United Kingdom
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
view the rest of the comments
What a strange take. I definitely think that we should support farmers, but not by exempting them from inheritance taxes. We should incentivise the correct things - If they work the land give them subsidies.
If you don't tax inheritance you're creating a generational wealth hoarding. Let's take Jeremy Clarkson for example - he openly stated that the reason he bought farmland was so that his children can inherit it tax free. If he didn't have a farming tv show, he would lease that land to actual farmers.
It might be different in other parts of the world, but in the UK, that has relatively high population density, sitting on farm land for generations can be very very lucrative. Most of the richest pieces of real estate in this country were farmland a century or two ago.
My parents sold the farm, I think, largely, on accountant's advice, to avoid the inheritance tax, or something.
So now I don't have the farm I grew up presuming was to be mine (or other relatives') one day, and instead see it get eaten up in consolidation by the rich, like all the other small farms around, merging.
This is not good.
Yay for sensible subsidies. Nay for tax ploys to feed agribusiness monopolies.
Sorry that your parents had to sell, but it sounds like you're blaming the wrong people.
If the inheritance taxes are the reason his parents had to sell then it stands to reason that the people who introduced the inheritance taxes in parliament are to blame, no?
I don't see how inheritance tax is to blame. You'd pay less on inheritance tax than paying income/capital gains tax on selling your land. I suspect other reasons were at play.
Inheritance taxes for real farmers (as opposed to people who just buy farmland to live in the country) are much higher because they include capital expenditures. Modern tractors, harvesters, ploughs, seed drills, sprayers, barns, equipment sheds, silos, fences, irrigation systems… all of this can add up to millions of pounds. Having to suddenly pay a large inheritance tax for a cash-strapped (high leverage) working farmer because their parent died could absolutely force the sale of everything.
How is that different from any other family that inherits a business? The nominal amount might be different, but it's the same situation. If they can't afford to keep it, they need to sell - it's a frustrating situation for everyone, I don't see why farmers need to be special. As I said before, to protect society from wealth hoarding, inheritance tax is a necessity and should be properly enforced.
Because farming is notoriously capital-intensive (the equipment costs millions of dollars) and low margin (the supplies you put into each year’s crop cost a fortune as well and the price you can sell your crop for is highly sensitive to supply and demand; have you ever noticed how food at the market goes on sale for extremely low prices? That was a huge crop that came to market from many farmers at once, for very low profit). This means a farmer has very little liquidity because most of their wealth is tied up on equipment and seeds and fertilizers and everything else. On top of that, there’s a huge element of climate and weather risk where an entire year’s profits can be wiped out by a few days (or sometimes a single day) of bad weather at the wrong time. Many farmers go out of business after one bad crop causes a huge loss and they can no longer afford to buy more seeds or they miss a payment on their tractor or their mortgage or whatever.
Compare with something like the restaurant business where the equipment is vastly cheaper (hundred dollar frying pan vs million dollar harvester) and so are the supplies (hundreds of dollars worth of food vs tens of thousands worth of seeds and chemicals). Restaurants are also much shorter in turnaround, as you’re generally aiming to sell out all your food the same day it arrives, whereas a farmer is waiting for their crop to grow all summer long.
And it’s really not wealth hoarding. The capital equipment (tractors, harvesters etc) costs a ton of money but depreciates in value rapidly over time and costs huge amounts in maintenance as well. Furthermore, the maintenance element for equipment can add another risk factor to your crops, as an equipment failure at the wrong time can result in a total crop loss if you’re not able to get it fixed right away.
That harvester can be sitting in the shed all year in perfectly working condition and then break down 2 minutes into harvesting this year’s crop. Unfortunately, all the other farmers are harvesting at the same time and so the harvester mechanics are overloaded with work and can’t get to yours in time to save the crop. Too bad!
Anyway, the other reason farming is different than other businesses is because farming produces the food supply that feeds everyone. Governments are acutely aware of the importance of food security and so they provide subsidies and other support programs for farmers. However, these programs can often be a double edged sword because they make it even harder or more capital intensive to get into the business (for example, by requiring new farmers to purchase quota to be allowed access to the market).
Lastly, I should point out that none of these issues matter if you’re just a rich person who wants to retire to the countryside. You can buy agricultural land cheap (far cheaper than land in the city) and you don’t need to buy any fancy equipment or quota, you just move into the farmhouse. When you pass on your inheritance to your children, the lack of capital equipment means they pay a lot less in taxes than a farmer would.
You clearly are invested in this issue, but your are missing the point.
You might not be aware of other industries, but it's a very similar situation in most essential businesses - high equipment costs and low margins.
I would still argue that family members who inherit a business are in a better position then, for example, a 20 year old waiter who inherits their mom's house in London. They also need to pay taxes that they can't afford.
Anyways... No one is saying that farmers or any essential businesses shouldn't get support. It's just that inheritance tax exemption is the wrong one, because if you create a loophole the rich will exploit it.
The rich aren’t paying the inheritance tax because they don’t own farming capital, just a homestead on cheap land. This is an inefficient tax if it’s meant to target the rich. It’s catching family farmers (working class people) in the crossfire and driving the process of farm consolidation (corporations that own many farms and don’t pay inheritance taxes because corporations never die).
Who do you think it sounds like I'm blaming?
I was not aware of playing the blame game at all.