if it is due, it will generally be less than it would have been otherwise). Surely by the time you reach state pension age most of the work on the farm is being done by your presumed heirs anyway? So why shouldn't they be the one to have the title legally at that point?

But where are they going to get the income from to pay rent?
Most farmers don't have any pension. They have been told for decades they didn't need one.
The average age of most farmers is between 59 and 62. So no it's not common for the farms to be handed over in their 60s. Most of them don't stop working till they are physically unable to.

And farming is the most dangerous profession in the UK. Suggesting that it's not a consideration would be foolish. It also has a huge mental health crisis currently and suicide rates are high. At least 3 farmers have taken their lives as a direct result of this budget.

OP posts:
Summernightsinthe21stcentury · 26/11/2024 17:11

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 16:53

This also needs to change. I am totally in agreement that this is wrong.

But where do you draw the line? I mean if nobody pays taxes where are you going to go when you are ill, or your kids need an education.
The problem is mostly everybody agrees more tax needs raising, but nobody wants to be the one to pay it.

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 17:12

@ExtraOnions I'm sorry you're wrong that is exactly what will happen.
As I have said already on this thread it would take most farms 15-20 years worth of profits to pay the tax bill.
That's without the farmer taking a wage.

OP posts:
CompleteOvaryAction · 26/11/2024 17:12

hairbearbunches · 26/11/2024 17:07

@notanothernamechange24 one thing you forgot to mention and hardly anyone knows about because the media haven't drawn any attention to it at all,is that the big country estates - some of the largest landowners in the country - are able to sidestep IHT on land altogether if they designate their land as a national heritage asset, which they can do.

So Labour are not actually going after real wealth. It's little more than a publicity stunt. Real wealth always gets left alone. And they're the fuckers who should be led to the treasury and made to tip their sodding pockets out.

It's not quite as easy-peasy as that to get National Heritage exemption from IHT.
HMRC have to agree that the asset is of heritage value, and the owner has to allow public access to it afterwards (Chatsworth House is a famous example).

Swipe left for the next trending thread