OT Reeves spring statement

My take on it.

It seems she hasn't taken a sledge hammer to benefits. What she has done is to attempt, and I hope she's successful, to keep those who can't work on benefits and to try to take measures to force those who won't work back into work.

If that's the way it works out, I back her completely. If it ends up taking money off swathes of rightful claimers then I will be 100 percent anti.

Whichever way the coin falls, there will be a few who fall foul of the measures when they don't deserve to. I hope that those people are provided with a quick and easy appeal route that delivers a speedy resolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

Very balanced and sensible post, imo. Even AF only appears able to disagree with about seven words and I?d love an explanation from anyone as regards what is actually so wrong with the plans regarding land owners and inheritance.

More than that, RR seems to have won the simultaneous approval of both GP and Swale! Possibly her greatest achievement yet.:D

---

No not ?only able?, you seem to associate quantity with quality but I prefer to focus on issues I have some first hand knowledge of.

There?s no point offering a response regarding ?landowners? when the word could mean so many things, I?ve asked Swale to clarify so cool your boots (probably not muddy) until that is forthcoming. I?m a ?landowner? so maybe I have greater insight than yourself or Swale on the subject, maybe not

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadAmster

My take on it.

It seems she hasn't taken a sledge hammer to benefits. What she has done is to attempt, and I hope she's successful, to keep those who can't work on benefits and to try to take measures to force those who won't work back into work.

If that's the way it works out, I back her completely. If it ends up taking money off swathes of rightful claimers then I will be 100 percent anti.

---

Agreed totally and it won?t be easy. At least the madness of ?let?s give everyone ?25,000? seems to have receded. In the words of that great economist Mario Andretti, ?help those who can?t help themselves, not them who won?t help themselves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy_Faber

No not ?only able?, you seem to associate quantity with quality but I prefer to focus on issues I have some first hand knowledge of.

There?s no point offering a response regarding ?landowners? when the word could mean so many things, I?ve asked Swale to clarify so cool your boots (probably not muddy) until that is forthcoming. I?m a ?landowner? so maybe I have greater insight than yourself or Swale on the subject, maybe not

---

What nonsense. I associate the quality of a reply with the content. Swale provided reasoning for both his approval and concerns. You, in comparison, apparently dislike RR because of the tone of her voice, which I accept can be irritating, although you approve of her in a red suit. How very insightful.

So you’re a landowner, me too at a very small level, and therefore might have greater insight. Another very debatable assertion but let’s go further.
How much land do you own and what is it used for?
In brief I’m all for proper farmers on family farms being able to hand down their legacies - although I’m not sure (or knowledgeable enough) to understand why they should appear to get a different set of tax breaks. Sure GP can help on that one.
I'm entirely against wealthy individuals - such as the vociferous Mr. Clarkson - buying up land as a means of avoiding inheritance tax if that is, as it appears, what has been going on

The likes of Clarkson should be excluded from all the tax breaks but since the end of WW2 at least governments have pursued cheap food policies which necessitate subsidies and tax breaks. As the agricultural sector became more globalised and so at the mercy of a wider supply/demand curves for eh what etc this has become difficult to sustain.

However to maintain some form of food independence these breaks have been maintained pre EU, as part of EU and post Brexit in different ways.

The IT rules sought to ensure agriculture remained within families where son took over from father to avoid the creation of bigger agri-units who might kick back against central control or even sale to overseas interests.

So there is sound reasoning for the tax breaks for real farmers. Food is an essential, other key industries were nationalised (govt control of agriculture was augmented by eg potato or milk quotas). You wouldn't expect the same breaks to be given to eg manufacturing of porcelain, jewellery, cars etc as that not an essential lol.

So real farmers I support the breaks, fake ones I don't. I've inherited a piece of the Cotswold but as I don't farm it, I wouldn't expect preferential treatment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

What nonsense. I associate the quality of a reply with the content. Swale provided reasoning for both his approval and concerns. You, in comparison, apparently dislike RR because of the tone of her voice, which I accept can be irritating, although you approve of her in a red suit. How very insightful.

So you?re a landowner, me too at a very small level, and therefore might have greater insight. Another very debatable assertion but let?s go further.
How much land do you own and what is it used for?
In brief I?m all for proper farmers on family farms being able to hand down their legacies - although I?m not sure (or knowledgeable enough) to understand why they should appear to get a different set of tax breaks. Sure GP can help on that one.
I'm entirely against wealthy individuals - such as the vociferous Mr. Clarkson - buying up land as a means of avoiding inheritance tax if that is, as it appears, what has been going on

---

The RR comments provided balance, you should try it some time.

Regarding ?landowners?, for the subset which means farmers I defer to GPs comments and would add for emphasis that profit margins are ridiculously low and they for the most part work bloody hard for it. We all love our hardworking nurses but in terms of graft there?s no comparison
I?m a landowner of a different sort, and could feel aggrieved that while mines been accumulated through farmer-style graft, I?m taxed the same as those who do little more that acquire, dispose and charge. But I don?t as it happens, life?s not fair in that regard but it?s more than fair in others

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone

The likes of Clarkson should be excluded from all the tax breaks but since the end of WW2 at least governments have pursued cheap food policies which necessitate subsidies and tax breaks. As the agricultural sector became more globalised and so at the mercy of a wider supply/demand curves for eh what etc this has become difficult to sustain.

However to maintain some form of food independence these breaks have been maintained pre EU, as part of EU and post Brexit in different ways.

The IT rules sought to ensure agriculture remained within families where son took over from father to avoid the creation of bigger agri-units who might kick back against central control or even sale to overseas interests.

So there is sound reasoning for the tax breaks for real farmers. Food is an essential, other key industries were nationalised (govt control of agriculture was augmented by eg potato or milk quotas). You wouldn't expect the same breaks to be given to eg manufacturing of porcelain, jewellery, cars etc as that not an essential lol.

So real farmers I support the breaks, fake ones I don't. I've inherited a piece of the Cotswold but as I don't farm it, I wouldn't expect preferential treatment

---

Real farmers who have over ?1 million in assets can through early transfer to family members or setting up a trust avoid most of the IHT not forgetting that if they don't take those measures they can pay the IHT over 10 years at 0% interest.

Having a brother who farms who used to before retirement, his main income was government (tax payers) subsidy and yes while it was hard graft, he chose to do it for the way of life rather than any aim to become a multi millionaire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy_Faber

The RR comments provided balance, you should try it some time.

Regarding ?landowners?, for the subset which means farmers I defer to GPs comments and would add for emphasis that profit margins are ridiculously low and they for the most part work bloody hard for it. We all love our hardworking nurses but in terms of graft there?s no comparison
I?m a landowner of a different sort, and could feel aggrieved that while mines been accumulated through farmer-style graft, I?m taxed the same as those who do little more that acquire, dispose and charge. But I don?t as it happens, life?s not fair in that regard but it?s more than fair in others

---

Your RR comments ‘provided balance’. Really? You don’t like her voice and you do like her red suit. Brilliant!

The rest is, as ever, as clear as that mud on your boots and don’t you worry I’ve had my hands and my boots dirty plenty of times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone

The likes of Clarkson should be excluded from all the tax breaks but since the end of WW2 at least governments have pursued cheap food policies which necessitate subsidies and tax breaks. As the agricultural sector became more globalised and so at the mercy of a wider supply/demand curves for eh what etc this has become difficult to sustain.

However to maintain some form of food independence these breaks have been maintained pre EU, as part of EU and post Brexit in different ways.

The IT rules sought to ensure agriculture remained within families where son took over from father to avoid the creation of bigger agri-units who might kick back against central control or even sale to overseas interests.

So there is sound reasoning for the tax breaks for real farmers. Food is an essential, other key industries were nationalised (govt control of agriculture was augmented by eg potato or milk quotas). You wouldn't expect the same breaks to be given to eg manufacturing of porcelain, jewellery, cars etc as that not an essential lol.

So real farmers I support the breaks, fake ones I don't. I've inherited a piece of the Cotswold but as I don't farm it, I wouldn't expect preferential treatment

---

Thanks GP. Informed and balanced and perhaps not quite the answer some of those protesting about the new inheritance rules might want.

The thing is everyone gets up on their back legs and shouts if changes seems to work against them (as a former teacher in a unionised job you'll appreciate that) - just like all trade unions object to changes in conditions or inadequate wages in their view

Farmers aren't in a union - well there is an NFU but it's fairly apolitical and more an industry think tank / pressure group for the self employed.

So they protest the best way they can. Interestingly I imagine Swale would defend to his death a union members right to strike yet not a farmers right to protest. This despite the fact the a typical train driver for instance earns more in a year than the typical small farmer. Don't you just love hypocrisy.

Yes farmers who own land have wealth but its only paper wealth as they become unemployed the minute they realise it to cash. The land is effectively their pension fund and, for now at least, pension funds are not subject to IHT - but that's in the toolmaker's son's firing line*. Same with other self employed businesses but the difference remains the need for food independence.

* but fund managers have counter actions on the table already so he won't easily get his grubby mitts on it