Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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
40YearOldDad · 26/11/2024 17:36

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 17:10

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.

Average age between 59 & 62 , so 60.5, then?

A bold statement indeed; any proof of these suicides? and I did have a quick Google before and zero stories on this.

JustInterested2 · 26/11/2024 17:37

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

No inheritor is paying 40%, they are just inheriting 60% of the value of the deceased estate rather than100%. The tax is on the transfer of wealth - the person who earned/owned the wealth is dead.

Summernightsinthe21stcentury · 26/11/2024 17:38

@quantumbutterfly £100 in Currys for the cheapest model. Not mine but then I can buy more expensive stuff today!
www.currys.co.uk/products/jvc-lt24c490-24-hd-ready-led-tv-black-10188051.html

quantumbutterfly · 26/11/2024 17:39

Summernightsinthe21stcentury · 26/11/2024 17:38

@quantumbutterfly £100 in Currys for the cheapest model. Not mine but then I can buy more expensive stuff today!
www.currys.co.uk/products/jvc-lt24c490-24-hd-ready-led-tv-black-10188051.html

And where was it made?

bomberjacket · 26/11/2024 17:41

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.

Fact checked that for you -

In 1980 pint of milk 16.7p
In 1980 pint of beer in a pub 41p
Would this be an alternative FACT?
A pint of milk was bought in a shop to drink at home - compare like with like - compare it with a pint of beer bought in a shop to drink at home.

Waitrose pint of milk 95p
Waitrose St Austell Proper Job Cornwall £2.20

But even at a pub a pint of beer costs anywhere between £5-£7 not 13 times a pint of milk.

Summernightsinthe21stcentury · 26/11/2024 17:41

JustInterested2 · 26/11/2024 17:37

No inheritor is paying 40%, they are just inheriting 60% of the value of the deceased estate rather than100%. The tax is on the transfer of wealth - the person who earned/owned the wealth is dead.

And the farmer's families will be getting 80%.
I am fully aware how inheritance tax works, it is paid by the executor from your estate. Ultimately though the beneficiaries are getting less because of the IHT bill.

Diomi · 26/11/2024 17:41

So far no one has come up with a convincing argument in favour of this policy.

Hardly any money will be raised, some people’s lives and livelihoods will be destroyed and we will lose some more of our farming industry.

No one seems to have been able to say how the benefits outweigh the negatives. What are the benefits?

aodirjjd · 26/11/2024 17:42

Surely the obvious route is to make planning laws tighter so agricultural land can only be sold to be used as agricultural land? Then all these poor rich landowners will just sell bits of their land to a different landowner and the tenant farmer might not do anything different except pay his rent into a different bank account.

Additionally, Farmers ARE treated differently for IHT. They are still getting a huge tax break by paying 20% not 40%. Shall we just say because it’s so important they shouldn’t pay tax at all?

saying farm machinery cost £500k a piece is also misleading. Inheritance tax is based on asset worth not how much it cost originally. if you are calculating the value of someone’s furniture for iht you don’t say their sofa is worth £2k because that’s what it costs 10 years ago , you say it’s worth £50 because that’s what you’d realistically for a battered old sofa.

so as much as a farmer might insure his machinery to the value of £500k cause that’s what he’d pay if everything spontaneously combusted that’s not the value he’d get if he tried to sell it.

Summernightsinthe21stcentury · 26/11/2024 17:42

quantumbutterfly · 26/11/2024 17:39

And where was it made?

It was a point I was making about how things change over time. I don't believe we have ever made TVs in the UK, happy to be wrong though 😂

CompleteOvaryAction · 26/11/2024 17:47

hairbearbunches · 26/11/2024 17:23

@CompleteOvaryAction Very easy to achieve with a scenic landscape and all there needs to be is a public footpath is the far corner. Job done.

Yeah... Scenic landscape unlikely to qualify as national heritage.

JustInterested2 · 26/11/2024 17:49

Summernightsinthe21stcentury · 26/11/2024 17:41

And the farmer's families will be getting 80%.
I am fully aware how inheritance tax works, it is paid by the executor from your estate. Ultimately though the beneficiaries are getting less because of the IHT bill.

Yes.

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 17:51

aodirjjd · 26/11/2024 17:42

Surely the obvious route is to make planning laws tighter so agricultural land can only be sold to be used as agricultural land? Then all these poor rich landowners will just sell bits of their land to a different landowner and the tenant farmer might not do anything different except pay his rent into a different bank account.

Additionally, Farmers ARE treated differently for IHT. They are still getting a huge tax break by paying 20% not 40%. Shall we just say because it’s so important they shouldn’t pay tax at all?

saying farm machinery cost £500k a piece is also misleading. Inheritance tax is based on asset worth not how much it cost originally. if you are calculating the value of someone’s furniture for iht you don’t say their sofa is worth £2k because that’s what it costs 10 years ago , you say it’s worth £50 because that’s what you’d realistically for a battered old sofa.

so as much as a farmer might insure his machinery to the value of £500k cause that’s what he’d pay if everything spontaneously combusted that’s not the value he’d get if he tried to sell it.

But they don't want tighter planning laws do they because we still need a significant increase in housing.

Farms are already paying tax on their earnings like the rest of us. They simply can't afford to pay the tax without going out of business. As I have said repeatedly on this thread it would take 15-20 years to pay back if ALL profits were given to pay the tax bill.

Farm machinery holds its value fairly well for quite some time especially when well maintained. There is a decent second/third/fourth hand market for it too. So it would take longer than you might realise for its value to dramatically fall.

OP posts:
40YearOldDad · 26/11/2024 17:52

Lostinidea · 26/11/2024 17:39

It's a terrible story, but he killed himself the day before the budget. It's a sad story indeed, but you can't just say he killed himself as a direct result of the budget.

hairbearbunches · 26/11/2024 17:54

Summernightsinthe21stcentury · 26/11/2024 17:42

It was a point I was making about how things change over time. I don't believe we have ever made TVs in the UK, happy to be wrong though 😂

Is this satire? We invented the TV, for crying out loud. Do you think John Logie Baird shipped production straight out east?

Pottedpalm · 26/11/2024 17:55

@quantumbutterfly
Why do you meed to quote the entirety of the OP’s very long opening post before commenting? I think we can assume everyone has read it.

Winter2020 · 26/11/2024 17:56

Summernightsinthe21stcentury · 26/11/2024 17:18

Well that's the same for us all who will have to pay it.
Our children will have to sell our home to pay the IHT on our estate, we don't have piles of cash lying around, certainly any we do have will no doubt be gone in care costs.

and if your children have to sell your home will it affect our food security, animal welfare and the environment?
Unless you are a farmer I doubt it.

quantumbutterfly · 26/11/2024 17:57

Summernightsinthe21stcentury · 26/11/2024 17:42

It was a point I was making about how things change over time. I don't believe we have ever made TVs in the UK, happy to be wrong though 😂

Yes they were made here - and still are. Manufacturers leverage cheaper labour costs abroad (there is a human cost ), and the raw materials and components are often sourced and manufactured under shall we say less than ideal conditions, but hey we get cheap goods. Economic leverage within the EU also migrated a lot of UK industry.

Farming is one of the few industries that survives, people tend to die without food , but hey food security and safety, environment issues, none of it matters as long as supermarkets can pile them high and sell them cheap.

Summernightsinthe21stcentury · 26/11/2024 17:57

In 1985 we were not producing TV for the mass market. I know who invented the damn thing you know.

Summernightsinthe21stcentury · 26/11/2024 17:58

Anyway it doesn't matter about television's it is about the reduction in cost to buy today relatively speaking compared to the 1980s. Same as food it would seem.

quantumbutterfly · 26/11/2024 17:59

Summernightsinthe21stcentury · 26/11/2024 17:58

Anyway it doesn't matter about television's it is about the reduction in cost to buy today relatively speaking compared to the 1980s. Same as food it would seem.

I think you could live without a television.

EasternStandard · 26/11/2024 18:00

Summernightsinthe21stcentury · 26/11/2024 17:33

I am not trying to decrease food security at all.
It is like anything, change causes stress, people are panicking.
I am just saying nothing like this is ever as bad as you think it will be. Exemptions are available, the government is investing in farming, a few folk on here and on twitter are shouting really loudly about what is going to happen, people selling up, BlackRock is buying everything up, blah blah. Maybe it is because I am old myself now, but I have seen that all sectors have been through a lot of change over the past 40 years. Losing the mines and the shipbuilding, whole communities losing livelihoods. The businesses that do succeed now are lean, they look at costs, they invest in efficient ways to do things. It sounds like farmers have been and still are resistant to change, but there will be a way to make it work. And remember you still have a benefit in that IHT is 20% and you have 10 years to pay it.

I really would prefer if we could not reduce the things we need just because some people feel envious over different rules on something like IHT

It's such a bad outcome for the UK and seems to drive so much of Labour's policy making and support

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 18:01

@40YearOldDad there is strong evidence that it was about the budget yes. It was expected that the changes would be brought in immediately from the day of the budget. Farmers heard about 10 days before the budget that this was highly likely to happen.

OP posts:
Another2Cats · 26/11/2024 18:01

Balaclava1000 · 26/11/2024 16:21

Would it be feasible for working, profitable family owned and run farms to be exempted? But the land grabby, tax avoidance scheme ones are not able to benefit?

Exactly this has been proposed very recently. It was suggested that IHT becomes payable on all the property if it is sold within a set numbers of years after the death (eg maybe 20 or 30 years).

So, if the land is passed on to family to continue farming then there is no IHT to pay. But if the land is sold off in the years after the death then IHT becomes payable.

This protects those passing a farm on to descendants but still catches those who are just using it as a tax planning measure (their descendants probably wouldn't want to continue it unless they were really farmers)