Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about old aged pensioners? Liebour don’t seem to like them very much…" Where did this self defeating "leibour" term come from? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about old aged pensioners? Liebour don’t seem to like them very much…" Yes, people who've worked hard all their lives and have a little saved. Let them freeze.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What happens when all the wealth owners and creators have been driven away or impoverished ? Who will pay the taxes then ? 🤷♂️ " Then we will all be reliant on the state and compliant if we want to exist. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On the farmers and IHT, the bbc is reporting the government expect this policy to raise £520million by 2030 The 5000 empty ‘buffer’ hotel rooms allocated to small boat arrivals costs £600k a day / £219M a year. Seems like a rob Peter pay Paul policy " Farmers feed the nation, the others fleece it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Within a year, they will realise that they won't get the tax money they think they will get. It's like closing the "non-dom loophole". Everyone made big predictions on how much tax the government will receive because of it, only to realise that they aren't getting any. There are already many anecdotal stories of businesses laying off people because of the emoloyer NI increase. They might well end up getting lower taxes than they used to and even more spending because, more children will now be in state schools and they have agreed to every union demand on pay raises." I think you are completely correct. Also much of the money they are pouring into the NHS and public sector wage rises will not lead to any improvement in outcomes or productivity, and we'll soon be told many more billions are needed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about old aged pensioners? Liebour don’t seem to like them very much… Where did this self defeating "leibour" term come from?" It comes from the lies they repeat over and over. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about old aged pensioners? Liebour don’t seem to like them very much… Where did this self defeating "leibour" term come from?" Probably from one of the people who can't spell Keir! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On the farmers and IHT, the bbc is reporting the government expect this policy to raise £520million by 2030 The 5000 empty ‘buffer’ hotel rooms allocated to small boat arrivals costs £600k a day / £219M a year. Seems like a rob Peter pay Paul policy " Yes they expect it to only affect about 500 farmers and yet expect it to raise £530 million… that’s some insanely unplayable tax liabilities per head | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about old aged pensioners? Liebour don’t seem to like them very much… Where did this self defeating "leibour" term come from? Probably from one of the people who can't spell Keir!" It’s spelt Keir Farmer-Harmer and he’s one dumb ass puppet who doesn’t understand the consequences of his actions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Within a year, they will realise that they won't get the tax money they think they will get. It's like closing the "non-dom loophole". Everyone made big predictions on how much tax the government will receive because of it, only to realise that they aren't getting any. There are already many anecdotal stories of businesses laying off people because of the emoloyer NI increase. They might well end up getting lower taxes than they used to and even more spending because, more children will now be in state schools and they have agreed to every union demand on pay raises." There is no might, Liebour have put the economy into hard reverse! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Also much of the money they are pouring into the NHS and public sector wage rises will not lead to any improvement in outcomes or productivity, and we'll soon be told many more billions are needed." They did't even try for improvements. When Rachel Reeves announced an extra £22.6bn for the NHS she said that it was for "day to day expenses". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Also much of the money they are pouring into the NHS and public sector wage rises will not lead to any improvement in outcomes or productivity, and we'll soon be told many more billions are needed. They did't even try for improvements. When Rachel Reeves announced an extra £22.6bn for the NHS she said that it was for "day to day expenses". " Yes, senior managers have already said they need more money.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Also much of the money they are pouring into the NHS and public sector wage rises will not lead to any improvement in outcomes or productivity, and we'll soon be told many more billions are needed. They did't even try for improvements. When Rachel Reeves announced an extra £22.6bn for the NHS she said that it was for "day to day expenses". Yes, senior managers have already said they need more money. "They have and Wes Streeting has threatened to sack them if they don’t perform…. In an interview he was rather bitter sounding about their salaries and performance, they should hold tight and wait for an above inflation rise | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's like November 1978 again, things are only getting worse not better." yep you're right, things certainly became far far worse from 79 onwards that's for sure  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The working man whether he is low paid or well paid has not benefitted from tax avoidance schemes other than the odd sweetener like an ISA. They have paid their burden of tax constantly over the last four decades. Would it not be fair for others who have been the recipients of many beneficial and more generous schemes to be asked to start paying their equal share? Not sure what the problem is. " You have looked at the landscape in the same way as labour which we all know is wrong.. Where Labour gets it wrong is failing to recognise that self employed individuals or SME business owners are also working people. Running a business, being self employed involves risks that go far beyond those of PAYE employees. The tax arrangements available to them are not avoidance but a legal part of conducting business within the framework of the law | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They still live in the 1970s and look what Labour did then. Winter of discontent anyone?" I think some naive people were expecting Blair Mk2 from this Government but most of the Cabinet including Starmer were Corbyn supporters. They are very left wing, hate private enterprises and are in hock to the Unions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The working man whether he is low paid or well paid has not benefitted from tax avoidance schemes other than the odd sweetener like an ISA. They have paid their burden of tax constantly over the last four decades. Would it not be fair for others who have been the recipients of many beneficial and more generous schemes to be asked to start paying their equal share? Not sure what the problem is. You have looked at the landscape in the same way as labour which we all know is wrong.. Where Labour gets it wrong is failing to recognise that self employed individuals or SME business owners are also working people. Running a business, being self employed involves risks that go far beyond those of PAYE employees. The tax arrangements available to them are not avoidance but a legal part of conducting business within the framework of the law" Since Thatcher the working person has changed so much. Look at micro business. Small hair dressers to the one man band traid person. The landscape of employment is now so varied it's hard to Tax all in a fair way. And as the working person gets smarter they avoid letting money in the way of tax going to such a place where its just wasted on. Benefits and the immigrants, and they next to nothing in return. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The working man whether he is low paid or well paid has not benefitted from tax avoidance schemes other than the odd sweetener like an ISA. They have paid their burden of tax constantly over the last four decades. Would it not be fair for others who have been the recipients of many beneficial and more generous schemes to be asked to start paying their equal share? Not sure what the problem is. You have looked at the landscape in the same way as labour which we all know is wrong.. Where Labour gets it wrong is failing to recognise that self employed individuals or SME business owners are also working people. Running a business, being self employed involves risks that go far beyond those of PAYE employees. The tax arrangements available to them are not avoidance but a legal part of conducting business within the framework of the law" I have run my own businesses since I was 19 years of age and employed hundreds of people over that time so please don’t assume I don’t understand how it works. Farmers have been given special status for years and it stems back to farmers having big say in parliament due to a lot of MPs being farmers in the past. Like all small family businesses they face pressure from bigger concerns Sorry but that’s tough. Food security is irrelevant as we are no where near able to feed ourselves The fact is they are still on a better tax rate than most along with all the same tools you mention to write off investments On top of which they receive subsidy because the actual business model doesn’t work. So yes it’s hard . The smaller farms which are the biggest number are probably going to be exempt. A huge swathe of our land is actually registered to overseas holding specifically designed to avoid tax so they will still be exempt. All labour are targeting is the middle ground and until they can claw back the overseas registrations then its a bit of a weak policy. Yet again the really wealthy will be able to avoid any issues. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What happens when all the wealth owners and creators have been driven away or impoverished ? Who will pay the taxes then ? 🤷♂️ Then we will all be reliant on the state and compliant if we want to exist." This. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The working man whether he is low paid or well paid has not benefitted from tax avoidance schemes other than the odd sweetener like an ISA. They have paid their burden of tax constantly over the last four decades. Would it not be fair for others who have been the recipients of many beneficial and more generous schemes to be asked to start paying their equal share? Not sure what the problem is. You have looked at the landscape in the same way as labour which we all know is wrong.. Where Labour gets it wrong is failing to recognise that self employed individuals or SME business owners are also working people. Running a business, being self employed involves risks that go far beyond those of PAYE employees. The tax arrangements available to them are not avoidance but a legal part of conducting business within the framework of the law I have run my own businesses since I was 19 years of age and employed hundreds of people over that time so please don’t assume I don’t understand how it works. Farmers have been given special status for years and it stems back to farmers having big say in parliament due to a lot of MPs being farmers in the past. Like all small family businesses they face pressure from bigger concerns Sorry but that’s tough. Food security is irrelevant as we are no where near able to feed ourselves The fact is they are still on a better tax rate than most along with all the same tools you mention to write off investments On top of which they receive subsidy because the actual business model doesn’t work. So yes it’s hard . The smaller farms which are the biggest number are probably going to be exempt. A huge swathe of our land is actually registered to overseas holding specifically designed to avoid tax so they will still be exempt. All labour are targeting is the middle ground and until they can claw back the overseas registrations then its a bit of a weak policy. Yet again the really wealthy will be able to avoid any issues. " this .... the question 'who will pay the taxes?' ... the same people who do now. if those wealthy enough to currently avoid taxes are forced to start paying, only to then childishly threaten to take their ball home in a tantrum then what difference does it make? .... they pay no fucking tax anyway! let them go and allow creative innovative new people fill the void they've left instead. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The working man whether he is low paid or well paid has not benefitted from tax avoidance schemes other than the odd sweetener like an ISA. They have paid their burden of tax constantly over the last four decades. Would it not be fair for others who have been the recipients of many beneficial and more generous schemes to be asked to start paying their equal share? Not sure what the problem is. You have looked at the landscape in the same way as labour which we all know is wrong.. Where Labour gets it wrong is failing to recognise that self employed individuals or SME business owners are also working people. Running a business, being self employed involves risks that go far beyond those of PAYE employees. The tax arrangements available to them are not avoidance but a legal part of conducting business within the framework of the law I have run my own businesses since I was 19 years of age and employed hundreds of people over that time so please don’t assume I don’t understand how it works. Farmers have been given special status for years and it stems back to farmers having big say in parliament due to a lot of MPs being farmers in the past. Like all small family businesses they face pressure from bigger concerns Sorry but that’s tough. Food security is irrelevant as we are no where near able to feed ourselves The fact is they are still on a better tax rate than most along with all the same tools you mention to write off investments On top of which they receive subsidy because the actual business model doesn’t work. So yes it’s hard . The smaller farms which are the biggest number are probably going to be exempt. A huge swathe of our land is actually registered to overseas holding specifically designed to avoid tax so they will still be exempt. All labour are targeting is the middle ground and until they can claw back the overseas registrations then its a bit of a weak policy. Yet again the really wealthy will be able to avoid any issues. this .... the question 'who will pay the taxes?' ... the same people who do now. if those wealthy enough to currently avoid taxes are forced to start paying, only to then childishly threaten to take their ball home in a tantrum then what difference does it make? .... they pay no fucking tax anyway! let them go and allow creative innovative new people fill the void they've left instead. "I suppose you could say they have to start somewhere. But while the same wealthy they are targeting control large amounts of our media the stories will keep us fighting amongst ourselves. All the while the Uber rich just sit quietly smiling at the masses desperately trying to blame each other. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The working man whether he is low paid or well paid has not benefitted from tax avoidance schemes other than the odd sweetener like an ISA. They have paid their burden of tax constantly over the last four decades. Would it not be fair for others who have been the recipients of many beneficial and more generous schemes to be asked to start paying their equal share? Not sure what the problem is. " I’m a working farmer who will get clobbered by the farm death tax. What’s not fair is having to pay 20% on a business asset that generate 0.5% on its overinflated asset value, it’s simply unpayable. It’s avoidable, like all inheritance tax if you give away your assets and live seven years. . death tax is not a tax of all the rich, just those who choose not to plan and a tax of upmost cruelty imposed upon modest families who’s loved one dies too early. Add to that now a tax upon elderly farmers whose best plans have been sledge hammered. This tax doesn’t just hit the super rich but multi generational family farms who live on a shoestring income, it’s a Marxist spiteful policy to punish a working class minority group who don’t vote red. This is the start of transferring our nations food production land into foreign owned corporates that pay no taxes here at all. The range in the farming community right now is explosive | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The working man whether he is low paid or well paid has not benefitted from tax avoidance schemes other than the odd sweetener like an ISA. They have paid their burden of tax constantly over the last four decades. Would it not be fair for others who have been the recipients of many beneficial and more generous schemes to be asked to start paying their equal share? Not sure what the problem is. I’m a working farmer who will get clobbered by the farm death tax. What’s not fair is having to pay 20% on a business asset that generate 0.5% on its overinflated asset value, it’s simply unpayable. It’s avoidable, like all inheritance tax if you give away your assets and live seven years. . death tax is not a tax of all the rich, just those who choose not to plan and a tax of upmost cruelty imposed upon modest families who’s loved one dies too early. Add to that now a tax upon elderly farmers whose best plans have been sledge hammered. This tax doesn’t just hit the super rich but multi generational family farms who live on a shoestring income, it’s a Marxist spiteful policy to punish a working class minority group who don’t vote red. This is the start of transferring our nations food production land into foreign owned corporates that pay no taxes here at all. The range in the farming community right now is explosive " If it affects multi-generational farmers, what did the generations before 1984 do when farmers were paying IHT? I suspect they did what all wealthy individuals still do and that is use whole of life insurance policies to cover their liability. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The working man whether he is low paid or well paid has not benefitted from tax avoidance schemes other than the odd sweetener like an ISA. They have paid their burden of tax constantly over the last four decades. Would it not be fair for others who have been the recipients of many beneficial and more generous schemes to be asked to start paying their equal share? Not sure what the problem is. You have looked at the landscape in the same way as labour which we all know is wrong.. Where Labour gets it wrong is failing to recognise that self employed individuals or SME business owners are also working people. Running a business, being self employed involves risks that go far beyond those of PAYE employees. The tax arrangements available to them are not avoidance but a legal part of conducting business within the framework of the law I have run my own businesses since I was 19 years of age and employed hundreds of people over that time so please don’t assume I don’t understand how it works. Farmers have been given special status for years and it stems back to farmers having big say in parliament due to a lot of MPs being farmers in the past. Like all small family businesses they face pressure from bigger concerns Sorry but that’s tough. Food security is irrelevant as we are no where near able to feed ourselves The fact is they are still on a better tax rate than most along with all the same tools you mention to write off investments On top of which they receive subsidy because the actual business model doesn’t work. So yes it’s hard . The smaller farms which are the biggest number are probably going to be exempt. A huge swathe of our land is actually registered to overseas holding specifically designed to avoid tax so they will still be exempt. All labour are targeting is the middle ground and until they can claw back the overseas registrations then its a bit of a weak policy. Yet again the really wealthy will be able to avoid any issues. this .... the question 'who will pay the taxes?' ... the same people who do now. if those wealthy enough to currently avoid taxes are forced to start paying, only to then childishly threaten to take their ball home in a tantrum then what difference does it make? .... they pay no fucking tax anyway! let them go and allow creative innovative new people fill the void they've left instead. "You don’t see it do you . Small and medium farmers do pay taxes. Farm and businesses succession has long been exempt from death taxes, its necessary part of a stable economy. Farmers like myself simply can not pay 20% tax on land that due to valuation reasoning unconnected to farming, is based on an inflated asset value that generates less than 1% return a year. Farms like ours will be forced to sell… the less productive land will end up in unproductive resulting and pony paddocks for the middle class, the productive land intt to o corporations that pay no UK taxes. Long term this spiteful Marxist policy reduces tax revenues and greatly endangers our nation food security. Farmers are not trying to avoid tax but surely anyone should be able to pass down a home, a business or a 4th generation family farm with such a heavy tax liability that is simply unviable. If my primary motivation was to avoid death taxes I would sell up tomorrow and take my ball out of this communist country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The working man whether he is low paid or well paid has not benefitted from tax avoidance schemes other than the odd sweetener like an ISA. They have paid their burden of tax constantly over the last four decades. Would it not be fair for others who have been the recipients of many beneficial and more generous schemes to be asked to start paying their equal share? Not sure what the problem is. I’m a working farmer who will get clobbered by the farm death tax. What’s not fair is having to pay 20% on a business asset that generate 0.5% on its overinflated asset value, it’s simply unpayable. It’s avoidable, like all inheritance tax if you give away your assets and live seven years. . death tax is not a tax of all the rich, just those who choose not to plan and a tax of upmost cruelty imposed upon modest families who’s loved one dies too early. Add to that now a tax upon elderly farmers whose best plans have been sledge hammered. This tax doesn’t just hit the super rich but multi generational family farms who live on a shoestring income, it’s a Marxist spiteful policy to punish a working class minority group who don’t vote red. This is the start of transferring our nations food production land into foreign owned corporates that pay no taxes here at all. The range in the farming community right now is explosive If it affects multi-generational farmers, what did the generations before 1984 do when farmers were paying IHT? I suspect they did what all wealthy individuals still do and that is use whole of life insurance policies to cover their liability. " Land price was more in line with farm incomes.. paying 40% tax on an asset generating 10% return is a lot more feasible than paying 20% tax on an asset generating 0.5% return…. Life insurance is an option but for the sums involved it’s not a cheap one.. all makes lots of money for those nice big fancy pants office blocks in London… and the premiums are taxed 12.5%. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The working man whether he is low paid or well paid has not benefitted from tax avoidance schemes other than the odd sweetener like an ISA. They have paid their burden of tax constantly over the last four decades. Would it not be fair for others who have been the recipients of many beneficial and more generous schemes to be asked to start paying their equal share? Not sure what the problem is. You have looked at the landscape in the same way as labour which we all know is wrong.. Where Labour gets it wrong is failing to recognise that self employed individuals or SME business owners are also working people. Running a business, being self employed involves risks that go far beyond those of PAYE employees. The tax arrangements available to them are not avoidance but a legal part of conducting business within the framework of the law I have run my own businesses since I was 19 years of age and employed hundreds of people over that time so please don’t assume I don’t understand how it works. Farmers have been given special status for years and it stems back to farmers having big say in parliament due to a lot of MPs being farmers in the past. Like all small family businesses they face pressure from bigger concerns Sorry but that’s tough. Food security is irrelevant as we are no where near able to feed ourselves The fact is they are still on a better tax rate than most along with all the same tools you mention to write off investments On top of which they receive subsidy because the actual business model doesn’t work. So yes it’s hard . The smaller farms which are the biggest number are probably going to be exempt. A huge swathe of our land is actually registered to overseas holding specifically designed to avoid tax so they will still be exempt. All labour are targeting is the middle ground and until they can claw back the overseas registrations then its a bit of a weak policy. Yet again the really wealthy will be able to avoid any issues. this .... the question 'who will pay the taxes?' ... the same people who do now. if those wealthy enough to currently avoid taxes are forced to start paying, only to then childishly threaten to take their ball home in a tantrum then what difference does it make? .... they pay no fucking tax anyway! let them go and allow creative innovative new people fill the void they've left instead.
You don’t see it do you . Small and medium farmers do pay taxes. Farm and businesses succession has long been exempt from death taxes, its necessary part of a stable economy. Farmers like myself simply can not pay 20% tax on land that due to valuation reasoning unconnected to farming, is based on an inflated asset value that generates less than 1% return a year. Farms like ours will be forced to sell… the less productive land will end up in unproductive resulting and pony paddocks for the middle class, the productive land intt to o corporations that pay no UK taxes. Long term this spiteful Marxist policy reduces tax revenues and greatly endangers our nation food security. Farmers are not trying to avoid tax but surely anyone should be able to pass down a home, a business or a 4th generation family farm with such a heavy tax liability that is simply unviable. If my primary motivation was to avoid death taxes I would sell up tomorrow and take my ball out of this communist country."see ya 👋 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The working man whether he is low paid or well paid has not benefitted from tax avoidance schemes other than the odd sweetener like an ISA. They have paid their burden of tax constantly over the last four decades. Would it not be fair for others who have been the recipients of many beneficial and more generous schemes to be asked to start paying their equal share? Not sure what the problem is. You have looked at the landscape in the same way as labour which we all know is wrong.. Where Labour gets it wrong is failing to recognise that self employed individuals or SME business owners are also working people. Running a business, being self employed involves risks that go far beyond those of PAYE employees. The tax arrangements available to them are not avoidance but a legal part of conducting business within the framework of the law I have run my own businesses since I was 19 years of age and employed hundreds of people over that time so please don’t assume I don’t understand how it works. Farmers have been given special status for years and it stems back to farmers having big say in parliament due to a lot of MPs being farmers in the past. Like all small family businesses they face pressure from bigger concerns Sorry but that’s tough. Food security is irrelevant as we are no where near able to feed ourselves The fact is they are still on a better tax rate than most along with all the same tools you mention to write off investments On top of which they receive subsidy because the actual business model doesn’t work. So yes it’s hard . The smaller farms which are the biggest number are probably going to be exempt. A huge swathe of our land is actually registered to overseas holding specifically designed to avoid tax so they will still be exempt. All labour are targeting is the middle ground and until they can claw back the overseas registrations then its a bit of a weak policy. Yet again the really wealthy will be able to avoid any issues. " Your dismissal of the pressures faced by small family farms “Sorry, but that’s tough” simply ignores the realities of farming and the unique challenges they face. This IHT insists at looking at farm values which are tied to land and assets, that does not reflect a farmers actual earnings, making it unbalanced. These are working farms, not cash cows (pun intended), and taxing them based on their value will force farming families to sell off land, to continue working. Their land is not wealth, it’s a necessity for their livelihood, just as a builder with a van and toolbox. Your opinion that food security is irrelevant shows me you have not considered this beyond the surface of tax dodging rich people should pay, which is why like your other views that align with labour are misguided. The closure of small farms would place food production in the hands of large agricultural corps as they buy up at discounted prices. These corps, with little competition and all the market control, would have the power to dictate prices and production to the supermarkets, which doesn't happen today, putting us the consumers at their mercy. Food security would absolutely be in jeopardy, not from a lack of food but from cost and the loss of diverse, sustainable farming practices. Finally, this absolutely seems fuelled by the politics of envy, you lean into it when you keep referring to the rich dodging taxes! The assumption that all farmers are rich because they own land is a socialist misconception that ignores the reality of farming as hard, relentless work. Farmers are workers too, often earning far less than what their hard work deserves. Targeting farming families based on the perceived value of their land / assets, is proof this policy penalises families for simply trying to sustain their way of life. This is another Labour bad decision that has not been thought out, just like every other policy they have. A little time and consideration could have made this less contentious, and far more balanced. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The working man whether he is low paid or well paid has not benefitted from tax avoidance schemes other than the odd sweetener like an ISA. They have paid their burden of tax constantly over the last four decades. Would it not be fair for others who have been the recipients of many beneficial and more generous schemes to be asked to start paying their equal share? Not sure what the problem is. You have looked at the landscape in the same way as labour which we all know is wrong.. Where Labour gets it wrong is failing to recognise that self employed individuals or SME business owners are also working people. Running a business, being self employed involves risks that go far beyond those of PAYE employees. The tax arrangements available to them are not avoidance but a legal part of conducting business within the framework of the law I have run my own businesses since I was 19 years of age and employed hundreds of people over that time so please don’t assume I don’t understand how it works. Farmers have been given special status for years and it stems back to farmers having big say in parliament due to a lot of MPs being farmers in the past. Like all small family businesses they face pressure from bigger concerns Sorry but that’s tough. Food security is irrelevant as we are no where near able to feed ourselves The fact is they are still on a better tax rate than most along with all the same tools you mention to write off investments On top of which they receive subsidy because the actual business model doesn’t work. So yes it’s hard . The smaller farms which are the biggest number are probably going to be exempt. A huge swathe of our land is actually registered to overseas holding specifically designed to avoid tax so they will still be exempt. All labour are targeting is the middle ground and until they can claw back the overseas registrations then its a bit of a weak policy. Yet again the really wealthy will be able to avoid any issues. Your dismissal of the pressures faced by small family farms “Sorry, but that’s tough” simply ignores the realities of farming and the unique challenges they face. This IHT insists at looking at farm values which are tied to land and assets, that does not reflect a farmers actual earnings, making it unbalanced. These are working farms, not cash cows (pun intended), and taxing them based on their value will force farming families to sell off land, to continue working. Their land is not wealth, it’s a necessity for their livelihood, just as a builder with a van and toolbox. Your opinion that food security is irrelevant shows me you have not considered this beyond the surface of tax dodging rich people should pay, which is why like your other views that align with labour are misguided. The closure of small farms would place food production in the hands of large agricultural corps as they buy up at discounted prices. These corps, with little competition and all the market control, would have the power to dictate prices and production to the supermarkets, which doesn't happen today, putting us the consumers at their mercy. Food security would absolutely be in jeopardy, not from a lack of food but from cost and the loss of diverse, sustainable farming practices. Finally, this absolutely seems fuelled by the politics of envy, you lean into it when you keep referring to the rich dodging taxes! The assumption that all farmers are rich because they own land is a socialist misconception that ignores the reality of farming as hard, relentless work. Farmers are workers too, often earning far less than what their hard work deserves. Targeting farming families based on the perceived value of their land / assets, is proof this policy penalises families for simply trying to sustain their way of life. This is another Labour bad decision that has not been thought out, just like every other policy they have. A little time and consideration could have made this less contentious, and far more balanced." absolute garbage. and as for the usual politics of jealousy crap .... thats just absolute far right garbage. your insistance that farmers will have to sell everything they own to pay a pepercorn amount of tax is garbage. your assertion that there will be no farms left and no food is utter garbage. this spouting garbage to scare people is far right filth and you should be ashamed of yourself for spreading this garbage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The working man whether he is low paid or well paid has not benefitted from tax avoidance schemes other than the odd sweetener like an ISA. They have paid their burden of tax constantly over the last four decades. Would it not be fair for others who have been the recipients of many beneficial and more generous schemes to be asked to start paying their equal share? Not sure what the problem is. You have looked at the landscape in the same way as labour which we all know is wrong.. Where Labour gets it wrong is failing to recognise that self employed individuals or SME business owners are also working people. Running a business, being self employed involves risks that go far beyond those of PAYE employees. The tax arrangements available to them are not avoidance but a legal part of conducting business within the framework of the law I have run my own businesses since I was 19 years of age and employed hundreds of people over that time so please don’t assume I don’t understand how it works. Farmers have been given special status for years and it stems back to farmers having big say in parliament due to a lot of MPs being farmers in the past. Like all small family businesses they face pressure from bigger concerns Sorry but that’s tough. Food security is irrelevant as we are no where near able to feed ourselves The fact is they are still on a better tax rate than most along with all the same tools you mention to write off investments On top of which they receive subsidy because the actual business model doesn’t work. So yes it’s hard . The smaller farms which are the biggest number are probably going to be exempt. A huge swathe of our land is actually registered to overseas holding specifically designed to avoid tax so they will still be exempt. All labour are targeting is the middle ground and until they can claw back the overseas registrations then its a bit of a weak policy. Yet again the really wealthy will be able to avoid any issues. Your dismissal of the pressures faced by small family farms “Sorry, but that’s tough” simply ignores the realities of farming and the unique challenges they face. This IHT insists at looking at farm values which are tied to land and assets, that does not reflect a farmers actual earnings, making it unbalanced. These are working farms, not cash cows (pun intended), and taxing them based on their value will force farming families to sell off land, to continue working. Their land is not wealth, it’s a necessity for their livelihood, just as a builder with a van and toolbox. Your opinion that food security is irrelevant shows me you have not considered this beyond the surface of tax dodging rich people should pay, which is why like your other views that align with labour are misguided. The closure of small farms would place food production in the hands of large agricultural corps as they buy up at discounted prices. These corps, with little competition and all the market control, would have the power to dictate prices and production to the supermarkets, which doesn't happen today, putting us the consumers at their mercy. Food security would absolutely be in jeopardy, not from a lack of food but from cost and the loss of diverse, sustainable farming practices. Finally, this absolutely seems fuelled by the politics of envy, you lean into it when you keep referring to the rich dodging taxes! The assumption that all farmers are rich because they own land is a socialist misconception that ignores the reality of farming as hard, relentless work. Farmers are workers too, often earning far less than what their hard work deserves. Targeting farming families based on the perceived value of their land / assets, is proof this policy penalises families for simply trying to sustain their way of life. This is another Labour bad decision that has not been thought out, just like every other policy they have. A little time and consideration could have made this less contentious, and far more balanced. absolute garbage. and as for the usual politics of jealousy crap .... thats just absolute far right garbage. your insistance that farmers will have to sell everything they own to pay a pepercorn amount of tax is garbage. your assertion that there will be no farms left and no food is utter garbage. this spouting garbage to scare people is far right filth and you should be ashamed of yourself for spreading this garbage." Wow, what a lot of garbages | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Wow, what a lot of garbages"  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... and take my ball out of this communist country." This section of the forums has just turned into a competition to say the most ridiculous nonsense possible and pass it off as a real/serious opinion. It's getting worse by the day. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The working man whether he is low paid or well paid has not benefitted from tax avoidance schemes other than the odd sweetener like an ISA. They have paid their burden of tax constantly over the last four decades. Would it not be fair for others who have been the recipients of many beneficial and more generous schemes to be asked to start paying their equal share? Not sure what the problem is. You have looked at the landscape in the same way as labour which we all know is wrong.. Where Labour gets it wrong is failing to recognise that self employed individuals or SME business owners are also working people. Running a business, being self employed involves risks that go far beyond those of PAYE employees. The tax arrangements available to them are not avoidance but a legal part of conducting business within the framework of the law I have run my own businesses since I was 19 years of age and employed hundreds of people over that time so please don’t assume I don’t understand how it works. Farmers have been given special status for years and it stems back to farmers having big say in parliament due to a lot of MPs being farmers in the past. Like all small family businesses they face pressure from bigger concerns Sorry but that’s tough. Food security is irrelevant as we are no where near able to feed ourselves The fact is they are still on a better tax rate than most along with all the same tools you mention to write off investments On top of which they receive subsidy because the actual business model doesn’t work. So yes it’s hard . The smaller farms which are the biggest number are probably going to be exempt. A huge swathe of our land is actually registered to overseas holding specifically designed to avoid tax so they will still be exempt. All labour are targeting is the middle ground and until they can claw back the overseas registrations then its a bit of a weak policy. Yet again the really wealthy will be able to avoid any issues. Your dismissal of the pressures faced by small family farms “Sorry, but that’s tough” simply ignores the realities of farming and the unique challenges they face. This IHT insists at looking at farm values which are tied to land and assets, that does not reflect a farmers actual earnings, making it unbalanced. These are working farms, not cash cows (pun intended), and taxing them based on their value will force farming families to sell off land, to continue working. Their land is not wealth, it’s a necessity for their livelihood, just as a builder with a van and toolbox. Your opinion that food security is irrelevant shows me you have not considered this beyond the surface of tax dodging rich people should pay, which is why like your other views that align with labour are misguided. The closure of small farms would place food production in the hands of large agricultural corps as they buy up at discounted prices. These corps, with little competition and all the market control, would have the power to dictate prices and production to the supermarkets, which doesn't happen today, putting us the consumers at their mercy. Food security would absolutely be in jeopardy, not from a lack of food but from cost and the loss of diverse, sustainable farming practices. Finally, this absolutely seems fuelled by the politics of envy, you lean into it when you keep referring to the rich dodging taxes! The assumption that all farmers are rich because they own land is a socialist misconception that ignores the reality of farming as hard, relentless work. Farmers are workers too, often earning far less than what their hard work deserves. Targeting farming families based on the perceived value of their land / assets, is proof this policy penalises families for simply trying to sustain their way of life. This is another Labour bad decision that has not been thought out, just like every other policy they have. A little time and consideration could have made this less contentious, and far more balanced. absolute garbage. and as for the usual politics of jealousy crap .... thats just absolute far right garbage. your insistance that farmers will have to sell everything they own to pay a pepercorn amount of tax is garbage. your assertion that there will be no farms left and no food is utter garbage. this spouting garbage to scare people is far right filth and you should be ashamed of yourself for spreading this garbage." You don’t have any type of counter other than repeating the same word over? Resorting to name calling and accusations (far right filth and garbage) is not a substitute for an informed response. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, try presenting facts or addressing the points I’ve raised, or is that the point of your reply, you don't want meaningful discussion? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The working man whether he is low paid or well paid has not benefitted from tax avoidance schemes other than the odd sweetener like an ISA. They have paid their burden of tax constantly over the last four decades. Would it not be fair for others who have been the recipients of many beneficial and more generous schemes to be asked to start paying their equal share? Not sure what the problem is. You have looked at the landscape in the same way as labour which we all know is wrong.. Where Labour gets it wrong is failing to recognise that self employed individuals or SME business owners are also working people. Running a business, being self employed involves risks that go far beyond those of PAYE employees. The tax arrangements available to them are not avoidance but a legal part of conducting business within the framework of the law I have run my own businesses since I was 19 years of age and employed hundreds of people over that time so please don’t assume I don’t understand how it works. Farmers have been given special status for years and it stems back to farmers having big say in parliament due to a lot of MPs being farmers in the past. Like all small family businesses they face pressure from bigger concerns Sorry but that’s tough. Food security is irrelevant as we are no where near able to feed ourselves The fact is they are still on a better tax rate than most along with all the same tools you mention to write off investments On top of which they receive subsidy because the actual business model doesn’t work. So yes it’s hard . The smaller farms which are the biggest number are probably going to be exempt. A huge swathe of our land is actually registered to overseas holding specifically designed to avoid tax so they will still be exempt. All labour are targeting is the middle ground and until they can claw back the overseas registrations then its a bit of a weak policy. Yet again the really wealthy will be able to avoid any issues. Your dismissal of the pressures faced by small family farms “Sorry, but that’s tough” simply ignores the realities of farming and the unique challenges they face. This IHT insists at looking at farm values which are tied to land and assets, that does not reflect a farmers actual earnings, making it unbalanced. These are working farms, not cash cows (pun intended), and taxing them based on their value will force farming families to sell off land, to continue working. Their land is not wealth, it’s a necessity for their livelihood, just as a builder with a van and toolbox. Your opinion that food security is irrelevant shows me you have not considered this beyond the surface of tax dodging rich people should pay, which is why like your other views that align with labour are misguided. The closure of small farms would place food production in the hands of large agricultural corps as they buy up at discounted prices. These corps, with little competition and all the market control, would have the power to dictate prices and production to the supermarkets, which doesn't happen today, putting us the consumers at their mercy. Food security would absolutely be in jeopardy, not from a lack of food but from cost and the loss of diverse, sustainable farming practices. Finally, this absolutely seems fuelled by the politics of envy, you lean into it when you keep referring to the rich dodging taxes! The assumption that all farmers are rich because they own land is a socialist misconception that ignores the reality of farming as hard, relentless work. Farmers are workers too, often earning far less than what their hard work deserves. Targeting farming families based on the perceived value of their land / assets, is proof this policy penalises families for simply trying to sustain their way of life. This is another Labour bad decision that has not been thought out, just like every other policy they have. A little time and consideration could have made this less contentious, and far more balanced. absolute garbage. and as for the usual politics of jealousy crap .... thats just absolute far right garbage. your insistance that farmers will have to sell everything they own to pay a pepercorn amount of tax is garbage. your assertion that there will be no farms left and no food is utter garbage. this spouting garbage to scare people is far right filth and you should be ashamed of yourself for spreading this garbage. You don’t have any type of counter other than repeating the same word over? Resorting to name calling and accusations (far right filth and garbage) is not a substitute for an informed response. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, try presenting facts or addressing the points I’ve raised, or is that the point of your reply, you don't want meaningful discussion?" if your banding about far right sounbite crap about envy then there's little point. on top of that i provided a meticulous explaination on the previous thread that completely dismantles the garbage you've written here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The working man whether he is low paid or well paid has not benefitted from tax avoidance schemes other than the odd sweetener like an ISA. They have paid their burden of tax constantly over the last four decades. Would it not be fair for others who have been the recipients of many beneficial and more generous schemes to be asked to start paying their equal share? Not sure what the problem is. I’m a working farmer who will get clobbered by the farm death tax. What’s not fair is having to pay 20% on a business asset that generate 0.5% on its overinflated asset value, it’s simply unpayable. It’s avoidable, like all inheritance tax if you give away your assets and live seven years. . death tax is not a tax of all the rich, just those who choose not to plan and a tax of upmost cruelty imposed upon modest families who’s loved one dies too early. Add to that now a tax upon elderly farmers whose best plans have been sledge hammered. This tax doesn’t just hit the super rich but multi generational family farms who live on a shoestring income, it’s a Marxist spiteful policy to punish a working class minority group who don’t vote red. This is the start of transferring our nations food production land into foreign owned corporates that pay no taxes here at all. The range in the farming community right now is explosive " I have total sympathy for you. I have sold businesses rather than compete with multinationals so you have the same predicament. Did you fight for the miners when we imported coal or the gas rig workers when we imported energy. You hide behind it’s a family business not making a profit which can be said of all small businesses they are a lifestyle choice and they have to pay the tax so why not you? Why do you deserve better treatment? The nonsense of custodians of the country has been debunked given the loss of wild habitat and birds etc. Why does your family deserve to be protected more than a family of say shoe makers against Chinese imports? I really don ‘t want you to be treated badly but you should be treated the same as other businesses or at least you should fight for all the small businesses of which all are liable for more than you percentage wise. You are a lessor victim than many others. The true small family farms will be exempt as you know. You chose to be in an industry that doesn’t make a profit. You can extract the value of your land or borrow against it etc and still receive subsidies . Can the shoemaker do the same? Are their assets protected for following generations? As you say you can plan like everyone else so there you go. You can avoid it if you plan. Again I’m not sure what the problem is? Playing the early death card ? Hmm so no one else suffers with that? As a farmer you will know very well who they are ultimately targeting and like me you know they will fail. Personally I would suggest any land over say 300 acres of arable capable or shooting moors woodland etc should be forced to take uk registration to avoid the corporate and Uber wealthy playing the system. This would also bring back the financial control to the uk government around taxes. Maybe if those offshore owned lands under the control of the very wealthy paid their taxes you and other business wouldn’t be squeezed so much. It’s crap but it’s what people voted for including the previous government as they also knew the tax situation was getting worse. My own businesses were millions down due to Brexit and the majority of farmers voted for that apparently . In their defence they were lied to just like the fishermen who were also shafted. The economy not growing and in fact shrinking on occasions due in part to brexit has decreased the potential tax take again, did you vote for that? People take actions without ever thinking of the possible consequences. You are shouting and claiming left wing policies but your actual enemy is those who don’t pay tax ever. Since Thatcher the tax avoidance has been encouraged by all colour governments making us all poorer. It had to end this way eventually. There’s nothing left to squeeze from the low to middle earners. Btw if your return is only 0.5% sell it for that “over inflated” price and put the money in a bank . Remember you have a choice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... and take my ball out of this communist country. This section of the forums has just turned into a competition to say the most ridiculous nonsense possible and pass it off as a real/serious opinion. It's getting worse by the day. " I thought the rest of the reply you took the quote above from was well balanced and offered valuable insights. What did you think? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... and take my ball out of this communist country. This section of the forums has just turned into a competition to say the most ridiculous nonsense possible and pass it off as a real/serious opinion. It's getting worse by the day. I thought the rest of the reply you took the quote above from was well balanced and offered valuable insights. What did you think? " I think that saying the UK is a communist country is so unbelievably ridiculous that it invalidates any other points being made. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The working man whether he is low paid or well paid has not benefitted from tax avoidance schemes other than the odd sweetener like an ISA. They have paid their burden of tax constantly over the last four decades. Would it not be fair for others who have been the recipients of many beneficial and more generous schemes to be asked to start paying their equal share? Not sure what the problem is. You have looked at the landscape in the same way as labour which we all know is wrong.. Where Labour gets it wrong is failing to recognise that self employed individuals or SME business owners are also working people. Running a business, being self employed involves risks that go far beyond those of PAYE employees. The tax arrangements available to them are not avoidance but a legal part of conducting business within the framework of the law I have run my own businesses since I was 19 years of age and employed hundreds of people over that time so please don’t assume I don’t understand how it works. Farmers have been given special status for years and it stems back to farmers having big say in parliament due to a lot of MPs being farmers in the past. Like all small family businesses they face pressure from bigger concerns Sorry but that’s tough. Food security is irrelevant as we are no where near able to feed ourselves The fact is they are still on a better tax rate than most along with all the same tools you mention to write off investments On top of which they receive subsidy because the actual business model doesn’t work. So yes it’s hard . The smaller farms which are the biggest number are probably going to be exempt. A huge swathe of our land is actually registered to overseas holding specifically designed to avoid tax so they will still be exempt. All labour are targeting is the middle ground and until they can claw back the overseas registrations then its a bit of a weak policy. Yet again the really wealthy will be able to avoid any issues. Your dismissal of the pressures faced by small family farms “Sorry, but that’s tough” simply ignores the realities of farming and the unique challenges they face. This IHT insists at looking at farm values which are tied to land and assets, that does not reflect a farmers actual earnings, making it unbalanced. These are working farms, not cash cows (pun intended), and taxing them based on their value will force farming families to sell off land, to continue working. Their land is not wealth, it’s a necessity for their livelihood, just as a builder with a van and toolbox. Your opinion that food security is irrelevant shows me you have not considered this beyond the surface of tax dodging rich people should pay, which is why like your other views that align with labour are misguided. The closure of small farms would place food production in the hands of large agricultural corps as they buy up at discounted prices. These corps, with little competition and all the market control, would have the power to dictate prices and production to the supermarkets, which doesn't happen today, putting us the consumers at their mercy. Food security would absolutely be in jeopardy, not from a lack of food but from cost and the loss of diverse, sustainable farming practices. Finally, this absolutely seems fuelled by the politics of envy, you lean into it when you keep referring to the rich dodging taxes! The assumption that all farmers are rich because they own land is a socialist misconception that ignores the reality of farming as hard, relentless work. Farmers are workers too, often earning far less than what their hard work deserves. Targeting farming families based on the perceived value of their land / assets, is proof this policy penalises families for simply trying to sustain their way of life. This is another Labour bad decision that has not been thought out, just like every other policy they have. A little time and consideration could have made this less contentious, and far more balanced. absolute garbage. and as for the usual politics of jealousy crap .... thats just absolute far right garbage. your insistance that farmers will have to sell everything they own to pay a pepercorn amount of tax is garbage. your assertion that there will be no farms left and no food is utter garbage. this spouting garbage to scare people is far right filth and you should be ashamed of yourself for spreading this garbage. You don’t have any type of counter other than repeating the same word over? Resorting to name calling and accusations (far right filth and garbage) is not a substitute for an informed response. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, try presenting facts or addressing the points I’ve raised, or is that the point of your reply, you don't want meaningful discussion? if your banding about far right sounbite crap about envy then there's little point. on top of that i provided a meticulous explaination on the previous thread that completely dismantles the garbage you've written here. "I disagree that you provided anything that dismantles what I have written, I can only see misunderstandings in your explanations. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... and take my ball out of this communist country. This section of the forums has just turned into a competition to say the most ridiculous nonsense possible and pass it off as a real/serious opinion. It's getting worse by the day. I thought the rest of the reply you took the quote above from was well balanced and offered valuable insights. What did you think? " misinformation heavily weighted to the one side of the poster's ideology. it has zip balance and zip factual content. it is bereft of value and garbage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... and take my ball out of this communist country. This section of the forums has just turned into a competition to say the most ridiculous nonsense possible and pass it off as a real/serious opinion. It's getting worse by the day. I thought the rest of the reply you took the quote above from was well balanced and offered valuable insights. What did you think? I think that saying the UK is a communist country is so unbelievably ridiculous that it invalidates any other points being made. " I see, outrageous, ridiculous or emotional claims make the rest of the post invalid? I was going to try and make an argument against that but, I know where you are coming from. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... and take my ball out of this communist country. This section of the forums has just turned into a competition to say the most ridiculous nonsense possible and pass it off as a real/serious opinion. It's getting worse by the day. I thought the rest of the reply you took the quote above from was well balanced and offered valuable insights. What did you think? I think that saying the UK is a communist country is so unbelievably ridiculous that it invalidates any other points being made. I see, outrageous, ridiculous or emotional claims make the rest of the post invalid? I was going to try and make an argument against that but, I know where you are coming from. " Same as when someone calls the Tories Nazis. Just invalidates any other points being made. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The working man whether he is low paid or well paid has not benefitted from tax avoidance schemes other than the odd sweetener like an ISA. They have paid their burden of tax constantly over the last four decades. Would it not be fair for others who have been the recipients of many beneficial and more generous schemes to be asked to start paying their equal share? Not sure what the problem is. You have looked at the landscape in the same way as labour which we all know is wrong.. Where Labour gets it wrong is failing to recognise that self employed individuals or SME business owners are also working people. Running a business, being self employed involves risks that go far beyond those of PAYE employees. The tax arrangements available to them are not avoidance but a legal part of conducting business within the framework of the law I have run my own businesses since I was 19 years of age and employed hundreds of people over that time so please don’t assume I don’t understand how it works. Farmers have been given special status for years and it stems back to farmers having big say in parliament due to a lot of MPs being farmers in the past. Like all small family businesses they face pressure from bigger concerns Sorry but that’s tough. Food security is irrelevant as we are no where near able to feed ourselves The fact is they are still on a better tax rate than most along with all the same tools you mention to write off investments On top of which they receive subsidy because the actual business model doesn’t work. So yes it’s hard . The smaller farms which are the biggest number are probably going to be exempt. A huge swathe of our land is actually registered to overseas holding specifically designed to avoid tax so they will still be exempt. All labour are targeting is the middle ground and until they can claw back the overseas registrations then its a bit of a weak policy. Yet again the really wealthy will be able to avoid any issues. Your dismissal of the pressures faced by small family farms “Sorry, but that’s tough” simply ignores the realities of farming and the unique challenges they face. This IHT insists at looking at farm values which are tied to land and assets, that does not reflect a farmers actual earnings, making it unbalanced. These are working farms, not cash cows (pun intended), and taxing them based on their value will force farming families to sell off land, to continue working. Their land is not wealth, it’s a necessity for their livelihood, just as a builder with a van and toolbox. Your opinion that food security is irrelevant shows me you have not considered this beyond the surface of tax dodging rich people should pay, which is why like your other views that align with labour are misguided. The closure of small farms would place food production in the hands of large agricultural corps as they buy up at discounted prices. These corps, with little competition and all the market control, would have the power to dictate prices and production to the supermarkets, which doesn't happen today, putting us the consumers at their mercy. Food security would absolutely be in jeopardy, not from a lack of food but from cost and the loss of diverse, sustainable farming practices. Finally, this absolutely seems fuelled by the politics of envy, you lean into it when you keep referring to the rich dodging taxes! The assumption that all farmers are rich because they own land is a socialist misconception that ignores the reality of farming as hard, relentless work. Farmers are workers too, often earning far less than what their hard work deserves. Targeting farming families based on the perceived value of their land / assets, is proof this policy penalises families for simply trying to sustain their way of life. This is another Labour bad decision that has not been thought out, just like every other policy they have. A little time and consideration could have made this less contentious, and far more balanced." Your politics of envy falls flat as I am reasonably wealthy and have been successful in business. So let’s put that to one side. Farmers have for years been shouting the supermarkets are to strong. Maybe stronger farming groups can even that balance of power. If the food has a value then it will be grown. Whether than a two man 120acre small farm or a two man 1000 acre farm. ( yes contractors on many) . I grew up in a farming community and went to school with farmers and they are still my friends. I’ve witnessed some have to sell because even with subsidy they were too small. Another proudly told me he had received enormous subsidies even though it was just him and his brother . Yes he had contractors too. It’s an old established industry under pressure from multinationals just like all other industries. The smaller individual adaptable farms may survive. The small to mediums farm are directly competing with multinationals so will have to be smart or exit just like in the rest of the business community, I agree with you food will eventually be more expensive but that’s inevitable with the corporate comes first mindset. We want supermarkets rather than greengrocers and butchers. Sad but true. Walk along most high streets to witness the mistakes we’ve made. You’re pushing water uphill I’m afraid. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just wanted to make a side point on this. . You see above some saying it’s a left wing envy tax and others saying it’s only fair etc . The real crime here is that this is needed at all. Since we had the windfall of North Sea oil virtually every government has failed to implement a fair tax system which would have created a national wealth fund such as that in Norway. Crashing from free market to lefter more socially caring policies has just added to the mess. Norway was a bit of a backwater before oil . They kept a stake in the developments and taxed it higher than the U.K. They put that fund away and only part of the interest was allowed to be used for infrastructure and social programmes . To this day political parties are restricted in its use so no tax give away etc for votes. Look at our history and see the chaos around politics . Parties on both sides have abjectly failed us and now after we’ve sold off the family silver we are left with a hollowed out country that needs ongoing growth just to stand still . Filter down economics never works and neither does worker first with belligerent unions . Our system is riddled with schemes that give an embarrassment of wealth to very few. whilst the rest squabble over the leftovers . Our politics needs reforming to look at the long term issues . Bi-partisan setup for the NHS? I’m sick of we’ve invested record amounts being spouted . Due to inflation every year is a record . Sorry rant over . " A worthy rant all the same | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" now after we’ve sold off the family silver we are left with a hollowed out country that needs ongoing growth just to stand still . " the family silver was sold back to the family who already owned it ... what incredible grift that was! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The working man whether he is low paid or well paid has not benefitted from tax avoidance schemes other than the odd sweetener like an ISA. They have paid their burden of tax constantly over the last four decades. Would it not be fair for others who have been the recipients of many beneficial and more generous schemes to be asked to start paying their equal share? Not sure what the problem is. You have looked at the landscape in the same way as labour which we all know is wrong.. Where Labour gets it wrong is failing to recognise that self employed individuals or SME business owners are also working people. Running a business, being self employed involves risks that go far beyond those of PAYE employees. The tax arrangements available to them are not avoidance but a legal part of conducting business within the framework of the law I have run my own businesses since I was 19 years of age and employed hundreds of people over that time so please don’t assume I don’t understand how it works. Farmers have been given special status for years and it stems back to farmers having big say in parliament due to a lot of MPs being farmers in the past. Like all small family businesses they face pressure from bigger concerns Sorry but that’s tough. Food security is irrelevant as we are no where near able to feed ourselves The fact is they are still on a better tax rate than most along with all the same tools you mention to write off investments On top of which they receive subsidy because the actual business model doesn’t work. So yes it’s hard . The smaller farms which are the biggest number are probably going to be exempt. A huge swathe of our land is actually registered to overseas holding specifically designed to avoid tax so they will still be exempt. All labour are targeting is the middle ground and until they can claw back the overseas registrations then its a bit of a weak policy. Yet again the really wealthy will be able to avoid any issues. Your dismissal of the pressures faced by small family farms “Sorry, but that’s tough” simply ignores the realities of farming and the unique challenges they face. This IHT insists at looking at farm values which are tied to land and assets, that does not reflect a farmers actual earnings, making it unbalanced. These are working farms, not cash cows (pun intended), and taxing them based on their value will force farming families to sell off land, to continue working. Their land is not wealth, it’s a necessity for their livelihood, just as a builder with a van and toolbox. Your opinion that food security is irrelevant shows me you have not considered this beyond the surface of tax dodging rich people should pay, which is why like your other views that align with labour are misguided. The closure of small farms would place food production in the hands of large agricultural corps as they buy up at discounted prices. These corps, with little competition and all the market control, would have the power to dictate prices and production to the supermarkets, which doesn't happen today, putting us the consumers at their mercy. Food security would absolutely be in jeopardy, not from a lack of food but from cost and the loss of diverse, sustainable farming practices. Finally, this absolutely seems fuelled by the politics of envy, you lean into it when you keep referring to the rich dodging taxes! The assumption that all farmers are rich because they own land is a socialist misconception that ignores the reality of farming as hard, relentless work. Farmers are workers too, often earning far less than what their hard work deserves. Targeting farming families based on the perceived value of their land / assets, is proof this policy penalises families for simply trying to sustain their way of life. This is another Labour bad decision that has not been thought out, just like every other policy they have. A little time and consideration could have made this less contentious, and far more balanced. Your politics of envy falls flat as I am reasonably wealthy and have been successful in business. So let’s put that to one side. Farmers have for years been shouting the supermarkets are to strong. Maybe stronger farming groups can even that balance of power. If the food has a value then it will be grown. Whether than a two man 120acre small farm or a two man 1000 acre farm. ( yes contractors on many) . I grew up in a farming community and went to school with farmers and they are still my friends. I’ve witnessed some have to sell because even with subsidy they were too small. Another proudly told me he had received enormous subsidies even though it was just him and his brother . Yes he had contractors too. It’s an old established industry under pressure from multinationals just like all other industries. The smaller individual adaptable farms may survive. The small to mediums farm are directly competing with multinationals so will have to be smart or exit just like in the rest of the business community, I agree with you food will eventually be more expensive but that’s inevitable with the corporate comes first mindset. We want supermarkets rather than greengrocers and butchers. Sad but true. Walk along most high streets to witness the mistakes we’ve made. You’re pushing water uphill I’m afraid. " I think you are caught up in 2 things here, the first being the idea that people are using land to avoid tax and secondly that only the fittest should survive. The last point does confuse me, because you mostly fall towards socialism in your posts, could be my misinterpretation though? I have no thoughts of any type of defence when it comes to the first, point, I don't care if the rich are forced to pay IHT on an asset they are using to reduce their tax burden. the second point I do care about, a farming family who make a living, that is the key point, making a living. They could be turning over 50K a year on an estimated land value of £4 - 6 million. There is no way the family could continue to earn that money post family death and pay IHT. The last part of my original post has also been overlooked, I said" "This is another Labour bad decision that has not been thought out, just like every other policy they have. A little time and consideration could have made this less contentious, and far more balanced". I heard yesterday an alternative option to this that made perfect sense, and would not have caused this much upset. If upon death the family continue to farm the land, they do not pay IHT, if however the family simply sell it off, they pay the full IHT. I would have been more accepting of that route, although I'm anti IHT, I believe it would have offered a fairer outcome for families who wanted to continue to farm. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The working man whether he is low paid or well paid has not benefitted from tax avoidance schemes other than the odd sweetener like an ISA. They have paid their burden of tax constantly over the last four decades. Would it not be fair for others who have been the recipients of many beneficial and more generous schemes to be asked to start paying their equal share? Not sure what the problem is. You have looked at the landscape in the same way as labour which we all know is wrong.. Where Labour gets it wrong is failing to recognise that self employed individuals or SME business owners are also working people. Running a business, being self employed involves risks that go far beyond those of PAYE employees. The tax arrangements available to them are not avoidance but a legal part of conducting business within the framework of the law I have run my own businesses since I was 19 years of age and employed hundreds of people over that time so please don’t assume I don’t understand how it works. Farmers have been given special status for years and it stems back to farmers having big say in parliament due to a lot of MPs being farmers in the past. Like all small family businesses they face pressure from bigger concerns Sorry but that’s tough. Food security is irrelevant as we are no where near able to feed ourselves The fact is they are still on a better tax rate than most along with all the same tools you mention to write off investments On top of which they receive subsidy because the actual business model doesn’t work. So yes it’s hard . The smaller farms which are the biggest number are probably going to be exempt. A huge swathe of our land is actually registered to overseas holding specifically designed to avoid tax so they will still be exempt. All labour are targeting is the middle ground and until they can claw back the overseas registrations then its a bit of a weak policy. Yet again the really wealthy will be able to avoid any issues. Your dismissal of the pressures faced by small family farms “Sorry, but that’s tough” simply ignores the realities of farming and the unique challenges they face. This IHT insists at looking at farm values which are tied to land and assets, that does not reflect a farmers actual earnings, making it unbalanced. These are working farms, not cash cows (pun intended), and taxing them based on their value will force farming families to sell off land, to continue working. Their land is not wealth, it’s a necessity for their livelihood, just as a builder with a van and toolbox. Your opinion that food security is irrelevant shows me you have not considered this beyond the surface of tax dodging rich people should pay, which is why like your other views that align with labour are misguided. The closure of small farms would place food production in the hands of large agricultural corps as they buy up at discounted prices. These corps, with little competition and all the market control, would have the power to dictate prices and production to the supermarkets, which doesn't happen today, putting us the consumers at their mercy. Food security would absolutely be in jeopardy, not from a lack of food but from cost and the loss of diverse, sustainable farming practices. Finally, this absolutely seems fuelled by the politics of envy, you lean into it when you keep referring to the rich dodging taxes! The assumption that all farmers are rich because they own land is a socialist misconception that ignores the reality of farming as hard, relentless work. Farmers are workers too, often earning far less than what their hard work deserves. Targeting farming families based on the perceived value of their land / assets, is proof this policy penalises families for simply trying to sustain their way of life. This is another Labour bad decision that has not been thought out, just like every other policy they have. A little time and consideration could have made this less contentious, and far more balanced. Your politics of envy falls flat as I am reasonably wealthy and have been successful in business. So let’s put that to one side. Farmers have for years been shouting the supermarkets are to strong. Maybe stronger farming groups can even that balance of power. If the food has a value then it will be grown. Whether than a two man 120acre small farm or a two man 1000 acre farm. ( yes contractors on many) . I grew up in a farming community and went to school with farmers and they are still my friends. I’ve witnessed some have to sell because even with subsidy they were too small. Another proudly told me he had received enormous subsidies even though it was just him and his brother . Yes he had contractors too. It’s an old established industry under pressure from multinationals just like all other industries. The smaller individual adaptable farms may survive. The small to mediums farm are directly competing with multinationals so will have to be smart or exit just like in the rest of the business community, I agree with you food will eventually be more expensive but that’s inevitable with the corporate comes first mindset. We want supermarkets rather than greengrocers and butchers. Sad but true. Walk along most high streets to witness the mistakes we’ve made. You’re pushing water uphill I’m afraid. I think you are caught up in 2 things here, the first being the idea that people are using land to avoid tax and secondly that only the fittest should survive. The last point does confuse me, because you mostly fall towards socialism in your posts, could be my misinterpretation though? I have no thoughts of any type of defence when it comes to the first, point, I don't care if the rich are forced to pay IHT on an asset they are using to reduce their tax burden. the second point I do care about, a farming family who make a living, that is the key point, making a living. They could be turning over 50K a year on an estimated land value of £4 - 6 million. There is no way the family could continue to earn that money post family death and pay IHT. The last part of my original post has also been overlooked, I said" "This is another Labour bad decision that has not been thought out, just like every other policy they have. A little time and consideration could have made this less contentious, and far more balanced". I heard yesterday an alternative option to this that made perfect sense, and would not have caused this much upset. If upon death the family continue to farm the land, they do not pay IHT, if however the family simply sell it off, they pay the full IHT. I would have been more accepting of that route, although I'm anti IHT, I believe it would have offered a fairer outcome for families who wanted to continue to farm. " disagree. the 100k ish tax spread over ten years ... not that difficult | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The working man whether he is low paid or well paid has not benefitted from tax avoidance schemes other than the odd sweetener like an ISA. They have paid their burden of tax constantly over the last four decades. Would it not be fair for others who have been the recipients of many beneficial and more generous schemes to be asked to start paying their equal share? Not sure what the problem is. You have looked at the landscape in the same way as labour which we all know is wrong.. Where Labour gets it wrong is failing to recognise that self employed individuals or SME business owners are also working people. Running a business, being self employed involves risks that go far beyond those of PAYE employees. The tax arrangements available to them are not avoidance but a legal part of conducting business within the framework of the law I have run my own businesses since I was 19 years of age and employed hundreds of people over that time so please don’t assume I don’t understand how it works. Farmers have been given special status for years and it stems back to farmers having big say in parliament due to a lot of MPs being farmers in the past. Like all small family businesses they face pressure from bigger concerns Sorry but that’s tough. Food security is irrelevant as we are no where near able to feed ourselves The fact is they are still on a better tax rate than most along with all the same tools you mention to write off investments On top of which they receive subsidy because the actual business model doesn’t work. So yes it’s hard . The smaller farms which are the biggest number are probably going to be exempt. A huge swathe of our land is actually registered to overseas holding specifically designed to avoid tax so they will still be exempt. All labour are targeting is the middle ground and until they can claw back the overseas registrations then its a bit of a weak policy. Yet again the really wealthy will be able to avoid any issues. Your dismissal of the pressures faced by small family farms “Sorry, but that’s tough” simply ignores the realities of farming and the unique challenges they face. This IHT insists at looking at farm values which are tied to land and assets, that does not reflect a farmers actual earnings, making it unbalanced. These are working farms, not cash cows (pun intended), and taxing them based on their value will force farming families to sell off land, to continue working. Their land is not wealth, it’s a necessity for their livelihood, just as a builder with a van and toolbox. Your opinion that food security is irrelevant shows me you have not considered this beyond the surface of tax dodging rich people should pay, which is why like your other views that align with labour are misguided. The closure of small farms would place food production in the hands of large agricultural corps as they buy up at discounted prices. These corps, with little competition and all the market control, would have the power to dictate prices and production to the supermarkets, which doesn't happen today, putting us the consumers at their mercy. Food security would absolutely be in jeopardy, not from a lack of food but from cost and the loss of diverse, sustainable farming practices. Finally, this absolutely seems fuelled by the politics of envy, you lean into it when you keep referring to the rich dodging taxes! The assumption that all farmers are rich because they own land is a socialist misconception that ignores the reality of farming as hard, relentless work. Farmers are workers too, often earning far less than what their hard work deserves. Targeting farming families based on the perceived value of their land / assets, is proof this policy penalises families for simply trying to sustain their way of life. This is another Labour bad decision that has not been thought out, just like every other policy they have. A little time and consideration could have made this less contentious, and far more balanced. Your politics of envy falls flat as I am reasonably wealthy and have been successful in business. So let’s put that to one side. Farmers have for years been shouting the supermarkets are to strong. Maybe stronger farming groups can even that balance of power. If the food has a value then it will be grown. Whether than a two man 120acre small farm or a two man 1000 acre farm. ( yes contractors on many) . I grew up in a farming community and went to school with farmers and they are still my friends. I’ve witnessed some have to sell because even with subsidy they were too small. Another proudly told me he had received enormous subsidies even though it was just him and his brother . Yes he had contractors too. It’s an old established industry under pressure from multinationals just like all other industries. The smaller individual adaptable farms may survive. The small to mediums farm are directly competing with multinationals so will have to be smart or exit just like in the rest of the business community, I agree with you food will eventually be more expensive but that’s inevitable with the corporate comes first mindset. We want supermarkets rather than greengrocers and butchers. Sad but true. Walk along most high streets to witness the mistakes we’ve made. You’re pushing water uphill I’m afraid. I think you are caught up in 2 things here, the first being the idea that people are using land to avoid tax and secondly that only the fittest should survive. The last point does confuse me, because you mostly fall towards socialism in your posts, could be my misinterpretation though? I have no thoughts of any type of defence when it comes to the first, point, I don't care if the rich are forced to pay IHT on an asset they are using to reduce their tax burden. the second point I do care about, a farming family who make a living, that is the key point, making a living. They could be turning over 50K a year on an estimated land value of £4 - 6 million. There is no way the family could continue to earn that money post family death and pay IHT. The last part of my original post has also been overlooked, I said" "This is another Labour bad decision that has not been thought out, just like every other policy they have. A little time and consideration could have made this less contentious, and far more balanced". I heard yesterday an alternative option to this that made perfect sense, and would not have caused this much upset. If upon death the family continue to farm the land, they do not pay IHT, if however the family simply sell it off, they pay the full IHT. I would have been more accepting of that route, although I'm anti IHT, I believe it would have offered a fairer outcome for families who wanted to continue to farm. disagree. the 100k ish tax spread over ten years ... not that difficult" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The working man whether he is low paid or well paid has not benefitted from tax avoidance schemes other than the odd sweetener like an ISA. They have paid their burden of tax constantly over the last four decades. Would it not be fair for others who have been the recipients of many beneficial and more generous schemes to be asked to start paying their equal share? Not sure what the problem is. You have looked at the landscape in the same way as labour which we all know is wrong.. Where Labour gets it wrong is failing to recognise that self employed individuals or SME business owners are also working people. Running a business, being self employed involves risks that go far beyond those of PAYE employees. The tax arrangements available to them are not avoidance but a legal part of conducting business within the framework of the law I have run my own businesses since I was 19 years of age and employed hundreds of people over that time so please don’t assume I don’t understand how it works. Farmers have been given special status for years and it stems back to farmers having big say in parliament due to a lot of MPs being farmers in the past. Like all small family businesses they face pressure from bigger concerns Sorry but that’s tough. Food security is irrelevant as we are no where near able to feed ourselves The fact is they are still on a better tax rate than most along with all the same tools you mention to write off investments On top of which they receive subsidy because the actual business model doesn’t work. So yes it’s hard . The smaller farms which are the biggest number are probably going to be exempt. A huge swathe of our land is actually registered to overseas holding specifically designed to avoid tax so they will still be exempt. All labour are targeting is the middle ground and until they can claw back the overseas registrations then its a bit of a weak policy. Yet again the really wealthy will be able to avoid any issues. Your dismissal of the pressures faced by small family farms “Sorry, but that’s tough” simply ignores the realities of farming and the unique challenges they face. This IHT insists at looking at farm values which are tied to land and assets, that does not reflect a farmers actual earnings, making it unbalanced. These are working farms, not cash cows (pun intended), and taxing them based on their value will force farming families to sell off land, to continue working. Their land is not wealth, it’s a necessity for their livelihood, just as a builder with a van and toolbox. Your opinion that food security is irrelevant shows me you have not considered this beyond the surface of tax dodging rich people should pay, which is why like your other views that align with labour are misguided. The closure of small farms would place food production in the hands of large agricultural corps as they buy up at discounted prices. These corps, with little competition and all the market control, would have the power to dictate prices and production to the supermarkets, which doesn't happen today, putting us the consumers at their mercy. Food security would absolutely be in jeopardy, not from a lack of food but from cost and the loss of diverse, sustainable farming practices. Finally, this absolutely seems fuelled by the politics of envy, you lean into it when you keep referring to the rich dodging taxes! The assumption that all farmers are rich because they own land is a socialist misconception that ignores the reality of farming as hard, relentless work. Farmers are workers too, often earning far less than what their hard work deserves. Targeting farming families based on the perceived value of their land / assets, is proof this policy penalises families for simply trying to sustain their way of life. This is another Labour bad decision that has not been thought out, just like every other policy they have. A little time and consideration could have made this less contentious, and far more balanced. Your politics of envy falls flat as I am reasonably wealthy and have been successful in business. So let’s put that to one side. Farmers have for years been shouting the supermarkets are to strong. Maybe stronger farming groups can even that balance of power. If the food has a value then it will be grown. Whether than a two man 120acre small farm or a two man 1000 acre farm. ( yes contractors on many) . I grew up in a farming community and went to school with farmers and they are still my friends. I’ve witnessed some have to sell because even with subsidy they were too small. Another proudly told me he had received enormous subsidies even though it was just him and his brother . Yes he had contractors too. It’s an old established industry under pressure from multinationals just like all other industries. The smaller individual adaptable farms may survive. The small to mediums farm are directly competing with multinationals so will have to be smart or exit just like in the rest of the business community, I agree with you food will eventually be more expensive but that’s inevitable with the corporate comes first mindset. We want supermarkets rather than greengrocers and butchers. Sad but true. Walk along most high streets to witness the mistakes we’ve made. You’re pushing water uphill I’m afraid. I think you are caught up in 2 things here, the first being the idea that people are using land to avoid tax and secondly that only the fittest should survive. The last point does confuse me, because you mostly fall towards socialism in your posts, could be my misinterpretation though? I have no thoughts of any type of defence when it comes to the first, point, I don't care if the rich are forced to pay IHT on an asset they are using to reduce their tax burden. the second point I do care about, a farming family who make a living, that is the key point, making a living. They could be turning over 50K a year on an estimated land value of £4 - 6 million. There is no way the family could continue to earn that money post family death and pay IHT. The last part of my original post has also been overlooked, I said" "This is another Labour bad decision that has not been thought out, just like every other policy they have. A little time and consideration could have made this less contentious, and far more balanced". I heard yesterday an alternative option to this that made perfect sense, and would not have caused this much upset. If upon death the family continue to farm the land, they do not pay IHT, if however the family simply sell it off, they pay the full IHT. I would have been more accepting of that route, although I'm anti IHT, I believe it would have offered a fairer outcome for families who wanted to continue to farm. disagree. the 100k ish tax spread over ten years ... not that difficult" I think you need to understand the IHT proposal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The working man whether he is low paid or well paid has not benefitted from tax avoidance schemes other than the odd sweetener like an ISA. They have paid their burden of tax constantly over the last four decades. Would it not be fair for others who have been the recipients of many beneficial and more generous schemes to be asked to start paying their equal share? Not sure what the problem is. You have looked at the landscape in the same way as labour which we all know is wrong.. Where Labour gets it wrong is failing to recognise that self employed individuals or SME business owners are also working people. Running a business, being self employed involves risks that go far beyond those of PAYE employees. The tax arrangements available to them are not avoidance but a legal part of conducting business within the framework of the law I have run my own businesses since I was 19 years of age and employed hundreds of people over that time so please don’t assume I don’t understand how it works. Farmers have been given special status for years and it stems back to farmers having big say in parliament due to a lot of MPs being farmers in the past. Like all small family businesses they face pressure from bigger concerns Sorry but that’s tough. Food security is irrelevant as we are no where near able to feed ourselves The fact is they are still on a better tax rate than most along with all the same tools you mention to write off investments On top of which they receive subsidy because the actual business model doesn’t work. So yes it’s hard . The smaller farms which are the biggest number are probably going to be exempt. A huge swathe of our land is actually registered to overseas holding specifically designed to avoid tax so they will still be exempt. All labour are targeting is the middle ground and until they can claw back the overseas registrations then its a bit of a weak policy. Yet again the really wealthy will be able to avoid any issues. Your dismissal of the pressures faced by small family farms “Sorry, but that’s tough” simply ignores the realities of farming and the unique challenges they face. This IHT insists at looking at farm values which are tied to land and assets, that does not reflect a farmers actual earnings, making it unbalanced. These are working farms, not cash cows (pun intended), and taxing them based on their value will force farming families to sell off land, to continue working. Their land is not wealth, it’s a necessity for their livelihood, just as a builder with a van and toolbox. Your opinion that food security is irrelevant shows me you have not considered this beyond the surface of tax dodging rich people should pay, which is why like your other views that align with labour are misguided. The closure of small farms would place food production in the hands of large agricultural corps as they buy up at discounted prices. These corps, with little competition and all the market control, would have the power to dictate prices and production to the supermarkets, which doesn't happen today, putting us the consumers at their mercy. Food security would absolutely be in jeopardy, not from a lack of food but from cost and the loss of diverse, sustainable farming practices. Finally, this absolutely seems fuelled by the politics of envy, you lean into it when you keep referring to the rich dodging taxes! The assumption that all farmers are rich because they own land is a socialist misconception that ignores the reality of farming as hard, relentless work. Farmers are workers too, often earning far less than what their hard work deserves. Targeting farming families based on the perceived value of their land / assets, is proof this policy penalises families for simply trying to sustain their way of life. This is another Labour bad decision that has not been thought out, just like every other policy they have. A little time and consideration could have made this less contentious, and far more balanced. Your politics of envy falls flat as I am reasonably wealthy and have been successful in business. So let’s put that to one side. Farmers have for years been shouting the supermarkets are to strong. Maybe stronger farming groups can even that balance of power. If the food has a value then it will be grown. Whether than a two man 120acre small farm or a two man 1000 acre farm. ( yes contractors on many) . I grew up in a farming community and went to school with farmers and they are still my friends. I’ve witnessed some have to sell because even with subsidy they were too small. Another proudly told me he had received enormous subsidies even though it was just him and his brother . Yes he had contractors too. It’s an old established industry under pressure from multinationals just like all other industries. The smaller individual adaptable farms may survive. The small to mediums farm are directly competing with multinationals so will have to be smart or exit just like in the rest of the business community, I agree with you food will eventually be more expensive but that’s inevitable with the corporate comes first mindset. We want supermarkets rather than greengrocers and butchers. Sad but true. Walk along most high streets to witness the mistakes we’ve made. You’re pushing water uphill I’m afraid. I think you are caught up in 2 things here, the first being the idea that people are using land to avoid tax and secondly that only the fittest should survive. The last point does confuse me, because you mostly fall towards socialism in your posts, could be my misinterpretation though? I have no thoughts of any type of defence when it comes to the first, point, I don't care if the rich are forced to pay IHT on an asset they are using to reduce their tax burden. the second point I do care about, a farming family who make a living, that is the key point, making a living. They could be turning over 50K a year on an estimated land value of £4 - 6 million. There is no way the family could continue to earn that money post family death and pay IHT. The last part of my original post has also been overlooked, I said" "This is another Labour bad decision that has not been thought out, just like every other policy they have. A little time and consideration could have made this less contentious, and far more balanced". I heard yesterday an alternative option to this that made perfect sense, and would not have caused this much upset. If upon death the family continue to farm the land, they do not pay IHT, if however the family simply sell it off, they pay the full IHT. I would have been more accepting of that route, although I'm anti IHT, I believe it would have offered a fairer outcome for families who wanted to continue to farm. disagree. the 100k ish tax spread over ten years ... not that difficult I think you need to understand the IHT proposal." that's funny .... because i think YOU need to understand it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" disagree. the 100k ish tax spread over ten years ... not that difficult I think you need to understand the IHT proposal. that's funny .... because i think YOU need to understand it "Lets see your working out: £6 million farm passed to a 1 person owner, what is the IHT on that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only last one term nbut will be a long five years but maybe sooner hopefully " Last government were 1000 times worse and lasted 14 years. Although I accept the point that the media didn't scrutinse the last government they way they are now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Point proven on this thread I think, a lot of Envy and bitterness towards others, and support for the Govt taking what they've got. Thankfully most British people like farmers and hate commies." Good job there's no commies with any sway or power in the UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Point proven on this thread I think, a lot of Envy and bitterness towards others, and support for the Govt taking what they've got. Thankfully most British people like farmers and hate commies. Good job there's no commies with any sway or power in the UK. "Don't put yourself down Johnny ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" disagree. the 100k ish tax spread over ten years ... not that difficult I think you need to understand the IHT proposal. that's funny .... because i think YOU need to understand it
Lets see your working out: £6 million farm passed to a 1 person owner, what is the IHT on that?"if you have a 6 million farm and you're only making 50k between a family then you're shit at farming to be fair | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Point proven on this thread I think, a lot of Envy and bitterness towards others, and support for the Govt taking what they've got. Thankfully most British people like farmers and hate commies. Good job there's no commies with any sway or power in the UK. "Apart from the Labour government. Though they don’t know what they are doing. Can people who are incompetent have “power or sway”? Maybe they can, though the outcomes of the exercise of that power might not be certain, even to themselves. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surely I can't be the only reader of the politics forum who groans inwardly every time a new post includes a paste of almost the entire series of previous posts? By the nature of things, the conversation constantly changes polarity and most of the history which we have all read umpteen times over is irrelevant to someone's current comment in reply to the immediately previous poster. Please, please, please, everyone try and edit the qoted story line to just the comment with which you are disagreeng with. When you are agreeing, please make clear which part you are agreeing with. Part of the problem is that thesite doesn't use a format where different historical quotes are identified as being from different authors. But, hey, we can be smarter than a badly thought out format and, by editing, select only the relevant comments which have driven us into joining the fray. The eventual 'Thread got too long' simply because it reached 175 is, frankly ludicrous." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" disagree. the 100k ish tax spread over ten years ... not that difficult I think you need to understand the IHT proposal. that's funny .... because i think YOU need to understand it
Lets see your working out: £6 million farm passed to a 1 person owner, what is the IHT on that?
if you have a 6 million farm and you're only making 50k between a family then you're shit at farming to be fair "And you have completed the circle.... You seem not to be aware that the perceived land value of a farm does not indicate the earnings of the farmer. Secondly, you seem not to be aware of the IHT implications on a farm of any land value. It begs the question, why the strong views? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surely I can't be the only reader of the politics forum who groans inwardly every time a new post includes a paste of almost the entire series of previous posts? By the nature of things, the conversation constantly changes polarity and most of the history which we have all read umpteen times over is irrelevant to someone's current comment in reply to the immediately previous poster. Please, please, please, everyone try and edit the qoted story line to just the comment with which you are disagreeng with. When you are agreeing, please make clear which part you are agreeing with. Part of the problem is that thesite doesn't use a format where different historical quotes are identified as being from different authors. But, hey, we can be smarter than a badly thought out format and, by editing, select only the relevant comments which have driven us into joining the fray. The eventual 'Thread got too long' simply because it reached 175 is, frankly ludicrous." Alternatively I had to suffer so you should too | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" disagree. the 100k ish tax spread over ten years ... not that difficult I think you need to understand the IHT proposal. that's funny .... because i think YOU need to understand it
Lets see your working out: £6 million farm passed to a 1 person owner, what is the IHT on that?
if you have a 6 million farm and you're only making 50k between a family then you're shit at farming to be fair
And you have completed the circle....
You seem not to be aware that the perceived land value of a farm does not indicate the earnings of the farmer.
Secondly, you seem not to be aware of the IHT implications on a farm of any land value.
It begs the question, why the strong views?"you're clutching at straws with your made up figures and asserting your false statements. your ideology is clouding your thinking and in turn i ask you why? although the answer is clear | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Point proven on this thread I think, a lot of Envy and bitterness towards others, and support for the Govt taking what they've got. Thankfully most British people like farmers and hate commies. Good job there's no commies with any sway or power in the UK.
Don't put yourself down Johnny !"Well thank you, but I am neither a commie nor do I have any sway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Point proven on this thread I think, a lot of Envy and bitterness towards others, and support for the Govt taking what they've got. Thankfully most British people like farmers and hate commies. Good job there's no commies with any sway or power in the UK.
Apart from the Labour government.
Though they don’t know what they are doing. Can people who are incompetent have “power or sway”?
Maybe they can, though the outcomes of the exercise of that power might not be certain, even to themselves."Back to the competition to post the most ridiculous nonsense and pass it off as a real opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" disagree. the 100k ish tax spread over ten years ... not that difficult I think you need to understand the IHT proposal. that's funny .... because i think YOU need to understand it
Lets see your working out: £6 million farm passed to a 1 person owner, what is the IHT on that?
if you have a 6 million farm and you're only making 50k between a family then you're shit at farming to be fair
And you have completed the circle....
You seem not to be aware that the perceived land value of a farm does not indicate the earnings of the farmer.
Secondly, you seem not to be aware of the IHT implications on a farm of any land value.
It begs the question, why the strong views?
you're clutching at straws with your made up figures and asserting your false statements. your ideology is clouding your thinking and in turn i ask you why? although the answer is clear "This discussion has now come full circle, so I will leave it with the following: I have not fabricated any figures or made false statements. You have failed to address the legitimate questions I raised and instead responded with angry, dismissive remarks. As for my ‘ideology’ I have merely suggested alternative taxation options, which you seem to have overlooked. The reason I shared my thoughts was to counter the misinformation and lack of understanding being presented as fact. With that, I’ll leave it here | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" disagree. the 100k ish tax spread over ten years ... not that difficult I think you need to understand the IHT proposal. that's funny .... because i think YOU need to understand it
Lets see your working out: £6 million farm passed to a 1 person owner, what is the IHT on that?
if you have a 6 million farm and you're only making 50k between a family then you're shit at farming to be fair
And you have completed the circle....
You seem not to be aware that the perceived land value of a farm does not indicate the earnings of the farmer.
Secondly, you seem not to be aware of the IHT implications on a farm of any land value.
It begs the question, why the strong views?
you're clutching at straws with your made up figures and asserting your false statements. your ideology is clouding your thinking and in turn i ask you why? although the answer is clear
This discussion has now come full circle, so I will leave it with the following: I have not fabricated any figures or made false statements. You have failed to address the legitimate questions I raised and instead responded with angry, dismissive remarks. As for my ‘ideology’ I have merely suggested alternative taxation options, which you seem to have overlooked.
The reason I shared my thoughts was to counter the misinformation and lack of understanding being presented as fact. With that, I’ll leave it here"good, because you're talking garbage | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" disagree. the 100k ish tax spread over ten years ... not that difficult I think you need to understand the IHT proposal. that's funny .... because i think YOU need to understand it
Lets see your working out: £6 million farm passed to a 1 person owner, what is the IHT on that?
if you have a 6 million farm and you're only making 50k between a family then you're shit at farming to be fair
And you have completed the circle....
You seem not to be aware that the perceived land value of a farm does not indicate the earnings of the farmer.
Secondly, you seem not to be aware of the IHT implications on a farm of any land value.
It begs the question, why the strong views?
you're clutching at straws with your made up figures and asserting your false statements. your ideology is clouding your thinking and in turn i ask you why? although the answer is clear
This discussion has now come full circle, so I will leave it with the following: I have not fabricated any figures or made false statements. You have failed to address the legitimate questions I raised and instead responded with angry, dismissive remarks. As for my ‘ideology’ I have merely suggested alternative taxation options, which you seem to have overlooked.
The reason I shared my thoughts was to counter the misinformation and lack of understanding being presented as fact. With that, I’ll leave it here
good, because you're talking garbage "I do need to make an exception, due to the constant reference “talking garbage”. My earlier question to you was show your working out on how you arrived at a farm worth 6 million pays 100k over 10 years , and they have a profit of 50k a year. You avoided the question, so I will provide it: The IHT would be 800k - 900k, dependant on circumstances, payable over 10 years. 80 - 90k a year debt, earnings 50k, meaning there is no way the family can continue to farm. The % of earnings to perceived land value is consistent and easily fact checked, as is the IHT value. I hope this helps clarify why working farming families are worried. It is also becoming clearer that the government message that only a small percentage of farms would be impacted by this is not correct. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The IHT would be 800k - 900k, dependant on circumstances, payable over 10 years. 80 - 90k a year debt, earnings 50k, meaning there is no way the family can continue to farm. The % of earnings to perceived land value is consistent and easily fact checked, as is the IHT value. I hope this helps clarify why working farming families are worried. It is also becoming clearer that the government message that only a small percentage of farms would be impacted by this is not correct. " laughable garbage | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The IHT would be 800k - 900k, dependant on circumstances, payable over 10 years. 80 - 90k a year debt, earnings 50k, meaning there is no way the family can continue to farm. The % of earnings to perceived land value is consistent and easily fact checked, as is the IHT value. I hope this helps clarify why working farming families are worried. It is also becoming clearer that the government message that only a small percentage of farms would be impacted by this is not correct. laughable garbage "Dismissing the points as laughable garbage adds nothing to the discussion. If you disagree, provide specific evidence or reasoning, that’s how things evolve in a more meaningful way. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The IHT would be 800k - 900k, dependant on circumstances, payable over 10 years. 80 - 90k a year debt, earnings 50k, meaning there is no way the family can continue to farm. The % of earnings to perceived land value is consistent and easily fact checked, as is the IHT value. I hope this helps clarify why working farming families are worried. It is also becoming clearer that the government message that only a small percentage of farms would be impacted by this is not correct. laughable garbage
Dismissing the points as laughable garbage adds nothing to the discussion. If you disagree, provide specific evidence or reasoning, that’s how things evolve in a more meaningful way. "you plucking figures out of thin air to bolster your anti-socialist paranoia adds nothing chap. 6 million? 900k? 50k? lose the entire 6 mil estate? get real ... it's alarmist idealogical garbage . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The IHT would be 800k - 900k, dependant on circumstances, payable over 10 years. 80 - 90k a year debt, earnings 50k, meaning there is no way the family can continue to farm. The % of earnings to perceived land value is consistent and easily fact checked, as is the IHT value. I hope this helps clarify why working farming families are worried. It is also becoming clearer that the government message that only a small percentage of farms would be impacted by this is not correct. laughable garbage
Dismissing the points as laughable garbage adds nothing to the discussion. If you disagree, provide specific evidence or reasoning, that’s how things evolve in a more meaningful way.
you plucking figures out of thin air to bolster your anti-socialist paranoia adds nothing chap. 6 million? 900k? 50k? lose the entire 6 mil estate? get real ... it's alarmist idealogical garbage . "I’m really not, this a typical example. A working example was provided this morning by the finance and economic editor of the FT, which was a fortunate turn of events, especially as they mirrored my figures | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The IHT would be 800k - 900k, dependant on circumstances, payable over 10 years. 80 - 90k a year debt, earnings 50k, meaning there is no way the family can continue to farm. The % of earnings to perceived land value is consistent and easily fact checked, as is the IHT value. I hope this helps clarify why working farming families are worried. It is also becoming clearer that the government message that only a small percentage of farms would be impacted by this is not correct. laughable garbage
Dismissing the points as laughable garbage adds nothing to the discussion. If you disagree, provide specific evidence or reasoning, that’s how things evolve in a more meaningful way.
you plucking figures out of thin air to bolster your anti-socialist paranoia adds nothing chap. 6 million? 900k? 50k? lose the entire 6 mil estate? get real ... it's alarmist idealogical garbage .
I’m really not, this a typical example. A working example was provided this morning by the finance and economic editor of the FT, which was a fortunate turn of events, especially as they mirrored my figures "garbage | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about old aged pensioners? Liebour don’t seem to like them very much… Where did this self defeating "leibour" term come from?" they have pretty much gone back on everything they said they wouldn’t do before the election. Fairly easy to label them liars now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The IHT would be 800k - 900k, dependant on circumstances, payable over 10 years. 80 - 90k a year debt, earnings 50k, meaning there is no way the family can continue to farm. The % of earnings to perceived land value is consistent and easily fact checked, as is the IHT value. I hope this helps clarify why working farming families are worried. It is also becoming clearer that the government message that only a small percentage of farms would be impacted by this is not correct. laughable garbage
Dismissing the points as laughable garbage adds nothing to the discussion. If you disagree, provide specific evidence or reasoning, that’s how things evolve in a more meaningful way.
you plucking figures out of thin air to bolster your anti-socialist paranoia adds nothing chap. 6 million? 900k? 50k? lose the entire 6 mil estate? get real ... it's alarmist idealogical garbage .
I’m really not, this a typical example. A working example was provided this morning by the finance and economic editor of the FT, which was a fortunate turn of events, especially as they mirrored my figures
garbage "Perfect
Socialist idealism own goal, driven by the op title proven. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" garbage
Perfect
Socialist idealism own goal, driven by the op title proven. "all you've offered is garbage figures and righty paranoia about ficticious socialism. not one realistic reason have you given why farmers shouldn't pay IHT. it's just the usual idealogical garbage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What I'd like to know is how a farmer is supposed to pay this IHT when all his money is locked up in the value of their land. Most are asset rich with very little cash to splash around. What are they supposed to do if they are the 500 or so that fall into the net each year ? 'all his money' ..... complete generalised nonsense I can't see this working, you can't sell off 20% of your land and expect a farm to remain viable. Who is going to want a 20% small holding anyway. I dunno. Personally I can see why this form of taxation has been exempted all these years anyway. Seems a bit dumb if you ask me. I don't think the city dwelling labour elite have thought this one through. Maybe they see it as an opportunity to allow their public sector union friends to buy a small holding and keep a few pigs and sheep out in the country. Using their gold plated public sector pension funds to finance it." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What I'd like to know is how a farmer is supposed to pay this IHT when all his money is locked up in the value of their land. Most are asset rich with very little cash to splash around. What are they supposed to do if they are the 500 or so that fall into the net each year ? 'all his money' ..... complete generalised nonsense I can't see this working, you can't sell off 20% of your land and expect a farm to remain viable. Who is going to want a 20% small holding anyway. I dunno. Personally I can see why this form of taxation has been exempted all these years anyway. Seems a bit dumb if you ask me. I don't think the city dwelling labour elite have thought this one through. Maybe they see it as an opportunity to allow their public sector union friends to buy a small holding and keep a few pigs and sheep out in the country. Using their gold plated public sector pension funds to finance it." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What I'd like to know is how a farmer is supposed to pay this IHT when all his money is locked up in the value of their land. Most are asset rich with very little cash to splash around. What are they supposed to do if they are the 500 or so that fall into the net each year ? I can't see this working, you can't sell off 20% of your land and expect a farm to remain viable. Who is going to want a 20% small holding anyway. I dunno. Personally I can see why this form of taxation has been exempted all these years anyway. Seems a bit dumb if you ask me. I don't think the city dwelling labour elite have thought this one through. Maybe they see it as an opportunity to allow their public sector union friends to buy a small holding and keep a few pigs and sheep out in the country. Using their gold plated public sector pension funds to finance it." New figures are pointing to 66% of farms will be impacted. It will be good to see the data behind the figure. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" garbage
Perfect
Socialist idealism own goal, driven by the op title proven.
all you've offered is garbage figures and righty paranoia about ficticious socialism. not one realistic reason have you given why farmers shouldn't pay IHT.
it's just the usual idealogical garbage. "Why are his figures wrong? 6m Farm 1m exempt 20% of 5m is 1m 1m over 10 years is 100k/year. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What did you expect? They are socialists, you didn’t expect them to reduce benefits and give tax breaks to the Rich did you? If the wealth owners and creators are all driven away will end up like other failed common states, bread queues, 2-4 hours of electric per day, and all wearing drab grey one -size garments I suppose, but at least we will all be equal…." but in all the commie countries...some were more equal than others! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What I'd like to know is how a farmer is supposed to pay this IHT when all his money is locked up in the value of their land. Most are asset rich with very little cash to splash around. What are they supposed to do if they are the 500 or so that fall into the net each year ? I can't see this working, you can't sell off 20% of your land and expect a farm to remain viable. Who is going to want a 20% small holding anyway. I dunno. Personally I can see why this form of taxation has been exempted all these years anyway. Seems a bit dumb if you ask me. I don't think the city dwelling labour elite have thought this one through. Maybe they see it as an opportunity to allow their public sector union friends to buy a small holding and keep a few pigs and sheep out in the country. Using their gold plated public sector pension funds to finance it. New figures are pointing to 66% of farms will be impacted. It will be good to see the data behind the figure. " Not according to BBC verify. Our analysis found that the figure was likely to be somewhere closer to the number provided by the government - about 500 estates per year. That remains our assessment. Farming tax row - BBC Verify on which figures are more reliable and why https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c789yggdxn3o | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What I'd like to know is how a farmer is supposed to pay this IHT when all his money is locked up in the value of their land. Most are asset rich with very little cash to splash around. What are they supposed to do if they are the 500 or so that fall into the net each year ? I can't see this working, you can't sell off 20% of your land and expect a farm to remain viable. Who is going to want a 20% small holding anyway. I dunno. Personally I can see why this form of taxation has been exempted all these years anyway. Seems a bit dumb if you ask me. I don't think the city dwelling labour elite have thought this one through. Maybe they see it as an opportunity to allow their public sector union friends to buy a small holding and keep a few pigs and sheep out in the country. Using their gold plated public sector pension funds to finance it. New figures are pointing to 66% of farms will be impacted. It will be good to see the data behind the figure. Not according to BBC verify. Our analysis found that the figure was likely to be somewhere closer to the number provided by the government - about 500 estates per year. That remains our assessment. Farming tax row - BBC Verify on which figures are more reliable and why https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c789yggdxn3o " That was a useful link The government’s estimate that around 500 farms will be impacted annually is way off, when real industry analyses indicates that the number will be significantly higher. Labour have got so many things wrong and we have reference points from other policy miscalculations. Cash to be raised from non-dom loopholes, WFA savings, premature overspend, gilt yield exposure, and business NI contribution negative impacts. All the above points to a recurring issue, the government underestimating unintended consequences and overestimating the efficacy of what it believes are groundbreaking reforms. I have no confidence in their assessment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What I'd like to know is how a farmer is supposed to pay this IHT when all his money is locked up in the value of their land. Most are asset rich with very little cash to splash around. What are they supposed to do if they are the 500 or so that fall into the net each year ? I can't see this working, you can't sell off 20% of your land and expect a farm to remain viable. Who is going to want a 20% small holding anyway. I dunno. Personally I can see why this form of taxation has been exempted all these years anyway. Seems a bit dumb if you ask me. I don't think the city dwelling labour elite have thought this one through. Maybe they see it as an opportunity to allow their public sector union friends to buy a small holding and keep a few pigs and sheep out in the country. Using their gold plated public sector pension funds to finance it. New figures are pointing to 66% of farms will be impacted. It will be good to see the data behind the figure. Not according to BBC verify. Our analysis found that the figure was likely to be somewhere closer to the number provided by the government - about 500 estates per year. That remains our assessment. Farming tax row - BBC Verify on which figures are more reliable and why https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c789yggdxn3o That was a useful link The government’s estimate that around 500 farms will be impacted annually is way off, when real industry analyses indicates that the number will be significantly higher. Labour have got so many things wrong and we have reference points from other policy miscalculations. Cash to be raised from non-dom loopholes, WFA savings, premature overspend, gilt yield exposure, and business NI contribution negative impacts. All the above points to a recurring issue, the government underestimating unintended consequences and overestimating the efficacy of what it believes are groundbreaking reforms. I have no confidence in their assessment." Do you think your bias could be the reason for your dismissal of the verify report. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What I'd like to know is how a farmer is supposed to pay this IHT when all his money is locked up in the value of their land. Most are asset rich with very little cash to splash around. What are they supposed to do if they are the 500 or so that fall into the net each year ? I can't see this working, you can't sell off 20% of your land and expect a farm to remain viable. Who is going to want a 20% small holding anyway. I dunno. Personally I can see why this form of taxation has been exempted all these years anyway. Seems a bit dumb if you ask me. I don't think the city dwelling labour elite have thought this one through. Maybe they see it as an opportunity to allow their public sector union friends to buy a small holding and keep a few pigs and sheep out in the country. Using their gold plated public sector pension funds to finance it. New figures are pointing to 66% of farms will be impacted. It will be good to see the data behind the figure. Not according to BBC verify. Our analysis found that the figure was likely to be somewhere closer to the number provided by the government - about 500 estates per year. That remains our assessment. Farming tax row - BBC Verify on which figures are more reliable and why https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c789yggdxn3o That was a useful link The government’s estimate that around 500 farms will be impacted annually is way off, when real industry analyses indicates that the number will be significantly higher. Labour have got so many things wrong and we have reference points from other policy miscalculations. Cash to be raised from non-dom loopholes, WFA savings, premature overspend, gilt yield exposure, and business NI contribution negative impacts. All the above points to a recurring issue, the government underestimating unintended consequences and overestimating the efficacy of what it believes are groundbreaking reforms. I have no confidence in their assessment. Do you think your bias could be the reason for your dismissal of the verify report." Is it bias to point out there have been numerous wrongs withint he last 3 months? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Your dismissal of the pressures faced by small family farms “Sorry, but that’s tough” simply ignores the realities of farming and the unique challenges they face. This IHT insists at looking at farm values which are tied to land and assets, that does not reflect a farmers actual earnings, making it unbalanced. These are working farms, not cash cows (pun intended), and taxing them based on their value will force farming families to sell off land, to continue working. Their land is not wealth, it’s a necessity for their livelihood, just as a builder with a van and toolbox. Your opinion that food security is irrelevant shows me you have not considered this beyond the surface of tax dodging rich people should pay, which is why like your other views that align with labour are misguided. The closure of small farms would place food production in the hands of large agricultural corps as they buy up at discounted prices. These corps, with little competition and all the market control, would have the power to dictate prices and production to the supermarkets, which doesn't happen today, putting us the consumers at their mercy. Food security would absolutely be in jeopardy, not from a lack of food but from cost and the loss of diverse, sustainable farming practices. Finally, this absolutely seems fuelled by the politics of envy, you lean into it when you keep referring to the rich dodging taxes! The assumption that all farmers are rich because they own land is a socialist misconception that ignores the reality of farming as hard, relentless work. Farmers are workers too, often earning far less than what their hard work deserves. Targeting farming families based on the perceived value of their land / assets, is proof this policy penalises families for simply trying to sustain their way of life. This is another Labour bad decision that has not been thought out, just like every other policy they have. A little time and consideration could have made this less contentious, and far more balanced. Your politics of envy falls flat as I am reasonably wealthy and have been successful in business. So let’s put that to one side. Farmers have for years been shouting the supermarkets are to strong. Maybe stronger farming groups can even that balance of power. If the food has a value then it will be grown. Whether than a two man 120acre small farm or a two man 1000 acre farm. ( yes contractors on many) . I grew up in a farming community and went to school with farmers and they are still my friends. I’ve witnessed some have to sell because even with subsidy they were too small. Another proudly told me he had received enormous subsidies even though it was just him and his brother . Yes he had contractors too. It’s an old established industry under pressure from multinationals just like all other industries. The smaller individual adaptable farms may survive. The small to mediums farm are directly competing with multinationals so will have to be smart or exit just like in the rest of the business community, I agree with you food will eventually be more expensive but that’s inevitable with the corporate comes first mindset. We want supermarkets rather than greengrocers and butchers. Sad but true. Walk along most high streets to witness the mistakes we’ve made. You’re pushing water uphill I’m afraid. I think you are caught up in 2 things here, the first being the idea that people are using land to avoid tax and secondly that only the fittest should survive. The last point does confuse me, because you mostly fall towards socialism in your posts, could be my misinterpretation though? I have no thoughts of any type of defence when it comes to the first, point, I don't care if the rich are forced to pay IHT on an asset they are using to reduce their tax burden. the second point I do care about, a farming family who make a living, that is the key point, making a living. They could be turning over 50K a year on an estimated land value of £4 - 6 million. There is no way the family could continue to earn that money post family death and pay IHT. The last part of my original post has also been overlooked, I said" "This is another Labour bad decision that has not been thought out, just like every other policy they have. A little time and consideration could have made this less contentious, and far more balanced". I heard yesterday an alternative option to this that made perfect sense, and would not have caused this much upset. If upon death the family continue to farm the land, they do not pay IHT, if however the family simply sell it off, they pay the full IHT. I would have been more accepting of that route, although I'm anti IHT, I believe it would have offered a fairer outcome for families who wanted to continue to farm. " No I’m not caught up in anything. The simple facts are; Farming without subsidy on a small scale is a failed business model so not sure why subsidy should be forthcoming over other family industries. I honestly don’t know if the large scale operations are viable without subsidy. You call it survival of the fittest and I suppose it is. Remember Mrs Thatcher wanted our economy to be free market and that has been at the core of Conservative Party policies for decades. If you’re anti socialism then why do you not support free market forces? My factories and stock along with shares are my assets just as you say the land is a farmers asset. If I leave it to my descendants without taking tax precautions they will be paying tax, as should farmers descendants and plumbers if you like, although if I’m honest I don’t know many plumbers vans or tools worth £4-6 m. Your point on implementation I would probably agree with although probably not on the principal behind the move. Similar to the winter fuel payments it’s been badly addressed. Catching the highest bands first would have been a better choice in both cases. As I mentioned stop offshore or foreign registration of land used to avoid tax would have been a good starting point. I feel sympathy for a family business struggling to pass on tax free assets but again I will ask. Why should farmers have a better deal than other family or corporate business? Saying that farmers work hard is not really a valid point. Lots of people in business work long hard hours so this statement is just not relevant. The likes of Jeremy Clarkson have just undermined the family approach and clearly shown farming being used for tax avoidance. Silly to have him as a mouth piece. What was also silly was a lot of farmers claiming poverty but arriving into London train stations and vacating their first class seats with their placards. If you’re struggling you don’t pay two to three times the standard rate for your ticket. Very bad image management. Yes a childish point I know, but funny. Your mention of the alternative scheme is interesting and sounds positive but again should all industry get the same deal? Should the descendants receive subsidies still as the land growth in value benefit is unearned by them? Should there be a tax on the growth balance? Should they pay a higher tax on subsidies? Again it’s just yet another avoidance scheme. What you’re also advocating there is a scrapping of inheritance tax which is a different argument and my question again is, would those rules apply to all? The fact that the rate for farmers is 20% shows that they are still being treated far better than other businesses owners. You seem to think I have a downer on farmers. I don’t I just don’t believe you should be a special case. The tax system needs belt and braces reform. Again to your point on implementation is valid. They in my opinion have started in the middle when they should have started at the top targeting offshore and trusts. Why should subsidies be paid by U.K. tax payers to foreign own land? Who’s that benefiting really and at what cost. I think your view that I am supporting socialism policies is misguided and trying to box my views by stating that, is a poor argument. I’m advocating a fair tax system which treats everyone the same way. My father paid over 80% tax in the 70s so I know punitive is not the answer. Fair and equal however is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
