Dan Neidle has changed his mind on IHT for Farmers

Removing the 50% discount on IHT when a farm is sold (although it’s more than that as the point at which it kicks in is so much higher) in return for a nil rate when it is passed on in the family as a working farm seems sensible to me.

It will prevent the likes of Clarkson from profiteering, whilst allowing genuine farmers to keep the land in the family. If it is being sold as a non-farm, or to a different farmer (ie being sold simply as a land sale, rather than passed down the generations), there is no reason I can think of why the tax shouldn’t be paid by the heirs, and at the same rate as everyone else.

Doodledog I ageee if the farm in its entirety is being passed down the generations and continues to be a working farm I agree no IHT should be levied.

If it is sold outside of the family the. iHT should be paid albeit on a sliding scale.

If we have to have IHT in the U.K. I am in favour of a sliding scale for all who are in the catchment

I've given up watching the national news, as I've thought for a long time you don't get the full story. The BBC news website is better, but not as good as the independents. As for newspapers, I haven't read a newspaper for years.

Coverage of the news and details have been very thin on the ground indeed in terms of what we are discussing, just done a google and this very discussion on GN comes up third! Can't find a full newspaper reference.

I'd suggest the lack in both newspapers and the BBC is because there is still a lack of clarity on the details, their effects, and we dont know what will happen to the new proposals.

PoliticsNerd

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 totally agree politics nerd, in Gloucestershire one wealthy farmer paid some staff to go on the protest in London.

Personally I have some sympathy for farmers. I think farms that have been in families for generations perhaps should have some sort of exemption and perhaps a clause saying should they sell the farm within a certain time then they should pay the IHT. Recently bought farms that aren’t being farmed by the families that have bought them should pay! I’m probably being naive and don’t really understand the ins and outs so probably not really a viable solution. But I strongly believe we need our farmers especially in this very unstable world we now live in. So anyone who can find a more workable solution should be listened to.

I don't think you are being naive sankev. It seems like the germ of an idea. I wonder if it could be used as a transitional phase for those whose owners are already very elderly?

The government's plan will not only stop the price of farms being pushed up when they are used as a tax wrapper but should also bring that cost down making farming more viable. I do hope we hear before two long that the government are offering subsidies more in line with the EU too.

I think farms that have been in families for generations perhaps should have some sort of exemption

That seems a sensible idea.

If a family continues farming on the family farm then even paying a 20% pa IHT charge, when profit margins are extremely slim, could mean the family being forced off the land they have farmed for generations.

Obiously profiteering from productive farmland is wrong, especially if it is being used for purposes other than foo production.

This seems like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Ill-thought through.

As for hospices - Reeves needs to rethink that and make exemptions for the increase employers' NI contributions.

Excuse typos please.

It would be very welcome to increase farm profitability but that would mean increased food prices, previous payment schemes have been based on the area of crops grown ensuring a better farm income and maintain low food prices.
Now we have a system where low food prices are supplemented by environmental payments, because crops are grown at a loss, income can only be maintained from environmental schemes.

This means that large estates with high overheads have put the whole acreage into long term environmental schemes and don’t produce any crops or livestock. Going back to a production based system would stop that.

As for comparability with the EU the main obstacle is they would insist on supervising the UK rules, maybe in the future but not for some time yet, some EFTA countries like Norway farming is excluded from CAP.

I'm not at all sure where this thread is going, if anywhere at all.

I have been picking up on the moving closer to the EU proposal which may impact yet again on our fisheries and farming. So change again is in the air.

If they pass the land to their children, 7 years before they die, they pay nothing.
The 3 million pounds tax benefit is an insult to the rest of us who work hard and cannot pass our inheritance to our children tax free. They certainly don't need more.
And what happens if the children are not interested in farming? They don't pay inheritance tax and sell it while the rest of us do. No, this takes away attention from tax thieves in our country who put their money in tax havens like the King's wind farm investments. And the huge amounts is tax relief claimed by the Dukes.

growstuff - I thought that about Blair - I remember saying to a friend "well the Tories win either way" during the election.