RayC

If most estates are sold after the death of the owner, then there is absolutely no reason why IHT shouldn't be paid by the beneficiaries. Any job can be said to be " .. a living. A way of life", so that it itself is no justification for treating farmers any differently to anyone else: In a similar vein, how can it be claimed that farming land, " ... has really has no financial value other than being a way of supporting oneself and one's family"? Any homeowner can claim the same for their home irrespective of their profession. Yes, farming is a unique, essential industry and as such, it should be treated accordingly. However, that should not extend to effectively allowing assets worth millions of pounds to be passed on tax-free.

According to one farmer (see link), the size of the average 'family farm' in England is 1,000 acres. The average price of agricultural land in England ranges from £6,500/acre to £17,000/acre, that equates to an asset value of £6m to £17.5m. As I said previously, I am not against the concept of having unique IHT rules to reflect the essential nature of the farming industry, but to allow the tax-free inheritance of assets worth £6m+ when the rest of us start paying IHT at £325k is disproportionate. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd9n2nev17ko.amp

And the following paragraph states the following, "“I think it is only honest to admit that nobody expected that the dimensions of this outbreak would be such here in Europe ...", so why single out the EU for criticism? In any event, it's unclear how any of this relates to the current topic?

This article refers to the initial response to the COVID outbreak. As clearly stated, I was referring to the deployment of the vaccines. Btw: Did you notice that the title of the piece is, 'How Europe failed the Corona virus test'? That's Europe as a whole - including the UK under Boris Johnson's watch - and not just the EU. Indeed the article states that the EU (Commission) had little authority over health matters at the time.

The EU's strategy for dealing with the purchase, supply and distribution of COVID vaccines - approved by each of the EU member states - suggests that they will be quite capable of co-ordinating the stockpiling of emergency supplies if approved and necessary. There appear to be €88 billions worth of counter examples to your suggestion that the EU isn't helping Ukraine in the conflict with Russia.

The rest of the population have to pay IHT on estates worth more than £325k. The relief of £1m on farming estates reflects the unique nature of the industry, but imo is generous. The introduction of this policy will affect the wealthiest farmers - and yes, the likes of Clarkson and Dyson, who use it as a means of avoiding IHT - the overwhelming majority of family farms will remain unaffected. If this policy had been in place between 2016 - 2020, only 15% of farmer's estates would have been affected. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/01/farmers-shocked-budget-inheritance-tax-estates

Reduced to personal insults. You really don't like to be challenged about facts, do you? The fact is that inner South London of the 70s and '80s was a deprived area and basically a <deleted>hole. Where did I mention anything about Blair being fantastic? You're the one who brought 'working class' into the discussion: I'm no 'working class hero' from a deprived background. I was brought up in a working class household and environment, but I didn't live in poverty and I had loving parents, who pretty much managed to keep me on the 'straight and narrow'. I couldn't give a rat's arse whether you believe me as your opinion in this regard, like your many nasty, insular, borderline racist, borderline xenophobic comments are of no consequence to me.

Perhaps in time a BRICS currency may gain traction and become a threat to the dollar's hegemony but, as I have said previously, imo that day is some way off. For one thing, the BRICS would need much wider adoption and to be embraced by the other developed economies such as the EU, Japan, UK, etc. Currently, there appears be little appetite for the BRICS amongst this group. Bitcoin (and other crypto currencies) may now be increasingly accepted as a means of payment, but the wild claims that they (it?) would be revolutionary have been grossly exaggerated. The promised imminent elimination of FIAT currencies shows no sign of happening anytime soon. Interesting article about the forthcoming BRICS summit attached (starts @+/- 26'00"). Rest of the broadcast also worth a listen if you have time.

And yet most indicators still support the view that the dollar is likely to remain the dominant currency for the foreseeable future https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/the-international-role-of-the-us-dollar-post-covid-edition-20230623.html#:~:text=The 2022 Triennial Central Bank,20 years (Figure 9). (Admittedly not the most unbiased of sources). As for debt. Yes, it should be a concern for the incoming US administration but it is decreasing as a % of GDP. On the other hand, debt is increasing both in absolute terms, and as a % of GDP for China, India and Russia.

I think that the 60% figure is an exaggeration but you make some valid points. https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/news/landmark-report-shows-uk-wildlifes-devastating-decline Imo there needs to be a balance between protecting the environment and the requirements of the economy; there is a big difference between worrying about the destruction of the Amazon rain forest and its' effects, and spoiling the view of someone living in the English shires because a housing estate has been built. The UK has always needed immigrants to supplement the domestic labour force. Controlling i.e. reducing immigration may slow economy growth.

More ridiculous hyperbole. The notion that any UK government could be collectively traitorous and hate their fellow countrymen is beyond ludicrous. Really? Then your working-class area was positively middle-class compared with mine. Your area was exempt from the 3-day week in '74? The 'Winter of Discontent' in 1978/79 didn't affect your area? Riots? Take your pick of '81 or '84 in my working class area. Add in the fact that 10% of homes had an outside toilet and no bathroom at the beginning of the '70s, and it was pretty grim. Maybe you should listen to Billy Bragg's lyrics a bit more closely.

Lammy might be a fool but to label him and others who don't share your opinion as treasonous is ridiculous, nonsensical hyperbole Ah yes. The halcyon days of the 70s and 80s: Slum dwellings with outside khazis and no baths; riots; 3-day weeks; rubbish piling up on the streets for weeks on end; unemployment at record highs, etc ... Yes, those were the days.

Who is blaming the previous government in this instance? Not me and certainly not Lammy or Starmer as they have retained this Tory policy. Presumably while Sunak is leader, the Conservative Party will still support this policy? If The Telegraph considered this matter important, and were in any way interested in fairness, it would have levied - and would continue to levy - criticism at the Conservative Party for proposing and supporting this policy: The absence of any such criticism now or in November '23 speaks volumes. Your own bias is clear for all to see. (For the record, I am indifferent to this policy. Imo the UN SC is pretty much a waste of time. The permanent members have the right to individually veto any proposal and they use their vetos frequently. Imo enlarging the SC won't make a blind bit of difference one way or the other).

We need to build more homes in the UK and do more to attract business to the UK ... Just not in my backyard!

Thank you for proving my point. You are not critical of the policy per sec, just the fact that it is the Labour government which is trying to garner support for it. If you can point me to where The Telegraph criticised this policy when it was proposed by the last administration I'll withdraw my criticism of them.

Unless the world's leading banks decide to jettison SWIFT, then any BRICS initiative will have virtually zero effect on the world's banking transactions: Incidentally the Bank of China is a member of the Board of Directors of SWIFT. On a global scale Thailand joining BRICS is meaningless. With the exception of China, the US economy dwarfs all others. Perhaps, China (and India?) may one day overtake the US in terms of economic power but - barring an economic catastrophe - that day will probably be well into the second half of this century, and it certainly won't be in a few years time.

I'm not at all confused. I am well aware that Labour were overwhelmingly elected at the last UK general election. I am also well aware that this particularly policy originated from the last Tory administration. If - as appears to be the case here - the current Labour government believes that some policies initiated by the previous Tory administration are worth continuing with, why shouldn't they do so? That seems to be an eminently sensible and pragmatic course of action. Indeed, to ditch policies for no other reason that the other party thought of it first would be childish and worthy of criticism. I suspect that the reason that 'The Telegraph and you now decide to criticise the policy is - as you correctly point out - simply because a Labour Administration is now in government. Whether it is good policy or not is immaterial. If you are so against this policy, why weren't you more vocal with your criticism of it last November?

The West may be in decline and the 21st century may (eventually) prove to be the 'Asian century', but the chances of the Real, Ruble, Rupee, Yuan or Rand - or the 'Brics' - supplanting the dollar as the world's reserve currency in 3 - 5 years is about as likely as Mikel Areta asking me if I fancy a game of football for Arsenal this evening.

So 'The Torygraph' are criticising the Labour government for espousing a policy initiated by the previous Tory government? Pathetic. Perhaps 'The Telegraph' should turn its' attention to the UK's position as a permanent member of the Security Council which is coming under increasing scrutiny now that we are no longer a member of the EU, and - unlike France - cannot automatically call on the support of 26+ other European nations to support our position.

Spain has always been vocal about its' claim to sovereignty over Gibraltar and that predates its' membership of the EC/EU. However, my point is that the voices from Madrid may become louder as a result of Brexit. Spain may find more support from Brussels and/or other EU member states now that the UK is outside the bloc. Indeed, it started to happen during the negotiations themselves. Your Wikipedia link states that, " ... the EU does not consider Gibraltar to be part of the United Kingdom". Such a statement would not only have been unnecessary prior to the referendum, but would have been inconceivable.

Agreed it is sad. But on the positive side, it's basically only two or three misogynists replying to each other confirming their bias.

Imo US foreign policy since WW2 has left a lot to be desired but let's not pretend Russia's aka the Soviet Union was any better. The Soviet Union was directly responsible for the 'Cold War' in Europe amongst other things.

Apologies my mistake. The link was posted by KhunLa on P1. My reply is on P2.

Nothing more than pedantry, as replacing 'EU' with 'EEC' has absolutely no effect on my argument. However, if it makes you happy: You're right. The EU did not exist in 1991, so I should have stated, " ...would West Germany's allies in the EEC ... The article was linked to on page 2 of this thread and I replied to it there. I'm surprised that you didn't notice that.

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but to imply that those who share that opinion, " ... can look at reality and judge it on its merits ... (while those who hold to an alternative viewpoint) .... have to invent a wholly imaginary narrative", is imo diametrically opposite to the truth.