2024 UK politics - now with Labour in charge
Comments
-
Only farming businesses? Or would you extend it to all businesses?
0 -
I would say all businesses.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Are they viable if they are barely making a profit and haven't thought to make robust succession plans?
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
So tax breaks for any business that's finding things a bit difficult.
Jeez.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
So zero inheritance tax for any ownership of any business.
And for any other assets?
0 -
Even I think that I can predict the answer to that one.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
-
No.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Haven't thought any further tbh. Why the interest in my thoughts on that?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Thanks for your valuable contribution.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You're a tax expert, right?
Just wondering if your antipathy to this particular policy is just general anti inheritance tax vibes.
0 -
I've already set out what I think and why upthread - it doesn't actually need to go any further than that. See my point above that it is not a good idea for businesses or governments to cause the break up of businesses, whether farming or otherwise. Do agree with that or not and if not, why not?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
And some indications here that Labour didn't have to do this.
Shocking thought, I'm wondering whether it could have been ideologically driven?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
Hi Stevo, the unit million is less than the unit billion. Hope that helps. FA
0 -
Isn't this a bit of a selective statement. Any business that is bequeathed will attract IHT and it the recipient or the estate can't afford it, the business has to be sold, right?
So are you against this applying to businesses per se, just to farms or just to businesses that can't generate enough income to pay the IHT? If the last one, what's your definition and what other than farms would it apply to?
These aren't questions I expect you or anyone to answer, it's just a way to highlight the arbitrariness. Ilthis isn't to say that the changes for farms are necessary or correct, but it does show that nor are they necessarily unreasonable in comparison to any other part of the economy.
0 -
I think the issue isn't so much the "end game" re the IHT regime for farms that is the issue. I think it's more about whether implementing changes over short time period that fundamentally affect the viability of "marginal businesses" is a good thing. Whilst you can argue that farmers have had it lucky up to now, you still can't get round the fact that some folk will have the rug pulled from under their feet.
One can argue that the farmers' treatment up to now is an anomaly or was an arbitrary decision, but the regime has been in place for circa 40 years, and so any change feels worthy of some serious justification beyond a few million £ per year in extra tax.
The government also seems to be in denial that there is any significant downside to their plan, which isn't great as it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the finances of businesses, a lack of understanding of the benefits of a stable and predictable regime, or simply a lack of political nous, none of which are great if you want a good government.
1 -
Yep, hence my linked post about Labour's poor handling of this. As I replied to that poster, they seem to be repeating the mistake of not properly thinking through the impacts or their sums, and not defusing likely opposition from either supporters or adversaries.
1 -
I hope so. I think back to the 70s when I was growing up and it seemed that every other week you were hearing about some poor souls were having to sell the family estate because of death duties, I never thought it was a bad thing, as a young teenager. The one thing I am glad of is that my opinion hasn't mellowed with age.
0 -
No comment on the rights or wrongs of death duties but remembering numerous news stories about people having to sell estates to pay them suggests you had an even weirder set of interests than me when growing up! What was wrong with cars, football etc?
0 -
They are definitely guilty on those counts. Even worse when you consider the relatively marginal sums involved from a national tax revenue point of view.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
In any other context, a business with not enough cash would have to liquidate some assets to meet it's responsibilities. That's not the same as breaking up a business. In the case of a farm with so little income this barely is a business. It's an estate.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
No shyte Sherlock. Point is that the recent increase in death duty revenues is pretty much what they are likey to get from this change.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
If you look at what I posted upthread, the point here is that it is better for the state (and for the businesses involved) to carry on functioning as businesses and not be broken up.
Labour could have avoided all of this if they had not ruled out something simple like increasing VAT by 1%.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
That doesn't change the validity of my point that it's better to have businesses preserved.
Given a lot of people on here have posting a fair bit about the negative impact of Brexit on British businesses, it seems rather convenient to do a U turn when the underlying reason is trying to collect more tax.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
There is the old saying that if you're not socialist when you're young then you haven't got a heart, but if you're still socialist when you hit middle age then you haven't got a head. (or is that ahead?) 😉
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
But they are not functioning as businesses. Businesses make a profit. The only reason most of them aren't insolvent is their overvalued assets.
If we want to just publicly fund food production then let's carry on as we are.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Or you just haven't got old...
0 -
I'm sure a lot of Welsh miners would have agreed with this idea 40 years ago. I guess the supply of energy wasn't deemed important even way before people started to think about the environment. Why is farming sacrosanct?
FWIW I think this country should be more self-sufficient, it is the inconsistency that baffles me. Could be as simple as tory land owners though.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Can I gently suggest that this isn't anything to do with Brexit, other than the negative impact it's had on GDP and this tax revenues?
0 -
I understand the sentiment. I was just asking which businesses you'd chose to not break up or dissolve as a result of IHT. Just farms, or can anyone else join?
You aren't wrong about labour boxing themselves in, though.
0
