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

[NanLaew]

1 hour 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. 

 

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. 

 

 

British folk don't want to work on British farms.

 

After Brexit, cheap and willing EU farm labour were no longer available to work on British farms.

 

Britain doesn't allow people trafficking and slave labour.

 

Along with the changing climate comes wetter seasons and lower yields,

 

British farming is thus unsustainable.

 

British people want cheap and affordable housing.

 

So the government will build it on redundant farm land.

 

[RayC]

1 minute ago, James105 said:

 

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.  

 

There is nothing economically illiterate about this policy change or IHT in general. IHT raised £6bn in 2021/22, so if it is abolished that revenue will either have to be raised from another source or public services cut by that amount.

 

The market will determine the value of agricultural land based upon demand, supply, location, yield, etc. If there is excess supply, the price will drop as will the IHT liability.

 

There is nothing inevitable about a farm having to be sold. Each case will be different. In any event, I'd suggest that if the hier to an estate worth more than £1m+ is that emotionally attached to their property, then they will find a way of preserving their way of life. 

 

There is no reason to suppose, or evidence to suggest, that any farmland which is sold will not be continued to be used as agricultural land. Rather than becoming uneconomic as you infer, it is just as likely that a larger landowner could buy it and reap economics of scale, thus making it more profitable.

 

You might not like them, but there is nothing intrinsically "mean or cruel" in this government's policies. Like all governments before it, the current government is pursuing policies which it considers to be in the country's best interests.

[CG1 Blue]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

There is no reason to suppose, or evidence to suggest, that any farmland which is sold will not be continued to be used as agricultural land. Rather than becoming uneconomic as you infer, it is just as likely that a larger landowner could buy it and reap economics of scale, thus making it more profitable.

And some families who can't afford the IHT tax bill may give in and sell the land to a developer. 

 

You make some decent points, but surely you must agree that we need more farms to secure our future food supply, and that this new policy will likely result in fewer farms not more farms. 

[RayC]

4 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

And some families who can't afford the IHT tax bill may give in and sell the land to a developer. 

 

You make some decent points, but surely you must agree that we need more farms to secure our future food supply, and that this new policy will likely result in fewer farms not more farms. 

 

Safeguards are in place to prevent agricultural land being sold off and used for non-agricultural purposes.

 

https://www.basearchitecture.co.uk/news/agricultural-land-planning-permission/#:~:text=You can apply for full,of achieving permission are slim.

 

You pose an interesting question: Do we need more farms? Short answer is, 'I don't know'. A more nuanced answer is that it all depends what criteria you use to measure things. I'd never heard of the Global Food Security Index until 20 minutes ago, but based on this index the answer appears to be 'no' as the UK scores rather well in comparison to other nations. Of course, it could also mean that 95% of nations don't devote enough resources to agriculture🤷

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Food_Security_Index

 

[James105]

10 hours ago, RayC said:

 

There is nothing economically illiterate about this policy change or IHT in general. IHT raised £6bn in 2021/22, so if it is abolished that revenue will either have to be raised from another source or public services cut by that amount.

 

The market will determine the value of agricultural land based upon demand, supply, location, yield, etc. If there is excess supply, the price will drop as will the IHT liability.

 

There is nothing inevitable about a farm having to be sold. Each case will be different. In any event, I'd suggest that if the hier to an estate worth more than £1m+ is that emotionally attached to their property, then they will find a way of preserving their way of life. 

 

There is no reason to suppose, or evidence to suggest, that any farmland which is sold will not be continued to be used as agricultural land. Rather than becoming uneconomic as you infer, it is just as likely that a larger landowner could buy it and reap economics of scale, thus making it more profitable.

 

You might not like them, but there is nothing intrinsically "mean or cruel" in this government's policies. Like all governments before it, the current government is pursuing policies which it considers to be in the country's best interests.

 

Just £6bn for IHT?  Well that seems very easily raised.  Here are some choices that could be made instead:

 

1. Don't send Africa £11bn of "climate aid" to Africa which will be swallowed up in corruption anyway.

2. Don't spend £22bn on carbon capture which doesn't work.

3. Don't spend £13bn on foreign aid.

4. Don't send £3bn to Zelensky.

5. "Smash the gangs" and save £8bn a year on illegal immigrants.  

 

So plenty of ways that £6bn a year could be very easily raised without making a single cut to any essential public services, and then everyone is treated the same for IHT.   As I say (with some justification), they are economically illiterate morons.   

[RayC]

6 hours ago, James105 said:

 

Just £6bn for IHT?  Well that seems very easily raised.  Here are some choices that could be made instead:

 

1. Don't send Africa £11bn of "climate aid" to Africa which will be swallowed up in corruption anyway.

2. Don't spend £22bn on carbon capture which doesn't work.

3. Don't spend £13bn on foreign aid.

4. Don't send £3bn to Zelensky.

5. "Smash the gangs" and save £8bn a year on illegal immigrants.  

 

So plenty of ways that £6bn a year could be very easily raised without making a single cut to any essential public services, and then everyone is treated the same for IHT.   As I say (with some justification), they are economically illiterate morons.   

 

Ignoring the humanitarian argument for overseas aid - something you clearly have no problem in doing - there are concepts in economics known as 'opportunity cost' and 'externality'. Here's a (very) basic overview of these concepts as it is clear that you haven't come across them previously or, if you have, you obviously didn't understand them. 

 

If the UK were to withdraw overseas aid, the opportunity cost (in this case, loss) of not providing aid may be that contracts in the country in question - which might otherwise be given to British companies - will instead go to a European or US company. Others might disagree with my classification, but in many ways, I view overseas aid as a form of marketing.

 

Overseas aid might also come with conditions e.g. the UK offering financial aid on condition that the money is spent on tackling a problem where, it just so happens, a British company is the world's leading supplier of the required product.

 

In both these examples, the absolute cost of overseas aid to the donor country is less than it first appeared.

 

Onto externalities: Air pollution is an example of an externality. Take emissions from car exhausts. Unless you are the most extreme climate denier, you will accept that they cause pollution and that pollution has costs (both economic and social). Without intervention, neither the car manufacturers or the consumer would bear this cost. In order to mitigate against/ lessen the effects of the pollution, governments will often therefore either 1) impose regulations - the post-WW2 Clean Air Acts in the UK are a good example of this - and/or 2) levy duties on the producer and/or consumer of the offending product.

 

However, unfortunately, pollution doesn't respect international borders. Switching continents - and notwithstanding the fact that Thailand has plenty of home produced pollution that it ought to do something about - Thailand suffers greatly from air pollution generated in neighbouring countries. Obviously Thailand has no regulatory authority in these countries, so in order to alleviate the problem it might offer economic assistance to the countries in question in an attempt to tackle the problem.

 

There is a whole sub-forum devoted to the war in Ukraine so I will avoid going into detail. Suffice to say that imo the £3bn given in aid to Ukraine is money well spent.

 

"Smashing the gangs" who traffick illegal immigrants is indeed a very good idea. I'm sure that Starmer will be very keen to learn about your cunning plan for doing so.

 

I hope that this has furthered your education in some small way. Unfortunately, I couldn't agree more: There are indeed, some economically illiterate morons.

[James105]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

"Smashing the gangs" who traffick illegal immigrants is indeed a very good idea. I'm sure that Starmer will be very keen to learn about your cunning plan for doing so.

 

Starmer said he had a plan before the election.   Do you think he has mislaid it as illegal immigrants are still arriving in record numbers?

 

Regarding overseas aid I would only allow it to be sent to recipient countries if they agree to take the illegal immigrants back that come from a country we provide aid to.   Any that say no we immediately cancel any and all aid.   Hows that for a solution then?  That should recoup at the very least the winter fuel allowance and farmers IHT.  

 

I note you didn't comment on the £22bn on carbon capture by the way.   Someone should be arrested for this as a fraudulent waste of taxpayers money.   

[RayC]

31 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

Starmer said he had a plan before the election.   Do you think he has mislaid it as illegal immigrants are still arriving in record numbers?

 

I've no idea. Perhaps you're right? All the more reason to send him your plan.

 

31 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

Regarding overseas aid I would only allow it to be sent to recipient countries if they agree to take the illegal immigrants back that come from a country we provide aid to.   Any that say no we immediately cancel any and all aid.   Hows that for a solution then?  That should recoup at the very least the winter fuel allowance and farmers IHT.  

 

Fair play. It's a proposal but, unfortunately, not a solution. 2/3rds of illegal immigrants originate from 5 countries (Iran, Iraq, Albania, Syria and Afghanistan). https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/people-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/ (Figure 5).

We don't send aid to the governments of Iran, Iraq or (I think?) Albania, so that leaves Afghanistan and Syria. Many of the illegal immigrants from these countries will be genuine refugees fleeing persecution and not economic migrants so, personally, I have no problem with them. You and some others probably disagree.

 

However, notwithstanding the above, doing as you suggest would only recoup relatively small amounts as direct payments to overseas governments are not that large https://www.context.news/socioeconomic-inclusion/britains-foreign-aid-where-does-the-money-go (see 1st graphic).

 

In conclusion, implementing your proposal will not recoup the cost of abolishing farmers IHT.

 

31 minutes ago, James105 said:

I note you didn't comment on the £22bn on carbon capture by the way.   Someone should be arrested for this as a fraudulent waste of taxpayers money.   

 

It was an oversight on my part.

 

I know nothing about the science behind carbon capture, so have no idea whether the benefits claimed for it are valid and verifiable.

 

However, in a previous post I stated that the revenue generated from IHT in 21/22 was £6bn i.e. one tax year.  In many instances, you quote costs for projects which accrue over the course of a project i.e. more than one year. For example, the estimated £22bn cost of carbon capture initiatives is spread over 25 years! Similarly, the £11bn figure for climate aid to Africa is spread over the period 2021 to 2026. 

 

Puts a rather different perspective on things, wouldn't you agree?

 

I have discussed foreign aid above and in a previous post, and I have nothing to add to my previous comment about aid to Ukraine being money well spent imo.