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
Clavinova · 27/11/2024 11:22

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.

All numbers are %. Missing numbers reflect farmers who did not vote.
All farmers: 50 L, 45 R

So all farmers in the sample favoured Leave by 5%, much greater than the population overall.

So, ignoring the farmers who didn't vote - 52.6% of the sample group voted to leave and 47.4% voted to remain.

In what way is the difference 'much greater' than the result in the general population overall (51.9% leave and 48.1% remain)?

poetryandwine · 27/11/2024 11:42

Clavinova · 27/11/2024 11:22

All numbers are %. Missing numbers reflect farmers who did not vote.
All farmers: 50 L, 45 R

So all farmers in the sample favoured Leave by 5%, much greater than the population overall.

So, ignoring the farmers who didn't vote - 52.6% of the sample group voted to leave and 47.4% voted to remain.

In what way is the difference 'much greater' than the result in the general population overall (51.9% leave and 48.1% remain)?

The spread is 5% as you can well see, @Clavinova That is the relevance

More striking are the breakout percentages quoted as I feel sure you know. The OP is focussed on owner occupied farms in particular. Huge margin for Leave

poetryandwine · 27/11/2024 11:54

Also @Clavinova the sample size is 523.

50% vote L rounds down to 261; 45%L is 235. So after rounding amongst all farmers who voted it was 52.5/47.3. Some (less prosperous) cohorts skewed R.

Clavinova · 27/11/2024 11:54

poetryandwine
The spread is 5% as you can well see, That is the relevance

How is 5% 'much greater' than the spread in the general population?

More striking are the breakout percentages quoted

More striking is that you have relied on one small survey which didn't employ the usual method of random sampling.

ARealitycheck · 27/11/2024 11:55

I'd suggest the OP despite claiming to have no connection to agriculture whatsoever does seem very intent on stopping this change to IHT. I would question how somebody like this has knowledge of eg legal requirements for muck pits and similar legislation.

I'm not saying the OP is being dishonest about her connection to farming. But a suspicious man might question it at the same time as the claims without foundation that majority of farms will be affected.

Clavinova · 27/11/2024 11:58

poetryandwine · 27/11/2024 11:54

Also @Clavinova the sample size is 523.

50% vote L rounds down to 261; 45%L is 235. So after rounding amongst all farmers who voted it was 52.5/47.3. Some (less prosperous) cohorts skewed R.

The study you are quoting from literally says;

Thus of those who voted in the survey population 52.6% voted to leave whilst 47.4% voted to remain. This is in line with to the national results of 51.9% voting to leave whilst 48.1% voting to remain.

ARealitycheck · 27/11/2024 11:59

Arguing about the referendum result and who voted for what is unhelpful. The full result of our leaving the EU will take years if not decades to show the benefit or cost to the UK. Many of the issues we are facing are being felt across Europe also. A lot of it down to the financial and societal costs resulting from covid.

poetryandwine · 27/11/2024 12:02

No, @Clavinova there are plenty including from the NFU. NFU surveys go as high as predicting a Farmer Leave vote of 60%. This was literally the first research paper I came across. The owner statistics do show a reluctance to acknowledge that farmers should help clean up the fiscal mess they helped to cause.

But apologies for requoting your statistics. There was a disturbance here that threw me. I had not intended to make a truly trivial correction, only to check it for myself.

Clavinova · 27/11/2024 12:10

poetryandwine
No, there are plenty including from the NFU. NFU surveys go as high as predicting a Farmer Leave vote of 60%. This was literally the first research paper I came across.

In the research paper the authors comment that they couldn't find any other sources of data to compare;

During the literature review phase it was not possible to identify any source of data on farmer voting choice for Brexit so it cannot be included here to provide a comparison for the study.

magicmole · 27/11/2024 13:22

@40YearOldDad haven't RTFT and I've no idea if there have been any deaths as a direct result of the Budget as I haven't gone looking for news stories. There's also a lag of several months in the official reporting of such statistics. But it's long been known that there are significant issues related to mental health in the farming community. There's research backing it up and it's widely acknowledged by governments.

Here's written evidence to a Parliamentary committee about mental health, suicide and farming and something from the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy noting how male farm workers are three times more likely to take their own lives than the national male average. Which is a terrible average as it is.
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/43055/pdf/#:~:text=The%20Health%20and%20Safety%20Executive,2.2%%20of%20suicides%20in%202019.

https://agriland.co.uk/farming-news/3-people-in-agriculture-die-by-suicide-every-week-bacp/

The Chancellor's announcement went back on promises made to farmers during the election campaign when the Tories alleged Labour was planning to put IHT on agri land and Labour denied it. Even tax expert Dan Neidle who's been a big cheerleader for the policy (and is also on one of the Labour Party's national committees so can't be accused of being some Tory stooge), has looked at the data again since the Budget. He now says that the plans will have to be changed if the government actually wants to target the people who are using land as a tax avoidance scheme rather than hit family farms.

So while I'm not making any claims about specific cases or cause and effect I don't think anyone should be that surprised if it does turn out that the Budget was the final straw for someone.

ARealitycheck · 27/11/2024 13:43

magicmole · 27/11/2024 13:22

@40YearOldDad haven't RTFT and I've no idea if there have been any deaths as a direct result of the Budget as I haven't gone looking for news stories. There's also a lag of several months in the official reporting of such statistics. But it's long been known that there are significant issues related to mental health in the farming community. There's research backing it up and it's widely acknowledged by governments.

Here's written evidence to a Parliamentary committee about mental health, suicide and farming and something from the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy noting how male farm workers are three times more likely to take their own lives than the national male average. Which is a terrible average as it is.
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/43055/pdf/#:~:text=The%20Health%20and%20Safety%20Executive,2.2%%20of%20suicides%20in%202019.

https://agriland.co.uk/farming-news/3-people-in-agriculture-die-by-suicide-every-week-bacp/

The Chancellor's announcement went back on promises made to farmers during the election campaign when the Tories alleged Labour was planning to put IHT on agri land and Labour denied it. Even tax expert Dan Neidle who's been a big cheerleader for the policy (and is also on one of the Labour Party's national committees so can't be accused of being some Tory stooge), has looked at the data again since the Budget. He now says that the plans will have to be changed if the government actually wants to target the people who are using land as a tax avoidance scheme rather than hit family farms.

So while I'm not making any claims about specific cases or cause and effect I don't think anyone should be that surprised if it does turn out that the Budget was the final straw for someone.

The suicide statistics are a bit of a red herring. It takes agriculture as a whole. Farm owners to labourers. Across all trades, lower skill workers (particularly construction) have the quoted three times likelihood of commiting suicide.

In the haulage industry the rate is 20% higher than average. I suspect hospitality and nursing will have high rates.

Rates among those in higher position jobs like management which will include the agricultural sector have a lower than average rate.

derxa · 27/11/2024 14:37

ARealitycheck · 27/11/2024 13:43

The suicide statistics are a bit of a red herring. It takes agriculture as a whole. Farm owners to labourers. Across all trades, lower skill workers (particularly construction) have the quoted three times likelihood of commiting suicide.

In the haulage industry the rate is 20% higher than average. I suspect hospitality and nursing will have high rates.

Rates among those in higher position jobs like management which will include the agricultural sector have a lower than average rate.

Imagine writing a post which tries to undermine the very serious issue of suicide and poor mental health amongst farmers. Shame on you.

ARealitycheck · 27/11/2024 14:46

derxa · 27/11/2024 14:37

Imagine writing a post which tries to undermine the very serious issue of suicide and poor mental health amongst farmers. Shame on you.

Imagine cherry picking statistics to try and prove farmers have a higher rate of suicide than other trades, or are you saying that their mental health is less important than those in agriculture. Shame on you!

MarkingBad · 27/11/2024 15:03

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?

From the ONS, not specifically in the 1980s but from 1957 onwards

"Of course, the country has changed a great deal since 1957, and our spending habits with it. These days, ONS publishes the Family Spending results on an internationally-comparable basis – the Classification of Individual Consumption by Purpose system, or ‘COICOP’ to its friends. Back then, though, we used a different system of spending categories, the so-called Family Expenditure Survey or ‘FES’ system. This, then, is what we need to use to make meaningful comparisons between today’s data and those from 1957.

Over this period, on the FES basis the proportion of total expenditure on housing has doubled during the last 60 years, from 9% to 18%. On the other hand, the proportion of total spending that went on food has halved (33% to 16%), as has the proportion on clothing (10% to 5%). In 1957, average weekly household expenditure on tobacco made up 6% of total spending. By 2017, this had fallen to 1%, mirroring the downward trend seen in the number of people who smoke in Great Britain. Spending on alcohol first rose and then declined over the 60-year period. In 1957, the proportion of total expenditure on alcohol was 3%, before rising to 5% in the 1970s and 1980s. This then declined, with the most recent data showing that the proportion of total expenditure on alcohol was 3% – the same as 1957."

blog.ons.gov.uk/2018/01/18/celebrating-60-years-of-family-spending/

Thepurplepig · 27/11/2024 15:21

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.

Dumb dumb response.

Big farms are being bought by the likes of Dyson. Do you think he gives a shit about the quality of your food or more importantly what is put on it. Be very careful what you wish for.

cardibach · 27/11/2024 15:21

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 16:29

Do we need the wealthy to own land that is farmed by others and produces food? Yes we do.
You are completely undervaluing the need for tenanted farm land which allows those without an inheritance to farm.

Why do we need it to be owned by the wealthy?

poetryandwine · 27/11/2024 15:26

Clavinova · 27/11/2024 12:10

poetryandwine
No, there are plenty including from the NFU. NFU surveys go as high as predicting a Farmer Leave vote of 60%. This was literally the first research paper I came across.

In the research paper the authors comment that they couldn't find any other sources of data to compare;

During the literature review phase it was not possible to identify any source of data on farmer voting choice for Brexit so it cannot be included here to provide a comparison for the study.

The NFU published a series of prospective studies

40YearOldDad · 27/11/2024 15:38

@magicmole

So while I'm not making any claims about specific cases or cause and effect I don't think anyone should be that surprised if it does turn out that the Budget was the final straw for someone.

But people did make specific claims, and that's not on. If people are going to come on here and say that as a direct result of the farming budget, 3 people (at least) have committed suicide, then they need to back their claims up or edit their post and redact shameful lies to push their own narrative.

I'm not questioning anyone's mental health, and I'm sure changes will affect people in many ways, but trying to state something that did not happen as fact? That doesn't sit well with me, especially when it comes to such a sensitive subject matter.

@derxa

Imagine writing a post which tries to undermine the very serious issue of suicide and poor mental health amongst farmers. Shame on you.

Shame indeed. Much like people manipulating figures to push a story or just downright lies.

poetryandwine · 27/11/2024 15:41

In what way did @ARealitycheck undermine the very serious issue of farmers’ mental health and suicide risk? How does pointing out that other groups are high risk minimise this? If farmers have the unique highest risk, please point me to a reliable source for this.

Let’s address farmers mental health, nurses’ mental health, the mental health of street homeless, etc. No person is more entitled to good mental health than anyone else.

I’ve said elsewhere that irrespective of its merits this IHT change was poorly implemented. I agree that food security is vitally important. I don’t agree that food security is more important than cybersecurity infrastructure or health security and I don’t agree that farmers are a uniquely special class of humans. IMO some of the attitudes on this thread are not helping the farmers’ cause.

PocketSand · 27/11/2024 16:28

There are poor farmers that are struggling economically and with their with mental health.

There are also rich farmers who generationally send their kid to private schools. I lived in an area where this was overwhelmingly the case.

There are also the wealthy that see this as a tax dodge.

The privileged groups didn't give a toss about poor farmers before the IHT change. Where were the campaigns?

The ICT change has less effect on poor farmers but the wealthy are supposedly campaigning on their behalf and for food security despite selling off land to developers at huge profit.

lateatwork · 27/11/2024 16:40

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

But their DB pensions are not impacted by IHT- unlike farming land.

ARealitycheck · 27/11/2024 19:52

PocketSand · 27/11/2024 16:28

There are poor farmers that are struggling economically and with their with mental health.

There are also rich farmers who generationally send their kid to private schools. I lived in an area where this was overwhelmingly the case.

There are also the wealthy that see this as a tax dodge.

The privileged groups didn't give a toss about poor farmers before the IHT change. Where were the campaigns?

The ICT change has less effect on poor farmers but the wealthy are supposedly campaigning on their behalf and for food security despite selling off land to developers at huge profit.

Exactly! not a dicky bird heard until the wealthy were about to get hit in the pocket.

BlackeyedSusan · 27/11/2024 21:12

ARealitycheck · 26/11/2024 21:20

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.

Yes you do. Many are £1 or £1.85 in Asda or £0.85 or £1.50ish inAldi.
Then there are noodles at anything from 25p-£1. Filling, tasty but not exactly healthy. Only takes a boiled kettle as well.

HeBeaverandSheBeaver · 27/11/2024 22:35

If you want huge corporations owning farms. Pumping the animals with huge doses of antibiotics steroids and feeding them unnatural diets then go for it.

Animals with no grass to graze, just concrete car parks. Dust bowls and in huge numbers in one place, then go for it.

Chickens with boils and deformity for Sunday dinner. Go for it.

Pigs that eat their own species as some think it's acceptable to re use dead animals in feed, go for it.

All this is happening in the US

I prefer to support our farmers 🚜 🐖🐑🐄🐂🌱

Swipe left for the next trending thread