| Farmers 15:36 - Nov 21 with 900 views | controversial_jack |
Getting on my nerves with their whinging, and they are the only ones that do any work attitude |  | | |  |
| Farmers on 15:49 - Nov 21 with 637 views | Whiterockin |
Are they "working people" that is the question. |  | | |
| Farmers on 15:53 - Nov 21 with 622 views | controversial_jack |
| Farmers on 15:49 - Nov 21 by Whiterockin |
Are they "working people" that is the question. |
They work from home | | | |
| Farmers on 16:01 - Nov 21 with 600 views | Whiterockin |
So they are people and they work. Many work from home and are working people. | | | |
| Farmers on 16:04 - Nov 21 with 593 views | controversial_jack |
| Farmers on 16:01 - Nov 21 by Whiterockin |
So they are people and they work. Many work from home and are working people. |
Indeed they are | | | |
| Farmers on 16:05 - Nov 21 with 586 views | Scotia |
| Farmers on 15:49 - Nov 21 by Whiterockin |
Are they "working people" that is the question. |
Not when they're dead. | | | |
| Farmers on 16:23 - Nov 21 with 549 views | Scotia |
I havent' got a problem with the farmers IHT issue. It's not a bad policy.
It's just being used by the usual suspects as anothr stick to beat Stamer with.
Last year, 70% of farmland was bought by non farmers, mostly as an investment to avoid inheritance tax. People like James Dyson and Sheikh Al Makthoum own swathes of it.
Jeremy Clarkson has to be the biggest hypocritical knob in the Uk at the moment. | | | |
| Farmers on 16:43 - Nov 21 with 527 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Farmers on 16:23 - Nov 21 by Scotia |
I havent' got a problem with the farmers IHT issue. It's not a bad policy.
It's just being used by the usual suspects as anothr stick to beat Stamer with.
Last year, 70% of farmland was bought by non farmers, mostly as an investment to avoid inheritance tax. People like James Dyson and Sheikh Al Makthoum own swathes of it.
Jeremy Clarkson has to be the biggest hypocritical knob in the Uk at the moment. |
It should be easy to sort out, there are not that many farms, thousands not millions, and all you need to do to put this to bed is publish the data relating to farm values. The Government says they have done the sums so make the process transparent. |  |
| |
| Farmers on 17:56 - Nov 21 with 473 views | onehunglow |
| Farmers on 16:23 - Nov 21 by Scotia |
I havent' got a problem with the farmers IHT issue. It's not a bad policy.
It's just being used by the usual suspects as anothr stick to beat Stamer with.
Last year, 70% of farmland was bought by non farmers, mostly as an investment to avoid inheritance tax. People like James Dyson and Sheikh Al Makthoum own swathes of it.
Jeremy Clarkson has to be the biggest hypocritical knob in the Uk at the moment. |
Seems plenty of welsh farmers not happy,and welsh speaking ones at that . | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Farmers on 18:09 - Nov 21 with 451 views | felixstowe_jack |
They could always do what Stalin, Mugabe and China did.
Confiscate the farms give them to party members to run.
Unfortunately millions died in famines in Russia when stalin did that.
Famines followed in China and in Zimbabwe. [Post edited 21 Nov 18:10]
| |
| |
| Farmers on 18:22 - Nov 21 with 425 views | builthjack |
Farmers do get an awful lot of grants for many many schemes.
It’s not peanuts either.
The rest of us pay inheritance tax.
Why shouldn’t farmers?
It’s not £1m either.
A husband and wife will have £1m exemption each.
They can also write their wills in a way that would give them another £1m inheritance tax free.
So they will only pay 20% inheritance tax after the £3 million.
The rest of us pay 40% on anything over £325,000.
Why are they complaining?
The likes of Clarkson, Dyson etc have been buying up land and farms to AVOID paying tax.
TAX AVOIDANCE.
The man/woman in the street have to pay more taxes to make up for the above.
We should be marching, not them. |  |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| Farmers on 18:22 - Nov 21 with 424 views | Scotia |
| Farmers on 17:56 - Nov 21 by onehunglow |
Seems plenty of welsh farmers not happy,and welsh speaking ones at that . |
I'd be a little cheesed off if my little tax avoidance scheme had gone. In reality it won't impact most of them, and those it will won't have to pay much.
The ones who are most impacted are those who want to sell their inheritance to investors who'll pay over the odds for farm land.
And that's tough luck. | | | |
| Farmers on 18:29 - Nov 21 with 413 views | johnlangy |
| Farmers on 16:23 - Nov 21 by Scotia |
I havent' got a problem with the farmers IHT issue. It's not a bad policy.
It's just being used by the usual suspects as anothr stick to beat Stamer with.
Last year, 70% of farmland was bought by non farmers, mostly as an investment to avoid inheritance tax. People like James Dyson and Sheikh Al Makthoum own swathes of it.
Jeremy Clarkson has to be the biggest hypocritical knob in the Uk at the moment. |
He certainly proved himself to be a knob when interviewed by Victoria Derbyshire yesterday.
He asked her 'how many people in the UK pay IHT'. She said 4% (in other words 96% don't). He responded by saying after this 96% of farmers will be paying IHT.
Utterly stupid. | | | |
| Farmers on 18:31 - Nov 21 with 412 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Farmers on 18:22 - Nov 21 by Scotia |
I'd be a little cheesed off if my little tax avoidance scheme had gone. In reality it won't impact most of them, and those it will won't have to pay much.
The ones who are most impacted are those who want to sell their inheritance to investors who'll pay over the odds for farm land.
And that's tough luck. |
Well, as I posted earlier if the Government were transparent and published the data on which they made the decision, which they say they have. We'd all be the wiser, but this shower like the last shower of shit are not transparent. | |
| |
| Farmers on 18:38 - Nov 21 with 404 views | controversial_jack |
| Farmers on 18:22 - Nov 21 by builthjack |
Farmers do get an awful lot of grants for many many schemes.
It’s not peanuts either.
The rest of us pay inheritance tax.
Why shouldn’t farmers?
It’s not £1m either.
A husband and wife will have £1m exemption each.
They can also write their wills in a way that would give them another £1m inheritance tax free.
So they will only pay 20% inheritance tax after the £3 million.
The rest of us pay 40% on anything over £325,000.
Why are they complaining?
The likes of Clarkson, Dyson etc have been buying up land and farms to AVOID paying tax.
TAX AVOIDANCE.
The man/woman in the street have to pay more taxes to make up for the above.
We should be marching, not them. |
It's £3 million. Plus there are different allowances they can use to push it close to £5 mill | | | |
| Farmers on 19:42 - Nov 21 with 326 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
The issue is not the value of the working farm but the value where it is possible to run a farm. The return on the land value can be less than 1 percent, do in order to run a farm and understand the business model it's no use looking purely at the land value. | |
| |
| Farmers on 20:03 - Nov 21 with 308 views | KeithHaynes |
People having a go at the last middle class pay bracket because they are too lazy to get up of their backsides. I find that ridiculous. |  |
| |
| Farmers on 20:25 - Nov 21 with 278 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Farmers on 20:03 - Nov 21 by KeithHaynes |
People having a go at the last middle class pay bracket because they are too lazy to get up of their backsides. I find that ridiculous. |
Lots of people not wanting to examine the facts or the context just jump to a conclusion that fits their prejudice. It's the modern way. | |
| |
| Farmers on 20:37 - Nov 21 with 254 views | Scotia |
| Farmers on 19:42 - Nov 21 by JACKMANANDBOY |
The issue is not the value of the working farm but the value where it is possible to run a farm. The return on the land value can be less than 1 percent, do in order to run a farm and understand the business model it's no use looking purely at the land value. |
The value of the land depends on the profit that can be made from it, from whatever use is possible on that land. A 100 acre sheep farm in rural Ceredigion is worth very little, a 100 acre arrable farm in Sussex could be worth millions. I doubt Clarkson would have bought his acres on the banks of Llyn Brianne for a very good reason.
The vast majority of farmers will pay nothing. I genuinely don't think this will directly raise much tax revenue, it's all about closing a loop hole.
I do feel sorry for the farmers who will genuinely lose out, it's a cash poor business. But there won't be many of them. | | | |
| Farmers on 20:41 - Nov 21 with 247 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Farmers on 20:37 - Nov 21 by Scotia |
The value of the land depends on the profit that can be made from it, from whatever use is possible on that land. A 100 acre sheep farm in rural Ceredigion is worth very little, a 100 acre arrable farm in Sussex could be worth millions. I doubt Clarkson would have bought his acres on the banks of Llyn Brianne for a very good reason.
The vast majority of farmers will pay nothing. I genuinely don't think this will directly raise much tax revenue, it's all about closing a loop hole.
I do feel sorry for the farmers who will genuinely lose out, it's a cash poor business. But there won't be many of them. |
Well the numbers have been done the Government says, if the Government were transparent we would know. | |
| |
| Farmers on 21:29 - Nov 21 with 221 views | Scotia |
| Farmers on 20:41 - Nov 21 by JACKMANANDBOY |
Well the numbers have been done the Government says, if the Government were transparent we would know. |
The numbers are hugely variable, the extreme cases at both ends of the spectrum are daft.
This entire thing has been hijacked for only one reason and that's because Labour thrashed the Tories. It's going to be a rough few years. We need to generate cash and we need to face up to that. | | | |
| Farmers on 21:31 - Nov 21 with 217 views | majorraglan |
I read a piece this week which claimed that James Dyson now owned 34,000 acres of land worth around £555m which would previously have been exempt from IHT would, after the proposed tax changes had been introduced post 2026 have to pay £111m (20% rate). The £111m charge still represents a considerable saving when compared to the to standard IHT charged at 40%. Clarkson has previously talked about buying land and farming to avoid IHT !!!!!
Labour are taking a lot of flak over this policy, but what is clear is that they’re trying to close the loop holes the very wealthy are using to avoid paying taxes and that, in my opinion is to be commended.
It appears the proposed changes will mean that IHT will be not be due on many farms valued under £3m, however that message is not always getting through and it’s being drowned out by the vested interests, press and farmers. I think Labour are getting the policy right, but they’re messing up with the implementation just as they’ve done with the pensioners winter heating allowance. I think the concept of the land tax policy is sound, but it needs a few changes. In my opinion Labour need to revisit the policy, increase the threshold limit so that less genuine farmers are caught up in the mix and that the focus is on the Dyson’s of the world and the 20 Dukes who own more than 1m acres of land and have avoid tax. Frame it that way and there’ll be no public back lash.
Labour have been a bit naive in that they’ve under estimated the backlash from the landowners, vested interests and some farmers and they’ve brought it on themselves.
They were right to remove the WFA from all pensioners, it shouldn’t go to the likes of Dyson, Drakers, Theresa May etc etc because they do not need it, but there’s going to be a lot of people who need it not getting it.
As a country though, we need to look at who gets what because we need to ensure work pays and people aren’t better off loafing in comparison to working. If we want better services especially the NHS, the money has to come from somewhere. | | | |
| Farmers on 21:35 - Nov 21 with 212 views | Luther27 |
| Farmers on 21:29 - Nov 21 by Scotia |
The numbers are hugely variable, the extreme cases at both ends of the spectrum are daft.
This entire thing has been hijacked for only one reason and that's because Labour thrashed the Tories. It's going to be a rough few years. We need to generate cash and we need to face up to that. |
Raise more cash to waste on what? I already feel I’m working for pocket money not a wage.
General question….how much revenue is expected to be raised by Inheritance Tax on farms over the next five years? | | | |
| Farmers on 21:44 - Nov 21 with 208 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Farmers on 21:31 - Nov 21 by majorraglan |
I read a piece this week which claimed that James Dyson now owned 34,000 acres of land worth around £555m which would previously have been exempt from IHT would, after the proposed tax changes had been introduced post 2026 have to pay £111m (20% rate). The £111m charge still represents a considerable saving when compared to the to standard IHT charged at 40%. Clarkson has previously talked about buying land and farming to avoid IHT !!!!!
Labour are taking a lot of flak over this policy, but what is clear is that they’re trying to close the loop holes the very wealthy are using to avoid paying taxes and that, in my opinion is to be commended.
It appears the proposed changes will mean that IHT will be not be due on many farms valued under £3m, however that message is not always getting through and it’s being drowned out by the vested interests, press and farmers. I think Labour are getting the policy right, but they’re messing up with the implementation just as they’ve done with the pensioners winter heating allowance. I think the concept of the land tax policy is sound, but it needs a few changes. In my opinion Labour need to revisit the policy, increase the threshold limit so that less genuine farmers are caught up in the mix and that the focus is on the Dyson’s of the world and the 20 Dukes who own more than 1m acres of land and have avoid tax. Frame it that way and there’ll be no public back lash.
Labour have been a bit naive in that they’ve under estimated the backlash from the landowners, vested interests and some farmers and they’ve brought it on themselves.
They were right to remove the WFA from all pensioners, it shouldn’t go to the likes of Dyson, Drakers, Theresa May etc etc because they do not need it, but there’s going to be a lot of people who need it not getting it.
As a country though, we need to look at who gets what because we need to ensure work pays and people aren’t better off loafing in comparison to working. If we want better services especially the NHS, the money has to come from somewhere. |
The likes of Dyson will have his assets protected in companies and trusts. As ever, the middle ranks will pay. | |
| |
| Farmers on 21:52 - Nov 21 with 201 views | Scotia |
| Farmers on 21:31 - Nov 21 by majorraglan |
I read a piece this week which claimed that James Dyson now owned 34,000 acres of land worth around £555m which would previously have been exempt from IHT would, after the proposed tax changes had been introduced post 2026 have to pay £111m (20% rate). The £111m charge still represents a considerable saving when compared to the to standard IHT charged at 40%. Clarkson has previously talked about buying land and farming to avoid IHT !!!!!
Labour are taking a lot of flak over this policy, but what is clear is that they’re trying to close the loop holes the very wealthy are using to avoid paying taxes and that, in my opinion is to be commended.
It appears the proposed changes will mean that IHT will be not be due on many farms valued under £3m, however that message is not always getting through and it’s being drowned out by the vested interests, press and farmers. I think Labour are getting the policy right, but they’re messing up with the implementation just as they’ve done with the pensioners winter heating allowance. I think the concept of the land tax policy is sound, but it needs a few changes. In my opinion Labour need to revisit the policy, increase the threshold limit so that less genuine farmers are caught up in the mix and that the focus is on the Dyson’s of the world and the 20 Dukes who own more than 1m acres of land and have avoid tax. Frame it that way and there’ll be no public back lash.
Labour have been a bit naive in that they’ve under estimated the backlash from the landowners, vested interests and some farmers and they’ve brought it on themselves.
They were right to remove the WFA from all pensioners, it shouldn’t go to the likes of Dyson, Drakers, Theresa May etc etc because they do not need it, but there’s going to be a lot of people who need it not getting it.
As a country though, we need to look at who gets what because we need to ensure work pays and people aren’t better off loafing in comparison to working. If we want better services especially the NHS, the money has to come from somewhere. |
Labour messed up the launch and targeting of the WFA where the bar was set too low no doubt, I don't have a huge problem with the agricultural IHT.
A farm sold as a farm isn't particularly profitable and obviously not particularly valuable. A farm sold to someone trying to avoid IHT is 40% more valuable. It stinks as does the Mail, Telegraph, UKIP, Turning Point etc jumping on the bandwagon.
The press are just trying to stoke division, it's pathetic. But I'm more concerned how many people buy in to it.
I think this policy could be more nuanced, perhaps exempt from IHT if staying in the family, 20% if restricted to agricultural use and 40% if not.
The principle behind it is fine in my mind. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
