egb_hibs
Private Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2002
Ok. 10% of 3000001 is 300k or 30k a year for ten years. Quite a lot when the average farm income is 72k according to google. (And 46k a few years before albeit with Covid).
It’s not like inheritance on private property - it’s a tremendously inefficient (thanks to cheap imports) business model with a vital national role. A bit like parts of the NHS dare I say it.
It’s really beyond me why they are doing this for a derisory take. I would not at all be surprised if they just got it wrong and won’t back down.
Incidentally, the subject matter experts in Starmer’s government ie DEFRA agree with the farmers that 2/3 will be affected. It’s Reeves bean counters coming out with the view it won’t affect most.
Return to the period immediately post Brexit where working class wages were going up until the tories found other sources of cheap labour ?Please, i wouldnt dream of exalting myself to be on par with yourself. Its an aspiration likes.... we can all dream. Still, loving your barbed digs at auntie beeb, anything to smash the state i say
Seems fair
Seems fair
Yes, the wanker has spent arount £500,000,000 to save paying into UK plc coffers
So what could these ways be? It would seem daft to me to meke them wealthier and rook everyone else, i agree.
Except there was nothing silly about it. I mean I’m not soliciting some more swinging hand bags but Bossie’s glib cliche was the only silly thing on it. The situations are not remotely comparable and patrician refusal to take non while people seriously, won’t change it.The thumbs down on the other thread was your silly take (imho) and totally circular stance in reply to iirc bossies post. Sorry its a wee thumbs down, the bounce doesnae do big thumbs down.
PreachFight the power.
Apparently you prefer wisecracks to considering whether Reeves got it wrong, on the basis of what Starmer’s own experts say. It’s an approach.
We could just….duh duh…not tax them if it comes to it. They could make the same difference to the balance sheet by just skipping one years intake of additional civil service bloat. Or failing that they could talk to their own department that covers farming and understand how to actually set thresholds? Rocket science it is not.
Yup, and if I’d be happy about labour targetting you too. Alas they seem disinterested in that kind of targetting, and indeed wedded to policies that help that class.
You are not being targeted for taxation, you sit within one of the groups they are there to benefit; that, and no doubt only that, you have in common with the 23billion pound men.
again, that’s not what the experts say. It regular family farms, where good certainly does not grow out of the ground.
No it isn’t. It’s one of the biggest social justice / taxation problems we have. And that group of people certainly have their voice through the labour supporting press, though I daresay their number includes plenty selfish Tory types as well. However, as a class, the affluent metro dinky, is Labour’s Mondeo man. Pho shizzle my man.thats just a daft dig at labour
As above, before we get anywhere near taxation I think the first priority is to organise the economy so they don’t hoover up the wealth to begin with. Something I think you agree with as an intent while not being so keen on the mechanisms.
I’m not a tax lawyer and am not going to attempt to grapple with how to tackle all the loopholes in tax law, mainly because I have no idea. In the context of what we are discussing here though, it’s not complicated: set the IHT threshold (much) higher.
Yup. And no one but you and Rachel Reeves is talking about huge farms here. The basis for people’s complaint is small family farms.
