Farmers protests

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadAmster

The farmer bashing in NL is related to nitrogen levels and an excess of "muck" that needs spreading but under EU rules, can't be spread.

---

Agreeing with the EU on that one, excess nitrogen is a killer for waterways

I think it fair to subsidise (directly and indirectly) our farming industry, so what if some do better out of it than others? Farmers will need to increase prices to cover additional hardships, lending to increased reliance on low animal welfare cheaper imports, less demand on local produce, UK farms closing, and England becoming a large system of housing estates.
Seems short-sighted to bite the hand that feeds you.

So…if inheritance tax was removed from land, animals and machinery but enforced - at the same rate as it is for all others - as far as actual property is concerned, would there still be objections?

rA "I await further clarification from GP who has twin levels of expertise but also, perhaps, bias."

Moi? As if. To reassure you I no longer have skin in the game as our family farm was disposed of as my brothers children did not wish to carry on the business which was capital intensive and the returns weren't good. As a largely tenanted farm there weren't land value related IHT problems anyway and if fell under business disposal relief as well as IHT on residual asset values.

So, as intimated earlier, the bigger problems arise where there is succession in the business by the next generation - as there isn't a disposal to generate cash to meet any tax liability. This scenario is made worse by the high land values which are probably out of step with the economic worth of the land.

So it's not an issue that will impact all farmers by any stretch of the imagination. If anything it's more the big landowners problems who let out the land to tenant farmers.

But farming is probably more dynastic than other businesses - generations being born into the business and the lifestyle, houses being "tied to the job" etc There have been concessions always given to farmers in recognition of the role in food security and environmental protection - the latter being more central to thinking nowadays.

So the changes will only impact some farmers, predominantly those land owning businesses and only where succession is involved. More and more the current generation are opting out of farming as it's 24/7 especially with livestock and low returns on capital. Farm units thus are getting bigger and more economic than the small holdings of earlier generations. Consolidation is perhaps a good thing but it depersonalizes the industry which at the same time is trying to show itself as "small and caring".

So are the tax changes unfair - well you can argue that anything that increases your liability is so, but this is more a matter of reducing concessions (which admittedly feels the same). Time will tell what the long-term implications are for agriculture but my gut feel is that it's a retrograde move as it will force industry consolidation and reduce the numbers of generational farmers who understand their land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

So…if inheritance tax was removed from land, animals and machinery but enforced - at the same rate as it is for all others - as far as actual property is concerned, would there still be objections?

---

If you take land, animals and machinery out of the equation, what's left to tax?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone

If you take land, animals and machinery out of the equation, what's left to tax?

---

As I said originally, the property (building) itself, same as everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone

rA "I await further clarification from GP who has twin levels of expertise but also, perhaps, bias."

Moi? As if. To reassure you I no longer have skin in the game as our family farm was disposed of as my brothers children did not wish to carry on the business which was capital intensive and the returns weren't good. As a largely tenanted farm there weren't land value related IHT problems anyway and if fell under business disposal relief as well as IHT on residual asset values.

So, as intimated earlier, the bigger problems arise where there is succession in the business by the next generation - as there isn't a disposal to generate cash to meet any tax liability. This scenario is made worse by the high land values which are probably out of step with the economic worth of the land.

So it's not an issue that will impact all farmers by any stretch of the imagination. If anything it's more the big landowners problems who let out the land to tenant farmers.

But farming is probably more dynastic than other businesses - generations being born into the business and the lifestyle, houses being "tied to the job" etc There have been concessions always given to farmers in recognition of the role in food security and environmental protection - the latter being more central to thinking nowadays.

So the changes will only impact some farmers, predominantly those land owning businesses and only where succession is involved. More and more the current generation are opting out of farming as it's 24/7 especially with livestock and low returns on capital. Farm units thus are getting bigger and more economic than the small holdings of earlier generations. Consolidation is perhaps a good thing but it depersonalizes the industry which at the same time is trying to show itself as "small and caring".

So are the tax changes unfair - well you can argue that anything that increases your liability is so, but this is more a matter of reducing concessions (which admittedly feels the same). Time will tell what the long-term implications are for agriculture but my gut feel is that it's a retrograde move as it will force industry consolidation and reduce the numbers of generational farmers who understand their land.

---

Sorry…thought your first answer (#5) implied you’d be giving the matter more thought.

I did

A country that can't feed itself and produce heavy industry for itself, is flawed and vulnerable.

During WW2, without the convoys we were doomed. Since then, we have less farmland and industry.
Steel production is non existant and now we seem intent of smothering farmland, with either housing or solar panels.
To facilitate this, we introduce a tax system, to pressure it even more.

You'd think in the current climate, we'd actually be thinking about this a bit more. Food prices are sky high and energy prices, (despite Millbands bull****) continue to rise. Meanwhile, the war footing gets closer with Russia and more than likely, will get caught with our pants down again.

Comments like this, make me suspicious that this political and vindictive,

https://news.sky.com/story/ex-labour...mines-13253094

Compared to European farmers, our lot have always had a raw deal. The French rigged the agricultural policy to favour French farmers and no one has milked something more than them.

My ex managing director has a house in the French Pyranees. I met a few of his farmer neighbours, who showed great delight, in showing their brand new machinery brought every year with subsidies.
Try to rock their boat though and see what happens