General News

[South Shire Fox]

51 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

That's a very, very simplistic view and ignores a massive amount of issues affecting that system. 

 

Farming is a choice, nobody is forced to farm so I'm not going to be swayed by the 'they work really hard' argument. If you work in manufacturing creating something that doesn't sell, you don't get paid, therfore you diversify into doing something where you do get paid. Any industry which has to be paid purely to survive clearly needs a rethink. Lack of diversity and an inherent reticence to adapt and modernise and get on board with the struggles facing the world today is all part of the problem, should we prop that attitude up with public money? I'd argue not. Farming can be and has proven to be by the few who dare do it be both very profitable financially and environmentally, so I won't have sympathy for anybody still dragging their heels in a bygone era. 

 

As for 'without them we are fooked'. No. Many of them are part of the problem, not the cure, and the damage is untold. They've profiteered on the same scaremongering you're using for decades and it's wearing thin at a juncture where their lack of adaptation is costing the planet. I will happily back those willing to diversify and serve both plate and planet, but there aren't enough of them and that's as much by choice and tradition as it is by any lack of funding or backing. 

The vast majority of Farmers earn absolute peanuts a year. Its amazing how much more you know about Farming then actual Farmers considering you’ve clearly never stepped foot on one in your life?

[SecretPro]

6 minutes ago, South Shire Fox said:

The vast majority of Farmers earn absolute peanuts a year. Its amazing how much more you know about Farming then actual Farmers considering you’ve clearly never stepped foot on one in your life?

Eh? Obviously they earn peanuts, that's the point - most are failing businesses being propped up by subsidies. Its also why the new Inheritance Tax rules will only affect 500 farmers who are worth over £3m quid. If you were worth £3m in assets would you expect not to pay inheritance tax? 

 

As for me and farming, I wrote my dissertation on Ecology in Farming and I currently run my own Conservation Project on the largest farming estate in Leicestershire in partnership with the land holding company, the land managers and the current tenant farmers, which means I'm there twice a week...but do go on...

Edited 19 November 2024 by SecretPro

[Dunge]

My concern from listening to the debates on farming is that this could affect a lot of people who are asset rich but cash poor, ie they don’t actually see a lot of return from what they do. And farms are different from usual businesses or liquid inheritance because the whole thing is a lifestyle to these people, knowledge passed across generations throughout a lifetime. It also looks like it will affect more farms than expected due to hidden costs such as equipment asset prices as well as land. The result would then likely be traditional families forced out of farming, farms going to rich people who can afford the land, a large increase in tenancy and ultimately more Clarksons rather than fewer.

 

I do take the point of improving efficiency in farming methods, but I think that should remain a carrot rather than a stick.

[FoyleFox]

3 hours ago, kenny said:

Except that hidden underground pub. Hope that survives any development and gets reopened.

The Green Man

 

https://www.loughboroughecho.net/news/local-news/hidden-pub-underneath-loughborough-shopping-10646270

[Zear0]

55 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

That reminds me of my fun quiz question, and it sounds like you might know the answer.

 

In the run up to World War 2, how much of our food did we have to import?

Because I know you're dying to say... 

 

How much did we have to import? 

[Jon the Hat]

30 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Eh? Obviously they earn peanuts, that's the point - most are failing businesses being propped up by subsidies. Its also why the new Inheritance Tax rules will only affect 500 farmers who are worth over £3m quid. If you were worth £3m in assets would you expect not to pay inheritance tax? 

 

As for me and farming, I wrote my dissertation on Ecology in Farming and I currently run my own Conservation Project on the largest farming estate in Leicestershire in partnership with the land holding company, the land managers and the current tenant farmers, which means I'm there twice a week...but do go on...

There seems to be a huge disconnect between the asset value of the land and its ability to earn decent returns though? In any normal business your asset value is based on its ability to generate profit, but here it seems there is a market value disparity which could well land farmers with a carrying cost of 20% inheritance tax which their business cannot sustain?

 

I take your point on subsidies, however farming IS a nationally important resource which needs to be protected from foreign imports which again operate on much lower cost land and labour costs if we are to sustain them.

[Bellend Sebastian]

18 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Because I know you're dying to say... 

 

How much did we have to import? 

You know me too well 

 

70%! Following a long old period of under investment in agriculture, and presumably exploiting the Empire and bringing stuff in on the cheap

[grobyfox1990]

43 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

There seems to be a huge disconnect between the asset value of the land and its ability to earn decent returns though? In any normal business your asset value is based on its ability to generate profit, but here it seems there is a market value disparity which could well land farmers with a carrying cost of 20% inheritance tax which their business cannot sustain?

 

I take your point on subsidies, however farming IS a nationally important resource which needs to be protected from foreign imports which again operate on much lower cost land and labour costs if we are to sustain them.

Well no, which is similar with other land based assets. Housing being one. A £700k flat isn’t valued at its ability to generate profit. 
If farmers are that bothered they should sign over their land and hope to live 7 years. Or wrap up the land in a structure. Both of which prob easier steps than the incessant whining they are currently undertaking 

[leicsmac]

Going back to a previous point, it is a little telling how the same parties backing the farmers to the hilt on this matter (and there are a lot of good points made above on both sides) are the same ones that would absolutely decry environmental groups protesting about matters that a. those farmers contribute to and b. are already causing them massive problems.

 

Pardon me for thinking that for most of them this is an excuse to play politics rather than genuine concern for the welfare of farmers - if they really were concerned, they'd back any environmental measures necessary, too.

[The Horse's Mouth]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Going back to a previous point, it is a little telling how the same parties backing the farmers to the hilt on this matter (and there are a lot of good points made above on both sides) are the same ones that would absolutely decry environmental groups protesting about matters that a. those farmers contribute to and b. are already causing them massive problems.

 

Pardon me for thinking that for most of them this is an excuse to play politics rather than genuine concern for the welfare of farmers - if they really were concerned, they'd back any environmental measures necessary, too.

My two cents on it would be, say with the recent strikes, farmers, nurses and teachers. You’re able to evaluate from that, the value each role has to society they all have a direct message on what their demands are, Majority of people will have sympathies for all three groups in what they contribute to society 

 

So the just stop oil protests for example, I’ve no idea if they wanted a radical shut off and have society decay immediately, or a quicker net zero goal or whatever. So the overall messaging is fuzzy, Them targeting regular working people trying to earn a living was also never going to sit right with the vast majority of people as well, I think had they just stuck to westminster or oil companies or whatever, the institutions that do the most harm to the environment  they’d have had a bit more sympathy than they had at the time.

[Grebfromgrebland]

11 hours ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

I don’t agree with IHT in general, personally 

the issue I’ve found with it this in particular, is it’ll probably work in terms of detering people like Dyson and clarkson buying them for that reason. But the super wealthy will always find a way to dodge the tax bill. I think the main concern is this’ll just turn into a massive land grab from corporations, and maybe a little suspicious from me but potential government contracts on this land to support the new wind initiative. 

No it won't anyone with a tiny bit of common sense will deal with it. 

 

If you're running a business which is what a farm is then you will most likely have access to an accountant and a financial advisor.

 

With a little bit of really easy planning they can completely avoid all inheritance tax.

 

This whole thing is a fuss about nothing whipped up by the right wing press to get people angry over literally nothing. 

 

And as usual lots of people fall for it. 

 

As a general rule if farage, badenok and tice are backing something you can guarantee it's against public interest.

 

 

[The Horse's Mouth]

18 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

No it won't anyone with a tiny bit of common sense will deal with it. 

 

If you're running a business which is what a farm is then you will most likely have access to an accountant and a financial advisor.

 

With a little bit of really easy planning they can completely avoid all inheritance tax.

 

This whole thing is a fuss about nothing whipped up by the right wing press to get people angry over literally nothing. 

 

And as usual lots of people fall for it. 

 

As a general rule if farage, badenok and tice are backing something you can guarantee it's against public interest.

 

 

The poorest will be affected by it the most, you’ve also tenanted farmers that’ll probably get evicted off the back of it. The not savvy will suffer and will probably be forced to sell to private equity companies.

 

Think that’s a warped mindset, Reform, The Tories and the Lib Dem’s all came out for this, and the most likely reason for that is to win favour with rural constituencies. Doesn’t devalue the message 

[Super_horns]

Certainly has been a rocky road for the Government.

Seems to be a group annoyed with them each week but guess that is natural?

 

Whatever you do there is going to be displeasure about it .

Edited 20 November 2024 by Super_horns

[Dunge]

Worth adding: I’m not totally against the idea of inheritance tax on these properties in principle, but I don’t think simple asset value is the way to do it. Part of the idea is to stop people hiding wealth in farms, so perhaps a combination of Length of Residence and evidence of direct activity in working the land would be a better measure.

 

I appreciate, like trying to be more nuanced with winter fuel payments, that could lead to higher levels of bureaucracy.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

My two cents on it would be, say with the recent strikes, farmers, nurses and teachers. You’re able to evaluate from that, the value each role has to society they all have a direct message on what their demands are, Majority of people will have sympathies for all three groups in what they contribute to society 

 

 

I think personally that the amount of sympathy for each of those groups differs wildly, but fair enough.

 

 

2 hours ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

 

So the just stop oil protests for example, I’ve no idea if they wanted a radical shut off and have society decay immediately, or a quicker net zero goal or whatever. So the overall messaging is fuzzy, Them targeting regular working people trying to earn a living was also never going to sit right with the vast majority of people as well, I think had they just stuck to westminster or oil companies or whatever, the institutions that do the most harm to the environment  they’d have had a bit more sympathy than they had at the time.

They want faster action (rather than drastic) to meet carbon neutrality, but AFAIC the discussion about the methodology is redundant anyway - they're not being much more disruptive than other groups taking action and while the perception is that such action is counterproductive (and perception is important), if they were really honest the people that have an issue with them would admit they have it because of political stance and because of self interest, not because of the methodology.

 

1 hour ago, Dunge said:

Worth adding: I’m not totally against the idea of inheritance tax on these properties in principle, but I don’t think simple asset value is the way to do it. Part of the idea is to stop people hiding wealth in farms, so perhaps a combination of Length of Residence and evidence of direct activity in working the land would be a better measure.

 

I appreciate, like trying to be more nuanced with winter fuel payments, that could lead to higher levels of bureaucracy.

FWIW I think the farmers do have a legit argument and this should have been more nuanced from the start, as you say.

 

My issue is with the self interested hypocrisy of those backing the farmers to the hilt with one hand and decaying those other parties looking to safeguard themselves (and safeguard the future) with the other.

[hejammy]

Honestly the whole idea of Inheritance really bugs me, the person pays for an asset with tax paid money, pays tax on purchasing the asset and then when the person dies their dependants have to pay IHT on something already purchased through tax paid money. Usually buy the sale of an asset. 

 

Ok so a farming family who have had 4 generations of farmers, the land in question is worth £3m (doesn't really mean a lot when you are not planning on selling it) - you have a farming company which uses that £3m worth of land and it generates revenues (turnover) of say £1m. 

 

Now if the parents passed away and left it to children they would automatically need to pay circa £800,000 plus (depending on other assets) - but for this lets assume it's just the £800k

 

Now how do the "children" pay for this - I suppose the only way would be to sell some of the land therefore decreasing the amount of revenue that company can bring in, and when they die the same thing with their children. 

 

This is basically the government being the mafia - take money and then go back and take more money - simply because they or their predecessors f'ed up. 

 

How about we look at the spending first. No point in putting more water into a leaking barrel - find the leak first!

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, hejammy said:

Honestly the whole idea of Inheritance really bugs me, the person pays for an asset with tax paid money, pays tax on purchasing the asset and then when the person dies their dependants have to pay IHT on something already purchased through tax paid money. Usually buy the sale of an asset. 

 

Ok so a farming family who have had 4 generations of farmers, the land in question is worth £3m (doesn't really mean a lot when you are not planning on selling it) - you have a farming company which uses that £3m worth of land and it generates revenues (turnover) of say £1m. 

 

Now if the parents passed away and left it to children they would automatically need to pay circa £800,000 plus (depending on other assets) - but for this lets assume it's just the £800k

 

Now how do the "children" pay for this - I suppose the only way would be to sell some of the land therefore decreasing the amount of revenue that company can bring in, and when they die the same thing with their children. 

 

This is basically the government being the mafia - take money and then go back and take more money - simply because they or their predecessors f'ed up. 

 

How about we look at the spending first. No point in putting more water into a leaking barrel - find the leak first!

After the last decade and a half and given the news about them, I would submit that public services are cut to the bone/on their arse as it is. There are precious few leaks in that area.

[hejammy]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

After the last decade and a half and given the news about them, I would submit that public services are cut to the bone/on their arse as it is. There are precious few leaks in that area.

Well, rather than public services, I was thinking more along the lines of MP salaries, bonus, expenses, plus government spending on certain things which if I outline my thoughts on here would open a whole can of worms

[The Horse's Mouth]

31 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think personally that the amount of sympathy for each of those groups differs wildly, but fair enough.

 

 

They want faster action (rather than drastic) to meet carbon neutrality, but AFAIC the discussion about the methodology is redundant anyway - they're not being much more disruptive than other groups taking action and while the perception is that such action is counterproductive (and perception is important), if they were really honest the people that have an issue with them would admit they have it because of political stance and because of self interest, not because of the methodology.

 

 

It’s a combination of that I’d agree, I think it was also the types that were protesting too. Large perception of them were students with nothing to do looking to cause a nuisance. I also think it is because green policies are a bit divisive as well amongst the general public, it’s a bit of a hard one because most will admit there’s an issue, but it’s the severity and the actual means to wish we remedy it that creates bigger debate. 

 

I think with this one in particular of the recent protest, although it was a strike I think the rail strike is probably the closest to it, where it effectively became ideological and I’m not sure whether it’s because in these cases they’ve both got I guess figureheads, albeit in slightly different capacities.Mick Lynch became a great cult figure amongst the left, which made the right push back and support the government. In this case you’ve got Clarkson who is guilty of what the changes is meant to stop as well, who’s always traditionally been disliked by the left, becoming the man of the people amongst the farmers. 

[leicsmac]

29 minutes ago, hejammy said:

Well, rather than public services, I was thinking more along the lines of MP salaries, bonus, expenses, plus government spending on certain things which if I outline my thoughts on here would open a whole can of worms

Fair to say.

 

It's an unfortunate thing however, I might add, that if you don't pay elected officials well, they become increasingly open to corruption from the highest bidders (but then, that may well happen anyway).

 

 

22 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

It’s a combination of that I’d agree, I think it was also the types that were protesting too. Large perception of them were students with nothing to do looking to cause a nuisance. I also think it is because green policies are a bit divisive as well amongst the general public, it’s a bit of a hard one because most will admit there’s an issue, but it’s the severity and the actual means to wish we remedy it that creates bigger debate. 

 

I think with this one in particular of the recent protest, although it was a strike I think the rail strike is probably the closest to it, where it effectively became ideological and I’m not sure whether it’s because in these cases they’ve both got I guess figureheads, albeit in slightly different capacities.Mick Lynch became a great cult figure amongst the left, which made the right push back and support the government. In this case you’ve got Clarkson who is guilty of what the changes is meant to stop as well, who’s always traditionally been disliked by the left, becoming the man of the people amongst the farmers. 

WRT the bolded, it's rather clear to see that this is true, but it still baffles me to see that the future of our civilisation and the biosphere is a political matter and should the shit hit the fan everyone who thought it was a talking shop rather than a matter of fact will be blamed.

 

Do agree about how ideology often interferes with what really should be politically neutral areas.

[grobyfox1990]

1 hour ago, hejammy said:

Honestly the whole idea of Inheritance really bugs me, the person pays for an asset with tax paid money, pays tax on purchasing the asset and then when the person dies their dependants have to pay IHT on something already purchased through tax paid money. Usually buy the sale of an asset. 

 

Ok so a farming family who have had 4 generations of farmers, the land in question is worth £3m (doesn't really mean a lot when you are not planning on selling it) - you have a farming company which uses that £3m worth of land and it generates revenues (turnover) of say £1m. 

 

Now if the parents passed away and left it to children they would automatically need to pay circa £800,000 plus (depending on other assets) - but for this lets assume it's just the £800k

 

Now how do the "children" pay for this - I suppose the only way would be to sell some of the land therefore decreasing the amount of revenue that company can bring in, and when they die the same thing with their children. 

 

This is basically the government being the mafia - take money and then go back and take more money - simply because they or their predecessors f'ed up. 

 

How about we look at the spending first. No point in putting more water into a leaking barrel - find the leak first!

The people gaining the asset have paid for nothing with no money. They’ve gained an asset for free. If it were that easy to say ‘I’ve bought this asset with MY money which I’VE paid tax on I’d be selling many assets to many ‘dependants’ and not paying a penny of CGT on them. 
If the parents were really bothered, they’d sign over the land to their kids well before the 7 year anniversary and pay zero IHT

[Livid]

I honestly feel like i'm stuck in the middle screaming into a void.

 

I've got the crazies on the right thinking everyone risking their life to cross the channel is  free loading terrorist and shooting them on sight would instantly solve all of the country's problems.

 

I've got the nutters on the left who believe that every pensioner/farmer is a cash rich millionaire, every business is making Amazon like profits and should be paying their employees £50k plus for working from home for 15 hours a week, whilst absorbing the extra tax burden the government is hitting them with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Livid said:

I honestly feel like i'm stuck in the middle screaming into a void.

 

I've got the crazies on the right thinking everyone risking their life to cross the channel is  free loading terrorist and shooting them on sight would instantly solve all of the country's problems.

 

I've got the nutters on the left who believe that every pensioner/farmer is a cash rich millionaire, every business is making Amazon like profits and should be paying their employees £50k plus for working from home for 15 hours a week, whilst absorbing the extra tax burden the government is hitting them with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And all the time there's a hundred regional conflicts costing lives and the climate is getting more and more unstable.

 

World's in great shape, isn't it?

[kenny]

2 hours ago, hejammy said:

Honestly the whole idea of Inheritance really bugs me, the person pays for an asset with tax paid money, pays tax on purchasing the asset and then when the person dies their dependants have to pay IHT on something already purchased through tax paid money. Usually buy the sale of an asset. 

 

Ok so a farming family who have had 4 generations of farmers, the land in question is worth £3m (doesn't really mean a lot when you are not planning on selling it) - you have a farming company which uses that £3m worth of land and it generates revenues (turnover) of say £1m. 

 

Now if the parents passed away and left it to children they would automatically need to pay circa £800,000 plus (depending on other assets) - but for this lets assume it's just the £800k

 

Now how do the "children" pay for this - I suppose the only way would be to sell some of the land therefore decreasing the amount of revenue that company can bring in, and when they die the same thing with their children. 

 

This is basically the government being the mafia - take money and then go back and take more money - simply because they or their predecessors f'ed up. 

 

How about we look at the spending first. No point in putting more water into a leaking barrel - find the leak first!

You forgot capital gains tax.

 

So they would have to sell more than £800k of the farm to pay off the CGT to pay the IHT.

 

Once done, the farm will be smaller and will be turning over £600k ISH and may not be viable.

 

So instead it gets sold as a whole entity probably to a wealthy land investor.

[hejammy]

1 hour ago, grobyfox1990 said:

The people gaining the asset have paid for nothing with no money. They’ve gained an asset for free. If it were that easy to say ‘I’ve bought this asset with MY money which I’VE paid tax on I’d be selling many assets to many ‘dependants’ and not paying a penny of CGT on them. 
If the parents were really bothered, they’d sign over the land to their kids well before the 7 year anniversary and pay zero IHT

Capital Gains tax? Regardless of who pays the tax, the estate was paid with tax paid money, if you can give it to your wife or husband entirely then why shouldn't you give it to your kids. It's often not as simple as just gifting it to your kids before the 7 years are up as capital gains tax is a factor. 

 

18 minutes ago, kenny said:

You forgot capital gains tax.

 

So they would have to sell more than £800k of the farm to pay off the CGT to pay the IHT.

 

Once done, the farm will be smaller and will be turning over £600k ISH and may not be viable.

 

So instead it gets sold as a whole entity probably to a wealthy land investor.

Exactly!