[News] Farmers

[Rowdey]

Just listening to James O'Brien and he has a guest who has written a book called the Lie of the Land. 1% of the population own 50% of the land in the uk! An area the size of greater London is set aside for grouse shooting!

Top 50 UK landowners

I didnt get to hear all that interview, but wasnt a very large landowner of Sussex mentioned .?

 

[Bodian]

A lot of land bought by the super rich is taken out of production. I live on a country estate bought 25 years ago, over 3000 acres. Hasn’t seen any farming activity in all those years.

You'd better get cracking then Lord Piltdown - make your estate pay

Top post just above this one - thanks. It's another of these things that were originally set up to help, and end up getting abused - then when they end them, it's generally not the abusers who actually get penalised, they find a way out.

 

[abc]

Nonsense. You have just hitched a ride on the hysteria bus by the sound of it.

It would be an issue if they were put out of business as a result of this, but all it will mean is:
-- asset-rich investors in farmland will no longer get their tax loophole
-- the estates of those genuine farms that are caught by this IHT change will have to sell a proportion of that estate in order to fund the liability. They'll still have huge farms, and it'll encourage wannabe farmers to buy up that land and start farming on it (something they can't do currently).

You can provide a serious response to this if you want.

You miss the most serious point here. Land that is sold will not be bought up and farmed by a wannabee farmer because the purchase price (c.£12000/acre) makes it impossible to earn a living from farming (typical arable output before the deduction of any costs is c£500/acre p.a.). Therefore the land is lost to food production. However, if it is passed down to the next generation it will continue to be farmed.

However, if IHT is charged it will be impossible for the next gen to pay the bill and keep the farm because of the size of the tax bill (remember the value includes machinery, livestock, buildings etc so even the smallest farms will not be able to sell off a proportion to pay the tax. Again, the smaller farms will be hit the most because even losing a tiny% of their land can make the difference between viability and uneconomic) In which case the farm will be sold and of course the farmer, quite rightly, will pay full IHT if the cash is left to the family. However, the land will still not produce food again.

It would be a good thing if non farmers are put off buying land by closing the IHT 'loophole' (it is one of the principal reasons why land values have lost all relation to their earning capacity when farmed). All is needed is a more nuanced approach that enables farms to be passed down from farmer to farmer so the land continues to produce food.

Like with the winter fuel payment fiasco, it would appear Labour do not understand 'nuanced'

 

[nicko31]

Why did Margaret Thatcher exempt the farmers in 1984, and prior to that, what was the criteria for IHT for farms? Was is 40% like the rest?

How did farmers survive before IHT exemption. The whole thing is overblow hysteria pedalled by the usual suspects, many of who don't live here or pay tax here.

I wish there was as much upset about levels of child poverty in this country.

 

[Springal]

I’m still amazed all farmers are skint, they all subject their kids to a industry which means they are skint and keep hold of land that makes them skint.

But it’s IHT that’s the bit that makes them most angry

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You miss the most serious point here. Land that is sold will not be bought up and farmed by a wannabee farmer because the purchase price (c.£12000/acre) makes it impossible to earn a living from farming (typical arable output before the deduction of any costs is c£500/acre p.a.). Therefore the land is lost to food production. However, if it is passed down to the next generation it will continue to be farmed.

However, if IHT is charged it will be impossible for the next gen to pay the bill and keep the farm because of the size of the tax bill (remember the value includes machinery, livestock, buildings etc so even the smallest farms will not be able to sell off a proportion to pay the tax. Again, the smaller farms will be hit the most because even losing a tiny% of their land can make the difference between viability and uneconomic) In which case the farm will be sold and of course the farmer, quite rightly, will pay full IHT if the cash is left to the family. However, the land will still not produce food again.

It would be a good thing if non farmers are put off buying land by closing the IHT 'loophole' (it is one of the principal reasons why land values have lost all relation to their earning capacity when farmed). All is needed is a more nuanced approach that enables farms to be passed down from farmer to farmer so the land continues to produce food.

Like with the winter fuel payment fiasco, it would appear Labour do not understand 'nuanced'

So the choice is import cheap food or give farmers unfair tax breaks to continue their bucolic (albeit working 8 days a week 53 months year, apparently) existence for reasons of (checks the internet) tradition?

Somehow I suspect there may be a flaw in your narrative.

I do agree that Labour seem to be unwilling to consider nuance. Or maybe they have looked into how much it would cost to manage nuance.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I’m still amazed all farmers are skint, they all subject their kids to a industry which means they are skint and keep hold of land that makes them skint.

But it’s IHT that’s the bit that makes them most angry

They work 8 days a week and 53 months a year because they love are country. Clueless.

 

[Rdodge30]

They work 8 days a week and 53 months a year because they love are country. Clueless.

Facetious. (As always?)

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

You miss the most serious point here. Land that is sold will not be bought up and farmed by a wannabee farmer because the purchase price (c.£12000/acre) makes it impossible to earn a living from farming (typical arable output before the deduction of any costs is c£500/acre p.a.). Therefore the land is lost to food production. However, if it is passed down to the next generation it will continue to be farmed.

Isnt this where the local planning people come into play? If they do not offer any option but farming then it will be farming.

 

[wehatepalace]

Isnt this where the local planning people come into play? If they do not offer any option but farming then it will be farming.

Well it should, but it won’t, you only need to look around our own countryside here in Sussex to know that isn’t the case.

 

[chip]

Or maybe they have looked into how much it would cost to manage nuance.

Or just decided to ignore it like putting 100000 pensioners into poverty.

Maybe we should stop subsidising other things like steel, cars, energy and go full on capitalist. Maybe some of us care where our food comes from and how it is produced. Not really nuance (noun: nuance; plural noun: nuances a subtle difference in or shade of meaning, expression, or sound).

 

[Machiavelli]

You miss the most serious point here. Land that is sold will not be bought up and farmed by a wannabee farmer because the purchase price (c.£12000/acre) makes it impossible to earn a living from farming (typical arable output before the deduction of any costs is c£500/acre p.a.). Therefore the land is lost to food production. However, if it is passed down to the next generation it will continue to be farmed.

However, if IHT is charged it will be impossible for the next gen to pay the bill and keep the farm because of the size of the tax bill (remember the value includes machinery, livestock, buildings etc so even the smallest farms will not be able to sell off a proportion to pay the tax. Again, the smaller farms will be hit the most because even losing a tiny% of their land can make the difference between viability and uneconomic) In which case the farm will be sold and of course the farmer, quite rightly, will pay full IHT if the cash is left to the family. However, the land will still not produce food again.

It would be a good thing if non farmers are put off buying land by closing the IHT 'loophole' (it is one of the principal reasons why land values have lost all relation to their earning capacity when farmed). All is needed is a more nuanced approach that enables farms to be passed down from farmer to farmer so the land continues to produce food.

Like with the winter fuel payment fiasco, it would appear Labour do not understand 'nuanced'

Regarding your first point, I genuinely was unaware of that. But isn't that what's the problem? All we have is a system in which agricultural land is held in the same hands -- this used to be known as feudalism. This means that 1% of the population own 50% of the land (see further up this page), and the feudal argument against IHT including the defence of its loopholes ensures that:
-- land is passed on to younger generations of farming families irrespective of whether they want to farm the land
-- those that do want to farm the land can't because they were born to the wrong parents.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

You'd better get cracking then Lord Piltdown - make your estate pay

Top post just above this one - thanks. It's another of these things that were originally set up to help, and end up getting abused - then when they end them, it's generally not the abusers who actually get penalised, they find a way out.

Sold my land. Now just live on the Oakham Estate.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

How did farmers survive before IHT exemption. The whole thing is overblow hysteria pedalled by the usual suspects, many of who don't live here or pay tax here.

I wish there was as much upset about levels of child poverty in this country.

Really

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Isnt this where the local planning people come into play? If they do not offer any option but farming then it will be farming.

What's farming? Seriously.

To get around the term agricultural land you only have to have a few "pet" sheep, as little as 4. You can't force people to commercial farm.

 

[BrightonCottager]

I sort of agree with this. However, we have had 20+ years of encouraging diversification. Most of the farms around me run shoots, have livery yards (often run by someone else), offer rental accomodation and some have other light commercial activities. We should remember than small farms shape our landscape and biodiversity, it's about more than just money. For example, the water meadows at West Dean prevent flooding around here, what value do you put on that 100+ acres? There is an environmental benefit to good farming which has value to us all. These changes will ultimately be to our detriment.

This will, of course, have a greater impact in the South where land prices are higher. There's a lot of difference between a hill farm in Cumbria and a mixed farm in Sussex. If we want to be equitable we need to account for regional variation.

Good post. Farmers and other landowners should be paid for reducing flooding but I don't think that Defra included it in the Environmental Land Management system.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

What's farming? Seriously.

To get around the term agricultural land you only have to have a few "pet" sheep, as little as 4. You can't force people to commercial farm.

I know you cannot force people to farm but if you prohibit land being sold off for housing etc then at least it will stop this. This was my point.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

I know you cannot force people to farm but if you prohibit land being sold off for housing etc then at least it will stop this. This was my point.

Land sold for houses isn't the cause though is it?

Ordnance Survey data suggests that all the buildings in the UK - houses, shops, offices, factories, greenhouses - cover 1.4% of the total land surface. Looking at England alone, the figure still rises to only 2%. Buildings cover less of Britain than the land revealed when the tide goes out.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Land sold for houses isn't the cause though is it?

Ordnance Survey data suggests that all the buildings in the UK - houses, shops, offices, factories, greenhouses - cover 1.4% of the total land surface. Looking at England alone, the figure still rises to only 2%. Buildings cover less of Britain than the land revealed when the tide goes out.

I presumed it was one. What other options was @abc referring to?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Or just decided to ignore it like putting 100000 pensioners into poverty.

Maybe we should stop subsidising other things like steel, cars, energy and go full on capitalist. Maybe some of us care where our food comes from and how it is produced. Not really nuance (noun: nuance; plural noun: nuances a subtle difference in or shade of meaning, expression, or sound).

Maybe.

(As with the farmers and their tax-free status one wonders how the pensioners survived before the winter fuel allowance was brought in. It is almost as if, until Thatcher and Johnson introduced their generous socialist concessions on tax free farm inheritance and winter fuel allowance, respectively, we had no farming industry and the old people all died every winter).