+ Visit Derby County FC Mad for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: OT Reeves spring statement

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    7,505
    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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    20,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone View Post
    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    14,447
    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone View Post
    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.

Forum Info

Footymad Forums offer you the chance to interact and discuss all things football with fellow fans from around the world, and share your views on footballing issues from the latest, breaking transfer rumours to the state of the game at international level and everything in between.

Whether your team is battling it out for the Premier League title or struggling for League survival, there's a forum for you!

Gooners, Mackems, Tractor Boys - you're all welcome, please just remember to respect the opinions of others.

Click here for a full list of the hundreds of forums available to you

The forums are free to join, although you must play fair and abide by the rules explained here, otherwise your ability to post may be temporarily or permanently revoked.

So what are you waiting for? Register now and join the debate!

(these forums are not actively moderated, so if you wish to report any comment made by another member please report it.)



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •