Over the last few days there have been a lot of commentators detailing why they believe that the farmers are wrong and that the Government is right to impose inheritance tax charges on farmers. They argue that farmers should not be treated differently to anybody else that owns an asset such as a house. They appear to miss the big difference that farmland is completely different to other assets.
For example, if you have a parent that’s living in the old family home, generally their offspring will have left home, they’ll have their own house, their own career and an income that is completely independent of the parent. When the parent dies, if there is an inheritance tax liability, the parent’s assets can be sold off and the liability paid to HMRC. The offspring get to take what is left and do with it whatever they like.
If you are the offspring of a farmer and intend to maintain that farm and there is an inheritance tax liability it is extremely unlikely that there would be available cash to settle the tax liability. It is also likely that you would be living on that farm and your income would be dependent on it.
Certain commentators glibly suggest that the offspring would just have to sell some of their land to pay the tax bill. Let us suppose someone follows this suggestion and needed to sell 5% of the land to cover the bill. He would have to sell a parcel of land that was useful to somebody else; he couldn’t just carve out a little corner of a field he doesn’t use so he would probably end up having to sell a larger portion of the property at a low rate to be able to generate at least that amount of cash. If he ends up having to sell say 10% of his land to meet this inheritance tax bill that means that his income would drop 10%. It’s as simple as that: the income cannot remain at where it was if he’s selling off part of the asset that is generating that income.
Would the commentators saying that everyone has got to be treated the same be prepared, when they inherit from a parent, to sell part of the parent’s assets to pay a sum to HMRC, not be able to sell the rest and have to take a reduction in their income just because they’ve inherited?
It has also been suggested that the only reason you pay inheritance tax is if you don’t trust your children as you can gift the farm to them and after seven years there is no tax liability. Setting aside farmers have not had to do this until now and do not have seven years now to execute the plan, there is a good reason they might not want to.
As you get older you will pass over more of the farm work to your offspring because he or she is younger and fitter than you. Farm workers are more than 20 times more likely to be killed on the job, according to health and safety figures. If you pass over the farm to your offspring and your offspring gets killed in a farm accident, what happens then? Is there a special clause so you could say you didn’t really mean it, it was only if you died first?
The simplest way to target the people who have put money into farm land as an inheritance tax dodge is just to make it so that a charge becomes due if the land is sold. If it is being passed on to another generation of farmers and is being farmed there should be no tax liability.
Inheriting a farm is quite simply very different from inheriting a house and anyone who cannot see that is incredibly stupid.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I find may things to admire about China, Zero Covid strategy NOT among them.
The annual Yulin dog festival is reason enough to stop me admiring anything about China, except the scenery, I suppose.
The wholesale trampling on human rights is enough to discourage me from admiring anything about China. The Yulin dog festival is just one reason among many I could think of.
Wholesale Trampling on Human Rights – see: the West 2020-to present.
Beats blood pudding.
Bummer for the 22,500 who chose Canada.
Best of luck getting zero covid. The human race will die out before that occurs.
That’ll do it. Oops, no it won’t, forgot about the Wuhan bats.
Humanity is already dead, now all we have is govern-mentality
You’re part of the proof that it isn’t.
Well said!
Yes, but if it saves just one life…!
Someone on the Telegraph’s China desk has read the South China Morning Post. But if senior management in the “corporates” are leaving Hong Kong, it won’t be anything to with “democracy”, “monitoring in the classroom” (what, like “Prevent” in Britain?), or Covid policy (how does that affect, say, HSBC?). Uncertainty, yes, that certainly does sound like a big factor, but the article doesn’t talk about that with any real depth. Among other things, that might require looking at what might happen soon to economies based on financial bubbles (or “hubbery”) – and we can’t have that 🙂 Or more generally, what might happen to economies that don’t produce shee-yit.
But I’m all in favour of using the term “brain drain”, even if the first time a British journalist heard the term was when she read it in the SCMP a few days ago.
How about Chris Evans at the Torygraph mentions where British “brains” tend to drain to?
But oh no…that’s not seen as a problem, is it?
Brains have been draining in this country, indeed the world, for ages. Nearly as empty as my deadly diesel guzzling car.
The brain drain really took off here in Britain in the 1950s (when it was widely recognised, and called by that specific term), having started in the 1940s, and the traffic is mostly to ONE country – the United States of America, which sticks its hands in academic circles in almost every country in the world, using the Fulbright Program etc.
Something like half the professoriat at the top universities in the US is from abroad.
I’m the only person I know who uses the term “brain drainer” to refer to an academic who has upped sticks to the USA.
I once had a conversation with a Cambridge academic who referred to one of his colleagues, an Eastern European guy who had emigrated to the US and more recently gone to Saudi, whom he described as having been “bought” by Saudi. I snapped that before then he had been bought by the USA, and he gave me such a dirty look. “Oh…b-b-but, the reasons were different…” Yeah right. The reasons were NOT different. The reasons were the same: career reasons, money. Many of the more ambitious British academics, and also scientists working outside of academia, see the USA basically as “head office”. There’s a taboo in Britain against speaking about US influence here, which includes the brain drain.
Where are British brains going?
Florida and Texas look good at the moment but if it gets really shitty I can’t seem them being safe. One might have thought Russia before we started a war with them. Prior to Ukraine you had a country with lots of space, commodities, reducing debts, positive interest rates, dumping the dollar and buying gold. What’s not to like? Sure it’s corrupt but everyone knows that unlike here where most of the public (sheeple) seem to think our government and institutions are looking after us because they said so!
Where are British brains going?
Not to Australia – and we seriously need some brains down here.
In one of the more stupidly governed states, the immensely resource-rich Western Australia, there is a similar exodus; as leading business executives head off for parts of Australia that are not so insanely wedded to Covid restrictions.
I’m tempted to brain drain. Being married to a British military officer doesn’t help, but I’ve been offered jobs in the US and Switzerland in the past year.
Resisting the corona lunacy is most important decision right now, and on balance I think the U.K. is probably safer than many places at present.
You could just say it’s the CCP’s policies in general, covid amongst them.
Can you tell us where they are going please!
I thought they were all coming to Britain, aren’t they?
If you were moving abroad where would you go? I’d go to America, probably Stephen King country. Last place on earth I’d think of going to is the UK even though I have lived here all my life.
Most American states the ‘least bad’ places to live for two reasons: (1) safe from American bombs and missiles (2) have moved on from Covid hysteria.
You can disappear in the US more easily than other Western nations if you’re prepared to live on the outskirts of society.
I’d be less dismissive of England than you. Better than pretty much anywhere else, including some ‘red’ states in the US. Florida and South Dakota are very much outliers.
My wife’s company employ people globally part time, some in Hong Kong. She’s noticed that some of the addresses of these people have changed from HK to the UK.
I guess London property prices won’t collapse after all!
There was a time when a HK brain drain would have benefited Australia. Things will get better once we can dispose of the so called leaders with the Closed For Business (And Everything Else) mentality.
Are things getting any better in Oz ?
It’s getting better in bits and pieces. South Australia, vax mandates are being lifted for police and emergency services. Here in WA there’s a court case underway challenging the mandates for our police. Details about that here.
With the federal election looming there is a strong undercurrent of support for the freedom friendly minor parties. Overall the various governments are realising that the citizenry are very well aware that the narrative is falling apart in other parts of the world. Also business is getting tired of the whole shitshow – staff refusing jabs, jabbed staff sick, customers staying away.
Is Masky Mark still threatening punishment for “years to come” for those who dare to disobey His Holiness by refusing to bare their arms for his injections?
I haven’t heard much of that lately. Even the ABFuckingC is running stories now about tossing masks. Admittedly, it was April 1, but I suspect there’s only one fool involved here.
It’s slowly falling apart around the High Pontiff’s ears. If I read this tweet correctly, he wants us all to be freaked out because the unvaxxed 1% make up 31% of hospitalisations. Doesn’t that mean, therefore, that vaccinated folks account for 69% of hospitalisations?