i doubt its for any auturistic reason he probably cant play. dont worry someone will offer him some more clothing or donations and get a 150k a year job in return
i tell you what was in the telegraph though that you obviously havent read yet otherwise in the interest of being fair and impartial you would of posted it. is revves et al covered up the impact and equality report for the increase in NI payments claiming it wasnt going to be published by the relevant body until more data was available. Then someone said it was published before the budget and labour had it before the budget with all the other reports and should of been released with all the others when the budget was announced. all of a sudden its now been released.
turns out who would of thunk it that increasing the ni is going to have a negative impact on the workers. Another bout of blatant lies from starmer and co
Love the way Franglais feels the need, and takes the opportunity to post something mildly positive about Starmer, …after being deathly silent over all the vast amount of negative b/s that has gone on over these last few months. in a stark comparison with Boris and his vol au vents.
As for golf, Starmer will have no time for that, he seems to be having a lot of trouble with… ‘‘The Farmers’’ lately.
He needs some of this stuck up his £25 billion ‘Black Hole’ he keeps slavering on about.
Most farmers will not be having much trouble with the new tax rules.
Those who buy land, and inflate it’s cost, in order to avoid paying taxes, are very upset.
No small wonder the media bosses are winding up this issue so much.
I for one will not be crying if the likes of James Dyson’s kids have to pay tax on income they have not earnt.
I am no financial or tax expert and not coming down on any side of this particular argument (having paid my fair share of tax) but do we need to split the farmers between those who own their land and those who are tenants.
If a tenant farmer’s landlord dies and his or her family receives a large IHT demand the family may be forced to sell of some or all of their land.
What protections will the tenant have? (agricultural leases can be notoriously complicated)
If the deceased landowners family have their hand forced and decide to sell the tenants farm as a whole, who is going to buy it ? and will the tenant be allowed to stay.
Will some big corporation buy the farm and before we know it the land will be covered in solar panels or wind turbines (probably more profitable than agriculture)
As I said I am not advocating one way or another but the above scenario will need to be tested at some time.
I do not know what the percentage split is between tenant farmers and and farmers who own their land but I suspect it may effect more than anticipated.
Whole can of worms slowly opening !! I can see the legal profession clapping their hands and licking their lips at the upcoming arguments.
Well I aint got a great deal of sympathy for the wealthy '‘Gentleman Farmers’ but some of the guys in my area with small farms are a different matter.
Some of these guys may struggle I think, you can not put farmers all in one category.
Not surprising to see Franglais adopting the ‘official party line’ on it though I see.
If they have under about £3million quid then a farm family should pay approx zero.
If they have more than that, then if a working farm is passed from parents to kids, and they continue to work it for 7 yrs before the parents die, then the tax is again zero.
If they do have over £3 million and choose to hold it close, and not retire, or don’t hand it over because they don’t trust the kids to not leave them as paupers, then I reckon some other things are very wrong, and is nowt to do with tax!
I really don’t have much sympathy with millions going tax free to those who do nothing to earn it.
But if they held shares in a company that owned a farm, then wouldn’t the value of those shares be the same as the value of the farm?
And shares are treated less favourably than farm land, which is exactly why some rich people buy land.
I reckon they would be worse off. They buy land, rather than shares, to avoid tax.
The targets are not real farmers, but those who put cash in land to avoid taxes. These taxes due by farmers is allowed to be paid off interest free over ten years too, as I understand it.
All estates are dependent upon valuations, aren’t they?
Any land/buildings etc are valued, in all cases, but there is no hard and fast means to say exactly how much they are worth.
Unless a farm is auctioned off it’s value will be an estimate and not a true value.
As you pointed out before an opportunity for lawyers/accountants, and now quantity surveyors etc to turn a few quid.
Correct but if there was 4 equal shareholders in the company eg. The farmer, his wife and two sons then the deceased would only own 25% of the total value.
If the farm was worth £1m then the deceased’s interest would only be £250,000, would that be the figure used to calculate if IHT was due ??
Nothing to stop the farm owner giving away all or part of the farm at any time, I think.
If done 7 yrs before death then the full amount of any property/money will be 100% tax free anyway.
Farmers still get better IHT than everyone else because it is recognised that farm land is a tool of the trade, so to speak, for farming.
Farmland was 100% exempt, but some rich people have used it as a loophole: Buy farm land worth millions, and pass it on tax free, instead of paying dues on money and other assets.
It is bad for real farmers because the extra demand on land (as a dodge rather than to farm) must push prices up for all. Those are not farmers at all, but tax dodgers who are using land that should go to those who have a real interest in producing food etc, and will make it work efficiently, not in passing tax free monies to those who did not not earn it.
Farmers and their spouses benefit from double the tax allowance of single farm owners.
The likes of you and I might be IHT free up to £650k, but even after the new measures farmers could be OK up to £2.65million. (£1m farmer, £1m spouse, £650k house) And only those assets land above the £2.65m will be taxed.
And also note that farmers will be paying 20% on assets over £2.65m, and have up to ten years to pay it off interest free, while you and I will be paying 40% on assets over £325k (£650k if married)’
There is a tax increase, but it will not be affecting many “ordinary working farmers” and even those it does affect, are still better off than most of the rest of us.
The rules are designed to catch those who make money in various fields, buy farm land to leave behind, then the heirs sell that land on and realise the wealth after paying nowt at all for money they did not earn.
I was talking of the kids of the rich, who buy up farm land as a tax dodge.
Most farmers may well have families working very hard, but will those be the ones with over £2m worth of their own land?
Average farm size in the UK, 80 hectares, and 50% of farms are under 20 hectares.
About £30k per ha?
So very roughly, the average UK farm has £2.4m of land assets. The IHT bill would be about £80k. (payable at 0% interest)
I do not think that is excessive at all.
And remember over 50% will be paying nothing.
Those are very rough figures, and open to correction, of course.
in a stark comparison with Boris and his vol au vents.
Plus ca change!