Farmers are revolting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

So tax them if it's removed from agricultural use. Not when it is passed on for continual use in agriculture.

There is a reason they are so furious and it's not because they are passing on millions to their kids - if that were the case they wouldn't be standing knee deep in shite day in day out.

---

It is the farm workers who do not the farm owners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jeepster

It is the farm workers who do not the farm owners.

---

Farmers nearly always work their own land.

As I say, if it is removed from agricultural land, tax it. There's huge profits there. If it's passed on as a working farm its value is only in terms of the cows that graze on it or the barley that grows in it. Value of land that you or I own is entirely different to land owned by a farmer who uses it to farm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

So tax them if it's removed from agricultural use. Not when it is passed on for continual use in agriculture.

There is a reason they are so furious and it's not because they are passing on millions to their kids - if that were the case they wouldn't be standing knee deep in shite day in day out.

---

You have a quaint view of this based on Savills, the biggest agricultural valuers and agents in England proudly exclaiming that agricultural land is a fantastic way to capitalise and protect inherited wealth. If you think that the people mostly targetted in this are knee deep in shite you are more niaive than I thought. Big estates who own the land mostly tenant it out to farmers who may or may not spend every day knee deep in shite.

Or more likely the people targetted are those who saw an opportunity to make or protect a buck as arrivistes or have huge estates bequeathed since norman times. In a previous life we had concerns about "slipper farmers". Those who owned vast tracts of land in the North and Scotland harvesting subsidies whilst the soil was tilled on their behalf.

I do find it funny that some of those most distrustful of elites and manipulators are running with the hounds on this one though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

You have a quaint view of this based on Savills, the biggest agricultural valuers and agents in England proudly exclaiming that agricultural land is a fantastic way to capitalise and protect inherited wealth. If you think that the people mostly targetted in this are knee deep in shite you are more niaive than I thought. Big estates who own the land mostly tenant it out to farmers who may or may not spend every day knee deep in shite.

Or more likely the people targetted are those who saw an opportunity to make or protect a buck as arrivistes or have huge estates bequeathed since norman times. In a previous life we had concerns about "slipper farmers". Those who owned vast tracts of land in the North and Scotland harvesting subsidies whilst the soil was tilled on their behalf.

I do find it funny that some of those most distrustful of elites and manipulators are running with the hounds on this one though

---

Are they the ones driving the tractors are they Cyril? The ones who feel compelled to come to the cities to protest?

I know a few farmers. I'll believe them over you, thanks. Perhaps you should try that instead of reading reports from Savills?

You just don't seem to get it. Or more likely have an ideological beef (pun intended!) with the industry!

God knows what you are going on about elites for? Culture war stuff!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Are they the ones driving the tractors are they Cyril? The ones who feel compelled to come to the cities to protest?

I know a few farmers. I'll believe them over you, thanks. Perhaps you should try that instead of reading reports from Savills?

You just don't seem to get it. Or more likely have an ideological beef (pun intended!) with the industry!

God knows what you are going on about elites for? Culture war stuff!

---

I always love the "I know a few farmers" line. Talk me through their hectares, what they are farming and where, and why they are impacted. Surely it would help give an insight into why the levels of suggested taxation are a burden on them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

I always love the "I know a few farmers" line. Talk me through their hectares, what they are farming and where, and why they are impacted. Surely it would help give an insight into why the levels of suggested taxation are a burden on them?

---

But I do know a few farmers. The entire side of my father's family is farming stock. You may not know many, I do.

They are furious in many cases and see it as a massive attack on their long term viability and hopes and way of life. And something of a stab in the back as there was no mention of it in the manifesto.

The NFU are very firm on it as are pretty much all farmes from what I can tell. They don't protest in cities as they have done for nothing.

https://www.nfuonline.com

Maybe you should send them one of your Savills reports? Don't forget your wellies though.

As I said before, aside from anything else it was an ill judged fight to pick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

But I do know a few farmers. The entire side of my father's family is farming stock. You may not know many, I do.

They are furious in many cases and see it as a massive attack on their long term viability and hopes and way of life. And something of a stab in the back as there was no mention of it in the manifesto.

The NFU are very firm on it as are pretty much all farmera from what I can tell. They don't protest in cities as they have done for nothing.

https://www.nfuonline.com

Maybe you should send them one of your Savills reports? Don't forget your wellies though.

As I said before, aside from anything else it was an ill judged fight to pick

---

Yeah, but are any of them affected and why. I can fully understand the wider farming community being agitated by the slow withdrawal of previously ring fenced EU subsidies because that affects all of them. You only have to look at the outcry as Defra suspends capital grant bids as a factual rather than anecdotal impact.

I seem to remember you being sanguine about one of the benefits of Brexit that no longer would £3b of taxpayers money have to be focused on farmers and could be spent on "more important" projects or not spent at all. I'm sure you chat about that with your close farmer friends when you are chewing the cud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

Yeah, but are any of them affected and why. I can fully understand the wider farming community being agitated by the slow withdrawal of previously ring fenced EU subsidies because that affects all of them. You only have to look at the outcry as Defra suspends capital grant bids as a factual rather than anecdotal impact.

I seem to remember you being sanguine about one of the benefits of Brexit that no longer would £3b of taxpayers money have to be focused on farmers and could be spent on "more important" projects or not spent at all. I'm sure you chat about that with your close farmer friends when you are chewing the cud.

---

Is this what it's about? They are protesting about the wrong thing arent they?! I think the subsidies are potentially better spent now we can determine the criteria ourselves. Either way, we certainly haven't seen large protests over the changes unlike we have with the inheritance tax changes.

They probably know more about their own industry than you and I and when there is the level of anger there is it's best to acknowledge there is probably something in it. Personally, as with nearly every protest, strike or civil disobedience, the worst case scenario they all fear is likely to be somewhat exaggerated, but that doesn't mean there is nothing in it or that they aren't right to stand up for themselves and their industry on the topic.

At the very least I am sure you would concede that this should have been in the party manifesto for the election only a few months ago?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Probably winnable ones that don't destroy confidence in the economy leading to two months of contraction, plummeting polls resulting in the most unpopular new government in n history, resulting in likely deaths of old folk, farmers protesting and threatening to strike etc.

I have no idea who is advising the Labour Party but I would sack them

---

You have let yourself down there but you can have another go, which ones?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Is this what it's about? They are protesting about the wrong thing arent they?! I think the subsidies are potentially better spent now we can determine the criteria ourselves. Either way, we certainly haven't seen large protests over the changes unlike we have with the inheritance tax changes.

They probably know more about their own industry than you and I and when there is the level of anger there is it's best to acknowledge there is probably something in it. Personally, as with nearly every protest, strike or civil disobedience, the worst case scenario they all fear is likely to be somewhat exaggerated, but that doesn't mean there is nothing in it or that they aren't right to stand up for themselves and their industry on the topic.

At the very least I am sure you would concede that this should have been in the party manifesto for the election only a few months ago?

---

I am sure there was someone who made a powerful case, think it was about Southport, that protesters turn up for a variety of reasons and shoudn't be pigeon holed for their grievences. Might try to dig it out.

Look, the farming community has not had a great time since Brexit. Promised loads, then lost access to European markets and the free trade deals negotiated since as far as agriculture is concerned have been balanced in favour of countries like Australia and New Zealand to the detriment of local producers. Then, as I say subsidies are, well subsiding and things like removing the tax breaks from inheriting land could be viewed as a tipping point.

I will ask again though, can you explain why the farming people most close to you are up in arms as they must have a fair estate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Is this what it's about? They are protesting about the wrong thing arent they?! I think the subsidies are potentially better spent now we can determine the criteria ourselves. Either way, we certainly haven't seen large protests over the changes unlike we have with the inheritance tax changes.

They probably know more about their own industry than you and I and when there is the level of anger there is it's best to acknowledge there is probably something in it. Personally, as with nearly every protest, strike or civil disobedience, the worst case scenario they all fear is likely to be somewhat exaggerated, but that doesn't mean there is nothing in it or that they aren't right to stand up for themselves and their industry on the topic.

At the very least I am sure you would concede that this should have been in the party manifesto for the election only a few months ago?

---

Wow so people who go on strike should be listened to and the government should give into their demands, good to know how you feel about things.

We asked for 10% last year and I got about 3.2% in the end. Cash or card sir?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

So tax them if it's removed from agricultural use. Not when it is passed on for continual use in agriculture.

There is a reason they are so furious and it's not because they are passing on millions to their kids - if that were the case they wouldn't be standing knee deep in shite day in day out.

---

Yes it would make sense to value agricultural land based on its potential turnover. Then if it gets changed to other uses hit them with capital gains tax for the increase in value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

Yes it would make sense to value agricultural land based on its potential turnover. Then if it gets changed to other uses hit them with capital gains tax for the increase in value.

---

But wouldn't this still mean someone could own all the land, tennant it out as a income stream and pass that on tax free when they die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

Wow so people who go on strike should be listened to and the government should give into their demands, good to know how you feel about things.

We asked for 10% last year and I got about 3.2% in the end. Cash or card sir?

---

Of course people who go on strike should be listened to.

What's the story?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Of course people who go on strike should be listened to.

What's the story?

---

I think the more important point is whether the government should buckle because it's unpopular or 'the wrong fight'

In a thread about rail strikes you wrote the following:

Quote:

---

Firstly, after decades of rising passenger numbers, they absolutely collapsed during Covid. All the workers were kept in work not because they worked in a viable industry but through government support, paid for by us (or more accurately, our children). I think that makes a difference here.

---

You used that point to justify why, although you agreed with their right to strike, you felt they were on the wrong side of the argument and shouldn't be appeased. Later you infer that they are really being a bit selfish and shortsighted. The key point for me is that you felt they were 'kept in work' not because of their industry being viable but because of government support (which was the norm during COVID).

Let's be real here, farms are kept in business (or 'viable') because of government support, paid by us so there are definitely similarities. Shouldn't farmers be a bit more grateful for that like the rail workers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

I think the more important point is whether the government should buckle because it's unpopular or 'the wrong fight'

In a thread about rail strikes you wrote the following:



You used that point to justify why, although you agreed with their right to strike, you felt they were on the wrong side of the argument and shouldn't be appeased. Later you infer that they are really being a bit selfish and shortsighted. The key point for me is that you felt they were 'kept in work' not because of their industry being viable but because of government support (which was the norm during COVID).

Let's be real here, farms are kept in business (or 'viable') because of government support, paid by us so there are definitely similarities. Shouldn't farmers be a bit more grateful for that like the rail workers?

---

I like how you check out my history. We should get pissed some day.

The fact remains it's a stupid policy from a stupid government

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

But wouldn't this still mean someone could own all the land, tennant it out as a income stream and pass that on tax free when they die.

---

if it wasn't worth very much then yes.
at the moment it's suddenly worth a lot - i.e. it gets planning permission to build houses on it for example then it should be taxed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

if it wasn't worth very much then yes.
at the moment it's suddenly worth a lot - i.e. it gets planning permission to build houses on it for example then it should be taxed.

---

That would be subject to cgt wouldn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

That would be subject to cgt wouldn't it?

---

yeah I would assume so.

if the land Is only turning over £50k a year and is only usable for farming then there's no way it can be worth millions.

if it subsequently gets changed to residential land and is worth millions then they should have to pay CGT?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

yeah I would assume so.

if the land Is only turning over £50k a year and is only usable for farming then there's no way it can be worth millions.

if it subsequently gets changed to residential land and is worth millions then they should have to pay CGT?

---

But I think they already do have to pay that and we still have a problem with agricultural land being used as an avoidance vehicle so that can't be the extent of why people do it. That was why I assumed it must involve tennant farmers.

I think farmers only receive relief on the assessed agricultural value of the land so if land prices are high because of tax avoidance then farmers will suffer long term.

I'm with you in that the valuations make no sense in terms of agricultural yield but that should be something we look to fix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

But I think they already do have to pay that and we still have a problem with agricultural land being used as an avoidance vehicle so that can't be the extent of why people do it. That was why I assumed it must involve tennant farmers.

I think farmers only receive relief on the assessed agricultural value of the land so if land prices are high because of tax avoidance then farmers will suffer long term.

I'm with you in that the valuations make no sense in terms of agricultural yield but that should be something we look to fix.

---

Investment in and ownership of agricultural land has vastly outperformed non agricultural land over more than 30 years. Some of this is due to some of the unanticipated consequences of the EU CAP. Basically people got a flat rate subsidy per hectare of land as long as they were considered a farmer and met certain environmental conditions.

You could get supplemental subsidies for environmentally worthy activities. When this system first came in landowners, who in many instances left the farming to tenants, took the "entitlement" and leased it the active farmer. Later as rules tightened and the tenant got the subsidy the landowner simply increased the rents to the tenant.

For the environmental subsidies, at least in England, government found it more environmentally attractive to enter into contract with the landowner. For instance if, say The National Trust had 150 tenants it was a bigger bang for buck to have one agreement with the NT and let them have a back to back contract with their tenants to ensure they delivered the environment goods and penalise them if they didn't. In essence tenant farmers got shafted whilst landowners won.

Since Brexit, subsidies are now far more weighted towards environmentally worthy schemes. Still all the while agricultural land continues to appreciate and give very good returns, especially when you factor in tax breaks.

In 2023 around 60% of farm sales and within that a disproportionate amount of the bigger farms were made to previously non-farming purchasers. Some lifestyle changers but mainly private and institutional investors. It will be interesting to see what happens to agricultural land prices in the future if the inheritance tax changes take hold.

Another protest today.
Nigel Farage is there all decked out in what looks like brand new countryside clobber, backing the farmers, asking them to vote for him so he can reverse the Inheritance tax changes.
At the same time, in the Sky News studio, a farmer is being interviewed saying that Farage getting in will be the worst thing for the industry, as he'll strike a trade deal with Trump allowing cheap low quality food imports.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

I like how you check out my history. We should get pissed some day.

The fact remains it's a stupid policy from a stupid government

---

In other words you have had your arse served on a plate

Most of the farmers deserve trump and farage screwing them over

Tight arse tory voters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

In other words you have had your arse served on a plate

---

Odd take, even for you!