[News] Farmers

[PILTDOWN MAN]

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

Most small lots of land are bought for horses etc. Some will be seen as investment especially given how prices have risen.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Facetious. (As always?)

Sarcastic. (As and when provoked).

 

[MJsGhost]

Sarcastic. (As and when provoked).

Rubbish! I've never seen you resort to sarcasm

I have to say that, relative to other political threads, the debate on this one has remained reasonably cordial (though I doubt I've read every post, so I could be wrong)

 

[Diablo]

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

Are your posts serious ? Or like the one above simply taking the mick ? You def seem V anti Farmer.
Most Farmers do indeed work hard, work long hours all weathers , mostly self employed and I would suggest these days don`t earn a lot of money.
Of course like any profession there are some who own loads of acres of good quality land employing staff who make loads of money.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Rubbish! I've never seen you resort to sarcasm

I have to say that, relative to other political threads, the debate on this one has remained reasonably cordial (though I doubt I've read every post, so I could be wrong)

Yes, it has been pretty civil. There have been some excellent attempts to unravel the landscape, which is rum in itself, with Thatcher apparently introducing some sort of extreme form of socialism (aka giving a massive state handout) in the 1980s to farmers in terms of an inheritance tax waiver, which the new right wing Labour government have partially (but only partially) rescinded.

Meanwhile we have others who have helpfully equated the latest bit of Labour right wingism with their other extreme right wing decision to snatch the winter fuel allowance from literally millions of pensioners, rolling back a generous socialist provision made without the need for means testing under the extreme left wing government of Boris "the liar" Johnson.

Politics can be so confusing. Innit.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Politics can be so confusing. Innit.

It can indeed. Lat's get rid of all the tax loopholes and make sure everybody shares the burden equally.

No, not THOSE loopholes

 

[abc]

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

Only when it comes to things like housing. Planners cannot insist land is farmed only that you cannot do certain things. Planning is not required for horsiculture for example. The most likely reason wealthy non farmers will buy land (apart from the IHT breaks and the possibility of development) is planting trees for (IMHO the dubious practice of) carbon offsetting which can be both lucrative and (funnily enough) extremely tax efficient for the wealthy. Planting trees has its place of course but arguably not on productive farmland. Either way, the land is lost to food production

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It can indeed. Lat's get rid of all the tax loopholes and make sure everybody shares the burden equally.

No, not THOSE loopholes

What we need is preferential loophole management. This government is clueless.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Only when it comes to things like housing. Planners cannot insist land is farmed only that you cannot do certain things. Planning is not required for horsiculture for example. The most likely reason wealthy non farmers will buy land (apart from the IHT breaks and the possibility of development) is planting trees for (IMHO the dubious practice of) carbon offsetting which can be both lucrative and (funnily enough) extremely tax efficient for the wealthy. Planting trees has its place of course but arguably not on productive farmland. Either way, the land is lost to food production

Nay.

 

[abc]

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.

I think we are more or less on the same page in that we need farmland to remain in the hands of people who will actually farm it (ie produce food for the nation). The 1%/50% reflects the fact that the majority of farmland is owned by the big institutions like the C of E, the Crown and various large pension funds and the extremely wealthy landowners like Dyson and the old estates linked to the Crown (eg Goodwood and Arundel estates). More family farms would increase the 1% but them being sold will reduce it.

If land is passed on to someone who doesn't want to farm it is most likely to be sold, in which case they will pay CGT and if they have anything they left, they will pay full rate IHT when they die.

Your last point is important as many people would indeed love the opportunity to farm but don't get the opportunity. Unless mega wealthy, buying is not an option due to the economics I set out in my previous post. The only option is to rent (ie become a tenant farmer). The tenant farmers association (who represent tenants in direct conflict with landowners) have said that the IHT reforms are a 'disaster' because landowners who bought land for IHT purposes and then rented it out, will now evict the tenant and sell the land because the IHT benefit has gone. The tenant will have no hope of affording to buy it.

I'm not saying the last bit is a reason to scrap the IHT changes but it does show that the whole situation is much more complicated than the government or those that criticise the campaigning farmers appear to understand.

 

[Machiavelli]

I think we are more or less on the same page in that we need farmland to remain in the hands of people who will actually farm it (ie produce food for the nation). The 1%/50% reflects the fact that the majority of farmland is owned by the big institutions like the C of E, the Crown and various large pension funds and the extremely wealthy landowners like Dyson and the old estates linked to the Crown (eg Goodwood and Arundel estates). More family farms would increase the 1% but them being sold will reduce it.

If land is passed on to someone who doesn't want to farm it is most likely to be sold, in which case they will pay CGT and if they have anything they left, they will pay full rate IHT when they die.

Your last point is important as many people would indeed love the opportunity to farm but don't get the opportunity. Unless mega wealthy, buying is not an option due to the economics I set out in my previous post. The only option is to rent (ie become a tenant farmer). The tenant farmers association (who represent tenants in direct conflict with landowners) have said that the IHT reforms are a 'disaster' because landowners who bought land for IHT purposes and then rented it out, will now evict the tenant and sell the land because the IHT benefit has gone. The tenant will have no hope of affording to buy it.

I'm not saying the last bit is a reason to scrap the IHT changes but it does show that the whole situation is much more complicated than the government or those that criticise the campaigning farmers appear to understand.

I'd be delighted that there's a major change in land ownership, but won't hold my breath on that one. I get what you're saying re tenanted farmers but, even if they were evicted, that would just leave land unproductive for the landowner, which is sub-optimal. They could look to sell it, but they'll probably have to accept a lower price if so few can afford it, ie prices would lower -- and this will increase the likelihood of those that do want to buy/farm being able to afford it.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Pardon the pun but this is the last straw for our Sussex farmers. They're still reeling from having to pay VAT on the school fees of their red corduroy clad offspring...

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think we are more or less on the same page in that we need farmland to remain in the hands of people who will actually farm it (ie produce food for the nation). The 1%/50% reflects the fact that the majority of farmland is owned by the big institutions like the C of E, the Crown and various large pension funds and the extremely wealthy landowners like Dyson and the old estates linked to the Crown (eg Goodwood and Arundel estates). More family farms would increase the 1% but them being sold will reduce it.

If land is passed on to someone who doesn't want to farm it is most likely to be sold, in which case they will pay CGT and if they have anything they left, they will pay full rate IHT when they die.

Your last point is important as many people would indeed love the opportunity to farm but don't get the opportunity. Unless mega wealthy, buying is not an option due to the economics I set out in my previous post. The only option is to rent (ie become a tenant farmer). The tenant farmers association (who represent tenants in direct conflict with landowners) have said that the IHT reforms are a 'disaster' because landowners who bought land for IHT purposes and then rented it out, will now evict the tenant and sell the land because the IHT benefit has gone. The tenant will have no hope of affording to buy it.

I'm not saying the last bit is a reason to scrap the IHT changes but it does show that the whole situation is much more complicated than the government or those that criticise the campaigning farmers appear to understand.

With the additional but equally valid point that it is more complicated than the protesting farmers are suggesting (and of course they are protesting because they don't like it) that's probably an ideal place to end this thread.

 

[abc]

I'd be delighted that there's a major change in land ownership, but won't hold my breath on that one. I get what you're saying re tenanted farmers but, even if they were evicted, that would just leave land unproductive for the landowner, which is sub-optimal. They could look to sell it, but they'll probably have to accept a lower price if so few can afford it, ie prices would lower -- and this will increase the likelihood of those that do want to buy/farm being able to afford it.

For land prices to fall a few other things need to happen
- stop anybody being able to ‘roll over’ capital gains (this esp applies to profits from hedge funds and the like)
- stop pension funds investing in land as a safe haven
- limit the value that farmland can be sold for development
- stop IHT benefits for landowners (EXCEPT for genuine farmers who will pass it on to be farmed)
- Take away the charitable status of the biggest landowners like the Church who pay no tax on selling land for housing (the biggest land tax dodge of all??)

Farmland being affordable to those who want to farm it is a great objective but also a fantasy I fear

 

[abc]

With the additional but equally valid point that it is more complicated than the protesting farmers are suggesting (and of course they are protesting because they don't like it) that's probably an ideal place to end this thread.

You started it!

 

[drew]

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'

Then you introduce IHT planning. Gift the farm to the descendants but keep the farmhouse. The farmer works as an employee of his descendents and when he dies the farmhouse is then inherited by same descendants and is probably within IHT thresholds!! Take out some life insurance for 7 year period to cover the possible IHT if the original farmer dies within that period.

 

[dazzer6666]

Then you introduce IHT planning. Gift the farm to the descendants but keep the farmhouse. The farmer works as an employee of his descendents and when he dies the farmhouse is then inherited by same descendants and is probably within IHT thresholds!! Take out some life insurance for 7 year period to cover the possible IHT if the original farmer dies within that period.

You can’t - the ‘gift’ would be a gift with reservation and still included in the estate.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Then you introduce IHT planning. Gift the farm to the descendants but keep the farmhouse. The farmer works as an employee of his descendents and when he dies the farmhouse is then inherited by same descendants and is probably within IHT thresholds!! Take out some life insurance for 7 year period to cover the possible IHT if the original farmer dies within that period.

Quite. There also seems to be a bunch of options regarding partnerships and/or LTD companies as well. This seems fair and puts them on an equal footing with every other sole trader, partner or Ltd.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You started it!

I may have mentioned it, but I think I got away with it.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

You can’t - the ‘gift’ would be a gift with reservation and still included in the estate.

I’d this the case with going concern businesses ?

IHTM25381 - Gifts with reservation: Introduction - HMRC internal manual - GOV.UK

www.gov.uk