2024 UK politics - now with Labour in charge
Comments
-
No, but designing buildings is rather less physically taxing than farming.
Thankfully, neither of my children are daft enough to follow my choice of career (so far) so I'll just have the regular IHT to plan for rather than the reduced rate.
Regardless of inheritance, I and my business partners will need to start thinking about succession plans several years before we think about retiring, because these things take time.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It would probably stop people using it as a tax efficient saving account, though.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Which is the longer term point, I think. No idea if it will work to normalise the market. But in the meantime, just because it is slightly less favourable than it was in relation to everyone else, it doesn't make it unfair.
0 -
Who said food poverty was going to be alleviated by UK produce? You've done a Rick there.
It can be made worse though.
And no comment on Starmer repeating the lie that it is only farms worth more than £3 million that will be impacted? He doesn't understand his own policy as it is farms worth over £2 m that will be impacted.
0 -
The food poverty angle is just an argument that farming should continue to survive as a minimum wage, low margin, heavily subsidised industry.
It's interesting to compare the reaction to a reduction in subsidies with the reaction to UK steel production effectively ceasing because it's no longer economic. I guess it's more difficult to emote about handing down the family blast furnace.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Food poverty was mentioned, but perhaps I misunderstood the context.
I've not heard the £3M comment all that often, and when it is used it is carefully "up to". The circumstances under which the threshold is that high are somewhat limited, and I agree that it is unhelpful when politicians do this sort of thing.
0 -
SNP policy (yawn, yes I know, but it is helpful) tells us that this doesn't work. They virtue signaled their way into a few failing industries and they've been stung every time. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17929733.snp-ministers-lose-public-135m-bad-loans-investments/
However farming and supporting farming via subsidies is not just a UK thing. So why is it an accepted policy?
Is food security rather than food poverty the correct term? Presumably we are less vulnerable to a shortage of steel.
0 -
"Presumably we are less vulnerable to a shortage of steel."
That would be an incorrect assumption. One of the reasons (main?) that steel was propped up in this country was to maintain a supply of high quality steel. High quality steel which is required for a lot of products. A small sample anecdote. One company I worked for sourced products from abroad with full certification. Said product failed during testing due to the low grade steel which had been used. The certification for the steel which came along with the product had been faked. Buyer beware.
The subsidy issue is a fair point but telling UK shoppers that prices are going to double (if not more) due to the subsidies being removed wouldn't last long. No, I don't have an easy solution. Possibly because there isn't one. Closing an inheritance tax avoidance loophole still seems fair enough imo.
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 -
The Labour front bench, and Starmer in his interviews yesterday, were saying it is only farms worth over £3 mill that will be impacted, not up to. That is a lie, or they don't understand their policy. To reconfirm:
The £1 mill APR/BPR relief is non-transferrable, so if not used on first death it is lost. And that assumes there was a lawful spouse.
Once an estate is worth over £2 mill, the Residence Nil Rate Band (£175,000 per person) is reduced by £1 for every £2 over £2 mill.
My food poverty comment was that if the likes of RJST feel that the return on capital should be improved in farming, then we will need to pay significantly more for UK produced food, which will put more people into food poverty. And being reliant on 100% imported food would be plain stupid.
1 -
Or reduce the non-farming investment in farm land.
And no, I don't know whether the policy is intended to do this or, if it is, whether it will work.
0 -
We all likes a graph or bar chart...
This is quite a shift in ten years.
0 -
A couple of topical links:
UK pension fund loses more than £350m with waste incinerator power plants | Pensions industry | The Guardian: Shows that pension funds are already active in infrastructure, but that such investments come with risks.
Pension funds pouring cash into EVs urge Starmer not to drop target: Shows that governments need to promote a stable business environment and that sudden changes cause real world downsides. Also shows that pension funds are already active in risker sub-sectors within infrastructure, in this case EV charging networks.
Labour wants tax rises to fall on the ‘broadest shoulders’. The farmers furore shows why that’s so hard to achieve | Rafael Behr | The Guardian: Highlights how ruling out increases in the sensible tax rates to increase has forced Labour into targeting specific "broad shoulders" at the cost of upsetting a disproportionate number of people for relatively little gain.
1 -
Possibly we do need to stop kidding ourselves that cheap food and smaller scale family farms are compatible. Alternatively, the capital value is significantly distorted by other factors.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Like all the people wanting to build houses on the land?
0 -
Possibly complete balls, but I have heard that the UK has built more incinerator power plants than we can supply rubbish to.
0 -
Doesn't sound right to me unless there is some regional quirk where there isn't enough waste - you wouldn't want to have to move it far.
0 -
Finger on the pulse as ever...
0 -
That would only affect farmland adjacent to existing settlements with planning permission for development, which is a tiny proportion.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The replies to the sky news post are...odd.
0 -
They only need the potential to get planning permission, but yes that leaves a lot of other farmland.
0 -
This is useful to explain why farmers are asset rich but cash poor: not sure if paywalled so can cut and paste if anyone is interested and isn't too bothered by the source.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Good news here then:
0 -
Depends who you are, clearly. Although as mentioned above, only a small proportion of farming land is going to be in the right sort of places for housing development.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You can get a good idea of the potential from the local plan.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
How is it true when from a cost perspective there has so far been every reason to get one to maximise the "free ride"? In the last 48 months I have only been paying the lease being able to charge the car at my workplace and the local shopping centre chargers completely for free. Saved me over £7k in the cost of fuel.
0 -
The first article explained how land prices were high, the second said they were going to collapse. Problem solved. They will no longer be asset rich and cash poor.
0 -
Assets fall in value, no more inheritance tax. Why would farmers handing down the family legacy complain?
The farmers should distance themselves from Clarkson and Dyson who clearly have vested interests.
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 -
I'm not sure asset poor and cash poor is what they are aiming for, but in that case they need to attack the right thing.
0 -
If Clarkson is putting his own capital at risk on his farm, why should they distance themselves from him? He isn't a landlord land owner in that situation so isn't really the issue.
0 -
He stated in the past that inheritance tax was his main reason for buying the farm in the first place.
That he makes money from Amazon is probably the icing on the cake.
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
