[RedSparrows]

Tories now going with a 'BBC bias waa' approach for the BBC having the temerity to not accept Clarkson and co's position at face value.

[Abernathy]

- In this respect, the business of farming is no different to any other non-farming “family” business in which subsequent generations seek to continue the business of their parents after the parents die (or retire).

With respect, I don't think this is correct.

There's a reason why economics doesn't treat land as just another type of capital. Unfortunately, accountancy does and I think this is where we have an issue.

Can you please expand on what that reason is?

[Killer Whale]

I got halfway through writing a short essay on this, lost it to an abrupt anti-virus update and couldn't be bothered to start again. Hence my rather brief reply. Sorry about that.

Here's a nice little link: https://evonomics.com/josh-ryan-collins ... ic-theory/

...land and capital are fundamentally distinctive phenomena. Land is permanent, cannot be produced or reproduced, cannot be ‘used up’ and does not depreciate. None of these features apply to capital. Capital goods are produced by humans, depreciate over time due to physical wear and tear and innovations in technology (think of computers or mobile phones) and they can be replicated. In any set of national accounts, you will find a sizeable negative number detailing physical capital stock ‘depreciation’: net not gross capital investment is the preferred variable used in calculating a nations’s output. When it comes to land, net and gross values are equal.

It goes on to discuss the housing market rather than farming, but it still touches on why investors in a mature economy might want to turn to land banking as a no-lose bet, and why therefore intelligent taxation regimes should be devised to capture society's share of the resulting economic rent.

[RedSparrows]

Georgism, correct? Land taxes need reform, not treating land like any other commodity, as above, etc.

[Abernathy]

I think I understand that, but I still don't see why it ought to be a good enough reason for the owners of farming businesses to be entitled to special treatment.

[Oboogie]

Tories now going with a 'BBC bias waa' approach for the BBC having the temerity to not accept Clarkson and co's position at face value.

But of course, the Biased BBC crowd never miss an opportunity, they won't be content until Rees-Mogg is Chair.

[Andy McDandy]

I think I understand that, but I still don't see why it ought to be a good enough reason for the owners of farming businesses to be entitled to special treatment.

They're a noisy and efficient lobby group. They generally retain a lot of public goodwill, based on nursery rhyme stereotypes. They have significant clout in rural communities and economies as employers and patrons. They have guns. They are partial to spraying MPs' constituency homes with liquid slurry.

[Nigredo]

[The Weeping Angel]

Agriculture is not a normal business and is about other things such as food security, land and countryside management, supplying a very successful food and drinks industry. CAP subsidies cost around £15 per year for the average earner and well worth it compared to the alternatives; no industry and mass importation from the new world or full scale protectionsim which means shortages and farmers shaking down the consumer. I don't begrudge their generous grant perks and some business tax exemptions either as it's a precarious industry. So even someone like me who defends their perks and appreciate their graft can see this IHT loophole is a scam.

As a townie I do get that. At the same time it feels to me like a lot of farmers want all the perks of being a farmer but none of the responsibilities that come with it.

[Bones McCoy]

You know what farms have done the best business over this?


Bot farms.