Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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
ARealitycheck · 26/11/2024 21:20

quantumbutterfly · 26/11/2024 21:03

You do appreciate i was being sarcastic about obesity. The cheapest foods are often ultra processed and not particularly wholesome and quite probably contributing to obesity.

It's always stunned me that we talk about fair trade for farmers on the other side of the world but never on our doorstep.

.

Actually processed foods often work out extremely expensive. Made a curry tonight. Cost per portion with rice around 80p. Mince and potato with a bit onion and carrot £1 a portion. Fish pie £1.50 a portion. Roast gammon dinner £2.40 a portion.

I'm willing to bet you don't get many processed ping meals for under £2 each.

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 21:24

@ARealitycheck you would be surprised

I fully accept that they won't be nutritionally anywhere near home cooked but they are available

The FACTS about the farming IHT issues
The FACTS about the farming IHT issues
The FACTS about the farming IHT issues
OP posts:
ARealitycheck · 26/11/2024 21:25

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 21:18

@ARealitycheck if you don't understand the difference between the cost of producing something and the price you should sell it for I can't help you!
It's really basic business sense.

And whilst I agree that people would be healthier if they are more home prepared meals. That's not a reality for thousands of people in the UK for all manner of reasons.

This isn't the ideal world we are talking about it's the real one and if food prices rise there will undoubtedly be many households either hungry, choosing between heating and eating or in debt!

Yes we all know about profit margins. If a farmer hasn't set himself up to sell at a profit that is nobodies problem but his.

The vast majority of the public have cooking facilities. Trying to use the tiny minority without to try and prove a point is a bit pathetic.

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 21:28

@ARealitycheck you still don't get it.

FARMERS DO NOT SET THE PRICES FOR THIER PRODUCTS

The BUYER does ie the supermarket!!!

Farmers have not been getting a fair price for their products for decades

NO OTHER BUSINESS operates this way.

OP posts:
notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 21:30

@ARealitycheck cooking facilities are not the only barrier to being able to prepare home produced food as I'm sure you damn well know.

I'm done discussing this with you now. You are wrong. You know you're wrong and I'm not wasting any more time debating issues that are not relevant to the thread.

OP posts:
ARealitycheck · 26/11/2024 21:32

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 21:28

@ARealitycheck you still don't get it.

FARMERS DO NOT SET THE PRICES FOR THIER PRODUCTS

The BUYER does ie the supermarket!!!

Farmers have not been getting a fair price for their products for decades

NO OTHER BUSINESS operates this way.

The financial arrangement between farmer and supermarket is the same as between any manufacturer,importer etc and the retailer. The public has no control over that. Farmers have to either agree better terms or sell direct like the initial co-operative.

ARealitycheck · 26/11/2024 21:35

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 21:30

@ARealitycheck cooking facilities are not the only barrier to being able to prepare home produced food as I'm sure you damn well know.

I'm done discussing this with you now. You are wrong. You know you're wrong and I'm not wasting any more time debating issues that are not relevant to the thread.

''cooking facilities are not the only barrier to being able to prepare home produced food as I'm sure you damn well know.''

What are the other barriers?
Inability?..Learn.
Time?...many seem to have time to use facebook and mumsnet etc.
Energy cost?...modern appliances are extremely cost effective. slow cooker, air fryer etc.

EuclidianGeometryFan · 26/11/2024 21:38

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 19:29

Because if you put something in trust you can't borrow against it. So you can't use it to raise a loan or mortgage.
So say you have a dairy farm and you need to replace your parlour - your highly unlikely to have the cash in the bank to replace it.

The only way to survive in farming is to keep moving forwards. Stocking shed density ideals are moving toward giving animals more space, more lighting and more airflow. Which is great for animal welfare but means over time sheds will need upgrades or replacements.
Things like silage pits and muck piles now want roofs on - again due to change in legislation. All these new things that will ultimately improve the farm and the environment cost money.

If you have no asset to leverage funds against you simply won't be able to fund these type of projects.

I meant gift it to the next generation of farmers - your descendants. So they can borrow if they want to.
You just give it away when you are about 50 and cross your fingers that you will live another 7 years.

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 21:51

@EuclidianGeometryFan if you gift it on then you can't benefit from the farm after gifting.

So you can't live in the farmhouse rent free for example. Or use farm vehicles or be benefiting from the farm in any way.
This would be fine if people had been given time to prepare for it. But for decades farmers have been advised against doing just this. Because there was no positive. You can't plan for a legislation change that hasn't happened. So farmers have not had the chance to prepare. They don't have pensions in a lot of cases and don't really have money outside the farming pot- most don't take much of a wage of anything. So they simply don't have the funds to buy somewhere else to move to or to pay rent to the farm.

OP posts:
EuclidianGeometryFan · 26/11/2024 21:53

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 20:40

@ARealitycheck it's already happening on a big scale in the US

www.morningbrew.com/stories/investment-firms-are-buying-more-farmland

There are multiple projects going on in Scotland at present. Prime farmland bought for reforestation - which initially sounds positive but it is taking productive land out of agriculture and food production. Therefore it's reducing our ability to produce food, driving prices up and increasing our demand on foreign imports.

It would be foolish to believe that available farmland here in the UK wouldn't be bought by the likes of BP, Shell, Amazon just to name a few to offset their carbon emissions.

Good Lord of course re-forestation can only be a good thing - as long as it is mixed woodland or native broadleaves, not fast-growing evergreens.
We live in one of the most de-forested countries in the world.

If a multi-national get a carbon credit for re-foresting some land in the UK, I have no problem with that.

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 21:57

@EuclidianGeometryFan and where do all these trees come from?
Ah yes they are imported! Anyone remember Ash die back. Shouldn't have to remember too far back as it's ongoing now.
Ash die back could wipe out 80% of our Ash tree population

www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/tree-pests-and-diseases/what-we-are-doing/

OP posts:
notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 22:01

@EuclidianGeometryFan reforestation has its place but not on otherwise productive farmland it doesn't.

OP posts:
genesis92 · 26/11/2024 22:02

You've explained it very well, but it's actually painful to see how many morons still don't get it at all.

Matilda1981 · 26/11/2024 22:18

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 21:28

@ARealitycheck you still don't get it.

FARMERS DO NOT SET THE PRICES FOR THIER PRODUCTS

The BUYER does ie the supermarket!!!

Farmers have not been getting a fair price for their products for decades

NO OTHER BUSINESS operates this way.

The general population of the U.K. really do not understand the way that farming works and it’s like no other business model in the world - if I have a cake making business I can set my own prices, these would be calculated looking at raw material costs, time taken and a bit of profit etc - farmers are told what they will get for their product and this changes weekly, if, for some reason yields are down farmers sometimes don’t even break even on a crop and they haven’t even taken a wage for the hours put in to making it! Farmers are beholden to fertiliser companies and price for this goes up and down depending on supply - price for this went through the roof due to the Russia/Ukraine war.

People think farming subsidies are farmer subsidies and they need to realise that it’s a food subsidy!

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 22:27

@Matilda1981 totally agree.

I think actually it's been a huge disservice to farmers calling it a farming subsidy because you're right it's not.
It's subsiding the food on the tables of every household in the country. And people just don't get it.

OP posts:
notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 22:32

genesis92 · 26/11/2024 22:02

You've explained it very well, but it's actually painful to see how many morons still don't get it at all.

Indeed it is. It's scary how blinded people can be by the fear that someone else might be getting a better deal than them!

OP posts:
Neurodiversitydoctor · 27/11/2024 05:45

ARealitycheck · 26/11/2024 21:35

''cooking facilities are not the only barrier to being able to prepare home produced food as I'm sure you damn well know.''

What are the other barriers?
Inability?..Learn.
Time?...many seem to have time to use facebook and mumsnet etc.
Energy cost?...modern appliances are extremely cost effective. slow cooker, air fryer etc.

Seriously ? Do you even live in the world which I inhabit ? The world of Universal Credit and zero hours contracts, single parent households, private rentals which the housing benefot part of UC doesn't cover, gas and leccy on prepayment meters and real food deserts. I don't know whether you need to get out there and understand how many people live in 2024 or it's better you don't go round spreading your priveleged prejudice.

username8348 · 27/11/2024 06:08

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.

Does anyone have the evidence for this FACT?

Thisismetooaswell · 27/11/2024 06:51

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%.

So get some advice, do some inheritance planning, put some into trust

RhaenysRocks · 27/11/2024 07:15

Birdscratch · 26/11/2024 16:17

If it’s not working as a business model then you need a different model. If family farms aren’t financially viable anymore then maybe we need bigger farms with fewer owners.

Yeah Stalin did that..collectivised farms in the 1930s. Go see how that worked out. I think it's a tragedy to lose the tradition of family farming. The gov should work with the NFU to look at long term solutions. This new tax is just another on the list of "grab it from the rich" which most of us don't have experience of and won't be affected by and so they hope we'll not care.

Another2Cats · 27/11/2024 08:56

username8348 · 27/11/2024 06:08

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.

Does anyone have the evidence for this FACT?

I'm not too sure about the percentages (especially the 1980s figure) but in absolute terms these are the figures from gov.uk

Food and drink, excluding soft drinks, alcohol and confectionery for household supplies.

Average per person per week

1974 - £3.31
1984 - £9.52
1994 - £14.69
2004 - £18.73
2014 - £24.22
2022/23 - £27.06

Source https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/family-food-datasets

Then the median salary for a full time male worker at the time (male as the overall figures don't go back to 1974, they're only separated out) was

Weekly earnings before tax

1974 - £43.80
1984 - £160.60
1994 - £312.80
2004 - £464.80
2014 - £561.20
2023 - £728.30

Source

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/datasets/earningstimeseriesofmediangrossweeklyearningsfrom1968to2022

But after income tax things are like this:

1974 - £36.74
1984 - £122.72
1994 - £253.57
2004 - £386.60
2014 - £485.27
2023 - £630.99

So, comparing the weekly cost per person on food (eg £3.31 in 1974) with the weekly pay we get:

1974 - 9.0%
1984 - 7.8%
1994 - 5.8%
2004 - 4.8%
2014 - 5.0%
2023 - 4.3%

So, just on this rough measure there has been a large fall in the percentage of money being spent on basic food to be eaten at home. But I would guess that this has likely shifted, at least in some small part, to more food eaten outside of home compared to the 1970s and 1980s.

Family food datasets

Detailed annual statistics on family food and drink purchases.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/family-food-datasets

Foreverchangeable · 27/11/2024 09:15

I support you OP.
We need our farmers.
We need food security. I can't see how people don't get this.

poetryandwine · 27/11/2024 09:47

@notanothernamechange24 :

With no evidence, you tell us - including me on another thread - that we are wrong to say farmers favoured Brexit in greater proportions than the general population.

I refer you to a paper in Journal of Rural Studies, Jan 2021 on UK farmers’ Brexit votes. The authors sampled over 500 farmers in various types of work to correlate their Brexit votes with their attitudes to the EU.

All numbers are %. Missing numbers reflect farmers who did not vote.

All farmers: 50 L, 45 R
Dairy: 58L, 38R
Pigs and poultry: 53L, 34R
Owner occupied: 53L, 43R
301-450 acres: 56L, 36R
451+ acres 53 L, 44R

So all farmers in the sample favoured Leave by 5%, much greater than the population overall. Farmers of animals, owner occupied farms and large farms - ie wealthier farmers - went much further.

username8348 · 27/11/2024 10:17

@Another2Cats

Thank you, I appreciate that. I've seen the stat a few times and it seemed wildly inaccurate to me.

Another2Cats · 27/11/2024 11:16

username8348 · 27/11/2024 10:17

@Another2Cats

Thank you, I appreciate that. I've seen the stat a few times and it seemed wildly inaccurate to me.

That very rough, back of an envelope, calculation obviously doesn't give the full picture.

I was just looking at the median pay of a full time male worker and how much money they would have spent on food for themselves.

That takes no account of those working part time, stay at home, or the cost of feeding children.

So, overall, the percentage for everybody (eg a typical household) would be higher than that.

But it's the overall direction of travel that is important. The percentage in 1974 (9.0%) is more than double the percentage in 2023. Similarly, the percentage in 1984 isn't quite double what it is in 2023 but it is still a lot bigger.

BTW the slight blip from 2004 to 2014 (increased rather than decreased) is largely due to the financial events of 2008.