Dan Neidle has changed his mind on IHT for Farmers

growstuff didn’t the country sleepwalk in despair to Labour?

ronib

Yes it’s very shocking that the simples have taken over in this country!

It certainly is shocking. How on earth did so many people get taken in by the not political party?

Rosie51

*growstuff*^Plenty of people did take a little more time to delve a bit deeper and were critical at the time.^

Happy that I can be counted amongst them! I heavily criticised him on here and elsewhere, for his very simplistic, almost uneducated, assumptions.

Exactly! People took note of what he said/wrote and criticised it. It would be good if everybody did that and didn't take everything they read at face value.

I've read his latest article. He hasn't changed his stance on people buying agricultural land to avoid IHT - I expect he has first-hand experience of that.

Where he has shifted is in accepting that some farms and families will be very badly affected and he's made some suggestions for solutions, which might stop the IHT loophole for non-farmers, while keeping small family farms in the family.

Yes it’s very shocking that the simples have taken over in this country!

growstuff^Plenty of people did take a little more time to delve a bit deeper and were critical at the time.^

Happy that I can be counted amongst them! I heavily criticised him on here and elsewhere, for his very simplistic, almost uneducated, assumptions.

ronib

Everyone but everyone knows that Dan Neidle is very closely involved with the Labour Party. MaizieD

I bet they don't! I bet most people in the country have never even heard of Dan Neidle.

In any case, Neidle was most closely associated with Blair, whom many people in the Labour Party think was an undercover Tory.

Everyone but everyone knows that Dan Neidle is very closely involved with the Labour Party. MaizieD

NotSpaghetti

PoliticsNerd - it would help true farmers if the supermarkets weren't so very greedy.

That happened (or started to) at the end of the '60s when the abandoned Resale Price Maintenance. I'm pretty sure the majority would not want it back.

One area worth looking at is the processing or rather ultra-processing of our food. Only two countries eat more of this than the UK. Processing is seen as added value or for the buyer, added costs.

Rosie51

MaizieD

He does 'know something about taxes', he made a great deal of money from 'knowing something about taxes'. He has just revised his initial analysis after looking into it more deeply.

What a pity he didn't look into it more deeply before making his pronouncements that are still quoted. He was very quick to decry the farmers who said how badly affected they were going to be, and many on here took his word as absolute gospel.

The moral of that is not to take anything people say as gospel. Plenty of people did take a little more time to delve a bit deeper and were critical at the time.

If you're looking for 'blame', the people to blame are the journalists, who would have been looking for a story when Reeves made her announcement. Unfortunately, they contact the 'experts' on their contact list and don't take the time (or have the expertise) to analyse what the experts say, so they just parrot them regardless.

MaizieD

He does 'know something about taxes', he made a great deal of money from 'knowing something about taxes'. He has just revised his initial analysis after looking into it more deeply.

What a pity he didn't look into it more deeply before making his pronouncements that are still quoted. He was very quick to decry the farmers who said how badly affected they were going to be, and many on here took his word as absolute gospel.

eddiecat78

The point is that many people were quoting his initial comments assuming they were true - and they weren't

I saw plenty of criticism of his initial comments. Well done to him for listening to his critics, going over the figures again and suggesting mitigations to the damage it would cause genuine farmers. He hasn't changed his stance that buying farmland is a way of avoiding IHT for some. He's come up with a solution which wouldn't penalise real farmers and might have some other advantages.

^Farm subsidies paid for how the land is used, not simply for owning it would be a start.*

Farm subsidies are paid for how the land is used. They can only be claimed for productive land. Pre Brexit a great many farmers depended on the subsidies to keep their business afloat. Post Brexit subsidies have been greatly reduced.

Errr, what evidence do you have to claim that Neidle is a Labour activist, ronib?

Or do you see reds under the bed at every turn?

Why does anyone care/think what an extremely wealthy unelected Labour activist suggests in his pursuit of a new type of society? I am sure there will be other tax lawyers advising wealthy clients on gifting arrangements to stay within the 7 year rule. What does Reeves want to do about this loophole?
I wonder how long the Uk can survive without farmers?

The point is that many people were quoting his initial comments assuming they were true - and they weren't

NotSpaghetti

I have finally read the long article... (thank you).

I don't think he's changed his mind as such - I think he's looking for tweaks.

That's what I was trying to say.

PoliticsNerd - it would help true farmers if the supermarkets weren't so very greedy.

I still feel the wrong battle is bring fought and that 100% IHT should be in place. Currently, the use of farmland as an IHT tax avoidence wrapper it skewing the value of farms and depressing farm growth.

The battle to fight is surely that no farmer should be as badly paid as our currently are? I wonder if righting that wrong is simpler than I first though. Farm subsidies paid for how the land is used, not simply for owning it would be a start. Also completion of the UK-EU veterinary agreement and a move toward bringing our agri-food agreements into line with the EU.

I have finally read the long article... (thank you).

I don't think he's changed his mind as such - I think he's looking for tweaks.

Blimey I am agreeing with you on two separate threads MaizieD 🤣🤣🤣

There is something to be said for admitting that your initial reaction was flawed, and then coming up with an alternative 👍

He does 'know something about taxes', he made a great deal of money from 'knowing something about taxes'. He has just revised his initial analysis after looking into it more deeply.

You would of course think as an ex tax lawyer he would know something about taxes though?

eddiecat78

It's a shame Neidle didn't keep quiet when he claimed very few farmers would be affected. He's not much of an "expert" if he gives out misleading information without checking the facts

He's a tax lawyer, used to advise on tax avoidance (legal). He's now a campaigner against tax evaders.( Set a thief to catch a thief?)

I assume you are no longer considering going to him for advice on protecting your £millions, then 😂

It's a shame Neidle didn't keep quiet when he claimed very few farmers would be affected. He's not much of an "expert" if he gives out misleading information without checking the facts

petal53

I’ve just watched BBC news at 6 o clock. Unsurprisingly the verdict in the Sara Sharif case was featured first, then Syria and then a variety of other items. The farmers demonstration was featured at the end and was reported in about 30 seconds, if that. Obviously the BBC don’t consider this a major, or important story, even though it affects so many farmers and their families, and eventually will affect us all, if farms are sold off in order to pay IHT bills. We may have to import far more of our food if farms are sold off and bought by huge conglomerates who will produce inferior food if they produce any food at all.

I think this is a very important issue, but it appears that the BBC do not.

GB news gave it a lot of coverage..