[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.

[The Weeping Angel]

Looks like they might get their own way.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/ ... e-tax-rule

New inheritance tax rules for farmers could be changed to make it easier for those 80 and over to hand down their farm without it incurring the tax, in what would be a partial climbdown by the government after a bruising row with farmers and a huge protest march in Westminster on Tuesday.

The Treasury is understood to be assessing the impact of changes, including amending gifting rules for over-80s so they can pass on their farm to their family without having to live for seven years after making the gift.

Officials are also understood to be assessing the impact of changes announced in the budget in October on active small- and medium-sized farms compared with smallholdings.

Labour has come under attack after Rachel Reeves announced in her budget last month that farmers who have a business worth more than £1m could be subject to 20% inheritance tax (IHT). Labour government had previously promised that no changes would be made to agricultural property relief (APR), which granted farmers an exemption from inheritance tax.

[davidjay]

Fucking great...

[mattomac]

They won’t reverse it too much. The over 80 thing is very minor I guess.

[The Weeping Angel]

What do you think the end game of this will be Mattomac?

[The Weeping Angel]

[kreuzberger]

There isn't a bank on god's green earth that would lend the Ninth Baron of Wossistface the money to pay the IHT which hasn't been set aside since the twelfth century.

Or maybe the government could provide such mortgages, while the BBC and Sky send up chopper crews to film the bailiffs going in when they default.

Meantime, the next winter storm is barrelling in and putting at real risk those pensioners whose wealth totals tuppence over the threshold.

"Dear Raech, Tell them to fuck off."

[davidjay]

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.

And Farage DG.

[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.

And Farage DG.

Nah, they want Farage to be PM. DG will have to be Tice.

[The Weeping Angel]

Dan Niedle suggests that the government may have got it wrong.

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/11/24/how ... t-farmers/

New data suggests that one third of the farm estates affected by the Budget changes aren’t owned by farmers – they’re held by investors for tax planning purposes. This suggests the Budget proposal doesn’t go far enough to stop avoidance, but goes too far in how it applies to actual farms.

There’s a better approach which can achieve the Government’s aim to stopping avoidance whilst also protecting family farms.

We’ve calculated, on the basis of new data, that, if the Budget changes had been in place in 2021/22, fewer than 250 actual farm estates would have been charged inheritance tax in that year. That’s a surprisingly small number, and – given the planning that’s likely to be put in place – we wonder quite how much tax the Budget measure will raise.

At the same time, there’s a surprisingly large number of farm estates which are being held not by actual farmers, but for IHT planning purposes. In 2021/22 there were over 125 £1.5m+ estates in this category. Post-Budget, these would pay some IHT (but much less than a “normal” person). And there’s another 300+ smaller estates using farmland for IHT planning purposes – these would mostly escape the Budget changes, and remain IHT-free.