Looking past the shouty nonsense, I think that Charlie was trying to make a point to JO'B that the inflation relating to land prices is so far out of step with the increase in farm revenues since the last time tax was imposed on inherited farms (prior to 1984), that comparisons between then and now are of limited value. I could be wrong - most of what he seemed to be trying to say was lost to petty insults and shouting.
Anyway... what I see as the nub of this issue:
Because of its attractiveness as a shelter from IHT, the value of agricultural land/farms has increased far beyond what would be expected if the value were based purely on ability to produce revenue from food (partly because food prices remain low, driven by supermarket and food producer cartels—who, to be fair, are simply responding to the general public's demand for cheap food).
As a result, farms become high-value assets with significant IHT liabilities. But as farming businesses, their earning-to-cost ratios are low, making it difficult to pay the tax when profits are already slim.
Now, with IHT being levied, farmers will see the value of their asset tumble (maybe that's what they are really protesting about?), but are still stuck with low food commodity prices without the handy tax break of no IHT in the long term.
It's a difficult situation to sort out, with a double blow for the farmers of lower farm values and an extra tax to pay (though of course, if the asset falls below the threshold, there will be no IHT to pay, so all most will have to swallow is a decrease in the value of their farm
)IMO. what is really needed is a grown up conversation about the real cost of sustainable farming/food. A fair price for produce, but an environmentally sustainable and ethical approach. The trouble is, one only has to compare the price of organic, free range chicken, with a basic battery bird to see this will mean huge increases in the cost of food for consumers. Maybe we'd all stop wasting so much food if it cost more? (Someone will hopefully correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't something like a third of food bought in the UK end up in the bin?)
Thinking about it further, part of the high value of land now will be at least an element of 'hope value' - believing a change of use could be granted, opening up more lucrative possibilities (housing anyone?!). Labour's promise to get Britain building might embolden investors to try to turn more farms into housing estates, which could prop up land value... all is not lost farmers!
I appear to be rambling - there are more layers to this than first meets the eye!
