Labour’s Broken Promises and Two-Tier Governance Are Dividing Britain

[James105]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Gordon Brown is not a member of the Starmer Government.

 

 

 

So what? I never said he was I (correctly) stated he was Labour.   You were the one banging on about how private sector pensions should be improved and I pointed out one of the reasons they are so bad is because of idiotic Labour policies to grab relatively small amounts of money that has devastating consequences.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, James105 said:

 

So what? I never said he was I (correctly) stated he was Labour.   You were the one banging on about how private sector pensions should be improved and I pointed out one of the reasons they are so bad is because of idiotic Labour policies to grab relatively small amounts of money that has devastating consequences.

I regularly check my private industry pensions, they’re in a healthy condition.

I would dearly like to see more working people in the private sector have access to final salary pension schemes.

 

Perhaps that explains why I’m not eaten with envy and keen to see others have their pension rights stripped from them.

 

I sincerely hope you made the right choices too.

[cdnvic]

Several posts were removed for personal attacks, advocating violence, and replies to the aforementioned.

[theblether]

I rarely discuss British politics. I will say that the level of rage I'm seeing is off the scale. The attack on farmers is unbelievable. My mate, who's a ninth generation farmer and unmarried, is in a panic as he reckons he's leaving a crippling inheritance tax bill to his nieces and nephews. These are just working class kids. He thought he would die on the farm, he's now looking to sell and distribute the cash before death. 

 

Who's going to buy? Companies - and they'll turn the British countryside into factory farms. Generations of independent knowledge and care will disappear. It's absurd. 

 

You're not a farmer, you don't care? Right - my Dad has just discovered that his pension scheme is liable to 40% tax. This is a man who started off down the mines, and worked in engineering and quarries his entire life. He lives a frugal life, he remembers poverty, as does my mother. 

 

He now has eighteen months to obliterate his pension savings or lose 40% to the tax man. He's just recovering from an illness, not doing well at the moment, and he gets hit with this just before his 80th birthday. It's cruel. 

[Social Media]

An off topic conspiracey nonsense post removed along with another off topic video from the same poster

[theblether]

Yes, I'm aware of that and he couldn't have brought in a better policy to destroy farms. 

 

Naturally the clown brigade is all over Jeremy Clarkson buying a farm to escape IHT. He is far from normal. Normal are families who are emotionally tied to their land and lifestyle for generations. 

 

I have no problem with Clarkson types having to pay IHT for the first generational transfer. Hitting people who have owned land for 200 years with IHT is just ridiculous. They have no control over the value, it's governmental brutality against the custodians of our countryside. Truly appalling. 

 

 

[JonnyF]

2 hours ago, theblether said:

I rarely discuss British politics. I will say that the level of rage I'm seeing is off the scale. The attack on farmers is unbelievable

 It's utterly predictable from Labour.

 

Control the means of production. Socialism 101. This move will force generations of farmers to sell up and go work driving a bus for the local council.

 

The state will probably buy the land on the cheap as well. 

 

Labour are revolting. Starmer more dangerous than Corbyn.

[RayC]

4 hours ago, theblether said:

Yes, I'm aware of that and he couldn't have brought in a better policy to destroy farms. 

 

Naturally the clown brigade is all over Jeremy Clarkson buying a farm to escape IHT. He is far from normal. Normal are families who are emotionally tied to their land and lifestyle for generations. 

 

I have no problem with Clarkson types having to pay IHT for the first generational transfer. Hitting people who have owned land for 200 years with IHT is just ridiculous. They have no control over the value, it's governmental brutality against the custodians of our countryside. Truly appalling. 

 

 

 

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

[youreavinalaff]

13 hours ago, RayC said:

 

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

If the farms are passed down as an asset that will continue to be worked by the heirs, there should be no inheritance tax. If there is, it's most likely parts of the farm will need to be sold off to pay.

 

If the farm is passed down and subsequently sold, possibly with a stipulation of timeframes allowed, then inheritance tax should be paid.

 

That way, the loophole of buying farms simply to avoid paying inheritance tax is closed, and family farms can continue the great work they fo of feeding the nation.

 

 

[RayC]

10 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

If the farms are passed down as an asset that will continue to be worked by the heirs, there should be no inheritance tax. If there is, it's most likely parts of the farm will need to be sold off to pay.

 

If the farm is passed down and subsequently sold, possibly with a stipulation of timeframes allowed, then inheritance tax should be paid.

 

That way, the loophole of buying farms simply to avoid paying inheritance tax is closed, and family farms can continue the great work they fo of feeding the nation.

 

 

 

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

[youreavinalaff]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

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

Most estates are sold after the death of the owner.

 

As I previously said, farms could be under set laws regarding sale.

 

A farm is a living. A way of life. So long as it stays that way after inheritance, it really has no financial value other than being a way of supporting oneself and one's family.

 

Should those inheriting decide to sell, inheritance tax should apply. Maybe under a decreasing level, such as the 7 year rule of gifting prior to death.

 

 

[RayC]

12 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Most estates are sold after the death of the owner.

 

As I previously said, farms could be under set laws regarding sale.

 

A farm is a living. A way of life. So long as it stays that way after inheritance, it really has no financial value other than being a way of supporting oneself and one's family.

 

Should those inheriting decide to sell, inheritance tax should apply. Maybe under a decreasing level, such as the 7 year rule of gifting prior to death.

 

 

 

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.

[youreavinalaff]

9 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

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.

You've clearly not read or comprehended my comments in full.

 

It's not difficult to ascertain why.

[James105]

14 hours ago, RayC said:

 

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

 

So if a farm is worth £6m and it is a family farm then that family would have to stump up £1m or sell it to someone like Bill Gates and find another way to make a living?  How much does a farm this size actually make in profits - enough to pay back £1m over 10 years?   I have seen a bit of Clarkson's farm and it doesn't appear that there is that level of money in farming to be able to pay that kind of money to be able to keep the farm.   How much money does this policy even make for the government?   Enough to even cover a fraction of the £22bn being spent on pointless carbon capture technology?  

[CG1 Blue]

14 hours ago, RayC said:

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.

But as ever the Labour government decided to throw the baby out with the bath water. The same way they took away the winter fuel payments from pensioners who need it just to spite wealthy pensioners who don't need it. 

 

Working farms being passed through the generations need protection. They are the heartbeat of a nation and provide food security. 

 

How are the next generation going to find £200,000+ of cash (minimum) to pay a tax bill? They'll more likely have to sell up. 

[RayC]

16 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

You've clearly not read or comprehended my comments in full.

 

It's not difficult to ascertain why.

 

Well then perhaps you should restate your comments in such a way that ambiguity and misinterpretation can be avoided.

 

If you have ascertained that I believe that IHT should be applied as equitably as possible then you would be correct. 

[youreavinalaff]

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Well then perhaps you should restate your comments in such a way that ambiguity and misinterpretation can be avoided.

 

 

It already is. It's not my fault some suffer from selective reading and a lack of comprehension.

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

The same way they took away the winter fuel payments from pensioners who need it just to spite wealthy pensioners who don't need it. 

 

Yet more misrepresentation of reality.

 

Winter fuel payments have simply 

been means tested, by definition available to those in need of financial assistance not available to those who are not.

 

‘To spite wealthy pensioners?’.

[RayC]

6 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

It already is. It's not my fault some suffer from selective reading and a lack of comprehension.

 

Point out where I have misunderstood or misinterpreted your comment(s). 

 

It's not my fault if some refuse to acknowledge the flaws in their reasoning when they are highlighted to them.

[James105]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yet more misrepresentation of reality.

 

Winter fuel payments have simply 

been means tested, by definition available to those in need of financial assistance not available to those who are not.

 

‘To spite wealthy pensioners?’.

 

Labours own report suggested that it would kill 4000.   They are well aware that the poorest pensioners who are actually entitled to pension credit cannot complete the 243 question form needed to claim it and get the winter fuel allowance, and if they did all claim the government would make a loss from this policy.   It's a policy that literally requires the poorest not to claim their entitlements to pension credits.   

 

There was no need to rush this through.  They could have streamlined the process for claiming pension credits and reduced the amount of (probably pointless) questions and started it from next winter.   It is a cruel and unnecessary policy.  

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

Labours own report suggested that it would kill 4000.   They are well aware that the poorest pensioners who are actually entitled to pension credit cannot complete the 243 question form needed to claim it and get the winter fuel allowance, and if they did all claim the government would make a loss from this policy.   It's a policy that literally requires the poorest not to claim their entitlements to pension credits.   

 

There was no need to rush this through.  They could have streamlined the process for claiming pension credits and reduced the amount of (probably pointless) questions and started it from next winter.   It is a cruel and unnecessary policy.  

Labour’s report does not.

 

It was a report made at a different time in respect of entirely different circumstances.

 

 

[RayC]

47 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

So if a farm is worth £6m and it is a family farm then that family would have to stump up £1m or sell it to someone like Bill Gates and find another way to make a living?  How much does a farm this size actually make in profits - enough to pay back £1m over 10 years?   I have seen a bit of Clarkson's farm and it doesn't appear that there is that level of money in farming to be able to pay that kind of money to be able to keep the farm.   How much money does this policy even make for the government?   Enough to even cover a fraction of the £22bn being spent on pointless carbon capture technology?  

 

55 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

But as ever the Labour government decided to throw the baby out with the bath water. The same way they took away the winter fuel payments from pensioners who need it just to spite wealthy pensioners who don't need it. 

 

Working farms being passed through the generations need protection. They are the heartbeat of a nation and provide food security. 

 

How are the next generation going to find £200,000+ of cash (minimum) to pay a tax bill? They'll more likely have to sell up. 

 

This article addresses many of the points which you both raise. There are also two informative articles in the FT about this issue, although I think that they are behind a paywall.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8rlk0d2vk2o.amp

[James105]

6 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

 

This article addresses many of the points which you both raise. There are also two informative articles in the FT about this issue, although I think that they are behind a paywall.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8rlk0d2vk2o.amp

 

Yes it does and says it is not affordable for farms. 

 

"Is the tax affordable?

Sam Kirkham, who specialises in agriculture at Albert Goodman accountants, says "people look at the value of farms and think the farmers must be wealthy".

But she says if the farm passes down to the next generation to continue to produce food, they never get to realise that capital.

And she adds farm profits are insufficient to meet the additional cost of inheritance tax.

Government figures suggest that the average return on capital for farms (which is the percentage return that they are making from things like land and machinery) is only about 0.5%, which is very low."

 

Interesting that the largest farmland owner in the USA was paying a visit to Labour just before the budget then isn't it.  Another cruel and pointless policy considering how little it raises relative to the pain it inflicts on those affected.  

[RayC]

24 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

Yes it does and says it is not affordable for farms. 

 

"Is the tax affordable?

Sam Kirkham, who specialises in agriculture at Albert Goodman accountants, says "people look at the value of farms and think the farmers must be wealthy".

But she says if the farm passes down to the next generation to continue to produce food, they never get to realise that capital.

And she adds farm profits are insufficient to meet the additional cost of inheritance tax.

Government figures suggest that the average return on capital for farms (which is the percentage return that they are making from things like land and machinery) is only about 0.5%, which is very low."

 

Interesting that the largest farmland owner in the USA was paying a visit to Labour just before the budget then isn't it.  Another cruel and pointless policy considering how little it raises relative to the pain it inflicts on those affected.  

 

One estimate is that the change will raise £1b which is not insignificant. 

 

It's a balanced article. You cherry pick the section on the ability of hiers to pay the tax, I can just as easily quote the head of the IFS, Paul Johnson who is hardly a raving Communist, who states that only the most valuable of farms will be affected by the change.

 

To state the blindingly obvious, there will be winners and losers in any budget. Imo farmers have previously benefitted from overly generous exemptions when it comes to IHT. This new policy corrects this discrepancy. Is the revised policy perfect? No. Can it be amended to work better in practice e.g. adjust the period over which farmers have to pay the tax, almost certainly. Nevertheless, imo this change is welcome.

[James105]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

Imo farmers have previously benefitted from overly generous exemptions when it comes to IHT

 

Again, I can only speak from the experience of watching Clarkson's farm, but it seems nothing 'overly generous' occurs to farmers.  It looks like a very tough job with long working hours that carries a lot of risk with the adverse impact different weather conditions can have on crops, and it seems that to be successful requires a lot of knowledge that is passed down from one generation to the next.   It seems that the IHT would be an impossible sum of money to raise for a family that have lost the head of their family that no doubt spent blood, sweat and tears working the land, only to see that land be sold off due to a mean spirited and cruel policy.  These are not oil producers making billions of pounds in profits here, just honest people working on land at very small margins of profit to provide the food that we eat. 

 

I don't see why for such an insignificant sum this policy was needed at this time.  

[NanLaew]

On 11/2/2024 at 7:42 AM, jippytum said:

Sosiety is not divided on condeming the sleaze and broken promises by Starmer so soon after the election. 

On that that topic the country is united. 

 

It took the brain-dead British electorate fourteen years of taking big dry ones up the ort before they kicked the equally disingenuous and deceitful Tories to the curb, So if it's only taken them four months to suss out Labour, things are looking up.

[CG1 Blue]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

It's a balanced article. You cherry pick the section on the ability of hiers to pay the tax, I can just as easily quote the head of the IFS, Paul Johnson who is hardly a raving Communist, who states that only the most valuable of farms will be affected by the change.

 

To state the blindingly obvious, there will be winners and losers in any budget. Imo farmers have previously benefitted from overly generous exemptions when it comes to IHT. This new policy corrects this discrepancy. Is the revised policy perfect? No. Can it be amended to work better in practice e.g. adjust the period over which farmers have to pay the tax, almost certainly. Nevertheless, imo this change is welcome.

There's a very good reason why farmers have 'benefitted' from IHT exemptions. The farm land handed on to the next generation isn't the same as someone inheriting their parent's house. It's a legacy to continue the hard work of producing the UK's food and crops. 

 

We need more agricultural producers, not fewer. So the argument that this will only put a handful of farms out of business doesn't hold water. It's a step in the wrong direction!

 

Why didn't Labour have a long consultation period to figure out how to do this without putting farms out of business? They could've worked out a way to only penalise those who immediately sell the land after inheriting it, and protect those who will carry on the family business. 

 

[RayC]

56 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

Again, I can only speak from the experience of watching Clarkson's farm, but it seems nothing 'overly generous' occurs to farmers.  It looks like a very tough job with long working hours that carries a lot of risk with the adverse impact different weather conditions can have on crops, and it seems that to be successful requires a lot of knowledge that is passed down from one generation to the next.   It seems that the IHT would be an impossible sum of money to raise for a family that have lost the head of their family that no doubt spent blood, sweat and tears working the land, only to see that land be sold off due to a mean spirited and cruel policy.  These are not oil producers making billions of pounds in profits here, just honest people working on land at very small margins of profit to provide the food that we eat. 

 

I don't see why for such an insignificant sum this policy was needed at this time.  

 

Most farmers are probably honest people who work very hard. As a business, farming requires knowledge and expertise; it can be risky and the profit margins can be small. I don't doubt any of that, but those comments could equally be applied to any number of workers/ business owners in any number of industries. Those attributes do not make farmers or farming unique.

 

As I have stated all along, I accept that farming is an essential industry and that, due to the nature and structure of the industry, it requires 'special' treatment, which it will still receive after this revision to IHT rules.

 

I doubt that we will reach any sort of agreement as we differ fundamentally in our respective view of this change. You view it as "mean spirited and cruel" aimed at individuals who "do not make billions of pounds in profits". I view it as correcting an overly generous benefit given to individuals who own a business in a particular industry whilst raising a not insignificant sum of £1bn for the Exchequer.

 

The facts are that this change will only affect the estates of individuals with assets >£1m. Less than 85% of the UK's population fall into that category. I would suggest that compared to the majority of the population, such individuals can therefore be categorised as 'wealthy'.

 

I'll give 'Clarksons Farm' a try, although I'll admit to an unfavourable bias towards the show at the outset as I can't stand the bloke.

[RayC]

25 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

There's a very good reason why farmers have 'benefitted' from IHT exemptions. The farm land handed on to the next generation isn't the same as someone inheriting their parent's house. It's a legacy to continue the hard work of producing the UK's food and crops. 

 

And that fact is still reflected in the rules governing IHT even after this change. Those inheriting farming assets will pay a maximum of 20% of the value of those assets, the rest of the UK population will pay up to 40% on inherited assets.

 

25 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

 

We need more agricultural producers, not fewer. So the argument that this will only put a handful of farms out of business doesn't hold water. It's a step in the wrong direction!

 

We may well need more agricultural product, but it is purely subjective at this point to suggest that family farmers will be driven out of business.

 

In any event, if the farm/land is profitable it will be brought by others and continue to be farmed.

 

25 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Why didn't Labour have a long consultation period to figure out how to do this without putting farms out of business? They could've worked out a way to only penalise those who immediately sell the land after inheriting it, and protect those who will carry on the family business. 

 

 

Again, there is no evidence to support the idea that this policy change will negatively affect farming output. However, I agree that there could be concessions put into place - such as an extended payment duration - to allow those who inherit farms, and who wish to continue farming, to do so without having to sell the farm to meet their IHT obligations.

[James105]

22 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Most farmers are probably honest people who work very hard. As a business, farming requires knowledge and expertise; it can be risky and the profit margins can be small. I don't doubt any of that, but those comments could equally be applied to any number of workers/ business owners in any number of industries. Those attributes do not make farmers or farming unique.

 

As I have stated all along, I accept that farming is an essential industry and that, due to the nature and structure of the industry, it requires 'special' treatment, which it will still receive after this revision to IHT rules.

 

I doubt that we will reach any sort of agreement as we differ fundamentally in our respective view of this change. You view it as "mean spirited and cruel" aimed at individuals who "do not make billions of pounds in profits". I view it as correcting an overly generous benefit given to individuals who own a business in a particular industry whilst raising a not insignificant sum of £1bn for the Exchequer.

 

The facts are that this change will only affect the estates of individuals with assets >£1m. Less than 85% of the UK's population fall into that category. I would suggest that compared to the majority of the population, such individuals can therefore be categorised as 'wealthy'.

 

I'll give 'Clarksons Farm' a try, although I'll admit to an unfavourable bias towards the show at the outset as I can't stand the bloke.

 

Yes, we will not agree on this.  I view inheritance tax as theft.  The government should have no claim to something that someone has already paid tax on just because they died.   I find this especially egregious for any family run business, but in the case of farms it is unique as the nature of the business will mean it will have a lot of land which has a disproportionate value compared to how much profit can be earned from it (its not a concrete block of flats for example), and that profit will be nowhere near enough to cover the tax bill.    So imagine the pain that a farmer who has worked his land for 50 years will be feeling knowing that should he happen to die during this mean and cruel governments tenure, his family will lose this farm.   

 

When the farmland is inevitably sold will the new owners keep it as a farm that produces crops based on the value to profit ratio and the labour costs to farm it?  Highly unlikely.  So bad for the family and bad for the UK's ability to feed itself.   It's a policy written and created by economically illiterate idiots who have zero knowledge of farming or running any business that needs to makes a profit to survive.