Farmers protests

[Geoff Parkstone]

If only all tax was collected, these cheap grabs wouldn't be necessary or defendable.

I was reading the other day, that the biggest failure in tax collection is VAT
Ironically, that would be mainly small businesses?
But is approx ?40 billion a year. Makes the WFA grab look like chicken feed.

The VAT tax gap is estimated at 5% (statista.com) and the government's net VAT tax take is 175-180 billion (gov.co.uk) which suggests 9 billion missing and not 40 billion. Still a big number but nothing like as bad as you would suggest?

[Trickytreesreds]

The VAT tax gap is estimated at 5% (statista.com) and the government's net VAT tax take is 175-180 billion (gov.co.uk) which suggests 9 billion missing and not 40 billion. Still a big number but nothing like as bad as you would suggest?

I know its hard to put an exact figure on it ( my ?40 bilion was a money discussion quote) but its definitely closer to 40 than 9 surely?
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/u...s-the-tax-gap/

AND ITS DEFINITELY SMALL BUSINESSES who do the most dodging

[MadAmster]

So, the last administration didn?t do that, and the current administration, by the actions they?ve taken so far, don?t intend to either, in fact have even less intention. Where?s your Superman coming from?

As you will be aware, I've been posting the Rizla formula for months. These Red Tories are as likely to hit the rich and big business as the Blue lot were.

The fact that neither Red nor Blue will do it doesn't negate the fact that it's high time it happened. However, as long as politicians are in the back pockets of the top few %, it's never going to change.

How about political parties and politicians being funded out of the public purse. Each party gets a set amount. Idem ditto each politician. It's then up to them to spend that money wisely and sensibly. That way there's a greater likelihood of us getting politicians that not only say what they'll do but also do what they said they'd do if they got a majority in the House.

Of course neither colour of Tories will go for the idea as it would derail the gravy train that leads to so many rich folk being in Parliament.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I know its hard to put an exact figure on it ( my ?40 bilion was a money discussion quote) but its definitely closer to 40 than 9 surely?
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/u...s-the-tax-gap/

AND ITS DEFINITELY SMALL BUSINESSES who do the most dodging

Your reference is 5 years old (although the estimate of 5% is consistent) and the 35bn refers to the total tax gap, not just VAT. Do keep up!

[swaledale]

Your reference is 5 years old (although the estimate of 5% is consistent) and the 35bn refers to the total tax gap, not just VAT. Do keep up!

I'm rather surprised he is that up to date, from memory when I was foolish enough to click on anything he posted, he seemed about 50 years out of date.

[swaledale]

Thinking on this, I went to Grammar School with a couple of lads whose Dads were farmers. I know for a fact that one of them inherited his Dad's farm and still works it. I wonder how this will affect him?

I think this farmer's inheritance tax SHOULD be levied if the offspring sell the farm but, if they continue to work it then the tax should not be levied unless they sell the land at a future date. That should help keep agricultural out put at its current level.

The alternative is that many farmers quit the game and we are forced to import yet more food from abroad. Food not compatible with the rules UK farmers have to adhere to such as pesticide use on crops or growth hormones in livestock.

Not too well thought out, this one.

Well if you read Dan Neidel a tax lawyer, his view is that the majority of Farmers wont pay it, those that might be caught have a number of ways to avoid it, not least by gifting the farm to their son/daughter at least 7 years before their death. Even if they die within 7 years the tax is applied as a taper, so its less after say 5 years than if they hadn't done it. They could even gift a proportion of the farm in stages.

But as one wag commented it depends upon whether the farmer hates their children more then HMRC!

A married couple using all their allowances would escape IHT at ?3 million, (if its over that the first ?3 million is exempt)they have 10 years with no interest charge to make payments. How n earth did they manage before 1984 when changes were made and 1992 when it was abolished?

One listens to the bleating of farmers at ones peril, many of them voted happily for Brexit and then complained at the inevitable effects on them. Many of them happily entered into contracts with supermarkets thinking they were on a bonanza, then inevitably saw the prices squeezed (that's capitalism folks), they agreed to disband the milk cooperatives and the milk marketing board, because they thought they would get better prices and again the super markets screwed them after a while.

They have also received ?billions of tax payers money in subsidies, no sympathy here, or a fear that food will not be produced.

[Geoff Parkstone]

As a point of interest those subsidies were introduced after WW2 to maintain a cheap food policy and. In one form or another, have been in place ever since. In addition to HMG giving these subsidies, they were maintained by the EU via the CAP for 50 odd years. Agriculture could not survive without this support and maintain food prices at levels that were affordable ("cheap" may no longer be the right word, especially since globalisation has meant domestic supply and demand are now less relevant). In some years that led to extra profits to farmers but more often than not it didn't.

We used to farm pigs and the ex of farm open market price was ridiculously volatile and cheap such that even with subsidies money was lost regularly - and this was a sizeable breeding herd not an inefficient "mom and pop" operation.

The subsidies helped keep prices stable, regulate the worst of supply and demand pricing and meant your bacon sarnie didn't suddenly double in price overnight.

In one way you can say the industry had been "nationalized" via subsidy to protect the consumer. You can't then throw it back at the farmers as a criticism.

Land values are at the fore of the IHT problems, and they have inflated because of other factors such as development values for housing anticipating change of use approvals, or speculators, or indeed tax strategies by the likes of non farmers eg Clarkson. I have no sympathy with the latter two categories of people getting hammered by tax, but where the markets have driven land values up way in excess of the economics value of the land then some relief is justifiable for generational farmers.

Perhaps the answer is to have taper relief on inherited farms such that the rate applied drops over time after inheritance based on whether the heirs keep farming it - thus avoiding the rather weird pre death gifting hoops that now need to be gone through. If heirs sell up, let them pay a time apportioned tapered tax across say 7-10 years

[ramAnag]

As a point of interest those subsidies were introduced after WW2 to maintain a cheap food policy and. In one form or another, have been in place ever since. In addition to HMG giving these subsidies, they were maintained by the EU via the CAP for 50 odd years. Agriculture could not survive without this support and maintain food prices at levels that were affordable ("cheap" may no longer be the right word, especially since globalisation has meant domestic supply and demand are now less relevant). In some years that led to extra profits to farmers but more often than not it didn't.

We used to farm pigs and the ex of farm open market price was ridiculously volatile and cheap such that even with subsidies money was lost regularly - and this was a sizeable breeding herd not an inefficient "mom and pop" operation.

The subsidies helped keep prices stable, regulate the worst of supply and demand pricing and meant your bacon sarnie didn't suddenly double in price overnight.

In one way you can say the industry had been "nationalized" via subsidy to protect the consumer. You can't then throw it back at the farmers as a criticism.

Land values are at the fore of the IHT problems, and they have inflated because of other factors such as development values for housing anticipating change of use approvals, or speculators, or indeed tax strategies by the likes of non farmers eg Clarkson. I have no sympathy with the latter two categories of people getting hammered by tax, but where the markets have driven land values up way in excess of the economics value of the land then some relief is justifiable for generational farmers.

Perhaps the answer is to have taper relief on inherited farms such that the rate applied drops over time after inheritance based on whether the heirs keep farming it - thus avoiding the rather weird pre death gifting hoops that now need to be gone through. If heirs sell up, let them pay a time apportioned tapered tax across say 7-10 years

GP, not arguing with anything above, in fact between you and Swale (an unlikely combo) I think you’ve made a great deal of sense, but if you’re right about the importance of the EU subsidies (and I’m sure you are), why the hell did the farming community appear to support Brexit?

[MadAmster]

GP, not arguing with anything above, in fact between you and Swale (an unlikely combo) I think you’ve made a great deal of sense, but if you’re right about the importance of the EU subsidies (and I’m sure you are), why the hell did the farming community appear to support Brexit?

Only guessing rA but I can only think they concluded that getting out of the CAP would be beneficial.

Now, I wonder which lying toerag said that in the lead up to the referendum?

[Trickytreesreds]

Only guessing rA but I can only think they concluded that getting out of the CAP would be beneficial.

Now, I wonder which lying toerag said that in the lead up to the referendum?

Errrrrrrrrrm, because the CAP was rigged perhaps? Brown I believe was bum raped over it.

In 2019 France was the biggest beneficiary of the policy by 17.3%, followed by Spain with 12.4% and Germany (11.2%), Italy (10.4%), Poland (8.1%) and the UK (7.2%).