comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Barti Ddu π΄β οΈπ΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ (U9094)
posted 22 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 4 minutes ago
Barti Ddu, I do sympathise with that cause. I still don't really understand how the measure under discussion would have devastating results. Small farmers will be much less affected than large estates, and if their farm is valued above £1million, they pay a marginal tax rate on the excess, not on that first million. And from what I read, they have a decade to pay. If they can't sustain that level of taxation, that's horrible for them, but they do have a £1million+ asset to sell. In that eventuality, I guess there are ways that I don't appreciate, in my ignorance, in which this affects the local community, and perhaps you can explain that to me so I understand better. As I see it, if the farm is viable (which a multi-million valuation would suggest) it will continue to operate, and will continue to sustain the same number of local jobs as before. Why would it lead to the closure of shops and pubs, or contribute to the decline of the Welsh language?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Small farms, in comparison to the large estates, will have a value over £1m. It’s not just the farm house and the land, you have other assets such as livestock, machinery etc.
This will lead smaller farms having to sell parcels of land to continue operating. This is even before the inheritance tax comes into effect.
Now, a number of communities in North Wales have seen the young farming workers move to find work elsewhere. They are predominantly Welsh speaking individuals.
A direct result of this is the closure of Welsh rural primary schools, because the population isn’t there to sustain them. I’m sure you can work out for yourself the impact of Welsh primary schools closing has on a Welsh speaking community. The footfall isn’t there to keep the shops and pubs viable either. Pubs around me are community run, just so they can keep the village going, but this is getting harder to do.
Welsh speaking young people are moving to larger towns areas, where Welsh is not a daily way of life in a lot of circumstances.
Now I appreciate this is unique to Wales, but the inheritance tax will exasperate matters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe too late to acknowledge your post - sorry, had work to do yesterday. From what you write I can see that this inheritance tax reform could exacerbate the problem in Welsh communities, and no one wants that. I guess I would just comment that dealing with the hole in public finances - unless the government concludes that massive borrowing is possible - involves unleashing pain on people: in the form of tax rises or cuts to services and benefits. My preference would always be to ask the wealthier sections of the population to shoulder more of that burden, and overall I think the government is more or less attempting to do that. I guess when applying this to farmers, it comes down to who should feel that pain instead, or why they in particular they should be exempt from it. That's a hard question for either of us to answer. I do think the UK and Welsh governments should also pay attention to the health of rural Welsh communities (and rural communities in general), which is clearly a problem with much broader causes. And I hope that the effects prove to be more in line with the milder projections.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good to read your reply.
I think we are on the same page mostly. My issue is not the paying the inheritance tax, more the consequences of it, and the fact in would be irreversible.
For example, they do have a 10 year timeframe to pay it, but who wants to take over a business and be saddled with a massive debt.
The forward planning of gifting it, and hoping you live for another 7 years is has it’s dangers too. I know of many instances where divorce has led to selling off of family farms. It’s a dangerous move in many ways.
Anyway, I think I have raised legitimate concerns, and I appreciate a sensible debate with an honest poster.
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by It’s time for some Lancashire hotPote, Ruben (U17054)
posted 2 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 2 hours, 26 minutes ago
Inheritance tax is the most stupid concept.
Imagine going to work, getting taxed, going to the supermarket in your car that you paid tax on, whilst paying road tax, with petrol that you've paid tax on, getting into the shop buying food that's got tax on it, taking it home...giving it to your kid, and they need to pay tax on it when you hand it to them.
Crazy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a fan of equality of opportunity then Nick?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you be happy with the above scenario?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m certainly comfortable with it.
Personally, I’d prefer it if we had a far more progressive tax system, for example, with a reduced VAT burden and higher income tax threshold, and with CGT equalised with income tax, higher corporation tax, and more income tax bands.
But then you can’t have everything, can you?
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by It’s time for some Lancashire hotPote, Ruben (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 29 minutes ago
My understanding of economics is rudimentary, but I’m going to guess without googling, that, the more the poorer are paid the more they spend allowing companies to invest more ?
If I’m correct, then it’s good for the economy to settle the strikes ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to get money circulating around the economy, you put more in the pockets of the lowest paid, who spend the greatest proportion (all) of their disposable income.
In short, yes, you’re right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's why I keep arguing (not sure why I bother though sometimes) in Facebook groups in Gwynedd around an Article 4 direction that it'd be better for people if property values fell and that people had a smaller mortgage and more money to spend. You'd think I was the devil for suggesting this though. "What about my investment"?
—————————————————-
If you’re inclined watch politics live today on BBC
They had a professor of economics who rationally explained that the affect of this policy is likely to result in land prices decreasing which is great for the next generation of farmers.
The Tory MP response was something along the lines of try telling that to the farmers π€·π»βοΈ
——————-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2024/11/19/why-inheritance-tax-charges-are-really-good-for-real-farmers-but-not-for-financial-whizz-kids/
Wasn't this, was it?
———————————-
No, the BBC don’t invite Richard Murphy on much these days π€
Here it is
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bjf8p5
A much milder man, but his patience was tested.
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by It’s time for some Lancashire hotPote, Ruben (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 29 minutes ago
My understanding of economics is rudimentary, but I’m going to guess without googling, that, the more the poorer are paid the more they spend allowing companies to invest more ?
If I’m correct, then it’s good for the economy to settle the strikes ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to get money circulating around the economy, you put more in the pockets of the lowest paid, who spend the greatest proportion (all) of their disposable income.
In short, yes, you’re right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's why I keep arguing (not sure why I bother though sometimes) in Facebook groups in Gwynedd around an Article 4 direction that it'd be better for people if property values fell and that people had a smaller mortgage and more money to spend. You'd think I was the devil for suggesting this though. "What about my investment"?
—————————————————-
If you’re inclined watch politics live today on BBC
They had a professor of economics who rationally explained that the affect of this policy is likely to result in land prices decreasing which is great for the next generation of farmers.
The Tory MP response was something along the lines of try telling that to the farmers π€·π»βοΈ
——————-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2024/11/19/why-inheritance-tax-charges-are-really-good-for-real-farmers-but-not-for-financial-whizz-kids/
Wasn't this, was it?
———————————-
No, the BBC don’t invite Richard Murphy on much these days π€
Here it is
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bjf8p5
A much milder man, but his patience was tested.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Much appreciated.
The 7 year rule on IHT has a limit of £335k all in unless it’s from a married couple which then is raised to £500k.
Having been frozen year on year and as property prices increase; many millions more are subsequently caught out by it and are forced to sell property in 6 months after the death of the gifter. HMRC may extend that period to 1 year at their discretion which often happens to be fair.
Not only a tax but a significant stealth tax as the limits haven’t even kept place with inflation.
Bit of a damp squib yesterday, Clarkson is a disaster for the cause,
Thankfully it looks like the winter fuel payments is rightfully at the top of the news agenda today, if you want a bit of government bashing, I’ll be with you all the way βπ»ββπ½βπΏ
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 18 hours, 3 minutes ago
comment by Barti Ddu π΄β οΈπ΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ (U9094)
posted 22 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 4 minutes ago
Barti Ddu, I do sympathise with that cause. I still don't really understand how the measure under discussion would have devastating results. Small farmers will be much less affected than large estates, and if their farm is valued above £1million, they pay a marginal tax rate on the excess, not on that first million. And from what I read, they have a decade to pay. If they can't sustain that level of taxation, that's horrible for them, but they do have a £1million+ asset to sell. In that eventuality, I guess there are ways that I don't appreciate, in my ignorance, in which this affects the local community, and perhaps you can explain that to me so I understand better. As I see it, if the farm is viable (which a multi-million valuation would suggest) it will continue to operate, and will continue to sustain the same number of local jobs as before. Why would it lead to the closure of shops and pubs, or contribute to the decline of the Welsh language?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Small farms, in comparison to the large estates, will have a value over £1m. It’s not just the farm house and the land, you have other assets such as livestock, machinery etc.
This will lead smaller farms having to sell parcels of land to continue operating. This is even before the inheritance tax comes into effect.
Now, a number of communities in North Wales have seen the young farming workers move to find work elsewhere. They are predominantly Welsh speaking individuals.
A direct result of this is the closure of Welsh rural primary schools, because the population isn’t there to sustain them. I’m sure you can work out for yourself the impact of Welsh primary schools closing has on a Welsh speaking community. The footfall isn’t there to keep the shops and pubs viable either. Pubs around me are community run, just so they can keep the village going, but this is getting harder to do.
Welsh speaking young people are moving to larger towns areas, where Welsh is not a daily way of life in a lot of circumstances.
Now I appreciate this is unique to Wales, but the inheritance tax will exasperate matters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe too late to acknowledge your post - sorry, had work to do yesterday. From what you write I can see that this inheritance tax reform could exacerbate the problem in Welsh communities, and no one wants that. I guess I would just comment that dealing with the hole in public finances - unless the government concludes that massive borrowing is possible - involves unleashing pain on people: in the form of tax rises or cuts to services and benefits. My preference would always be to ask the wealthier sections of the population to shoulder more of that burden, and overall I think the government is more or less attempting to do that. I guess when applying this to farmers, it comes down to who should feel that pain instead, or why they in particular they should be exempt from it. That's a hard question for either of us to answer. I do think the UK and Welsh governments should also pay attention to the health of rural Welsh communities (and rural communities in general), which is clearly a problem with much broader causes. And I hope that the effects prove to be more in line with the milder projections.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its far from an issue limited to Welsh farming. The issue, as evidenced by the thousands protesting yesterday, is countrywide.
The biggest misconception is that these farmers are wealthy.
Farming, by necessity, demands expensive assets to operate even at very meagre profit levels. A typical family farm with 250 acres (which is not a big land holding) will have land values of at least £2.5m. Machinery costs 100s of thousands. All farm buildings have value, whether the farmhouse or a multitude other buildings. A modest herd of cows can be worth millions.
Many who have commented on here see no further than the value of these assets and assume them to the rich, or judge them as large land owners and therefore privileged or aristocracy. This may be true for a very small proportion, but most farmers are far from this.
The main concern of those protesting is that such family farms will be prohibitively expense to pass to the next generation. It is not that they will get less money or wish to avoid tax.
There is no denial from anyone that the public finances need addressing. But this policy is indiscriminate and causes more damage than the project £230m it would raise.
The complete lack of consultation only reinforces the view of a complete lack of understanding of the issues by the Govt. and a party who traditionally have little connection or understanding of rural life. It is a decision taken having consulted with the treasury and based on (and justified by) HMRC stats, and not the NFU and Defra.
There are much better ways of targeting the wealthy who use land to avoid IHT or the very large estates who can afford these sorts of taxes without threatening their business and the dynamic of farming.
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA... (U2462)
posted 18 hours, 17 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by It’s time for some Lancashire hotPote, Ruben (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 29 minutes ago
My understanding of economics is rudimentary, but I’m going to guess without googling, that, the more the poorer are paid the more they spend allowing companies to invest more ?
If I’m correct, then it’s good for the economy to settle the strikes ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to get money circulating around the economy, you put more in the pockets of the lowest paid, who spend the greatest proportion (all) of their disposable income.
In short, yes, you’re right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's why I keep arguing (not sure why I bother though sometimes) in Facebook groups in Gwynedd around an Article 4 direction that it'd be better for people if property values fell and that people had a smaller mortgage and more money to spend. You'd think I was the devil for suggesting this though. "What about my investment"?
—————————————————-
If you’re inclined watch politics live today on BBC
They had a professor of economics who rationally explained that the affect of this policy is likely to result in land prices decreasing which is great for the next generation of farmers.
The Tory MP response was something along the lines of try telling that to the farmers π€·π»βοΈ
——————-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2024/11/19/why-inheritance-tax-charges-are-really-good-for-real-farmers-but-not-for-financial-whizz-kids/
Wasn't this, was it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the problem with this policy though. It has been devised within the treasury and not having consulted properly with the key stake holders.
Economics tells you one part of the story.
If you ask farmers what their major struggles are, then land value will be one but certainly not towards the top of that list.
All tax payers are key stake holders, so when the government start consulting us all on any proposed tax policies, I’ll agree that farmers don’t want special treatment.
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 7 minutes ago
All tax payers are key stake holders, so when the government start consulting us all on any proposed tax policies, I’ll agree that farmers don’t want special treatment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 7 minutes ago
All tax payers are key stake holders, so when the government start consulting us all on any proposed tax policies, I’ll agree that farmers don’t want special treatment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
————————-
Thanks for confirming you’re a dufus π€£
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 7 minutes ago
All tax payers are key stake holders, so when the government start consulting us all on any proposed tax policies, I’ll agree that farmers don’t want special treatment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
————————-
Thanks for confirming you’re a dufus π€£
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Says the guy who has just posted the dumbest comment on this 250+ long thread.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 7 minutes ago
All tax payers are key stake holders, so when the government start consulting us all on any proposed tax policies, I’ll agree that farmers don’t want special treatment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
————————-
Thanks for confirming you’re a dufus π€£
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Says the guy who has just posted the dumbest comment on this 250+ long thread.
—————————-
Even you know that’s not true dufus, who was it that came up with the French farmers bolloxx. ?
Maybe I'm being idealistic here but people who can afford it should be paying more to make sure no one is struggling. That's how society improves. If it wasn't for greedy people buying up land (like Clarkson) then this wouldn't really be much of an issue at all. Let's hope land and property values go down drastically.
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 42 minutes ago
Maybe I'm being idealistic here but people who can afford it should be paying more to make sure no one is struggling. That's how society improves. If it wasn't for greedy people buying up land (like Clarkson) then this wouldn't really be much of an issue at all. Let's hope land and property values go down drastically.
————————————————
I’ve enjoyed this thread, I love the assumptions the pro farmer contingent have made.
I’ll discuss it with my best mate ( imagine the shock to discover he’s a farmer ) on the way to the Everton game, he’ll laugh his cok off if I show him this thread.
It might surprise them to also know my youngest attends an expensive fee paying school, fortunately for us only 2 years to go. Most of the other parents don’t talk to me now because I back the VAT loop hole being closed.
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 42 minutes ago
Maybe I'm being idealistic here but people who can afford it should be paying more to make sure no one is struggling. That's how society improves. If it wasn't for greedy people buying up land (like Clarkson) then this wouldn't really be much of an issue at all. Let's hope land and property values go down drastically.
————————————————
I’ve enjoyed this thread, I love the assumptions the pro farmer contingent have made.
I’ll discuss it with my best mate ( imagine the shock to discover he’s a farmer ) on the way to the Everton game, he’ll laugh his cok off if I show him this thread.
It might surprise them to also know my youngest attends an expensive fee paying school, fortunately for us only 2 years to go. Most of the other parents don’t talk to me now because I back the VAT loop hole being closed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to clarify. I'm not anti-farmer. Just think those more fortunate should take on more of the burden. I have a house I rent out and people don't like it when I support measures to help tenants etc.
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 42 minutes ago
Maybe I'm being idealistic here but people who can afford it should be paying more to make sure no one is struggling. That's how society improves. If it wasn't for greedy people buying up land (like Clarkson) then this wouldn't really be much of an issue at all. Let's hope land and property values go down drastically.
————————————————
I’ve enjoyed this thread, I love the assumptions the pro farmer contingent have made.
I’ll discuss it with my best mate ( imagine the shock to discover he’s a farmer ) on the way to the Everton game, he’ll laugh his cok off if I show him this thread.
It might surprise them to also know my youngest attends an expensive fee paying school, fortunately for us only 2 years to go. Most of the other parents don’t talk to me now because I back the VAT loop hole being closed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to clarify. I'm not anti-farmer. Just think those more fortunate should take on more of the burden. I have a house I rent out and people don't like it when I support measures to help tenants etc, until they find a reliable way of means testing
———————————————————
I’m pro farming too, just anti bullying, there’s a significant proportion of farmers who just think if they stamp their feet hard enough they’ll get their own way.
Look at Clarksons attitude towards Victoria Derbyshire yesterday, out and out pig thick oaf. No answers just a diatribe of noises.
There should be a way of protecting the ones who are genuinely going to forced out of business but it’s not easy to means test.
The NFU have got pretty broad shoulders, but they don’t give a stuff about all of their members, they actively lobbied against the interests of the poorest paid farm workers.
Well done on helping your tenants, I sold my houses a while ago, like you I always saw them as humans just trying to put a roof over their head. I was described as naive, a threat to their livelihood etc etc, yet they were the ones spending fortunes on legal bills. My tenants never were a problem, I suspect that’s because I was fair to them.
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 42 minutes ago
Maybe I'm being idealistic here but people who can afford it should be paying more to make sure no one is struggling. That's how society improves. If it wasn't for greedy people buying up land (like Clarkson) then this wouldn't really be much of an issue at all. Let's hope land and property values go down drastically.
————————————————
I’ve enjoyed this thread, I love the assumptions the pro farmer contingent have made.
I’ll discuss it with my best mate ( imagine the shock to discover he’s a farmer ) on the way to the Everton game, he’ll laugh his cok off if I show him this thread.
It might surprise them to also know my youngest attends an expensive fee paying school, fortunately for us only 2 years to go. Most of the other parents don’t talk to me now because I back the VAT loop hole being closed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to clarify. I'm not anti-farmer. Just think those more fortunate should take on more of the burden. I have a house I rent out and people don't like it when I support measures to help tenants etc, until they find a reliable way of means testing
———————————————————
I’m pro farming too, just anti bullying, there’s a significant proportion of farmers who just think if they stamp their feet hard enough they’ll get their own way.
Look at Clarksons attitude towards Victoria Derbyshire yesterday, out and out pig thick oaf. No answers just a diatribe of noises.
There should be a way of protecting the ones who are genuinely going to forced out of business but it’s not easy to means test.
The NFU have got pretty broad shoulders, but they don’t give a stuff about all of their members, they actively lobbied against the interests of the poorest paid farm workers.
Well done on helping your tenants, I sold my houses a while ago, like you I always saw them as humans just trying to put a roof over their head. I was described as naive, a threat to their livelihood etc etc, yet they were the ones spending fortunes on legal bills. My tenants never were a problem, I suspect that’s because I was fair to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I agree re: farmers.
With tenants it's just the right thing to do. We have the same person there since we rented it out seven years ago. Rent is still £450pcm too as it was then. I never wanted to rent it out but couldn't sell so seemed the best option. I'd happily sell it now though if/when she leaves. I'd make sure it goes to a young local family as well.
Yes, I agree re: farmers.
With tenants it's just the right thing to do. We have the same person there since we rented it out seven years ago. Rent is still £450pcm too as it was then. I never wanted to rent it out but couldn't sell so seemed the best option. I'd happily sell it now though if/when she leaves. I'd make sure it goes to a young local family as well
πππ
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 42 minutes ago
Maybe I'm being idealistic here but people who can afford it should be paying more to make sure no one is struggling. That's how society improves. If it wasn't for greedy people buying up land (like Clarkson) then this wouldn't really be much of an issue at all. Let's hope land and property values go down drastically.
————————————————
I’ve enjoyed this thread, I love the assumptions the pro farmer contingent have made.
I’ll discuss it with my best mate ( imagine the shock to discover he’s a farmer ) on the way to the Everton game, he’ll laugh his cok off if I show him this thread.
It might surprise them to also know my youngest attends an expensive fee paying school, fortunately for us only 2 years to go. Most of the other parents don’t talk to me now because I back the VAT loop hole being closed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to clarify. I'm not anti-farmer. Just think those more fortunate should take on more of the burden. I have a house I rent out and people don't like it when I support measures to help tenants etc, until they find a reliable way of means testing
———————————————————
I’m pro farming too, just anti bullying, there’s a significant proportion of farmers who just think if they stamp their feet hard enough they’ll get their own way.
Look at Clarksons attitude towards Victoria Derbyshire yesterday, out and out pig thick oaf. No answers just a diatribe of noises.
There should be a way of protecting the ones who are genuinely going to forced out of business but it’s not easy to means test.
The NFU have got pretty broad shoulders, but they don’t give a stuff about all of their members, they actively lobbied against the interests of the poorest paid farm workers.
Well done on helping your tenants, I sold my houses a while ago, like you I always saw them as humans just trying to put a roof over their head. I was described as naive, a threat to their livelihood etc etc, yet they were the ones spending fortunes on legal bills. My tenants never were a problem, I suspect that’s because I was fair to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your ignorance on the subject is staggering and to dismiss those with genuine knowledge and experience in the industry, even if that includes knowing people who work in the sector, is demonstrably idiotic.
You rate your own google learned knowledge over those in the with genuine knowledge and then have the temerity to state "I support farmers" What BS!! How to you support farmers. You don't !
You make claims like the NFU do not represent their members. Another unsubstantiated claim probably derived from some simple thought process that because they do not vote they are not representative.
The fact you single out celeb farmer Clarkson to support a "bullying" the Govt argument, demonstrates the very low level of your understanding and knowledge.
What do you think the train drivers striking is if it isnt having the country over a barrel. 15% pay rise back dated, all strings to modernise the system removed, costing the country 100s of millions in striking, all for driver on an av. of £62k....now £69k after their fullsome pay rises. Does that not fall into "stamping feet (for 2 years) until they get what they want" and to hell with the rest of the country reliant on trains.
And the biggest point you continue to miss is that what farmers are actually saying. You say you support them but are not even listening to what is being said.
That is that the impact this will have on farming and the environment is far more damaging, and this is most acutely felt by the family farms. It will change the nature of farming, the rural economy and the environmental irreversibly and the long term damage will be far more than the short term, relatively modest financial gain.
But hey, you support farmers, right, but only if Jezza isnt rude to a TV interview
Share
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 42 minutes ago
Maybe I'm being idealistic here but people who can afford it should be paying more to make sure no one is struggling. That's how society improves. If it wasn't for greedy people buying up land (like Clarkson) then this wouldn't really be much of an issue at all. Let's hope land and property values go down drastically.
————————————————
I’ve enjoyed this thread, I love the assumptions the pro farmer contingent have made.
I’ll discuss it with my best mate ( imagine the shock to discover he’s a farmer ) on the way to the Everton game, he’ll laugh his cok off if I show him this thread.
It might surprise them to also know my youngest attends an expensive fee paying school, fortunately for us only 2 years to go. Most of the other parents don’t talk to me now because I back the VAT loop hole being closed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to clarify. I'm not anti-farmer. Just think those more fortunate should take on more of the burden. I have a house I rent out and people don't like it when I support measures to help tenants etc, until they find a reliable way of means testing
———————————————————
I’m pro farming too, just anti bullying, there’s a significant proportion of farmers who just think if they stamp their feet hard enough they’ll get their own way.
Look at Clarksons attitude towards Victoria Derbyshire yesterday, out and out pig thick oaf. No answers just a diatribe of noises.
There should be a way of protecting the ones who are genuinely going to forced out of business but it’s not easy to means test.
The NFU have got pretty broad shoulders, but they don’t give a stuff about all of their members, they actively lobbied against the interests of the poorest paid farm workers.
Well done on helping your tenants, I sold my houses a while ago, like you I always saw them as humans just trying to put a roof over their head. I was described as naive, a threat to their livelihood etc etc, yet they were the ones spending fortunes on legal bills. My tenants never were a problem, I suspect that’s because I was fair to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your ignorance on the subject is staggering and to dismiss those with genuine knowledge and experience in the industry, even if that includes knowing people who work in the sector, is demonstrably idiotic.
You rate your own google learned knowledge over those in the with genuine knowledge and then have the temerity to state "I support farmers" What BS!! How to you support farmers. You don't !
You make claims like the NFU do not represent their members. Another unsubstantiated claim probably derived from some simple thought process that because they do not vote they are not representative.
The fact you single out celeb farmer Clarkson to support a "bullying" the Govt argument, demonstrates the very low level of your understanding and knowledge.
What do you think the train drivers striking is if it isnt having the country over a barrel. 15% pay rise back dated, all strings to modernise the system removed, costing the country 100s of millions in striking, all for driver on an av. of £62k....now £69k after their fullsome pay rises. Does that not fall into "stamping feet (for 2 years) until they get what they want" and to hell with the rest of the country reliant on trains.
And the biggest point you continue to miss is that what farmers are actually saying. You say you support them but are not even listening to what is being said.
That is that the impact this will have on farming and the environment is far more damaging, and this is most acutely felt by the family farms. It will change the nature of farming, the rural economy and the environmental irreversibly and the long term damage will be far more than the short term, relatively modest financial gain.
But hey, you support farmers, right, but only if Jezza isnt rude to a TV interview
———————————————————
Oh dear, paragraph after paragraph of bilge, your points about train drivers are just ridiculous, the sort that Chris Philips tried on Mick Llynch ( are you sure you didn’t google some of it ? ) and how’d that go for him ?
I’ll simplify my attitude to your last paragraph
The farmers have happily allowed Jezza to impose himself as their megamouth. He talks absolute bollox and bullies anybody who doesn’t back down to him. So yeh, I don’t support the farmers who are too thick to realise that he will only detract from their aim.
Carry on as much as you like, I’ve got loads of time on my hands.
Or we could agree you think I’m ill-informed, dumb, ignorant and I in turn judge you a dufus and leave it at that.
If you can’t then I’m going to have to keep highlighting your loony French example π
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 1 minute ago
Share
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 42 minutes ago
Maybe I'm being idealistic here but people who can afford it should be paying more to make sure no one is struggling. That's how society improves. If it wasn't for greedy people buying up land (like Clarkson) then this wouldn't really be much of an issue at all. Let's hope land and property values go down drastically.
————————————————
I’ve enjoyed this thread, I love the assumptions the pro farmer contingent have made.
I’ll discuss it with my best mate ( imagine the shock to discover he’s a farmer ) on the way to the Everton game, he’ll laugh his cok off if I show him this thread.
It might surprise them to also know my youngest attends an expensive fee paying school, fortunately for us only 2 years to go. Most of the other parents don’t talk to me now because I back the VAT loop hole being closed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to clarify. I'm not anti-farmer. Just think those more fortunate should take on more of the burden. I have a house I rent out and people don't like it when I support measures to help tenants etc, until they find a reliable way of means testing
———————————————————
I’m pro farming too, just anti bullying, there’s a significant proportion of farmers who just think if they stamp their feet hard enough they’ll get their own way.
Look at Clarksons attitude towards Victoria Derbyshire yesterday, out and out pig thick oaf. No answers just a diatribe of noises.
There should be a way of protecting the ones who are genuinely going to forced out of business but it’s not easy to means test.
The NFU have got pretty broad shoulders, but they don’t give a stuff about all of their members, they actively lobbied against the interests of the poorest paid farm workers.
Well done on helping your tenants, I sold my houses a while ago, like you I always saw them as humans just trying to put a roof over their head. I was described as naive, a threat to their livelihood etc etc, yet they were the ones spending fortunes on legal bills. My tenants never were a problem, I suspect that’s because I was fair to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your ignorance on the subject is staggering and to dismiss those with genuine knowledge and experience in the industry, even if that includes knowing people who work in the sector, is demonstrably idiotic.
You rate your own google learned knowledge over those in the with genuine knowledge and then have the temerity to state "I support farmers" What BS!! How to you support farmers. You don't !
You make claims like the NFU do not represent their members. Another unsubstantiated claim probably derived from some simple thought process that because they do not vote they are not representative.
The fact you single out celeb farmer Clarkson to support a "bullying" the Govt argument, demonstrates the very low level of your understanding and knowledge.
What do you think the train drivers striking is if it isnt having the country over a barrel. 15% pay rise back dated, all strings to modernise the system removed, costing the country 100s of millions in striking, all for driver on an av. of £62k....now £69k after their fullsome pay rises. Does that not fall into "stamping feet (for 2 years) until they get what they want" and to hell with the rest of the country reliant on trains.
And the biggest point you continue to miss is that what farmers are actually saying. You say you support them but are not even listening to what is being said.
That is that the impact this will have on farming and the environment is far more damaging, and this is most acutely felt by the family farms. It will change the nature of farming, the rural economy and the environmental irreversibly and the long term damage will be far more than the short term, relatively modest financial gain.
But hey, you support farmers, right, but only if Jezza isnt rude to a TV interview
———————————————————
Oh dear, paragraph after paragraph of bilge, your points about train drivers are just ridiculous, the sort that Chris Philips tried on Mick Llynch ( are you sure you didn’t google some of it ? ) and how’d that go for him ?
I’ll simplify my attitude to your last paragraph
The farmers have happily allowed Jezza to impose himself as their megamouth. He talks absolute bollox and bullies anybody who doesn’t back down to him. So yeh, I don’t support the farmers who are too thick to realise that he will only detract from their aim.
Carry on as much as you like, I’ve got loads of time on my hands.
Or we could agree you think I’m ill-informed, dumb, ignorant and I in turn judge you a dufus and leave it at that.
If you can’t then I’m going to have to keep highlighting your loony French example π
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your continued reference to the France example i gave is just more evidence of your stupidity and the barrel scraping you are having to do to try and discredit what i have said.
Just avoid the actual issues and focus on what Clarkson said and my hypothetical (big word, sorry, you may need to google this to gain an understanding of the context ) example, as a reason to dismiss legitimate concerns and issues.
Now calling farmers thick. Jeez I would say a there's a village somewhere missing an idiot somewhere, but that would imply you live in a rural area. Given your complete ignorance of these issues, it would be wrong to imply this. Thick as 2 short planks is probably more appropriate
Dev
Any inheritance train drivers pass on is subject to 50% more IHT than farmers, don't think they also get 10 years to pay it off.
Pretty much all of the farmer kids at my school were a bit thick to be fair. And there were A LOT of them. They were usually quite large and well built though so you could hit them over the head with a hockey bat and they wouldn't feel it and it did little damage. So it was a fun activity.
comment by Keiran Keane (U1734)
posted 14 minutes ago
Pretty much all of the farmer kids at my school were a bit thick to be fair. And there were A LOT of them. They were usually quite large and well built though so you could hit them over the head with a hockey bat and they wouldn't feel it and it did little damage. So it was a fun activity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We must have gone to the same school
Sign in if you want to comment
British farmers
Page 11 of 14
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14
posted on 19/11/24
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Barti Ddu π΄β οΈπ΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ (U9094)
posted 22 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 4 minutes ago
Barti Ddu, I do sympathise with that cause. I still don't really understand how the measure under discussion would have devastating results. Small farmers will be much less affected than large estates, and if their farm is valued above £1million, they pay a marginal tax rate on the excess, not on that first million. And from what I read, they have a decade to pay. If they can't sustain that level of taxation, that's horrible for them, but they do have a £1million+ asset to sell. In that eventuality, I guess there are ways that I don't appreciate, in my ignorance, in which this affects the local community, and perhaps you can explain that to me so I understand better. As I see it, if the farm is viable (which a multi-million valuation would suggest) it will continue to operate, and will continue to sustain the same number of local jobs as before. Why would it lead to the closure of shops and pubs, or contribute to the decline of the Welsh language?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Small farms, in comparison to the large estates, will have a value over £1m. It’s not just the farm house and the land, you have other assets such as livestock, machinery etc.
This will lead smaller farms having to sell parcels of land to continue operating. This is even before the inheritance tax comes into effect.
Now, a number of communities in North Wales have seen the young farming workers move to find work elsewhere. They are predominantly Welsh speaking individuals.
A direct result of this is the closure of Welsh rural primary schools, because the population isn’t there to sustain them. I’m sure you can work out for yourself the impact of Welsh primary schools closing has on a Welsh speaking community. The footfall isn’t there to keep the shops and pubs viable either. Pubs around me are community run, just so they can keep the village going, but this is getting harder to do.
Welsh speaking young people are moving to larger towns areas, where Welsh is not a daily way of life in a lot of circumstances.
Now I appreciate this is unique to Wales, but the inheritance tax will exasperate matters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe too late to acknowledge your post - sorry, had work to do yesterday. From what you write I can see that this inheritance tax reform could exacerbate the problem in Welsh communities, and no one wants that. I guess I would just comment that dealing with the hole in public finances - unless the government concludes that massive borrowing is possible - involves unleashing pain on people: in the form of tax rises or cuts to services and benefits. My preference would always be to ask the wealthier sections of the population to shoulder more of that burden, and overall I think the government is more or less attempting to do that. I guess when applying this to farmers, it comes down to who should feel that pain instead, or why they in particular they should be exempt from it. That's a hard question for either of us to answer. I do think the UK and Welsh governments should also pay attention to the health of rural Welsh communities (and rural communities in general), which is clearly a problem with much broader causes. And I hope that the effects prove to be more in line with the milder projections.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good to read your reply.
I think we are on the same page mostly. My issue is not the paying the inheritance tax, more the consequences of it, and the fact in would be irreversible.
For example, they do have a 10 year timeframe to pay it, but who wants to take over a business and be saddled with a massive debt.
The forward planning of gifting it, and hoping you live for another 7 years is has it’s dangers too. I know of many instances where divorce has led to selling off of family farms. It’s a dangerous move in many ways.
Anyway, I think I have raised legitimate concerns, and I appreciate a sensible debate with an honest poster.
posted on 19/11/24
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by It’s time for some Lancashire hotPote, Ruben (U17054)
posted 2 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 2 hours, 26 minutes ago
Inheritance tax is the most stupid concept.
Imagine going to work, getting taxed, going to the supermarket in your car that you paid tax on, whilst paying road tax, with petrol that you've paid tax on, getting into the shop buying food that's got tax on it, taking it home...giving it to your kid, and they need to pay tax on it when you hand it to them.
Crazy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a fan of equality of opportunity then Nick?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you be happy with the above scenario?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m certainly comfortable with it.
Personally, I’d prefer it if we had a far more progressive tax system, for example, with a reduced VAT burden and higher income tax threshold, and with CGT equalised with income tax, higher corporation tax, and more income tax bands.
But then you can’t have everything, can you?
posted on 19/11/24
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by It’s time for some Lancashire hotPote, Ruben (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 29 minutes ago
My understanding of economics is rudimentary, but I’m going to guess without googling, that, the more the poorer are paid the more they spend allowing companies to invest more ?
If I’m correct, then it’s good for the economy to settle the strikes ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to get money circulating around the economy, you put more in the pockets of the lowest paid, who spend the greatest proportion (all) of their disposable income.
In short, yes, you’re right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's why I keep arguing (not sure why I bother though sometimes) in Facebook groups in Gwynedd around an Article 4 direction that it'd be better for people if property values fell and that people had a smaller mortgage and more money to spend. You'd think I was the devil for suggesting this though. "What about my investment"?
—————————————————-
If you’re inclined watch politics live today on BBC
They had a professor of economics who rationally explained that the affect of this policy is likely to result in land prices decreasing which is great for the next generation of farmers.
The Tory MP response was something along the lines of try telling that to the farmers π€·π»βοΈ
——————-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2024/11/19/why-inheritance-tax-charges-are-really-good-for-real-farmers-but-not-for-financial-whizz-kids/
Wasn't this, was it?
———————————-
No, the BBC don’t invite Richard Murphy on much these days π€
Here it is
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bjf8p5
A much milder man, but his patience was tested.
posted on 19/11/24
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by It’s time for some Lancashire hotPote, Ruben (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 29 minutes ago
My understanding of economics is rudimentary, but I’m going to guess without googling, that, the more the poorer are paid the more they spend allowing companies to invest more ?
If I’m correct, then it’s good for the economy to settle the strikes ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to get money circulating around the economy, you put more in the pockets of the lowest paid, who spend the greatest proportion (all) of their disposable income.
In short, yes, you’re right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's why I keep arguing (not sure why I bother though sometimes) in Facebook groups in Gwynedd around an Article 4 direction that it'd be better for people if property values fell and that people had a smaller mortgage and more money to spend. You'd think I was the devil for suggesting this though. "What about my investment"?
—————————————————-
If you’re inclined watch politics live today on BBC
They had a professor of economics who rationally explained that the affect of this policy is likely to result in land prices decreasing which is great for the next generation of farmers.
The Tory MP response was something along the lines of try telling that to the farmers π€·π»βοΈ
——————-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2024/11/19/why-inheritance-tax-charges-are-really-good-for-real-farmers-but-not-for-financial-whizz-kids/
Wasn't this, was it?
———————————-
No, the BBC don’t invite Richard Murphy on much these days π€
Here it is
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bjf8p5
A much milder man, but his patience was tested.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Much appreciated.
posted on 19/11/24
The 7 year rule on IHT has a limit of £335k all in unless it’s from a married couple which then is raised to £500k.
Having been frozen year on year and as property prices increase; many millions more are subsequently caught out by it and are forced to sell property in 6 months after the death of the gifter. HMRC may extend that period to 1 year at their discretion which often happens to be fair.
Not only a tax but a significant stealth tax as the limits haven’t even kept place with inflation.
posted on 20/11/24
Bit of a damp squib yesterday, Clarkson is a disaster for the cause,
Thankfully it looks like the winter fuel payments is rightfully at the top of the news agenda today, if you want a bit of government bashing, I’ll be with you all the way βπ»ββπ½βπΏ
posted on 20/11/24
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 18 hours, 3 minutes ago
comment by Barti Ddu π΄β οΈπ΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ (U9094)
posted 22 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 4 minutes ago
Barti Ddu, I do sympathise with that cause. I still don't really understand how the measure under discussion would have devastating results. Small farmers will be much less affected than large estates, and if their farm is valued above £1million, they pay a marginal tax rate on the excess, not on that first million. And from what I read, they have a decade to pay. If they can't sustain that level of taxation, that's horrible for them, but they do have a £1million+ asset to sell. In that eventuality, I guess there are ways that I don't appreciate, in my ignorance, in which this affects the local community, and perhaps you can explain that to me so I understand better. As I see it, if the farm is viable (which a multi-million valuation would suggest) it will continue to operate, and will continue to sustain the same number of local jobs as before. Why would it lead to the closure of shops and pubs, or contribute to the decline of the Welsh language?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Small farms, in comparison to the large estates, will have a value over £1m. It’s not just the farm house and the land, you have other assets such as livestock, machinery etc.
This will lead smaller farms having to sell parcels of land to continue operating. This is even before the inheritance tax comes into effect.
Now, a number of communities in North Wales have seen the young farming workers move to find work elsewhere. They are predominantly Welsh speaking individuals.
A direct result of this is the closure of Welsh rural primary schools, because the population isn’t there to sustain them. I’m sure you can work out for yourself the impact of Welsh primary schools closing has on a Welsh speaking community. The footfall isn’t there to keep the shops and pubs viable either. Pubs around me are community run, just so they can keep the village going, but this is getting harder to do.
Welsh speaking young people are moving to larger towns areas, where Welsh is not a daily way of life in a lot of circumstances.
Now I appreciate this is unique to Wales, but the inheritance tax will exasperate matters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe too late to acknowledge your post - sorry, had work to do yesterday. From what you write I can see that this inheritance tax reform could exacerbate the problem in Welsh communities, and no one wants that. I guess I would just comment that dealing with the hole in public finances - unless the government concludes that massive borrowing is possible - involves unleashing pain on people: in the form of tax rises or cuts to services and benefits. My preference would always be to ask the wealthier sections of the population to shoulder more of that burden, and overall I think the government is more or less attempting to do that. I guess when applying this to farmers, it comes down to who should feel that pain instead, or why they in particular they should be exempt from it. That's a hard question for either of us to answer. I do think the UK and Welsh governments should also pay attention to the health of rural Welsh communities (and rural communities in general), which is clearly a problem with much broader causes. And I hope that the effects prove to be more in line with the milder projections.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its far from an issue limited to Welsh farming. The issue, as evidenced by the thousands protesting yesterday, is countrywide.
The biggest misconception is that these farmers are wealthy.
Farming, by necessity, demands expensive assets to operate even at very meagre profit levels. A typical family farm with 250 acres (which is not a big land holding) will have land values of at least £2.5m. Machinery costs 100s of thousands. All farm buildings have value, whether the farmhouse or a multitude other buildings. A modest herd of cows can be worth millions.
Many who have commented on here see no further than the value of these assets and assume them to the rich, or judge them as large land owners and therefore privileged or aristocracy. This may be true for a very small proportion, but most farmers are far from this.
The main concern of those protesting is that such family farms will be prohibitively expense to pass to the next generation. It is not that they will get less money or wish to avoid tax.
There is no denial from anyone that the public finances need addressing. But this policy is indiscriminate and causes more damage than the project £230m it would raise.
The complete lack of consultation only reinforces the view of a complete lack of understanding of the issues by the Govt. and a party who traditionally have little connection or understanding of rural life. It is a decision taken having consulted with the treasury and based on (and justified by) HMRC stats, and not the NFU and Defra.
There are much better ways of targeting the wealthy who use land to avoid IHT or the very large estates who can afford these sorts of taxes without threatening their business and the dynamic of farming.
posted on 20/11/24
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA... (U2462)
posted 18 hours, 17 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by It’s time for some Lancashire hotPote, Ruben (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 29 minutes ago
My understanding of economics is rudimentary, but I’m going to guess without googling, that, the more the poorer are paid the more they spend allowing companies to invest more ?
If I’m correct, then it’s good for the economy to settle the strikes ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to get money circulating around the economy, you put more in the pockets of the lowest paid, who spend the greatest proportion (all) of their disposable income.
In short, yes, you’re right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's why I keep arguing (not sure why I bother though sometimes) in Facebook groups in Gwynedd around an Article 4 direction that it'd be better for people if property values fell and that people had a smaller mortgage and more money to spend. You'd think I was the devil for suggesting this though. "What about my investment"?
—————————————————-
If you’re inclined watch politics live today on BBC
They had a professor of economics who rationally explained that the affect of this policy is likely to result in land prices decreasing which is great for the next generation of farmers.
The Tory MP response was something along the lines of try telling that to the farmers π€·π»βοΈ
——————-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2024/11/19/why-inheritance-tax-charges-are-really-good-for-real-farmers-but-not-for-financial-whizz-kids/
Wasn't this, was it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the problem with this policy though. It has been devised within the treasury and not having consulted properly with the key stake holders.
Economics tells you one part of the story.
If you ask farmers what their major struggles are, then land value will be one but certainly not towards the top of that list.
posted on 20/11/24
All tax payers are key stake holders, so when the government start consulting us all on any proposed tax policies, I’ll agree that farmers don’t want special treatment.
posted on 20/11/24
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 7 minutes ago
All tax payers are key stake holders, so when the government start consulting us all on any proposed tax policies, I’ll agree that farmers don’t want special treatment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 20/11/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 7 minutes ago
All tax payers are key stake holders, so when the government start consulting us all on any proposed tax policies, I’ll agree that farmers don’t want special treatment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
————————-
Thanks for confirming you’re a dufus π€£
posted on 20/11/24
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 7 minutes ago
All tax payers are key stake holders, so when the government start consulting us all on any proposed tax policies, I’ll agree that farmers don’t want special treatment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
————————-
Thanks for confirming you’re a dufus π€£
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Says the guy who has just posted the dumbest comment on this 250+ long thread.
posted on 20/11/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 7 minutes ago
All tax payers are key stake holders, so when the government start consulting us all on any proposed tax policies, I’ll agree that farmers don’t want special treatment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
————————-
Thanks for confirming you’re a dufus π€£
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Says the guy who has just posted the dumbest comment on this 250+ long thread.
—————————-
Even you know that’s not true dufus, who was it that came up with the French farmers bolloxx. ?
posted on 20/11/24
Maybe I'm being idealistic here but people who can afford it should be paying more to make sure no one is struggling. That's how society improves. If it wasn't for greedy people buying up land (like Clarkson) then this wouldn't really be much of an issue at all. Let's hope land and property values go down drastically.
posted on 20/11/24
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 42 minutes ago
Maybe I'm being idealistic here but people who can afford it should be paying more to make sure no one is struggling. That's how society improves. If it wasn't for greedy people buying up land (like Clarkson) then this wouldn't really be much of an issue at all. Let's hope land and property values go down drastically.
————————————————
I’ve enjoyed this thread, I love the assumptions the pro farmer contingent have made.
I’ll discuss it with my best mate ( imagine the shock to discover he’s a farmer ) on the way to the Everton game, he’ll laugh his cok off if I show him this thread.
It might surprise them to also know my youngest attends an expensive fee paying school, fortunately for us only 2 years to go. Most of the other parents don’t talk to me now because I back the VAT loop hole being closed.
posted on 20/11/24
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 42 minutes ago
Maybe I'm being idealistic here but people who can afford it should be paying more to make sure no one is struggling. That's how society improves. If it wasn't for greedy people buying up land (like Clarkson) then this wouldn't really be much of an issue at all. Let's hope land and property values go down drastically.
————————————————
I’ve enjoyed this thread, I love the assumptions the pro farmer contingent have made.
I’ll discuss it with my best mate ( imagine the shock to discover he’s a farmer ) on the way to the Everton game, he’ll laugh his cok off if I show him this thread.
It might surprise them to also know my youngest attends an expensive fee paying school, fortunately for us only 2 years to go. Most of the other parents don’t talk to me now because I back the VAT loop hole being closed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to clarify. I'm not anti-farmer. Just think those more fortunate should take on more of the burden. I have a house I rent out and people don't like it when I support measures to help tenants etc.
posted on 20/11/24
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 42 minutes ago
Maybe I'm being idealistic here but people who can afford it should be paying more to make sure no one is struggling. That's how society improves. If it wasn't for greedy people buying up land (like Clarkson) then this wouldn't really be much of an issue at all. Let's hope land and property values go down drastically.
————————————————
I’ve enjoyed this thread, I love the assumptions the pro farmer contingent have made.
I’ll discuss it with my best mate ( imagine the shock to discover he’s a farmer ) on the way to the Everton game, he’ll laugh his cok off if I show him this thread.
It might surprise them to also know my youngest attends an expensive fee paying school, fortunately for us only 2 years to go. Most of the other parents don’t talk to me now because I back the VAT loop hole being closed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to clarify. I'm not anti-farmer. Just think those more fortunate should take on more of the burden. I have a house I rent out and people don't like it when I support measures to help tenants etc, until they find a reliable way of means testing
———————————————————
I’m pro farming too, just anti bullying, there’s a significant proportion of farmers who just think if they stamp their feet hard enough they’ll get their own way.
Look at Clarksons attitude towards Victoria Derbyshire yesterday, out and out pig thick oaf. No answers just a diatribe of noises.
There should be a way of protecting the ones who are genuinely going to forced out of business but it’s not easy to means test.
The NFU have got pretty broad shoulders, but they don’t give a stuff about all of their members, they actively lobbied against the interests of the poorest paid farm workers.
Well done on helping your tenants, I sold my houses a while ago, like you I always saw them as humans just trying to put a roof over their head. I was described as naive, a threat to their livelihood etc etc, yet they were the ones spending fortunes on legal bills. My tenants never were a problem, I suspect that’s because I was fair to them.
posted on 20/11/24
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 42 minutes ago
Maybe I'm being idealistic here but people who can afford it should be paying more to make sure no one is struggling. That's how society improves. If it wasn't for greedy people buying up land (like Clarkson) then this wouldn't really be much of an issue at all. Let's hope land and property values go down drastically.
————————————————
I’ve enjoyed this thread, I love the assumptions the pro farmer contingent have made.
I’ll discuss it with my best mate ( imagine the shock to discover he’s a farmer ) on the way to the Everton game, he’ll laugh his cok off if I show him this thread.
It might surprise them to also know my youngest attends an expensive fee paying school, fortunately for us only 2 years to go. Most of the other parents don’t talk to me now because I back the VAT loop hole being closed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to clarify. I'm not anti-farmer. Just think those more fortunate should take on more of the burden. I have a house I rent out and people don't like it when I support measures to help tenants etc, until they find a reliable way of means testing
———————————————————
I’m pro farming too, just anti bullying, there’s a significant proportion of farmers who just think if they stamp their feet hard enough they’ll get their own way.
Look at Clarksons attitude towards Victoria Derbyshire yesterday, out and out pig thick oaf. No answers just a diatribe of noises.
There should be a way of protecting the ones who are genuinely going to forced out of business but it’s not easy to means test.
The NFU have got pretty broad shoulders, but they don’t give a stuff about all of their members, they actively lobbied against the interests of the poorest paid farm workers.
Well done on helping your tenants, I sold my houses a while ago, like you I always saw them as humans just trying to put a roof over their head. I was described as naive, a threat to their livelihood etc etc, yet they were the ones spending fortunes on legal bills. My tenants never were a problem, I suspect that’s because I was fair to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I agree re: farmers.
With tenants it's just the right thing to do. We have the same person there since we rented it out seven years ago. Rent is still £450pcm too as it was then. I never wanted to rent it out but couldn't sell so seemed the best option. I'd happily sell it now though if/when she leaves. I'd make sure it goes to a young local family as well.
posted on 20/11/24
Yes, I agree re: farmers.
With tenants it's just the right thing to do. We have the same person there since we rented it out seven years ago. Rent is still £450pcm too as it was then. I never wanted to rent it out but couldn't sell so seemed the best option. I'd happily sell it now though if/when she leaves. I'd make sure it goes to a young local family as well
πππ
posted on 20/11/24
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 42 minutes ago
Maybe I'm being idealistic here but people who can afford it should be paying more to make sure no one is struggling. That's how society improves. If it wasn't for greedy people buying up land (like Clarkson) then this wouldn't really be much of an issue at all. Let's hope land and property values go down drastically.
————————————————
I’ve enjoyed this thread, I love the assumptions the pro farmer contingent have made.
I’ll discuss it with my best mate ( imagine the shock to discover he’s a farmer ) on the way to the Everton game, he’ll laugh his cok off if I show him this thread.
It might surprise them to also know my youngest attends an expensive fee paying school, fortunately for us only 2 years to go. Most of the other parents don’t talk to me now because I back the VAT loop hole being closed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to clarify. I'm not anti-farmer. Just think those more fortunate should take on more of the burden. I have a house I rent out and people don't like it when I support measures to help tenants etc, until they find a reliable way of means testing
———————————————————
I’m pro farming too, just anti bullying, there’s a significant proportion of farmers who just think if they stamp their feet hard enough they’ll get their own way.
Look at Clarksons attitude towards Victoria Derbyshire yesterday, out and out pig thick oaf. No answers just a diatribe of noises.
There should be a way of protecting the ones who are genuinely going to forced out of business but it’s not easy to means test.
The NFU have got pretty broad shoulders, but they don’t give a stuff about all of their members, they actively lobbied against the interests of the poorest paid farm workers.
Well done on helping your tenants, I sold my houses a while ago, like you I always saw them as humans just trying to put a roof over their head. I was described as naive, a threat to their livelihood etc etc, yet they were the ones spending fortunes on legal bills. My tenants never were a problem, I suspect that’s because I was fair to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your ignorance on the subject is staggering and to dismiss those with genuine knowledge and experience in the industry, even if that includes knowing people who work in the sector, is demonstrably idiotic.
You rate your own google learned knowledge over those in the with genuine knowledge and then have the temerity to state "I support farmers" What BS!! How to you support farmers. You don't !
You make claims like the NFU do not represent their members. Another unsubstantiated claim probably derived from some simple thought process that because they do not vote they are not representative.
The fact you single out celeb farmer Clarkson to support a "bullying" the Govt argument, demonstrates the very low level of your understanding and knowledge.
What do you think the train drivers striking is if it isnt having the country over a barrel. 15% pay rise back dated, all strings to modernise the system removed, costing the country 100s of millions in striking, all for driver on an av. of £62k....now £69k after their fullsome pay rises. Does that not fall into "stamping feet (for 2 years) until they get what they want" and to hell with the rest of the country reliant on trains.
And the biggest point you continue to miss is that what farmers are actually saying. You say you support them but are not even listening to what is being said.
That is that the impact this will have on farming and the environment is far more damaging, and this is most acutely felt by the family farms. It will change the nature of farming, the rural economy and the environmental irreversibly and the long term damage will be far more than the short term, relatively modest financial gain.
But hey, you support farmers, right, but only if Jezza isnt rude to a TV interview
posted on 20/11/24
Share
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 42 minutes ago
Maybe I'm being idealistic here but people who can afford it should be paying more to make sure no one is struggling. That's how society improves. If it wasn't for greedy people buying up land (like Clarkson) then this wouldn't really be much of an issue at all. Let's hope land and property values go down drastically.
————————————————
I’ve enjoyed this thread, I love the assumptions the pro farmer contingent have made.
I’ll discuss it with my best mate ( imagine the shock to discover he’s a farmer ) on the way to the Everton game, he’ll laugh his cok off if I show him this thread.
It might surprise them to also know my youngest attends an expensive fee paying school, fortunately for us only 2 years to go. Most of the other parents don’t talk to me now because I back the VAT loop hole being closed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to clarify. I'm not anti-farmer. Just think those more fortunate should take on more of the burden. I have a house I rent out and people don't like it when I support measures to help tenants etc, until they find a reliable way of means testing
———————————————————
I’m pro farming too, just anti bullying, there’s a significant proportion of farmers who just think if they stamp their feet hard enough they’ll get their own way.
Look at Clarksons attitude towards Victoria Derbyshire yesterday, out and out pig thick oaf. No answers just a diatribe of noises.
There should be a way of protecting the ones who are genuinely going to forced out of business but it’s not easy to means test.
The NFU have got pretty broad shoulders, but they don’t give a stuff about all of their members, they actively lobbied against the interests of the poorest paid farm workers.
Well done on helping your tenants, I sold my houses a while ago, like you I always saw them as humans just trying to put a roof over their head. I was described as naive, a threat to their livelihood etc etc, yet they were the ones spending fortunes on legal bills. My tenants never were a problem, I suspect that’s because I was fair to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your ignorance on the subject is staggering and to dismiss those with genuine knowledge and experience in the industry, even if that includes knowing people who work in the sector, is demonstrably idiotic.
You rate your own google learned knowledge over those in the with genuine knowledge and then have the temerity to state "I support farmers" What BS!! How to you support farmers. You don't !
You make claims like the NFU do not represent their members. Another unsubstantiated claim probably derived from some simple thought process that because they do not vote they are not representative.
The fact you single out celeb farmer Clarkson to support a "bullying" the Govt argument, demonstrates the very low level of your understanding and knowledge.
What do you think the train drivers striking is if it isnt having the country over a barrel. 15% pay rise back dated, all strings to modernise the system removed, costing the country 100s of millions in striking, all for driver on an av. of £62k....now £69k after their fullsome pay rises. Does that not fall into "stamping feet (for 2 years) until they get what they want" and to hell with the rest of the country reliant on trains.
And the biggest point you continue to miss is that what farmers are actually saying. You say you support them but are not even listening to what is being said.
That is that the impact this will have on farming and the environment is far more damaging, and this is most acutely felt by the family farms. It will change the nature of farming, the rural economy and the environmental irreversibly and the long term damage will be far more than the short term, relatively modest financial gain.
But hey, you support farmers, right, but only if Jezza isnt rude to a TV interview
———————————————————
Oh dear, paragraph after paragraph of bilge, your points about train drivers are just ridiculous, the sort that Chris Philips tried on Mick Llynch ( are you sure you didn’t google some of it ? ) and how’d that go for him ?
I’ll simplify my attitude to your last paragraph
The farmers have happily allowed Jezza to impose himself as their megamouth. He talks absolute bollox and bullies anybody who doesn’t back down to him. So yeh, I don’t support the farmers who are too thick to realise that he will only detract from their aim.
Carry on as much as you like, I’ve got loads of time on my hands.
Or we could agree you think I’m ill-informed, dumb, ignorant and I in turn judge you a dufus and leave it at that.
If you can’t then I’m going to have to keep highlighting your loony French example π
posted on 20/11/24
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 1 minute ago
Share
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 42 minutes ago
Maybe I'm being idealistic here but people who can afford it should be paying more to make sure no one is struggling. That's how society improves. If it wasn't for greedy people buying up land (like Clarkson) then this wouldn't really be much of an issue at all. Let's hope land and property values go down drastically.
————————————————
I’ve enjoyed this thread, I love the assumptions the pro farmer contingent have made.
I’ll discuss it with my best mate ( imagine the shock to discover he’s a farmer ) on the way to the Everton game, he’ll laugh his cok off if I show him this thread.
It might surprise them to also know my youngest attends an expensive fee paying school, fortunately for us only 2 years to go. Most of the other parents don’t talk to me now because I back the VAT loop hole being closed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to clarify. I'm not anti-farmer. Just think those more fortunate should take on more of the burden. I have a house I rent out and people don't like it when I support measures to help tenants etc, until they find a reliable way of means testing
———————————————————
I’m pro farming too, just anti bullying, there’s a significant proportion of farmers who just think if they stamp their feet hard enough they’ll get their own way.
Look at Clarksons attitude towards Victoria Derbyshire yesterday, out and out pig thick oaf. No answers just a diatribe of noises.
There should be a way of protecting the ones who are genuinely going to forced out of business but it’s not easy to means test.
The NFU have got pretty broad shoulders, but they don’t give a stuff about all of their members, they actively lobbied against the interests of the poorest paid farm workers.
Well done on helping your tenants, I sold my houses a while ago, like you I always saw them as humans just trying to put a roof over their head. I was described as naive, a threat to their livelihood etc etc, yet they were the ones spending fortunes on legal bills. My tenants never were a problem, I suspect that’s because I was fair to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your ignorance on the subject is staggering and to dismiss those with genuine knowledge and experience in the industry, even if that includes knowing people who work in the sector, is demonstrably idiotic.
You rate your own google learned knowledge over those in the with genuine knowledge and then have the temerity to state "I support farmers" What BS!! How to you support farmers. You don't !
You make claims like the NFU do not represent their members. Another unsubstantiated claim probably derived from some simple thought process that because they do not vote they are not representative.
The fact you single out celeb farmer Clarkson to support a "bullying" the Govt argument, demonstrates the very low level of your understanding and knowledge.
What do you think the train drivers striking is if it isnt having the country over a barrel. 15% pay rise back dated, all strings to modernise the system removed, costing the country 100s of millions in striking, all for driver on an av. of £62k....now £69k after their fullsome pay rises. Does that not fall into "stamping feet (for 2 years) until they get what they want" and to hell with the rest of the country reliant on trains.
And the biggest point you continue to miss is that what farmers are actually saying. You say you support them but are not even listening to what is being said.
That is that the impact this will have on farming and the environment is far more damaging, and this is most acutely felt by the family farms. It will change the nature of farming, the rural economy and the environmental irreversibly and the long term damage will be far more than the short term, relatively modest financial gain.
But hey, you support farmers, right, but only if Jezza isnt rude to a TV interview
———————————————————
Oh dear, paragraph after paragraph of bilge, your points about train drivers are just ridiculous, the sort that Chris Philips tried on Mick Llynch ( are you sure you didn’t google some of it ? ) and how’d that go for him ?
I’ll simplify my attitude to your last paragraph
The farmers have happily allowed Jezza to impose himself as their megamouth. He talks absolute bollox and bullies anybody who doesn’t back down to him. So yeh, I don’t support the farmers who are too thick to realise that he will only detract from their aim.
Carry on as much as you like, I’ve got loads of time on my hands.
Or we could agree you think I’m ill-informed, dumb, ignorant and I in turn judge you a dufus and leave it at that.
If you can’t then I’m going to have to keep highlighting your loony French example π
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your continued reference to the France example i gave is just more evidence of your stupidity and the barrel scraping you are having to do to try and discredit what i have said.
Just avoid the actual issues and focus on what Clarkson said and my hypothetical (big word, sorry, you may need to google this to gain an understanding of the context ) example, as a reason to dismiss legitimate concerns and issues.
Now calling farmers thick. Jeez I would say a there's a village somewhere missing an idiot somewhere, but that would imply you live in a rural area. Given your complete ignorance of these issues, it would be wrong to imply this. Thick as 2 short planks is probably more appropriate
posted on 20/11/24
Dev
Any inheritance train drivers pass on is subject to 50% more IHT than farmers, don't think they also get 10 years to pay it off.
posted on 20/11/24
Pretty much all of the farmer kids at my school were a bit thick to be fair. And there were A LOT of them. They were usually quite large and well built though so you could hit them over the head with a hockey bat and they wouldn't feel it and it did little damage. So it was a fun activity.
posted on 20/11/24
comment by Keiran Keane (U1734)
posted 14 minutes ago
Pretty much all of the farmer kids at my school were a bit thick to be fair. And there were A LOT of them. They were usually quite large and well built though so you could hit them over the head with a hockey bat and they wouldn't feel it and it did little damage. So it was a fun activity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We must have gone to the same school
Page 11 of 14
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14