Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Misc] Kemi Badenoch confirmed as new Tory leader



Guinness Boy

Guinness Boy

Tofu eating wokerati
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patron
Jul 23, 2003
37,314
Up and Coming Sunny Portslade
Not that it's anything to do with Kemi, but here's the real impact on Farmers:

1) Only around 23% of farms qualify currently but...
2) If yours does and you are a family farm you can gift the farm to your children now and begin to hand over its running. If you live for the next seven years there is no IHT. And...
3) If you don't fancy those odds you can buy a Gift Inter Vivos life policy that will pay the inheritance tax if you die in that seven years, with a sliding benefit amount to match what the liability will be.

Those options are open to Clarkson, they are open even to the landed gentry. They are just not open to the large corporations buying up land to avoid UK tax.

Well done Rachel. I wonder if Kemi will keep this crackdown on tax evasion by TV celebrities, James Dyson and corporate multinationals?
 




highflyer

highflyer

Well-known member
Jan 21, 2016
2,547
Guinness Boy said:
Not that it's anything to do with Kemi, but here's the real impact on Farmers:

1) Only around 23% of farms qualify currently but...
2) If yours does and you are a family farm you can gift the farm to your children now and begin to hand over its running. If you live for the next seven years there is no IHT. And...
3) If you don't fancy those odds you can buy a Gift Inter Vivos life policy that will pay the inheritance tax if you die in that seven years, with a sliding benefit amount to match what the liability will be.

Those options are open to Clarkson, they are open even to the landed gentry. They are just not open to the large corporations buying up land to avoid UK tax.

Well done Rachel. I wonder if Kemi will keep this crackdown on tax evasion by TV celebrities, James Dyson and corporate multinationals?
Click to expand...
Indeed.

One of the problems with introducing wealth tax of any kind is that, almost by definition, you are upsetting people who are rich, powerful and control large parts of the media. Another problem (as with almost any form of new tax) is that it is usually possible to find someone that will be affected and for whom there are genune reasons to be sympathetic (think of the little old lady in the family home whenever property tax is discussed), whilst distracting attention away from the ultra-wealthy groups that would actually end up paying the vast majority of such a tax. Which is why most politcal parties have been historically cautious. I am on record here as being no fan of Reeves/Starmer - far too right wing for my liking - but credit where credit is due. On this they have got it right and (so far) stuck to their guns, depite the inevitable onslaught from the lobbying arm of wealthy landowners, aka the NFU.

Another interesting fact (as opposed to lobbying spin), from this report is that:

'among estates that benefited from Agricultural Relief (on inheritance tax for farms) between 2018 and 2020, less than half (44%) of individuals had received any trading income from agriculture at any point in the five years prior to death. Income from agriculture made up less than a quarter of their income on average. Of the remainder, 51% received income from rent, which is consistent with them being landlords rather than active farmers, although we cannot rule out that they were actively farming via a company'.

Which gives a good sense of what is actually going on.
 


D

dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,615
highflyer said:
Indeed.

One of the problems with introducing wealth tax of any kind is that, almost by definition, you are upsetting people who are rich, powerful and control large parts of the media. Another problem (as with almost any form of new tax) is that it is usually possible to find someone that will be affected and for whom there are genune reasons to be sympathetic (think of the little old lady in the family home whenever property tax is discussed), whilst distracting attention away from the ultra-wealthy groups that would actually end up paying the vast majority of such a tax. Which is why most politcal parties have been historically cautious. I am on record here as being no fan of Reeves/Starmer - far too right wing for my liking - but credit where credit is due. On this they have got it right and (so far) stuck to their guns, depite the inevitable onslaught from the lobbying arm of wealthy landowners, aka the NFU.

Another interesting fact (as opposed to lobbying spin), from this report is that:

'among estates that benefited from Agricultural Relief (on inheritance tax for farms) between 2018 and 2020, less than half (44%) of individuals had received any trading income from agriculture at any point in the five years prior to death. Income from agriculture made up less than a quarter of their income on average. Of the remainder, 51% received income from rent, which is consistent with them being landlords rather than active farmers, although we cannot rule out that they were actively farming via a company'.

Which gives a good sense of what is actually going on.
Click to expand...
So why not go after the investors rather than the real farmers?
 


D

dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,615
Guinness Boy said:
Not that it's anything to do with Kemi, but here's the real impact on Farmers:

1) Only around 23% of farms qualify currently but...
2) If yours does and you are a family farm you can gift the farm to your children now and begin to hand over its running. If you live for the next seven years there is no IHT. And...
3) If you don't fancy those odds you can buy a Gift Inter Vivos life policy that will pay the inheritance tax if you die in that seven years, with a sliding benefit amount to match what the liability will be.

Those options are open to Clarkson, they are open even to the landed gentry. They are just not open to the large corporations buying up land to avoid UK tax.

Well done Rachel. I wonder if Kemi will keep this crackdown on tax evasion by TV celebrities, James Dyson and corporate multinationals?
Click to expand...
For one thing, if you give the farm to your children and they die first, then IHT is chargeable anyway.

For another, if you hand over the farm but carry on living and working there, surely it would be a gift with reservation and therefore not covered by the 7 year rule? You would have to give it away and move off the farm for it to work.
 


fly high

fly high

Well-known member
Aug 25, 2011
1,707
in a house
dsr-burnley said:
I think perhaps it's not surprising that there are still people who view black people as one homogenous entity who are all expected to think the same . It is perhaps surprising that this particular person is black herself.

Apart from anything else, the political stupidity of making a racist tweet that will get more publicity than Starmer's, does not suggest good judgement.
Click to expand...
Sadly it seems the view by a number on the left you aren't supposed to support the Tories if you are black and if you do they are entitled to abuse you.
 




Guinness Boy

Guinness Boy

Tofu eating wokerati
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patron
Jul 23, 2003
37,314
Up and Coming Sunny Portslade
dsr-burnley said:
For one thing, if you give the farm to your children and they die first, then IHT is chargeable anyway.

For another, if you hand over the farm but carry on living and working there, surely it would be a gift with reservation and therefore not covered by the 7 year rule? You would have to give it away and move off the farm for it to work.
Click to expand...
And what, do you think, are the chances of either thing happening to the 23% of farms that are both within the limit and genuinely owned by families?
 


fly high

fly high

Well-known member
Aug 25, 2011
1,707
in a house
dsr-burnley said:
So why not go after the investors rather than the real farmers?
Click to expand...
Because just like the WFA it's easier to screw every one just to get at the really rich. This policy is 100% a bigoted one.
 


U

Uter

Well-known member
Aug 5, 2008
1,503
The land of chocolate
pb21 said:
I think you've answered your own question.

It seems to be that the go to MO for right wing populists is to play divide and rule. I expect more of this from her as she seeks division on all kinds of woke culture war issues.
Click to expand...
Maybe. I don't think it's a sensible strategy. Those sort of comments are not going to gain her votes, only lose them. I guess it's indicative of a party still far more focused on indulging the more extreme elements of their members. They gain a lot of media attention, but I don't think their views align with a large majority of electorate. She will lose the next election if she continues in this vein, if she even makes it that long. They haven't learned much from their election hammering.
 




highflyer

highflyer

Well-known member
Jan 21, 2016
2,547
dsr-burnley said:
So why not go after the investors rather than the real farmers?
Click to expand...
100% in favour of 'going after the investors', via equalising income tax on CGT and dividends etc with tax rates on income from work (think the CGT thing has maybe happened? I've not followed everything) and through other forms of wealth tax. Different discussion though. This tax is aimed at those wealthy families using agricultural relief as a loophole to avoid IHT, which (from the information I have provided above) seems to be pretty common. From the actual numbers available, it looks to me that most 'real' farmers will fall into the 77% that will never be subject to this tax.
 


Pavilionaire

Pavilionaire

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
31,253
The increases to Additional Stamp Duty Land Rate, non-residential property CGT, Air Passenger Duty on private jets, changing the tax treatment on Non-Doms and putting VAT on private tuition fees were a signal to those with assets that they mean business.

However, none of these things are gamechangers for the wealthy; personal and corporate rates of tax remain the same, as does CGT on residential property.

I think Reeves realises she need private equity investing in the UK to help deliver growth, and she does not want to piss off the rich, the movers and shakers. There is an uneasy, unspoken understanding here where both sides know what's at stake.
 










Dick Swiveller

Dick Swiveller

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2011
9,520
Professor Plum said:
Ah ok. Sorry, didn’t realise.

Actually, just googled it and can’t see any reference to it so must have closed down.
Click to expand...
Hmm - still listed on CAMRA website as a member but from the looks of Street View, it turned into flats 12 years ago. Must have been longer ago than I remember that I last played in the snooker league there
 




D

dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,615
highflyer said:
100% in favour of 'going after the investors', via equalising income tax on CGT and dividends etc with tax rates on income from work (think the CGT thing has maybe happened? I've not followed everything) and through other forms of wealth tax. Different discussion though. This tax is aimed at those wealthy families using agricultural relief as a loophole to avoid IHT, which (from the information I have provided above) seems to be pretty common. From the actual numbers available, it looks to me that most 'real' farmers will fall into the 77% that will never be subject to this tax.
Click to expand...
The average farm is over 200 acres and the average farmland is about £10,000 per acre. That's just the land value, and there will be farmhouses, barns, machinery and tractors, livestock, and probably goodwill to add to that. Average sized farms will definitely be charged to tax.
 


D

dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,615
Pavilionaire said:
The increases to Additional Stamp Duty Land Rate, non-residential property CGT, Air Passenger Duty on private jets, changing the tax treatment on Non-Doms and putting VAT on private tuition fees were a signal to those with assets that they mean business.

However, none of these things are gamechangers for the wealthy; personal and corporate rates of tax remain the same, as does CGT on residential property.

I think Reeves realises she need private equity investing in the UK to help deliver growth, and she does not want to piss off the rich, the movers and shakers. There is an uneasy, unspoken understanding here where both sides know what's at stake.
Click to expand...
That's because there are two views which to an extent conflict. One is that they don't like rich people and want to tax them as much as possible; the other is that they need rich people because they're the ones paying so much of the tax. The billionaires, the ones with so much money that tax rises can make a significant differences, can easily leave the country and pay much less tax if they so wish.
 


WATFORD zero

WATFORD zero

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 10, 2003
27,694
dsr-burnley said:
The average farm is over 200 acres and the average farmland is about £10,000 per acre. That's just the land value, and there will be farmhouses, barns, machinery and tractors, livestock, and probably goodwill to add to that. Average sized farms will definitely be charged to tax.
Click to expand...

The 'average' size of farm is indeed approx 200 acres. Seeing how much you like figures here's a few more.

There are 192,000 farms in the UK.
Only 20% of farms are over 250 acres and they account for 75% of all farmland.
Approx 50% of all farms are under 50 acres with the majority of these being family owned.

So, when you say 'average sized farms will definitely be taxed', which sized farms are you referring to and where's the evidence for this ?
 
Last edited:


M

Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
17,752
Fiveways
WATFORD zero said:
The 'average' size of farm is indeed approx 200 acres. Seeing how much you like figures here's a few more.

There are 192,000 farms in the UK.
Only 20% of farms are over 250 acres and they account for 75% of all farmland.
Approx 50% of all farms are under 50 acres with the majority of these being family owned.

So, when you say 'average sized farms will definitely be taxed', which sized farms are you referring to and where's the evidence for this ?
Click to expand...
Much easier for our friend that supports another club and likes commenting on the political threads on here to engage in some cod-logic and draw wild conclusions to suit his particular brand of prejudices though.
 




B

Bodian

Well-known member
May 3, 2012
14,155
Cumbria
dsr-burnley said:
The average farm is over 200 acres and the average farmland is about £10,000 per acre. That's just the land value, and there will be farmhouses, barns, machinery and tractors, livestock, and probably goodwill to add to that. Average sized farms will definitely be charged to tax.
Click to expand...

WATFORD zero said:
The 'average' size of farm is indeed approx 200 acres. Seeing how much you like figures here's a few more.

There are 192,000 farms in the UK.
Only 20% of farms are over 250 acres and they account for 75% of all farmland.
Approx 50% of all farms are under 50 acres with the majority of these being family owned.

So, when you say 'average sized farms will definitely be taxed', which sized farms are you referring to and where's the evidence for this ?
Click to expand...
According to Government figures - the 'average' farm size in England is actually 88 acres. So - they must be huge in Scotland/Wales - where the value per acre is likely to be lower.


edit - doh - got acres and hectares mixed up, thanks to @Bry Nylon below for pointing it out (to a different poster).




And don't forget that around 20-25% of farms are tenanted - being owned either by large estates, National Trust, United Utilities, and so on. So - the farming family farming that land (often on three-lifetime tenancies) won't be affected by IHT at all. The huge estate owner might be - but that's another matter, and if it means they have to sell off some of their farmland to their tenants, then all well and good.

Incidentally - much of the National Trust's prime landscape areas in places like Cumbria came into their hands through large landowners (such as Lord Egremont of Petworth Park) giving the land to the Trust in lieu of death duties (IHT).

And remember, one of the reasons that agricultural land values have increased so much is wealthy people like Clarkson buying it to avoid IHT, and making it unaffordable for 'proper' farmers.
 

Attachments

  • 1730744877828.png
    1730744877828.png
    17.3 KB · Views: 65
  • 1730745670841.png
    1730745670841.png
    11.7 KB · Views: 60
Last edited:


Bry Nylon

Bry Nylon

Test your smoke alarm
Helpful Moderator
Jul 21, 2003
20,560
Playing snooker
WATFORD zero said:
The 'average' size of farm is indeed approx 200 acres. Seeing how much you like figures here's a few more.

There are 192,000 farms in the UK.
Only 20% of farms are over 250 acres and they account for 75% of all farmland.
Approx 50% of all farms are under 50 acres with the majority of these being family owned.

So, when you say 'average sized farms will definitely be taxed', which sized farms are you referring to and where's the evidence for this ?
Click to expand...
Genuinely interested where you got this data from, given it claims “approximately 50% of farms are under 50 acres” ?? I find that hard to believe.

50 acres is about the size of one reasonably-sized / small field. In summers past I’ve worked the harvest for local farms and just one decent wheat or barley field is 80-90 acres, which takes maybe an afternoon to combine and bale. No way is a a viable, commercial farm 50 acres?

Bullshit figures
 


You must log in or register to reply here.
Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Share this page


Top
Link Here