Why is nobody talking about the farmer's protests here? : casualuk

[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 7 months ago

They're not farmer protests. They're Jeremy-Clarkson-wants-to-keep-his-property-because-the-government-actually-taxed-the-rich-for-once protests where he gaslit some farmers for optics. This is all about tax avoidance and a closed loophole. Do not let them change the framing.

[+] Zip2@feddit.uk 34 points 7 months ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

[deleted]

[–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 10 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Agree with everything you said. I find the hostillity towards farmers strange. I'm convinved a lot of the negativity comes from more urban folk who are still bitter that farmers generally voted for Brexit (although they voted inline with the rest of the population) and imagine that they're all loaded. Farmers literally produce our food and essentially work 24/7, no matter the weather, work in dangerous conditions (heavy machinery) and like you said, have crazy high suicide rates.

[–] PhobosAnomaly@feddit.uk 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

It's a tough one. I'm pretty pro-farmer and think that this policy seems to be burning a lot of bridges for very little gain.

The farming community really struggle with optics. You're absolutely bang on about the Brexit thing, that didn't help them. A lot of people point to farmers being very wealthy people - and on paper it's true. The land, the seeded fields and infrastructure, and the colossal machinery means even a small farm is usually a multi-million pound enterprise... but the liquid assets available to farmers are generally next to fuck all, and my anecdotal experience of living rurally is that most farms are one bad crop away from having to cut back and choosing to heat or eat; and two bad crops from bankruptcy.

I don't think the general public quite realise the tiny margins the farmers are on - between the cost of living and doing business, and the absolute pittance that supermarkets and the retail industry have been squeezing them at the point of sale. I've never seen so many Samaritans banners on major routes through the countryside.

Unfortunately, all the general public see are farmers blocking the roads in their £750,000 behemoth trucks waving Tory flags, complaining about 20% inheritance tax rate when everyone else paid double - when that's just a surface level view of the problem.

I should imagine that if you took the takings of a farm per year, and divided it by the number of folk working it and divided it by an 80 hour working week (for generalisations sake), then it would be quite clear that farming isn't the business to be in if you want to be rich.

e: I'm sorry, I used the "you" there, I'm not arguing against the person I'm replying to, I'm largely arguing alongside.

[–] jessca@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You make some great points. If I may, I'd like to expand on them with an alternative perspective.

When investing:

A reasonable target for a business is around 10% per year (i.e., each $1M in assets should generate $100k in profit).
An aggressive target for a business is around 20% per year.
A conservative target for personal investments is around 3% per year.
A more aggressive target is around 6-8% per year.

(These figures are approximate but are close enough for the purposes of my point.)

If a farmer has $10M in land and equipment, then we'd expect to see at least $1M profit per year. This is on top of the money that would be earned as a skilled employee who works significant overtime.

In 2022 Canada, potato farming (the second most profitable kind of farming) saw an average revenue of $600k on $480k of expenses. All the investment in land, its preparation, and the business enables an average Canadian potato farm to make the salary of a Canadian senior software engineer. And the senior software engineer doesn't have nearly the buy-in costs.

Then there is the matter of risk. In Alberta, we've recently had some droughts that resulting in harvests so poor that harvesting what did grow was done at a loss. It's like earning a paycheque so small that it's not worth driving to pick it up. (The farmers did harvest the crops because it was necessary to collect insurance.)

So, yeah. High cost of buy-in, a lot of work, and a lot of risk for for the opportunity to make less than an American SWE.

[–] PhobosAnomaly@feddit.uk 6 points 7 months ago

If you'll excuse my expression... fucking hell!

I've never talked finances with my friends in farming in the UK - it's always been a sore point. Presumably partly because that's just the rural way, but perhaps mainly because it's a source of anxiety, anger, and poor mental health. Maybe I should talk to them about it.

Anyway, thanks for the insight and figures, a lot of it is over my head because I'm thick as fuck but what I take from it in a perversion of a common meme is "line go down :( "

Cheers!

[–] manicdave@feddit.uk 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I actually support the farmers in this tbf. I just wanted to make a shit joke about them blocking green lanes and footpaths.

I try to avoid conspiracybrain but this policy seems so badly designed it seems as if the point is to force farmers into reverse mortgages.

If the real point is to make money for the treasury, discourage land banking and encourage more productive use of land, then a very modest land value tax would be more suitable and much fairer.

As it is, it's going to dispossess farmers of land and make a tiny amount of revenue from a tax that big business is immune from.

[+] FozzyOsbourne@lemm.ee 17 points 7 months ago (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

They're complaining because the tax relief that was offered to them was given to them because it was understood that farming was an important industry and we wanted to keep it in the family as much as possible.

Back in the 1980s that was probably sound thinking. That would still be the case if it weren't for rich millionaires who are always looking for the next way to not pay their dues.

The farmers are complaining about totally the wrong thing, they should be complaining that the rich bastards spoiled it for the rest of them. Except it probably won't even affect them anyway. They get 1 million pounds before they have to pay, Which in effect will probably be 1.5 million pounds because of the way that the rules stack.

[–] baggins@beehaw.org 8 points 7 months ago

You mean like the royal family?

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 13 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I'm not surprised. Farmers are not happy unless they're complaining about the government. It's always best to give them something to actually complain about.

I'm so sick of hearing farmers say that they barely make minimum wage, and then claim at the same time that they'll be affected by this change because apparently they barely make minimum wage and yet the farm is going to be worth in excess of 1 million pounds. Literally how on Earth does that work?

Somebody came around their properties once a while back and might have given them a number, but that's not the same as it being worth that number. For the property to actually be worth that amount they would have to find someone willing to hand over that amount of cash in exchange for land that makes negligible profit. So basically they have to sell it to James Dyson.

This law will make it unattractive to the likes of James Dyson and Jeremy Clarkson, so will ultimately be better for farmers.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago

trying to intimidate anyone who says they should live by the same rules as the rest of us?

*Anybody who says they should at the very least pay half the rate of anybody else, on assets that only start being taxed after 3x the threshold of anybody else, and can be paid back interest free in a period 20x longer than anybody else gets.

[–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Probably a post for !askuk@feddit.uk or !uk_politics@feddit.uk?

[–] Emperor@feddit.uk 2 points 7 months ago

Preferably the former unless it's a news article.

[–] Emperor@feddit.uk 5 points 7 months ago

There's this.

If anyway feels it needs more coverage then they are more than welcome to post something.

[–] Blackout@fedia.io 2 points 7 months ago

Cats

[–] goodgame@feddit.uk 0 points 7 months ago

To stay alive we must eat. Generally, to optimise our life span we should eat healthy, nutritious food. The current regime doesn't appear to be benefitting suppliers or consumers. The current regime appears to be skewing land prices with detriment to other uses of the land - housing affordability. Fundamental reform is needed. Kudos to those attempting reform. I hope we get a good solution for all.

Casual UK

Casual UK

Rules

Other communities: