It isn't the wealth itself that's the cause. People behave differently depending on the cards they are dealt. If they are lucky in life, they believe they deserve it. If unlucky, they believe the lucky people don't deserve it...... the point is no-one deserves what they have. Also small % of people are psychopaths, "The Psychopath Test" is an interesting book about this. These people are selected in society because they possess the required traits to coerce people. The % of psychopaths in a given group increases as you go up the pyramid (or positions of authority). These people tend to be paid the most and more likely to obtain wealth.
I work in a meat works in New Zealand. We export our best meat to Europe and the UK. Can I demand special treatment because if I didn't go to work every day everybody would starve? What about the guy who drives the truck full of sheep to the plant I work at? Next time a farmer pulls that old saying, you would all starve if it weren't for me I wish Joe bloggs working on minimum wage building tractors would say, yep, but you would all be screwed without me.
A farmer and his family could survive very easily without tractors or anything else. They have the land and the know how. Worked with quite a few Farmer's. Some of hardest working and intelligent people I've ever known.
The reality is that the wealthy "non-farming" farmland owners have inflated the cost of farmland. If it was based on declared profits, the value would be much less so that IHT would not be a problem.
Land has no cost. It has a price. It value is the rental stream it produces. Its price is the captitalisation of the rental stream, inflated by the advantages attached to ownership eg tax concessions, hope value.
If the farmers have to sell their land food prices will rise. You know is going to buy farmland the Saudis andthe Chinese. You havent got the faintest idea how screwed 80% of the populationwillbe if the farmers are replaced.
Farmers haven't made themselves rich, and very often the family of a three generation farm did not start particularly rich. It's the accountants of the very wealthy getting them to invest in farmland which has done that on paper. This whole argument is about allowing farmers to pass on a viable business. Previously, no busiess proprty was subject to IHT. Now it is, but normal business property generates enough returns to cover the bill, whereas as farmland (if used to produce food) simply does not. I agree overall that reform was needed (to target those accountants) and hopefully the labour government takes on board the avalanche of voices saying to tweak the threshold and slow down the implementation of the tax
Right, so when the tax dodgers move on the value of farmland will decrease and very few farmers will be subject to IHT. But what puzzles me is why mom and dad will not have already passed on the majority of the farm to their children well in advance of 7 years before the last of them dies? Are there really hoards of geriatric farmers out there not letting their children have control of anything until they're dead? Or do farmers only start having children in their 60's and 70's?
@@rfrisbee1 Well it's not much of a puzzle. The best thing to do for the last 40 years was to die as a farmer and get 100% APR. Labour themselves said they wouldn't change that system... before the election. But now, they have gone back on that and have changed the rules, so farmers have 1 year to do something that takes 7 years (gifting). The other issues with gifting are that you cannot take any benefit from the thing you have gifted (transfer with reservation). So if you had planned to continue as a farmer as part of the family (and take your share of the farm income until death) you probably do not have another house to go and live in or have a big enough pension pot to rely on. There is another problem, which is giving away all the land and retaining the farmhouse may bring the farmhouse into the 'proportionality' test that HMRC apply to farmhouses being in keeping with the amount of land associated with them. So giving away the farm is not straightforward. There isn't time and there are other problems that appear. It is of course, is what will have to happen from now on, but for this current generation of farmers, it is a option fraught with difficulty. On the price drop - well, maybe but it is far from certain. The first problem is land transactions are far less frequent than, say, houses, so the price will inevitably be 'stickier' and take longer to drop. You may find thousands of farms getting hit with taxes that wouldn't be in five years time (which goes against the principle of taxing things in a consistent manner) . But my fear is land won't drop at all - this is because with pension changes there is potentially a lot of people with large amount in pensions thinking a £1M block of farmland is a very attractive investment. The second reason is large IHT dodgers may feel the 20% is better than selling up and buying something that will attract a 40% rate. So it seems to me there is a large amount of cash that will prop the price at the smaller end, and a lot of land owners who will happily hold onto their land at the big end. Again, it is working family farms primarily getting hit by this change instead of the ultra wealthy IHT dodgers. A better solution would be a higher APR/BPR threshold, and a 40% rate above that. So then someone shielding many millions from IHT would not see farmland as any better than anything else they could buy.
@@TheFarmingEngineerUK - thank you for being an informed voice of reason in this debate. I've commented elsewhere on here of my experiences growing up on my dads pig farm here in Scotland, and the way that ALL 'farmers' are being tarred with the same brush. Acting as they are all the same is so far from the truth, it's ludicrous.
@@TheFarmingEngineerUK You are fearful that your (presumably in excess of £3million) assets will *retain* their value? Oh, my eyes are welling up for your "poor" children. How will they cope on a measly £3million+ inheritance? ;) Perhaps a more fundamental question is why are farmers making such a pathetic return that a 20% IHT on assets over £3million and payable over 10 years is an existential threat to the next generation of farmers? Is farmland massively overvalued? Are a large proportion of farmers incompetent? Is there unfair competition or another market failure leading to food being mispriced?
@@rfrisbee1 Personal insults aren't going to help in a policy discussion. I am not asking for sympathy, although I appreciate that is part of the argument from some (but not from me). However, I don't think it is unreasonable for people to want to leave a viable, profitable business to their offspring, as it was left to them. And compared to many, many businesses and businessmen out there, farmers are very low down on both the profits and assets stakes! However - farming is profitable. Farms that are not profitable go out of business in short order. So any farms you see working are generating cash, even if some of it is from subsidy payment. The primary issue here is that the income and profits from the farm are not enough to pay a tax which is levied on the asset value of the farm. This is because the asset value has been pumped up by the ultra wealthy wanting to avoid IHT. So yes - farmland is overvalued. This is not the fault of farmers, it is the fault of tax dodgers. We know the problem, the Conservatives knew the problem but couldn't figure out a way of fixing it without putting lots of farms out of business. Unfortunately, nor can Labour! Hopefully you can see by many farmers genuinely welcoming the prospect of land prices falling is telling everyone that we are more motivated by keeping the business viable over the 'on paper' value of the farm. That is not the case for IHT dodgers - they are horrified by that idea their farmland investment might drop in value! But as explained before, I do not think these changes make that a certainty. Is there market failure in food prices? Short answer is no... Long answer is yes: Government policy has since WWII to have cheap food. Inevitably that means farmers won't get much money for their produce. But there are enormous benefits to having cheap food and having to pay out to support farmers. It means the poor can afford across the country can buy food, that there is stability in supply and stability in prices. If we move to a system where it's entirely market driven, we could see very large fluctuations in food prices, and that will harm many more people. So in classical economic terms, it is not a functioning market, but it was never supposed to be a functioning market. (We are also somewhat trapped by every other major economy subsidising their farmers, there is no properly functioning market for food anywhere. But it is obvious why that is the case. Like water, food is too important to be left entirely to the markets - farming is 'too important to fail', to borrow a phrase.)
The rich "agricultural property owners." are unaffected by the inheritance tax it is ONLY the family run farms that will go out of business, who do you think benefits from that??
It's in the national interest to keep the land in agricultural use. If it remains in agricultural use, the farmer doesn't get suddenly rich, they keep farming it and earning about £30k per year. It's the same as owning a house. It may be worth hundreds of thousands but you cannot realise it because you have to live somewhere. Starmer's policy will destroy family farms. He wants that because the land can then be plastered with shit box new-builds to house his favorite demographic, i.e. illegal immigrants and terrorists. And the money he is raising from this tax is being handed to farmers in Africa to subsidise them. It's pure communist treachery.
@@manoo422 You'll need to explain your reasoning behind that statement. Only include facts when and if you respond. The way I see it, the wealthy are unlikely to purchase agricultural land without tax benefits. This will lead to a decrease in land values, making entry into the industry easier for genuine farmers.
@@gio-oz8gfthe decrease in the artificially high value of farmland will also take a lot of the family farms out of inheritance tax by bringing the value of farms down below the threshold. The artificially high value being not due to any value added by the farmers, but due to removal of farms from inheritance tax in the 1980s.
Truth to privilege. An example of farmer exceptionalism I came across recently. A farmer here deposits huge clods of earth on a road to the river; it has no pavement and is a designated cycleway. The mud slicks and is very dangerous for walkers and cyclists. I complained to the parish council only to be told this is 'a rural place and is to be expected'. Actaully it's an agribusiness producing maize for ethanol, but that's not really the point. It's a business with responsibilities. A developer building houses nearby has to clean up the mud at the end of every day from its excavation works. It's a small point but points to a wider sense of entitlement.
Don't waste your time with the oarish council. Go to the Highway authority (District or County council). They would be liable for any accidents and are thus more likely to "have words" with the land owner.
It's the same around here. The roads are sometimes inches deep in mud and cow sh*t but are never cleared up by the farmer. And there have been several accidents because of this. There are often miles long oil leaks on the road which invariably lead back to the farmer's entrance.Every single farmer also never clears up after flailing often leaving whole large branches on the road and thorns everywhere making cycling all but impossible.
If the farmers have to sell their land food prices will rise. You know is going to buy farmland the Saudis andthe Chinese. You havent got the faintest idea how screwed 80% of the populationwillbe if the farmers are replaced.
From what I saw of my ex-father-in-law's family farm, it was very inefficient barely making a living wage despite investment and grants. The children didn't want to run it.
@manoo422 Not my ex dad in law, relatively tiny amounts of milk. There are so many small farms like this, doesn't feed the population. The milk quotas in the 90s hit him hard. Just not worth farming on a small scale any more. But the land is worth millions, especially with permission to build housing. Anyway, 40% of food is imported, mostly from continental Europe. I do have professional experience with large scale farming and protected crops, this is the only economically viable way.
And who are the biggest landowners? The royals and the church in the UK. You can walk from the middle of London to Cambridge entirely on royal-owned land...
Financial institutions, through their mortgage securities. Ownership of urban land is the big scandal. Borrowers are tenants of the financial institutions, deceived into believing that they are owners.
I grew up on a pig farm in Scotland through the 70's and 80's. Not a single farmer I knew was rich, or could be described as 'privileged'. None were tenant farmers. They owned and worked their own property. Most were clinging on by their fingernails. This argument is tarring all with the same brush and is completely wrong headed because of it. People need to be very careful with with the labels they bandy about right now, and they need to separate those that are gaming the system from those that, quite simply, aren't. It IS very hard to make money farming - it is a ridiculously hard, and often heartbreaking, way to make a living. I'm afraid this video portrays a very narrow-minded, and often ill-informed, point of view. Any self-employed tradesman will put work clothing through the books - it's actually mentioned in the tax guidelines. Again - some are gaming the system - but don't lump ALL farmers in with that minority. No-one I knew could pay huge sums in inheritance tax - the money simply wasn't there. I do agree that the previous system needed adjustment, but the vitriol now directed towards farmers is approaching that of landlords. It completely ignores the reality, and relies on the tales of the priviliged that game the system for profit to fuel it's fire. A finer line needs to be trod. The fantasy that a 'new generation' of environmentally conscious young farmers will appear out of the ether to make everything cosy and nice is just that - a fantasy. If smaller farmers have to sell off their land to pay the tax, only the large conglomerates will have the wherewithal to buy, thus further monopolising the market. Sure - you'll get some new blood, but the money will talk. In many cases, with inheritance tax, if your parents pass away and leave you their house, YOU are not living in it, so any money you gain is a bonus. Not the case for many farmers - they are family run, so the whole family LIVES on the asset that will be getting taxed. A significant oversight that many seem to be willfully ignoring. Just to stay where they are, they suddenly need to find 40% of the cost of the home they live in? See the difference now? This is not the black & white argument that so many, including this video, are portraying.
Thank you for adding some nuance to change needs to be phased in. Livestock and machinery over a certain age excluded. Working farmers shd be treated differently to the tax dodgers then paying IHT wd be fair.
@@Mtmonaghan - I do. I no longer live on the farm. My father, now deceased, retired from farming when he sold it. Unfotunately, your comment displays the simple fact that you havn't understood a single thing I've said.
Errrr...most farmers are not millionaires. The is an easy "fix" for this. No inheritance tax for farms of 1 million or less, and tax the "Clarkson"-style tax loophole seekers.
@@zelareka Same argument as if somebody said "I do not like meat" and you answered "See how you lke eating tomatoes only2. There are a lot of political and societal options. Your thinking is lazy. You sound entitled to me???
That is an issue for the entire world…global corporations run the show…politics is the circus sideshow to keep us from looking behind the real curtain that hides the puppeteers.
“And, for an instant, she stared directly into those soft blue eyes and knew, with an instinctive mammalian certainty, that the exceedingly rich were no longer even remotely human “. “Count Zero”. William Gibson. 1986
An equally chilling read is "The Totally Rich" by John Brunner. One of my favourites, and a constant reminder that I should *not* accumulate any wealth.
These protesting farmers are not like us because: a. they never had a mortgage or rent to pay and b. most of their living expenses are run through their business accounts. So please remember that when they are whining about how little 'income' they get from farming.
@paulroughley841 who said farmers had no income? They have a range of incomes but there’s very little profit in the industry can the capital taken to run it
Barbour wax jackets are about £290 new. About half the price of Goretex mountain jacket that a serious hill walker might wear. Basic research, Richard.
I think he is referring to the tweed type shooting jacket that many of them wore, rather than the barbour jacket which many of them wore - as he said he isn't up on fashion. Clarkson and the lady walking with him own over 2000 acres between them! Him on his farm and her on her estate in Somerset.
Where I live in Norfolk I am surrounded by farms and it's all "private property, keep out, no trespassing" particularly regards access to woodland, so the town is like a little island amid a sea of inaccessible countryside.
The poor are just rich people without money. Once a poor man gets rich, he does not give it away to the needy, he usually moves to a better house, and gets a better car. Twas ever thus.
Farms are a business and should be treated as such, no inheritance task. Land Owners are NOT necessarily farmers and the largest can be seen as asset holders, which should attract inheritance tax.
Another solution to the farming problem is remove all subsidies and grants and huge penalties for abuse of land. Then we'd see land prices fall and real innovation, and production of food people actually want to eat.
subsidy is there to compensate for the low price of product farmers sell ,, the big shop groups have spent years crushing local shops now there might be 8 companies supply food to britain ,,, like of tesco require farm accounts to make sure farmer is not getting overpaid in there veiw for product ,, ...take potatoes carrots etc must be specific shape size , the rest must be dumped ,,,to big to small ill shaped ,,all the farm products are sown at a very high cost
@@liamcallaghan253Not all farming has to be in basic products. Innovative farmers add value to their business in other ways. I know someone who spends less than £200 on pumpkin seeds and has a pick-your-own setup that runs through October. Pumpkins are sold for up to £8 and they sell cake and drinks and provide basic rides for the kids and make a little entertainment area by the field. It's their best income of the year and Tesco doesn't get a look in.
I really wish they would, but labour instead want to attack the unemployed and disabled. They don't want to touch the royals because in their eyes, they are the strivers, and the poor are the skivers.
The Royal family needs reforming, and all of the hangers on removed. However, I do not want an elected head of state. We'd almost certainly end up with President Blair, or President Cameron, or President Starmer. That would be much, much worse. Born into privilege is wrong, but it's way deeper than the Royal family. The royals do some good. Society just needs them to give back and not just take, take, take.
I agree with a lot of your points in this video. I live in a rural area in Shropshire and the farmers don't look poor to me. Having said that, I don't want want to see British farming disappear forever. I don't agree with IHT in general and think surely there must be another way of dealing with wealthy investors buying up land in the UK.
just ban it. not hard. these laws aren't designed to attack rich, thry are designed to attach the poor farmers. iht is a tax on the poor. as it makes poor people who made money poor again. whilst rich ppl have nondom status, city of London status, cayman islamd status, virgins island status and are exempt from it all. this professor is fighting a flea whilst dragons in the city of London devour the poor. there's a reason why queen, royalty and city of London institutions are exempt from inheritance tax. they are the rich who think thry are better than us and write laws to make sure they stay that way and we stay poor.
This will be the problem . China for example is busy buying USA farmland . With out regulation I predict nearly all the farmland will be purchased by foreign investors like Chinese etc who will have no interest in ethical farming. This labour legislation will be a disaster in the long run
How is inheriting millions tax free fair? What did the children do other than be born into the right family? They still get the perk of getting 60% of the wealth they did nothing to accumulate. How do you propose we deal with entrenched wealth and privilege in society if, once they are established, they just continue to grow generation after generation?
@rfrisbee1 ban inheritance tax. carry out a simple 2.5% annual tax on all bank accounts holding cash or cash assets. example warrne buffet holds 325billion in cash waiting for thr stock market to crash. he isn't alone. these are rhe true rich, not poor farmers whose land value has been over inflated by poor people who suddenly became a little bit rich trying to avoid inheritance tax. also ban private banks ability to create money out of thin air. as this is fundamentally what allows rich to become richer. as they print money buy all our assets, become entrenched richer, and pass on the inflation to us, stealing our wages and savings, and making us poorer. we have to target root causes not superficial issues. and these 2 alone would fix 90% of societies poverty.
@Foxtrottangoabc china is barely buying usa farmland. it's your own billionaires. i can't believe ppl are still falling for this racist trope by the rich that it is the evil ethnic man destroying your wealth. when it's your own rich ppl.
@@shugieshugied2269 In such a case, between the two, supporting the farmers is the lesser of the evils as just a few people owning almost all of the Land on the planet would be super dystopian.
@@Freesurfer688 Large parts of the UK have been owned by the same family since Norman times, and it's not caused any particular problem. Ideally farmland should not have any value as a financial investment, and be valued solely as farmland. But the rich are always seeking something to invest in, and as Bill Gates is rumoured to have said, no one has made any farmland for a long time. And any asset in finite supply is always likely to be a good investment. Supporting farmers in the UK is best achieved by removing tax breaks so we don;t end up with muppets like Clarkson ruining what were once decent farms. He called is Diddly Squat because that's what it produced under his "management". Food security alone mandates that people like him should kept well away from farms.
@@shugieshugied2269 It''s true that all the Land was seized during 1066 by Norman overlords. However, the Black Death plague gave farmers the opportunity to own land. Like you, I'm sceptical generally about tax breaks, but if farmers are generally cash poor and get poor deals from supermarket chains, and their ownership of Land obstructs billionaires from buying up land on the cheap, then I am reluctantly for them. I'd rather farmers than asset strippers.
Barbours are about £200, we used to use them for fishing when we were kids and they last for ever, those Tweed things are different, it sort of undermines your argument if you're so far off .....
Very much on topic for me. My father was a tenant farmers, who enjoyed fast cars and faster women! He went bust when I was eighteen, so I had a fairly privileged start, and its been rough for the fifty years since! I know exactly you and Scott Fitzgerald are writing and talking about. Strangely I don't have any sympathy for the farmers on this one! They will have to start planning for IHT pretty quick now! Best wishes from George PS: I have learned through my life, that the only aspect that makes one human better than any other is that he or she is just as kind to total strangers as they are to their closest friends. After all we are all born of a woman, and we all die. So fairly much all the same level!
This ability to be kind is important. There is a need to be kind to the real farmers in the UK, who work extremely hard, running businesses that are complex and financially challenged, but we don't need to be kind to the privileged and the entitled.
@@tlangdon12 It should just be a level playing field. If it were not for the IHT tax break on farm land, then land would be at a more reasonable price in terms of return on capitol, or opportunity cost on the mortgage. When there are people waiting for treatment on the NHS, unable to work and in real hardship, because of years of underfunding I do think it is hard to justify being kind with tax payers money, just to keep the land in the family. That is not unkind or selfish. Just simple logic. Logically farmers need to have time to plan and I think that it should have [as suggested] should have been brought in progressively over say five years, and then all IHT should be at the same rate for everyone. My kindness has necessarily to extend as far as towards people I actually might meet in daily life. Help someone collect their prescription or give them a lift to their appointment. I am in no position to hand money out as an old man with a ruined knee, who struggles with having to work sometimes. Am I on benefits? No way! I am self-employed as no employer would take me onto a contract now in my condition. I am awaiting treatment for my knee and this has now been postponed. I know farmers [many of them at least] work hard, and sometimes pathetic returns, but if it is too hot in the kitchen, get out and let someone else have a try. Best wishes from George
If the farmers have to sell their land food prices will rise. You know is going to buy farmland the Saudis andthe Chinese. You havent got the faintest idea how screwed 80% of the populationwillbe if the farmers are replaced.
Nothing new. In the past, the aristocracy were referred to as 'of gentle birth'. It is where the term Gentleman came from. They believed that the rest did not feel pain in the same way. They were brutes, to be worked as hard as required. They had sensibilities, and an appreciation of life not given to the masses.
I live in Ayrshire. There is a lot of farming land here, and agricultural land here is not particularly expensive. Yet farms are up for sale all over the place - most of them being converted into fancy country homes. I don't see lots of young people taking advantage of the relatively low agricultural prices here to go into farming. Many of the farms that are still in operation are putting their land to alternative uses like wind farms and solar panel sites. Or managing enormous dairy herds for big multinationals like Arla. I do a lot of hillwalking, and I was out on the hills early on Christmas Day last year - this was in the north east of Scotland. I saw farmers out working on Christmas morning. Privileged? I don't take for granted where my food comes from and with former Labour adviser John McTernan advising the government to do to farms "What Thatcher did to coal mines" I think we need to support the people who produce our food instead of the corporates who want us to eat processed swill.
100% agree !.... My worry is that the low income that comes with farming, won't be enough to qualify a young person for a loan that covers the cost of even "cheap" land. And that leaves only big corporations buying up the lot.
@@thelifeofjools8384if land value did fall on the back of this...which I very much doubt...big farms would need more acres to cover debt borrowed against inflated asset/Land value....would banks back a youngster buying land over a big farm already on their books...not a chance..yes you can argue the tax will mean farms need to be organised and youngster given the reins earlier , but the tax will catch someone out who dies and one farm is one too many. It's easy to bash the rich but if they aren't there who do they think will be? There is many positive points to keeping farms generational too from , investment, understanding soil, stock breed etc......I'm just see it all as another thing attacking rural communities....
Most of the comments here supporting Richard don’t seem to understand the difference between the two and tar them with the same brush. A bit like the budget has done
As the tax on farmers bites, the land will be sold to pay it. This will then naturally flow to the wealthiest who have put adequate tax planning in place to protect their assets. The process ends with people like the Duke of Westminster who inherited £9 Billion of assets in 2016 without paying IHT. Yes, his trusts pays a nominal 6% every 10 years, but that's peanuts.
spot on. You might want to compare Tenant farmers rights, enshrined in French law compared to the total lack of rights in UK where if a Tenant Farmer dies his whole family has to move out.
Obviously All farmers are rich and don't want to pay their 'fair share'. It's much better that they sell their farms to corporations and then no inheritance tax would ever be due... Brilliant 👍
@@DebhHu Lol. That only happens if their estate is worth more than $13 Million, assuming they haven't hired an inheritance lawyer to help them dodge it entirely. Consolidation is happening in the US because kids don't want to farm.
I’d love to see Murphy address that issue. He’s doubtless well-intended when he posits that cheaper land will lead to a jubilee of fresh young blood and innovation in UK farming, but it’s more likely that the mega-corps will swoop in and consolidate around more rapacious intensive farming practices.
I call out the special generation-skill argument too. If you fail to run a profitable business, it goes into administration. The only difference here is we want the land assets to go back to the state to ensure food security. You can treat other important industries in the same way - such as water, energy, hospitals, military, social housing - ensuring the assets don't fall into private hands.
Watch farmers have knowledge of their land which is passed on down the generations. You cannot just turn up and farm in most places. Its not a 9-5 job you learn at university. Through history idiots (politicians) have tried to mess with farming, thinking it justanother business and this has often led to famine and death.
@jonathanpearce3927 There are plenty of complicated industries that require experience passed down from elders and on the job learning and experience. Other industries have multi generationsal skills development methods that are not restricted to families.
The modern practice of profitable farming is quite different from what we imagine. Huge numbers of people without right to remain on a company farm, paying company rent and getting company minimum wage
It would be great if everyone in the UK could afford to buy a warm winter coat that would last a long time for, say, £300. Sadly, they cannot. We need our society to be more equal in terms of wealth and while I don't like Inheritance Tax, until we are very much more equal, I think it is a necessary evil.
Farmers are moaning about it but don't really understand it most are completely exempt from it. Imho Labour should have equalised it more there still getting big reductions on it
Agree with all you say ,as long as the land is used to produce for the nation , and not sold off ,to build housing on , I believe we should feed our own nation . At the end of the day , you are the proff ,on such affairs ,is there no model , that could be fare to all ,or at least make it more equivalent and just for all .
Richard Murphy has just made an important case for land value tax, but he has always treated advocates of land value tax as swivel-eyed loonies. IHT is a clumsy attempt at collecting some land value. It was intended to break up the great landed estates but never had that effect. The IHT changes will not alter the fact that there are vast tracts of urban and rural land held by trusts belonging to the ancient aristocratic families. Farmland that get sold will be snapped up by international finance corporations. The IHT changes will not achieve a land of small owner-occupying farmers producing healthy food.
Absolutely- IHT is avoided by the wealthy. Its the small farmers that will suffer. Whenever politicians meddle in farming it leads to a mess and sometimes famine and death. Look at Sri Lanka and their recent fertiliser ban - that went well.
As an NHS RN in acute and emergency care, believe me when I say…in my experience the rich soon learn they can’t buy their health. Illness is a great social leveller. The rich aren’t immune from pain, bleeding, fear, vomiting, or death.
Your experience is of Tenant Farmers; farmers who actually work the land. The land owners who have bought farmland to avoid inheritance tax wear much fancier clothes.
@@tlangdon12 - my father - and most like him I knew growing up on our farm - wore exactly that - boiler suits & wellies! None of them were' tenant farmers' - they owned their farms.
If the farm has to be kept in the family, and that is part of the countryside ethos, then why don't the farm owners transfer the ownership to their children when the reach, say 70 years old. They could then retire, or have a mutual agreement as to how the farm is run with the new family owners. Sounds straightforward to me.
They can't then get credit to pay for machinery or fertiliser . That rouse only works if you are land banking to avoid tax . Actual working farmers need access to credit to pay to run the farm so having the land tied up in a trust doesn't work . It's brilliant for bankers with estates or Jeremy Clarkson and his mates but it's not that simple if your trying to produce food
The asset transferred would be ‘potentially exempt of tax’ for seven years; the ex-owners would have to stay alive for that long. They would also have to clear off if the transfer is to be believed by the tax-man. He classes it as a ‘previously owned asset’, and any connection to it after gifting annuls the gift. The safest thing is to sack everyone, sell the houses and gift their value to the children, bring in a management company for the farm, and live off the dividends as a tax-exile in the Virgin Isles. That would be efficient, though socially and environmentally ghastly.
@@TomShaw-r5w You obviously know the ins and outs of the system, better than I do. I am not arguing with you, but if a 70 year old couple [ex owners of the property] have nowhere to live apart from the house where they have lived all their lives, and do not want to live with anyone but their family, [the new owners of the property], it defies me how anyone can see anything wrong with that. What convincing does anyone need.
@ You are absolutely right; no reasonable person would disagree. But our tax authorities won’t let people avoid tax by making transfers by gift. You can gift “regular amounts from income” tax free, or make gifts between spouses, but capital gifts to children are treated as suspicious. You have to wait the seven years (though the tax tapers after four), and then keep right away. No visiting rights! There have been exceptions: active family businesses and agriculture, just so that businesses don’t close down with every death. Most farms will be sold off not because they are farms, but because they are family businesses. -Something the professor doesn’t seem to realise.
I've never seen a hill sheep farmer in the Lake District dressed like those folk at the protests. The very fact that they even have time to go to a protest tells you everything you need to know; they don't do much of the actual work on their farm.
@@david-pb4bi 1) I am not defending them- but true accusations are better ammunition. 2) How do you know I am not one of them? (I am not) 3) No, I do not believe they are better than me. I have not met anyone even equal to me. (Is there a single stranger you would not sacrifice your life for? If not, you regard yourself as better than them all.)
Apparently they make no money or so they say; but their clothes, their vehicles, their houses, their possessions and their entire lifestyle speaks of considerable wealth. (You never see a farmer on a bike)
Media has done quite well in projecting the idea that Money == Merit. Quite often the words 'lazy' and 'poor' go together when reality tells us that someone can quite literally be born a millionaire and have vastly more opportunity (legacy admissions anyone?). Unfortunately I don't see this changing without a massive push... the rich don't want the idea projecting that they might actually be undeserving, especially if they're born into it.
well according to the courts they are special ..they can and do get lighter sentences they get slaps on the wrist where a lot harsher sentences are handed down to the lower income people.
Love love love this ! As someone whose family has been in agriculture for about 6 generations (outside of the UK) this is so true! (I chose to decline that profession) I have always felt like my family has created a reality that only exists inside their head! I know the "businesses's" income is millions of dollars annually and everything is expended down to the molecule! How do I know, because the other people in agriculture do the same thing! Its is not a grand mystery! Even the whisper of a discussion brings out (more) rage and toxicity!! I gave up trying to address their ideas. If their positions are so strong they should stand up to a little scrutiny and come out on the other side ok! Entitlement is just the tip of the iceberg.
I get so tired of everyone pretending that farmers are all living on the breadline when they are literally landowners of extremely valuable land. Why if everyone else has to sell up property just to meet their care costs in later life, should they be subsidised to remain objectively very, very wealthy?
We should scrap IHT its designed to keep us all poor. The latest offering can see rates as high as 91% and the threshold were fixed in stone in 2009. No inflation since then hey. Its theft!
I'm 51yrs old. $40,000 weekly and *I'm retired, this video have inspired me greatly in many ways that I remember my past of how I struggled with many things in life to be where I am today!!!!* ❤️
Same here waking up every 14th of each month to 210,000 dollars it's a blessing to l and my family... I can now retire knowing that I have a steady income❤️Big gratitude to Maria Frances Hanlon
I think there's a good argument for the recreation of produce boards to regulate the prices paid to farmers by the processors and supermarkets. They should be a bonus to farmers giving their businesses more of a share in the profits made in the food supply chain. Removal of the tax privileges on land ownership would then be less of an issue.
Hi Richard, I happen to think inheritance taxes are wrong in principle. Could you do a video explaining why you support them? Just for context I live in South Africa, a former British colony, so our law has aspects of British law built into it. We only got our first inheritance taxes (and capital gains taxes) within my lifetime so I can clearly remember a time when these taxes didn't exist.
An excellent suggestion. The same goes for income tax, actually; yet another relatively recent device for parasitizing the efforts of ordinary people trying to make a basic living. Come to think of it, what do we really need governments for in the first place? It strikes me, all they do is get in the way of things that would happen far more efficiently without them, creating vast, expensive and self-perpetuating bureaucracies in the process.
@@rfrisbee1 Life is not fair. Land ownership is a privilege. The real problem is the absence of an effective land value tax, but Murphy has always ridiculed the idea, which makes him part of the problem.
@@physiocrat7143 Life may not be fair, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to organise society to try to make it as fair as possible. I think those who object to IHT are either misinformed or aware they have so little talent or ability they need mummy's and daddy's wealth to continue their spoilt childhood for the rest of their lives.
@@rfrisbee1 IHT is not a solution to the problem you describe, nor ever has been. Land value taxation is the solution, as described by Henry George. Murphy knows this but has consistently ridiculed the idea. There is a video on this topic on my own channel. This change will just lead to the land being grabbed by international finance corporations.
Can you go through the likely down stream negative effects of the tax change? I expect farms to migrate over time to corporations which I believe is the intention. I consider this to be an extremely bad state of affairs for food production from the perspective of trust that they have health of the consumer at heart. Adding more power to an already ultra corrupt and centralised power base I think would be a very very bad idea. The solution cannot be regulation because as we already know , they will corrupt the regulators by infiltration because that's what power does to oppositional forces. Giving corporations power over one of lifes necessities like food would be a worse state of affairs than we already have.
The problem, is how the land is treated. If everyone did their part to maintain trails, and clean up, then landowners would mostly be fine with that. But some people throw garbage and do damage, and do nothing to help maintain a nice property. Then the landowner has to clean up after them.
We need to embark on significant global reforestation, re-wilding and consume less beef and dairy to aid slowing the effects of climate change therefore drastic land-use reform is a necessity for our survival.
But they haven’t put in place any measures to stop Blackrock and others hoovering all this land up - an oversight or deliberate? BTW Blackrock were one of the first visitors to see our ne PM!
@@jonathanpearce3927 All this talk about rich greedy farmers. But when the land gets sold to pay IHT bills, all that will happen is a transfer to even richer, more elite individuals and the result is more of British land in even fewer hands. The age old story of weaponising the masses against a politically inconvenient class using the tools of envy and resentment.
That Fitzgerald quote is a great insight. It's not just "different", it's a belief in their superiority and, most dangerously, that they are not subject to the normal constraints of laws - social, moral, and even physical. Hence the underpinning if unspoken notion that, somehow, they will rise above effects of global heating and economic collapse.
Agreed. Your comment deserves many more up votes. "...that they are not subject to the normal constraints of laws..." This reminds me of the Titan submersible tragedy caused by the trust-fund-baby Stockton Rush.
Jimmy Swaggart, a discredited American TV preacher, said once that everybody on the planet thinks they are "better" than the next guy for one reason or another. I think this attitude becomes an issue when networks are formed, then become politically powerful and force their desires on others.
I'm also self-employed, and I can tell you that I don't put thousand-pound jackets through the company books. I'd get a raised eyebrow from my accountant if I did, possibly followed by a visit from the taxperson.
High land prices are of no benefit to any farmer. I believe that after a certain figure perhaps 2 or 3 millions, land should be taxed on a sliding scale the very large land owners should pay up to 80 percent. The idea being that the land should change hands regularly. Well farmed mixed farms of 270 acres should be enough for a farming family. In Ireland the rent of an acre is from 250 to 425 euro an acre and the renter still makes profit. Sir James Dyson owns enough for 100 farming family's and still manages his business from another country. So I believe death duties capitial transfere tax are in the farmers interests. The same probably applies to trusts.
does the renter make a profit at 400 per acre .......... dairy farmers might just , but the tillage men ....no way the dairy men are only doing it in order to stay out of derogation for the nitrates .......
I personally think the allowance should be £4m, because of the low return caused by low farm gate prices and until that is redressed. I also think if an asset his shared, all the owners should not get to claim the same relief on it, but it should be shared and finally above the threshold it should be 40% tax, as you said, just as any other asset would be. I also don't think it's fair that tax can be avoided by the 7 year rule on gifts, surely that should have a limit on it too, the same as inheritance tax relief.
My grandmother has permanent damage to her wrist due to an accident a number of years ago involving a tractor towing a plough, which was bombing along tiny Welsh lanes. It totalled her car after coming around a blind turn at its fullest speed. The sense of entitlement was clear to all - the farmer obviously thought they owned the road as they owned the fields on either side. In the end my grandmother sued, and got a payout of £15k (it was slightly more impressive at the time, but still a pretty small sum if you ask me). However, partly due to her injuries, these days she can no longer drive, and is isolated in her house - which has water problems now that the farmer next door (not the same one) is tapping the catchment to supply the caravan park he's built on what was formerly sheep-grazing land. There are so many cases of farmers not only being irresponsible, but willfully inconsiderate of their neighbours and communities. Small surprise that when they're asked to pay back, they simply complain.
Thanks for the video. It is ridiculous that a landowner, who rents his farmland or keeps huge grouse moors, thinks he is the one providing food. (I suspect the price for oiled barbour coats, while high, is not as high as you suggest.)
I’d love to see Murphy address the issue of corporate land consolidation. He’s doubtless well-intended when he posits that cheaper land will lead to a jubilee of fresh young blood and innovation in UK farming. But, it’s more likely that the mega-corps will swoop in, outbid younger, forward-thinking, would-be farmers, and consolidate larger and larger chunks of UK agricultural land around more rapacious intensive farming practices.
I agree. Allowing the wealthy to shelter their wealth from IHT in agricultural land has led to agricultural land prices being inflated. The reduction of IHT relief will lead to a reduction of interest by the wealthy in acquiring agricultural land, some may sell up, and this will lead to a drop in agricultural land prices. This is also a gripe by those protesting. Strangely, Jeremy Hunt when Chancellor, proposed to get rid of inheritance tax. This would have led to a drop in agricultural land prices but I don't recall any protests then.
The wealthy are surprisingly good at not parting with their money, definitely people you don't want you owing you any money. And when you chase them, they get very upset that a little person should have the temerity to be asking for money, really you should be grateful to be allowed to work for them for free. Entitlement on steroids. Those coats were probably bought several generations ago, and carefully looked after by the staff. Truly rich people tend not to drive fancy cars, they drive older cars that can be kept going for a long time. Rich people are rich partly because they hang onto their money as much as possible, hence their hatred for taxation in any form.
The wealthy person's instinct not to part with their money is a financial lesson we could all do with learning. Most money coming into a family is hard-earned, and hence we need to respect it and not fritter it away.
@@tlangdon12 I would agree, the number of expensive new cars bought on payment plans is surprising. But for wealthy folk, most of the money is inherited, rather than earned, even their income derives largely from inherited assets. There's a huge amount of wealth shielded from inheritance tax by trusts, these cost too much for us little folk though. If the wealthy paid inheritance tax as the rest of us have to, we could all perhaps enjoy a lower rate. Hugh Grosvenor inherited a large chunk of West London, and essentially gets to agree with HMRC what tax he will pay on it. You try that and see how far you get.
I use to work on farms alot and most were very poorly run and they where run like thay because there parents did, but every now and then I would work on a very smart farmers farm and they where a savy business person and they where very profitable. I have said it for years that letting it pass down with no innovation is what's killing farms profitability. If you can't make it move aside as someone will that's better than you plain and simple. Like the rest of us running businesses
Some good thoughts here. An additional couple I might add. 1) It seems odd to me that Labour decided to target this particular area of wealth, there are plenty of activities the wealthy undertake that damage our wider society, whilst they enjoy the benefits of public services having not really provided any compensation for that. It feels to me like the easiest lowest hanging fruit they could manage. 2) We should be taxing the royal family in the same way. The royal own huge amounts of land privately (I am not talking about the fact the essentially own all land) and pay very little if any tax on the proceeds of both rent and sales / purchase. If we are going to talk about fairness and equality, this seems like a very important step in ensuring everyone, regardless of wealth, pays their fair share.
With old age care being for-profit, many lose thier estate long before inheritance tax comes into effect. They leave nothing. On the whole, poor or unlucky people start each generation afresh. In the dark ages the serfs were not allowed to build from stone so each generation had to build thier own house again, the land owners could pass down thier buildings compounding thier wealth. This still happens in effect because for wealthy people being richer is the point, if everyone was rich they wouldn't feel special.
Living in a Farming Area and listening to the chatter one point is raised Thay the value of the land has risen due to nin farmers purchasing it and claiming to be a farmer so they dont pay inheritance tax and other benifits but the produce it produces is the same as it was a hundred years ago That 10 acre field still holds the same amount of beasts and the value of the produce has not increased at the same rate as the value of the land. That is the value of the land has not increased by its productivity but by the fact wealthy persons purchasing it as a tax dodge making a shortage in supply.
As always, a great analysis. Newcomers often wonder if it's too late to navigate the financial market, but the market is always unpredictable. Trading has more advantages than simply holding, so it's important to learn before diving in. Active trades are necessary to ride the market's waves. Thanks to Evelyn Infurna’s insights, daily trade signals, and my dedication to learning, I've been increasing my daily earnings, managed to grow a nest egg of around 127k to a decent 532k. Kudos to the journey ahead!
Investing with an expert is the best strategy for beginners and busy investors, as most failures and losses in investment usually happen when you invest without proper guidance. I'm speaking from experience..
I searched for her complete name on the internet and located her page. I then sent an email and scheduled a meeting to converse with her; now, I'm awaiting her response.
Over the years, I've been a part of numerous trading programs, sifting through a barrage of information. Yet, nothing has come close to the sheer clarity, depth, and precision of Infurna’s ’s insights.
Farming is a low capital return activity which requires economy of scale. The asset value is illiquid and not realisable. Yet the bloated state wants to treat farmers property (and the rest of us) like a cash machine. The government might get say 500 billion over the whole change from removing the inheritance tax relief on farms and this will fund the bloated UK state for 7 whole days. What a joke. I'm glad I watch your videos Richard. If there is any reason to depart this country it's because of the attitudes of people like you. Instead of 'Rich Boy' read 'Atlas Shrugged'. Who is John Galt?
Can certainly detect Richards jealousy on this video . And like labour's policy is just one of political spite which has zero long term value for the uk . It will infact simply lead to all uk farmland foreign owned .
Problem is most family farmers are not rich, indeed most earn less than the average income . However Sir Starmer has already made a deal with US corporation Blackrock to buy up all land sold because and take it out of production. Result - food becomes scarce and Prices rise .
If tenant farmers can make a living whilst also paying rent to the landowner for both the farm, and farmhouse then i call bull on farmers who own their farms outright claiming they are making nothing.
What Richard J Murphy and most of the press has missed is that tenant farmers are caught up in the IHT issue, too. It's not all about the changes to agricultural property relief, its also about the changes to Business Property Relief. A tenant farm with livestock, machinery, growing crops, recurrent assets and "tenants improvements" can quite easily have a value above the new threshold.
Merely owning a farm doesn't make you a farmer.
Quite. And you won't have seen many tenant farmers out there protesting in London.
We are not all the same psychologically.
The wealthy tend to be insatiable, very driven and very low in empathy.
The new monied seem to be the worst.
Many of the execs of fortune 500 companies are sociopathic, which chimes with your comment.
It takes a very ruthless man to become as rich as they are.
Yeah, wealth seems to exacerbate entitlement (which seems to be a badge of honour amongst the majority - look at how Jacob Rees Mogg behaves).
It isn't the wealth itself that's the cause. People behave differently depending on the cards they are dealt. If they are lucky in life, they believe they deserve it. If unlucky, they believe the lucky people don't deserve it...... the point is no-one deserves what they have.
Also small % of people are psychopaths, "The Psychopath Test" is an interesting book about this. These people are selected in society because they possess the required traits to coerce people. The % of psychopaths in a given group increases as you go up the pyramid (or positions of authority). These people tend to be paid the most and more likely to obtain wealth.
I work in a meat works in New Zealand. We export our best meat to Europe and the UK. Can I demand special treatment because if I didn't go to work every day everybody would starve? What about the guy who drives the truck full of sheep to the plant I work at? Next time a farmer pulls that old saying, you would all starve if it weren't for me I wish Joe bloggs working on minimum wage building tractors would say, yep, but you would all be screwed without me.
💯
Beautiful.
Little people like you think that we care what you think? We don't. You work for us. Shut up!
A farmer and his family could survive very easily without tractors or anything else. They have the land and the know how. Worked with quite a few Farmer's. Some of hardest working and intelligent people I've ever known.
@michaelcrane2475 that's a generalisation not all farmers are like your Aunt and Uncle.
Absolutely. I married into and divorced out of money. They are charming when agreed with and livid out of all appropriateness when crossed.
I'm still married into money and trying to get out.
@UnderaPiscesMoon-nr5gz you have my empathy. I cannot tell you it is easy, but I can tell it was worthwhile. Hold fast.
Sound very common, new money involves fraud, theft, drugs, stock market info, reactionary people, old money different breed, stiff upper lip
Same here. Big money big egos. Little heart no matter how much they "donate"
Reminds me of Harry Enfield 's I'm considerably richer than yow.
The reality is that the wealthy "non-farming" farmland owners have inflated the cost of farmland. If it was based on declared profits, the value would be much less so that IHT would not be a problem.
Land has no cost. It has a price. It value is the rental stream it produces. Its price is the captitalisation of the rental stream, inflated by the advantages attached to ownership eg tax concessions, hope value.
Most farmers did not pay today prices for their farmland. Some of it was bought over a century ago and is essentially free land.
@@stevo728822
Indeed. That is the argument for the Single Tax.
If the farmers have to sell their land food prices will rise.
You know is going to buy farmland the Saudis andthe Chinese.
You havent got the faintest idea how screwed 80% of the populationwillbe if the farmers are replaced.
Yes, and I'm surprised that he hasn't mentioned his video on just this subject. I'm beginning to think he's a bit of a sourgrapes merchant.
Farmers haven't made themselves rich, and very often the family of a three generation farm did not start particularly rich. It's the accountants of the very wealthy getting them to invest in farmland which has done that on paper.
This whole argument is about allowing farmers to pass on a viable business. Previously, no busiess proprty was subject to IHT. Now it is, but normal business property generates enough returns to cover the bill, whereas as farmland (if used to produce food) simply does not.
I agree overall that reform was needed (to target those accountants) and hopefully the labour government takes on board the avalanche of voices saying to tweak the threshold and slow down the implementation of the tax
Right, so when the tax dodgers move on the value of farmland will decrease and very few farmers will be subject to IHT. But what puzzles me is why mom and dad will not have already passed on the majority of the farm to their children well in advance of 7 years before the last of them dies? Are there really hoards of geriatric farmers out there not letting their children have control of anything until they're dead? Or do farmers only start having children in their 60's and 70's?
@@rfrisbee1 Well it's not much of a puzzle. The best thing to do for the last 40 years was to die as a farmer and get 100% APR. Labour themselves said they wouldn't change that system... before the election.
But now, they have gone back on that and have changed the rules, so farmers have 1 year to do something that takes 7 years (gifting).
The other issues with gifting are that you cannot take any benefit from the thing you have gifted (transfer with reservation).
So if you had planned to continue as a farmer as part of the family (and take your share of the farm income until death) you probably do not have another house to go and live in or have a big enough pension pot to rely on. There is another problem, which is giving away all the land and retaining the farmhouse may bring the farmhouse into the 'proportionality' test that HMRC apply to farmhouses being in keeping with the amount of land associated with them.
So giving away the farm is not straightforward. There isn't time and there are other problems that appear. It is of course, is what will have to happen from now on, but for this current generation of farmers, it is a option fraught with difficulty.
On the price drop - well, maybe but it is far from certain. The first problem is land transactions are far less frequent than, say, houses, so the price will inevitably be 'stickier' and take longer to drop. You may find thousands of farms getting hit with taxes that wouldn't be in five years time (which goes against the principle of taxing things in a consistent manner) .
But my fear is land won't drop at all - this is because with pension changes there is potentially a lot of people with large amount in pensions thinking a £1M block of farmland is a very attractive investment. The second reason is large IHT dodgers may feel the 20% is better than selling up and buying something that will attract a 40% rate. So it seems to me there is a large amount of cash that will prop the price at the smaller end, and a lot of land owners who will happily hold onto their land at the big end.
Again, it is working family farms primarily getting hit by this change instead of the ultra wealthy IHT dodgers. A better solution would be a higher APR/BPR threshold, and a 40% rate above that. So then someone shielding many millions from IHT would not see farmland as any better than anything else they could buy.
@@TheFarmingEngineerUK - thank you for being an informed voice of reason in this debate. I've commented elsewhere on here of my experiences growing up on my dads pig farm here in Scotland, and the way that ALL 'farmers' are being tarred with the same brush. Acting as they are all the same is so far from the truth, it's ludicrous.
@@TheFarmingEngineerUK You are fearful that your (presumably in excess of £3million) assets will *retain* their value? Oh, my eyes are welling up for your "poor" children. How will they cope on a measly £3million+ inheritance? ;)
Perhaps a more fundamental question is why are farmers making such a pathetic return that a 20% IHT on assets over £3million and payable over 10 years is an existential threat to the next generation of farmers?
Is farmland massively overvalued? Are a large proportion of farmers incompetent? Is there unfair competition or another market failure leading to food being mispriced?
@@rfrisbee1 Personal insults aren't going to help in a policy discussion. I am not asking for sympathy, although I appreciate that is part of the argument from some (but not from me). However, I don't think it is unreasonable for people to want to leave a viable, profitable business to their offspring, as it was left to them. And compared to many, many businesses and businessmen out there, farmers are very low down on both the profits and assets stakes!
However - farming is profitable. Farms that are not profitable go out of business in short order. So any farms you see working are generating cash, even if some of it is from subsidy payment.
The primary issue here is that the income and profits from the farm are not enough to pay a tax which is levied on the asset value of the farm. This is because the asset value has been pumped up by the ultra wealthy wanting to avoid IHT.
So yes - farmland is overvalued. This is not the fault of farmers, it is the fault of tax dodgers. We know the problem, the Conservatives knew the problem but couldn't figure out a way of fixing it without putting lots of farms out of business. Unfortunately, nor can Labour!
Hopefully you can see by many farmers genuinely welcoming the prospect of land prices falling is telling everyone that we are more motivated by keeping the business viable over the 'on paper' value of the farm. That is not the case for IHT dodgers - they are horrified by that idea their farmland investment might drop in value! But as explained before, I do not think these changes make that a certainty.
Is there market failure in food prices? Short answer is no... Long answer is yes:
Government policy has since WWII to have cheap food. Inevitably that means farmers won't get much money for their produce. But there are enormous benefits to having cheap food and having to pay out to support farmers. It means the poor can afford across the country can buy food, that there is stability in supply and stability in prices. If we move to a system where it's entirely market driven, we could see very large fluctuations in food prices, and that will harm many more people. So in classical economic terms, it is not a functioning market, but it was never supposed to be a functioning market. (We are also somewhat trapped by every other major economy subsidising their farmers, there is no properly functioning market for food anywhere. But it is obvious why that is the case. Like water, food is too important to be left entirely to the markets - farming is 'too important to fail', to borrow a phrase.)
Maybe we should stop calling this protest community "farmers." This group should more precisely be described as "agricultural property owners."
Socialism for the rich, hard capitalism for the poor.
The rich "agricultural property owners." are unaffected by the inheritance tax it is ONLY the family run farms that will go out of business, who do you think benefits from that??
It's in the national interest to keep the land in agricultural use. If it remains in agricultural use, the farmer doesn't get suddenly rich, they keep farming it and earning about £30k per year. It's the same as owning a house. It may be worth hundreds of thousands but you cannot realise it because you have to live somewhere. Starmer's policy will destroy family farms. He wants that because the land can then be plastered with shit box new-builds to house his favorite demographic, i.e. illegal immigrants and terrorists. And the money he is raising from this tax is being handed to farmers in Africa to subsidise them. It's pure communist treachery.
@@manoo422 You'll need to explain your reasoning behind that statement. Only include facts when and if you respond. The way I see it, the wealthy are unlikely to purchase agricultural land without tax benefits. This will lead to a decrease in land values, making entry into the industry easier for genuine farmers.
@@gio-oz8gfthe decrease in the artificially high value of farmland will also take a lot of the family farms out of inheritance tax by bringing the value of farms down below the threshold.
The artificially high value being not due to any value added by the farmers, but due to removal of farms from inheritance tax in the 1980s.
Truth to privilege. An example of farmer exceptionalism I came across recently. A farmer here deposits huge clods of earth on a road to the river; it has no pavement and is a designated cycleway. The mud slicks and is very dangerous for walkers and cyclists. I complained to the parish council only to be told this is 'a rural place and is to be expected'. Actaully it's an agribusiness producing maize for ethanol, but that's not really the point. It's a business with responsibilities. A developer building houses nearby has to clean up the mud at the end of every day from its excavation works. It's a small point but points to a wider sense of entitlement.
Don't waste your time with the oarish council. Go to the Highway authority (District or County council). They would be liable for any accidents and are thus more likely to "have words" with the land owner.
It's the same around here. The roads are sometimes inches deep in mud and cow sh*t but are never cleared up by the farmer. And there have been several accidents because of this. There are often miles long oil leaks on the road which invariably lead back to the farmer's entrance.Every single farmer also never clears up after flailing often leaving whole large branches on the road and thorns everywhere making cycling all but impossible.
If the farmers have to sell their land food prices will rise.
You know is going to buy farmland the Saudis andthe Chinese.
You havent got the faintest idea how screwed 80% of the populationwillbe if the farmers are replaced.
So one example of one farmer’s behaviour.
How old are you?
Perhaps you should move to a city?
From what I saw of my ex-father-in-law's family farm, it was very inefficient barely making a living wage despite investment and grants. The children didn't want to run it.
You do realise they are producing all our food right...??
@@manoo422na. Tesco super warehouses in south of England produce most of it. 🤣
@@manoo422if only that was true. We are dependent on imports.
@manoo422 You know that sinister threat is the problem right.
@manoo422 Not my ex dad in law, relatively tiny amounts of milk. There are so many small farms like this, doesn't feed the population. The milk quotas in the 90s hit him hard. Just not worth farming on a small scale any more. But the land is worth millions, especially with permission to build housing.
Anyway, 40% of food is imported, mostly from continental Europe.
I do have professional experience with large scale farming and protected crops, this is the only economically viable way.
And who are the biggest landowners? The royals and the church in the UK. You can walk from the middle of London to Cambridge entirely on royal-owned land...
The government (together with its QUANGOs) is the biggest land owner by area, the Forestry Commission owning some 2,200,000 acres (890,000 ha), the MoD 1,101,851 acres (445,903 ha), the Crown Estate 678,420 acres (274,550 ha), DEFRA 116,309 acres (47,069 ha) and Homes England 19,349 acres (7,830 ha) according to Wiki©
Financial institutions, through their mortgage securities. Ownership of urban land is the big scandal. Borrowers are tenants of the financial institutions, deceived into believing that they are owners.
So… are these the Middle Ages? 😮
@@Tulkash01 It is worse than the Middle Ages, when land holders (not owners) had responsibilities.
It DOESNT effect THEM!!
I grew up on a pig farm in Scotland through the 70's and 80's. Not a single farmer I knew was rich, or could be described as 'privileged'. None were tenant farmers. They owned and worked their own property. Most were clinging on by their fingernails. This argument is tarring all with the same brush and is completely wrong headed because of it. People need to be very careful with with the labels they bandy about right now, and they need to separate those that are gaming the system from those that, quite simply, aren't. It IS very hard to make money farming - it is a ridiculously hard, and often heartbreaking, way to make a living. I'm afraid this video portrays a very narrow-minded, and often ill-informed, point of view. Any self-employed tradesman will put work clothing through the books - it's actually mentioned in the tax guidelines. Again - some are gaming the system - but don't lump ALL farmers in with that minority. No-one I knew could pay huge sums in inheritance tax - the money simply wasn't there. I do agree that the previous system needed adjustment, but the vitriol now directed towards farmers is approaching that of landlords. It completely ignores the reality, and relies on the tales of the priviliged that game the system for profit to fuel it's fire. A finer line needs to be trod. The fantasy that a 'new generation' of environmentally conscious young farmers will appear out of the ether to make everything cosy and nice is just that - a fantasy. If smaller farmers have to sell off their land to pay the tax, only the large conglomerates will have the wherewithal to buy, thus further monopolising the market. Sure - you'll get some new blood, but the money will talk. In many cases, with inheritance tax, if your parents pass away and leave you their house, YOU are not living in it, so any money you gain is a bonus. Not the case for many farmers - they are family run, so the whole family LIVES on the asset that will be getting taxed. A significant oversight that many seem to be willfully ignoring. Just to stay where they are, they suddenly need to find 40% of the cost of the home they live in? See the difference now? This is not the black & white argument that so many, including this video, are portraying.
well said ............
I am not a farmer , and do not own any farmland . Regardless , what you say makes perfect sense .
Thank you for adding some nuance to change needs to be phased in. Livestock and machinery over a certain age excluded. Working farmers shd be treated differently to the tax dodgers then paying IHT wd be fair.
Pay your tax’s
@@Mtmonaghan - I do. I no longer live on the farm. My father, now deceased, retired from farming when he sold it. Unfotunately, your comment displays the simple fact that you havn't understood a single thing I've said.
Errrr...most farmers are not millionaires.
The is an easy "fix" for this. No inheritance tax for farms of 1 million or less, and tax the "Clarkson"-style tax loophole seekers.
BlackRock will buy it, and corporations don't die, so that solves estate taxes in the future.
The wealthy are different to the vast majority of us.
Their wealth gives them choices and opportunities that most of us will never have in life.
Nothing to stop you bring successful if you have drive and ambition. Maybe get a job, first.
try communism
@@zelareka Same argument as if somebody said "I do not like meat" and you answered "See how you lke eating tomatoes only2. There are a lot of political and societal options. Your thinking is lazy. You sound entitled to me???
@@lestrem11 I know a lot of people who have two jobs=over 60 hours work a week, and still cannot make ends meet. This argument is BS.
@@annepoitrineau5650 Get a better paid job or start your own business. It’s up to you. What do you want, charity?
unfortunately land will probably be bought up by Big Ag/corporations rather than young people.
That is an issue for the entire world…global corporations run the show…politics is the circus sideshow to keep us from looking behind the real curtain that hides the puppeteers.
Quite right. Thank you.
“And, for an instant, she stared directly into those soft blue eyes and knew, with an instinctive mammalian certainty, that the exceedingly rich were no longer even remotely human “.
“Count Zero”. William Gibson. 1986
I came to comment that exact same quote.
@@cb361 Why?
Then why do you keep voting for rich people?
An equally chilling read is "The Totally Rich" by John Brunner. One of my favourites, and a constant reminder that I should *not* accumulate any wealth.
@@DerekHohls They'll just tax you to death.
These protesting farmers are not like us because: a. they never had a mortgage or rent to pay and b. most of their living expenses are run through their business accounts. So please remember that when they are whining about how little 'income' they get from farming.
Never had a mortgage? Most farms are maxed out borrowing against their land from my experience
@@fatshartspunhouse2403 So who is lending them money if they have no income?
@@paulroughley841 banks ..........they will keep lending as long as the price of land keeps going up
@paulroughley841 who said farmers had no income? They have a range of incomes but there’s very little profit in the industry can the capital taken to run it
Barbour wax jackets are about £290 new. About half the price of Goretex mountain jacket that a serious hill walker might wear. Basic research, Richard.
spot on ..............I have to make do with a army surplus raincoat that I got for 20 quid when it rains when I am out on the farm .........
I think he is referring to the tweed type shooting jacket that many of them wore, rather than the barbour jacket which many of them wore - as he said he isn't up on fashion. Clarkson and the lady walking with him own over 2000 acres between them! Him on his farm and her on her estate in Somerset.
Where I live in Norfolk I am surrounded by farms and it's all "private property, keep out, no trespassing" particularly regards access to woodland, so the town is like a little island amid a sea of inaccessible countryside.
Rights of access are particularly poor in Nofolk.
@maddang1797 yes indeed, wonder if there's a particular reason for it?
Not true, there are tens of thousands of footpaths that criss cross the entire country.
Get out of the pub and have a look.👍
@lestrem11 not round here there aren't.
Especially irksome to we free roaming Scots where that shit just don't fly. Organise massive mass trespasses on the regular and change it.
The poor are just rich people without money.
Once a poor man gets rich, he does not give it away to the needy, he usually moves to a better house, and gets a better car.
Twas ever thus.
Prof. Murphy please keep up your excellent videos, they communicate to people a side of the debate rarely seen in mainstream TV news.
Farms are a business and should be treated as such, no inheritance task. Land Owners are NOT necessarily farmers and the largest can be seen as asset holders, which should attract inheritance tax.
Another solution to the farming problem is remove all subsidies and grants and huge penalties for abuse of land. Then we'd see land prices fall and real innovation, and production of food people actually want to eat.
subsidy is there to compensate for the low price of product farmers sell ,, the big shop groups have spent years crushing local shops now there might be 8 companies supply food to britain ,,, like of tesco require farm accounts to make sure farmer is not getting overpaid in there veiw for product ,, ...take potatoes carrots etc must be specific shape size , the rest must be dumped ,,,to big to small ill shaped ,,all the farm products are sown at a very high cost
Land value tax is needed - a tax on its rental value.
@@liamcallaghan253Not all farming has to be in basic products. Innovative farmers add value to their business in other ways. I know someone who spends less than £200 on pumpkin seeds and has a pick-your-own setup that runs through October. Pumpkins are sold for up to £8 and they sell cake and drinks and provide basic rides for the kids and make a little entertainment area by the field. It's their best income of the year and Tesco doesn't get a look in.
You won’t see prices fall until you do something about the cartel power of the supermarkets. They decide the prices, not farmers.
As opposed to what grows in the UK climate?
The royal family should also be included in the new tax but better still abolish them and have an elected head of state.
I really wish they would, but labour instead want to attack the unemployed and disabled. They don't want to touch the royals because in their eyes, they are the strivers, and the poor are the skivers.
Unfortunately the state works for the monarchy not the people. That's not going to happen because our democracy is fake!
The Royal family needs reforming, and all of the hangers on removed.
However, I do not want an elected head of state. We'd almost certainly end up with President Blair, or President Cameron, or President Starmer. That would be much, much worse.
Born into privilege is wrong, but it's way deeper than the Royal family. The royals do some good. Society just needs them to give back and not just take, take, take.
@@got2bharmonyA reformed royal family is probably the least worst option in my opinion.
If you really want to relieve this country of a bunch of wasters then start with the
House of Lords.
I agree with a lot of your points in this video. I live in a rural area in Shropshire and the farmers don't look poor to me. Having said that, I don't want want to see British farming disappear forever. I don't agree with IHT in general and think surely there must be another way of dealing with wealthy investors buying up land in the UK.
just ban it. not hard. these laws aren't designed to attack rich, thry are designed to attach the poor farmers.
iht is a tax on the poor. as it makes poor people who made money poor again. whilst rich ppl have nondom status, city of London status, cayman islamd status, virgins island status and are exempt from it all.
this professor is fighting a flea whilst dragons in the city of London devour the poor.
there's a reason why queen, royalty and city of London institutions are exempt from inheritance tax. they are the rich who think thry are better than us and write laws to make sure they stay that way and we stay poor.
This will be the problem . China for example is busy buying USA farmland . With out regulation I predict nearly all the farmland will be purchased by foreign investors like Chinese etc who will have no interest in ethical farming. This labour legislation will be a disaster in the long run
How is inheriting millions tax free fair? What did the children do other than be born into the right family? They still get the perk of getting 60% of the wealth they did nothing to accumulate.
How do you propose we deal with entrenched wealth and privilege in society if, once they are established, they just continue to grow generation after generation?
@rfrisbee1 ban inheritance tax. carry out a simple 2.5% annual tax on all bank accounts holding cash or cash assets.
example warrne buffet holds 325billion in cash waiting for thr stock market to crash.
he isn't alone. these are rhe true rich, not poor farmers whose land value has been over inflated by poor people who suddenly became a little bit rich trying to avoid inheritance tax.
also ban private banks ability to create money out of thin air. as this is fundamentally what allows rich to become richer. as they print money buy all our assets, become entrenched richer, and pass on the inflation to us, stealing our wages and savings, and making us poorer.
we have to target root causes not superficial issues. and these 2 alone would fix 90% of societies poverty.
@Foxtrottangoabc china is barely buying usa farmland. it's your own billionaires. i can't believe ppl are still falling for this racist trope by the rich that it is the evil ethnic man destroying your wealth. when it's your own rich ppl.
Sorry. But certain billionaires are purchasing farmland in America and throughout the World. It does make one wonder why?
Especially Bill Gates.
Similar tax treatment perhaps?
@@shugieshugied2269 In such a case, between the two, supporting the farmers is the lesser of the evils as just a few people owning almost all of the Land on the planet would be super dystopian.
@@Freesurfer688 Large parts of the UK have been owned by the same family since Norman times, and it's not caused any particular problem. Ideally farmland should not have any value as a financial investment, and be valued solely as farmland. But the rich are always seeking something to invest in, and as Bill Gates is rumoured to have said, no one has made any farmland for a long time. And any asset in finite supply is always likely to be a good investment.
Supporting farmers in the UK is best achieved by removing tax breaks so we don;t end up with muppets like Clarkson ruining what were once decent farms. He called is Diddly Squat because that's what it produced under his "management". Food security alone mandates that people like him should kept well away from farms.
@@shugieshugied2269 It''s true that all the Land was seized during 1066 by Norman overlords. However, the Black Death plague gave farmers the opportunity to own land. Like you, I'm sceptical generally about tax breaks, but if farmers are generally cash poor and get poor deals from supermarket chains, and their ownership of Land obstructs billionaires from buying up land on the cheap, then I am reluctantly for them. I'd rather farmers than asset strippers.
Barbours are about £200, we used to use them for fishing when we were kids and they last for ever, those Tweed things are different, it sort of undermines your argument if you're so far off .....
I thought the same. I didn't realise Barbour jackets were that expensive.
@@wildberrygarden
They last for ages, but the wax makes them mucky to wear.
Very much on topic for me. My father was a tenant farmers, who enjoyed fast cars and faster women! He went bust when I was eighteen, so I had a fairly privileged start, and its been rough for the fifty years since!
I know exactly you and Scott Fitzgerald are writing and talking about. Strangely I don't have any sympathy for the farmers on this one! They will have to start planning for IHT pretty quick now!
Best wishes from George
PS: I have learned through my life, that the only aspect that makes one human better than any other is that he or she is just as kind to total strangers as they are to their closest friends. After all we are all born of a woman, and we all die. So fairly much all the same level!
This ability to be kind is important. There is a need to be kind to the real farmers in the UK, who work extremely hard, running businesses that are complex and financially challenged, but we don't need to be kind to the privileged and the entitled.
@@tlangdon12 It should just be a level playing field. If it were not for the IHT tax break on farm land, then land would be at a more reasonable price in terms of return on capitol, or opportunity cost on the mortgage. When there are people waiting for treatment on the NHS, unable to work and in real hardship, because of years of underfunding I do think it is hard to justify being kind with tax payers money, just to keep the land in the family.
That is not unkind or selfish. Just simple logic. Logically farmers need to have time to plan and I think that it should have [as suggested] should have been brought in progressively over say five years, and then all IHT should be at the same rate for everyone.
My kindness has necessarily to extend as far as towards people I actually might meet in daily life. Help someone collect their prescription or give them a lift to their appointment. I am in no position to hand money out as an old man with a ruined knee, who struggles with having to work sometimes. Am I on benefits? No way! I am self-employed as no employer would take me onto a contract now in my condition. I am awaiting treatment for my knee and this has now been postponed.
I know farmers [many of them at least] work hard, and sometimes pathetic returns, but if it is too hot in the kitchen, get out and let someone else have a try.
Best wishes from George
The very rich regard us in the same way we regard ants, something to either ignore or else trample underfoot.
If the farmers have to sell their land food prices will rise.
You know is going to buy farmland the Saudis andthe Chinese.
You havent got the faintest idea how screwed 80% of the populationwillbe if the farmers are replaced.
@@thijsjong Someone else will just buy the farm to farm it.
That was one of the main points of the video.
You sound ignorant and bitter. Get a job and make something of your life.
@@thijsjongmaybe food prices will go down, the Chinese have “overcapacity” or so I have heard from western media
@@coolbanana165 Well they might, or they might not. They might keep it unfarmed as an "investment".
Nothing new. In the past, the aristocracy were referred to as 'of gentle birth'. It is where the term Gentleman came from. They believed that the rest did not feel pain in the same way. They were brutes, to be worked as hard as required. They had sensibilities, and an appreciation of life not given to the masses.
I live in Ayrshire. There is a lot of farming land here, and agricultural land here is not particularly expensive. Yet farms are up for sale all over the place - most of them being converted into fancy country homes. I don't see lots of young people taking advantage of the relatively low agricultural prices here to go into farming. Many of the farms that are still in operation are putting their land to alternative uses like wind farms and solar panel sites. Or managing enormous dairy herds for big multinationals like Arla.
I do a lot of hillwalking, and I was out on the hills early on Christmas Day last year - this was in the north east of Scotland. I saw farmers out working on Christmas morning. Privileged? I don't take for granted where my food comes from and with former Labour adviser John McTernan advising the government to do to farms "What Thatcher did to coal mines" I think we need to support the people who produce our food instead of the corporates who want us to eat processed swill.
100% agree !.... My worry is that the low income that comes with farming, won't be enough to qualify a young person for a loan that covers the cost of even "cheap" land.
And that leaves only big corporations buying up the lot.
Farmer vs. Agricultural Land Owner
@@thelifeofjools8384if land value did fall on the back of this...which I very much doubt...big farms would need more acres to cover debt borrowed against inflated asset/Land value....would banks back a youngster buying land over a big farm already on their books...not a chance..yes you can argue the tax will mean farms need to be organised and youngster given the reins earlier , but the tax will catch someone out who dies and one farm is one too many. It's easy to bash the rich but if they aren't there who do they think will be? There is many positive points to keeping farms generational too from , investment, understanding soil, stock breed etc......I'm just see it all as another thing attacking rural communities....
Nailed it. See my comment on this thread.
Most of the comments here supporting Richard don’t seem to understand the difference between the two and tar them with the same brush. A bit like the budget has done
As the tax on farmers bites, the land will be sold to pay it. This will then naturally flow to the wealthiest who have put adequate tax planning in place to protect their assets. The process ends with people like the Duke of Westminster who inherited £9 Billion of assets in 2016 without paying IHT. Yes, his trusts pays a nominal 6% every 10 years, but that's peanuts.
spot on. You might want to compare Tenant farmers rights, enshrined in French law compared to the total
lack of rights in UK where if a Tenant Farmer dies his whole family has to move out.
Obviously All farmers are rich and don't want to pay their 'fair share'. It's much better that they sell their farms to corporations and then no inheritance tax would ever be due... Brilliant 👍
What's really going on is mass consolidation, the farmland being moved from rich families to mega corps.
Same in the private rental sector
Yes that's what is happening in the US because families can't afford the inheritance tax.
@@DebhHu Lol. That only happens if their estate is worth more than $13 Million, assuming they haven't hired an inheritance lawyer to help them dodge it entirely. Consolidation is happening in the US because kids don't want to farm.
I’d love to see Murphy address that issue. He’s doubtless well-intended when he posits that cheaper land will lead to a jubilee of fresh young blood and innovation in UK farming, but it’s more likely that the mega-corps will swoop in and consolidate around more rapacious intensive farming practices.
I call out the special generation-skill argument too. If you fail to run a profitable business, it goes into administration. The only difference here is we want the land assets to go back to the state to ensure food security. You can treat other important industries in the same way - such as water, energy, hospitals, military, social housing - ensuring the assets don't fall into private hands.
Watch farmers have knowledge of their land which is passed on down the generations. You cannot just turn up and farm in most places. Its not a 9-5 job you learn at university. Through history idiots (politicians) have tried to mess with farming, thinking it justanother business and this has often led to famine and death.
@jonathanpearce3927 There are plenty of complicated industries that require experience passed down from elders and on the job learning and experience. Other industries have multi generationsal skills development methods that are not restricted to families.
The modern practice of profitable farming is quite different from what we imagine. Huge numbers of people without right to remain on a company farm, paying company rent and getting company minimum wage
Absolutely spot on
He has missed the point. I made a video on this subject.
@@physiocrat7143 That is a truly terrible video, btw.
@@EvoraGT430
Made in a hurry, production was not up to standard, but what about the points made?
The rich need the poor to be rich but the poor don't need the the rich to be poor.
It would be great if everyone in the UK could afford to buy a warm winter coat that would last a long time for, say, £300. Sadly, they cannot. We need our society to be more equal in terms of wealth and while I don't like Inheritance Tax, until we are very much more equal, I think it is a necessary evil.
Yes, it's curious how there are no private emergency and accident departments in the UK. I hope that this remains the case.
The rich need me, I don't need the rich.
Farmers are moaning about it but don't really understand it most are completely exempt from it. Imho Labour should have equalised it more there still getting big reductions on it
What about Farms being gobbled up by Blackrock?
Agree with all you say ,as long as the land is used to produce for the nation , and not sold off ,to build housing on , I believe we should feed our own nation .
At the end of the day , you are the proff ,on such affairs ,is there no model , that could be fare to all ,or at least make it more equivalent and just for all .
The concept in The Elite Society's Money Manifestation ebook completely blew me away. It feels like finding a secret path to wealth
seems to me like you're selling a book
Everyone should report this scam.
Richard Murphy has just made an important case for land value tax, but he has always treated advocates of land value tax as swivel-eyed loonies. IHT is a clumsy attempt at collecting some land value. It was intended to break up the great landed estates but never had that effect. The IHT changes will not alter the fact that there are vast tracts of urban and rural land held by trusts belonging to the ancient aristocratic families.
Farmland that get sold will be snapped up by international finance corporations. The IHT changes will not achieve a land of small owner-occupying farmers producing healthy food.
Absolutely- IHT is avoided by the wealthy. Its the small farmers that will suffer. Whenever politicians meddle in farming it leads to a mess and sometimes famine and death. Look at Sri Lanka and their recent fertiliser ban - that went well.
As an NHS RN in acute and emergency care, believe me when I say…in my experience the rich soon learn they can’t buy their health. Illness is a great social leveller. The rich aren’t immune from pain, bleeding, fear, vomiting, or death.
My experience is that farmers wear boiler suits and wellys.
Your experience is of Tenant Farmers; farmers who actually work the land. The land owners who have bought farmland to avoid inheritance tax wear much fancier clothes.
They wear very boring shirts with a faint brown or green check pattern.
@@tlangdon12 - my father - and most like him I knew growing up on our farm - wore exactly that - boiler suits & wellies! None of them were' tenant farmers' - they owned their farms.
Brilliant, thank you for putting what so many of us think into words.
If the farm has to be kept in the family, and that is part of the countryside ethos, then why don't the farm owners transfer the ownership to their children when the reach, say 70 years old. They could then retire, or have a mutual agreement as to how the farm is run with the new family owners. Sounds straightforward to me.
Sounds like a good plan.
They can't then get credit to pay for machinery or fertiliser . That rouse only works if you are land banking to avoid tax . Actual working farmers need access to credit to pay to run the farm so having the land tied up in a trust doesn't work . It's brilliant for bankers with estates or Jeremy Clarkson and his mates but it's not that simple if your trying to produce food
The asset transferred would be ‘potentially exempt of tax’ for seven years; the ex-owners would have to stay alive for that long. They would also have to clear off if the transfer is to be believed by the tax-man. He classes it as a ‘previously owned asset’, and any connection to it after gifting annuls the gift.
The safest thing is to sack everyone, sell the houses and gift their value to the children, bring in a management company for the farm, and live off the dividends as a tax-exile in the Virgin Isles. That would be efficient, though socially and environmentally ghastly.
@@TomShaw-r5w You obviously know the ins and outs of the system, better than I do. I am not arguing with you, but if a 70 year old couple [ex owners of the property] have nowhere to live apart from the house where they have lived all their lives, and do not want to live with anyone but their family, [the new owners of the property], it defies me how anyone can see anything wrong with that. What convincing does anyone need.
@ You are absolutely right; no reasonable person would disagree. But our tax authorities won’t let people avoid tax by making transfers by gift. You can gift “regular amounts from income” tax free, or make gifts between spouses, but capital gifts to children are treated as suspicious. You have to wait the seven years (though the tax tapers after four), and then keep right away. No visiting rights! There have been exceptions: active family businesses and agriculture, just so that businesses don’t close down with every death. Most farms will be sold off not because they are farms, but because they are family businesses. -Something the professor doesn’t seem to realise.
I've never seen a hill sheep farmer in the Lake District dressed like those folk at the protests. The very fact that they even have time to go to a protest tells you everything you need to know; they don't do much of the actual work on their farm.
Utter rubbish.
Thank you - so much.
Barbour jackets- more like £200, and they last so long that they are cheaper in the long run.
Then why claim a new one every year?
@@david-pb4bi That is an assertion that would require evidence for verisimilitude...
@@Tensquaremetreworkshop Why are you supporting the wealthy farmers, when you are not one? Do you think they are better than you?
@@david-pb4bi 1) I am not defending them- but true accusations are better ammunition.
2) How do you know I am not one of them? (I am not)
3) No, I do not believe they are better than me. I have not met anyone even equal to me. (Is there a single stranger you would not sacrifice your life for? If not, you regard yourself as better than them all.)
@ Viewed your channel that’s how I know you are not a farmer.
My guess is that the farms will eventually be owned by agri-biz--who are the new aristocracy.
Apparently they make no money or so they say; but their clothes, their vehicles, their houses, their possessions and their entire lifestyle speaks of considerable wealth. (You never see a farmer on a bike)
Bikes cost thousands for a decent model ,how could a farmer afford one?
@@lestrem11 uhhh what bikes are you looking at lol? motorcycles?
"...reeks of considerable wealth."
But you will see them working 70 hours a week on a tractor. I wonder if there’s any link?
@@Slim333yBoi Google it child, thousands.👍
The irony being they are far worse than most people and often, quite thick.
Media has done quite well in projecting the idea that Money == Merit. Quite often the words 'lazy' and 'poor' go together when reality tells us that someone can quite literally be born a millionaire and have vastly more opportunity (legacy admissions anyone?).
Unfortunately I don't see this changing without a massive push... the rich don't want the idea projecting that they might actually be undeserving, especially if they're born into it.
How many farmers do you know? 🙄🤡
@@servicekid7453 Not farmers, the wealthy, who think they are different.
The oldest battle in human history, is the Haves, versus the Have Nots.
well according to the courts they are special ..they can and do get lighter sentences they get slaps on the wrist where a lot harsher sentences are handed down to the lower income people.
Love love love this ! As someone whose family has been in agriculture for about 6 generations (outside of the UK) this is so true! (I chose to decline that profession) I have always felt like my family has created a reality that only exists inside their head! I know the "businesses's" income is millions of dollars annually and everything is expended down to the molecule! How do I know, because the other people in agriculture do the same thing! Its is not a grand mystery! Even the whisper of a discussion brings out (more) rage and toxicity!! I gave up trying to address their ideas. If their positions are so strong they should stand up to a little scrutiny and come out on the other side ok! Entitlement is just the tip of the iceberg.
I get so tired of everyone pretending that farmers are all living on the breadline when they are literally landowners of extremely valuable land. Why if everyone else has to sell up property just to meet their care costs in later life, should they be subsidised to remain objectively very, very wealthy?
We should scrap IHT its designed to keep us all poor. The latest offering can see rates as high as 91% and the threshold were fixed in stone in 2009. No inflation since then hey. Its theft!
I'm 51yrs old. $40,000 weekly and *I'm retired, this video have inspired me greatly in many ways that I remember my past of how I struggled with many things in life to be where I am today!!!!* ❤️
Hello how do you make such?? I'm a born Christian and sometimes I feel so down myself because of low finance but I still believe in God
It's Maria Frances Hanlon doing, she's changed my life.
Same here
waking up every 14th of each
month to 210,000 dollars it's a blessing to l and my family... I can now retire knowing that I have a steady income❤️Big gratitude to
Maria Frances Hanlon
I do know Ms. Maria Frances Hanlon, I also have even become successful....
Absolutely! I've heard stories of people who started with little to no knowledge but made it out victoriously thanks to Ms. Maria Frances Hanlon.
I think there's a good argument for the recreation of produce boards to regulate the prices paid to farmers by the processors and supermarkets. They should be a bonus to farmers giving their businesses more of a share in the profits made in the food supply chain. Removal of the tax privileges on land ownership would then be less of an issue.
Yeah, let's have more quangos.
Hi Richard, I happen to think inheritance taxes are wrong in principle. Could you do a video explaining why you support them? Just for context I live in South Africa, a former British colony, so our law has aspects of British law built into it. We only got our first inheritance taxes (and capital gains taxes) within my lifetime so I can clearly remember a time when these taxes didn't exist.
Why is inheritance fair?
An excellent suggestion.
The same goes for income tax, actually; yet another relatively recent device for parasitizing the efforts of ordinary people trying to make a basic living.
Come to think of it, what do we really need governments for in the first place? It strikes me, all they do is get in the way of things that would happen far more efficiently without them, creating vast, expensive and self-perpetuating bureaucracies in the process.
@@rfrisbee1 Life is not fair. Land ownership is a privilege. The real problem is the absence of an effective land value tax, but Murphy has always ridiculed the idea, which makes him part of the problem.
@@physiocrat7143 Life may not be fair, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to organise society to try to make it as fair as possible. I think those who object to IHT are either misinformed or aware they have so little talent or ability they need mummy's and daddy's wealth to continue their spoilt childhood for the rest of their lives.
@@rfrisbee1
IHT is not a solution to the problem you describe, nor ever has been.
Land value taxation is the solution, as described by Henry George. Murphy knows this but has consistently ridiculed the idea. There is a video on this topic on my own channel.
This change will just lead to the land being grabbed by international finance corporations.
Can you go through the likely down stream negative effects of the tax change? I expect farms to migrate over time to corporations which I believe is the intention. I consider this to be an extremely bad state of affairs for food production from the perspective of trust that they have health of the consumer at heart. Adding more power to an already ultra corrupt and centralised power base I think would be a very very bad idea. The solution cannot be regulation because as we already know , they will corrupt the regulators by infiltration because that's what power does to oppositional forces. Giving corporations power over one of lifes necessities like food would be a worse state of affairs than we already have.
At the least, UK should make all land free for walking similar to Scandinavian everyman's right.
I think you mean England... For those of us north of the Border, we already have that right.
@rb9580 Oh I didn't know that. That's great!
The problem, is how the land is treated. If everyone did their part to maintain trails, and clean up, then landowners would mostly be fine with that. But some people throw garbage and do damage, and do nothing to help maintain a nice property. Then the landowner has to clean up after them.
@@troyboyd3100 That is indeed a big problem. It is quite unfathomable how common tipping is, and apparently the "men with ven" are a big part of this.
I agree as long as the land remains productive farmland.
We need to embark on significant global reforestation, re-wilding and consume less beef and dairy to aid slowing the effects of climate change therefore drastic land-use reform is a necessity for our survival.
@@hardgrafter2787 Implicit in that is human population reduction.
But they haven’t put in place any measures to stop Blackrock and others hoovering all this land up - an oversight or deliberate? BTW Blackrock were one of the first visitors to see our ne PM!
@@jonathanpearce3927 All this talk about rich greedy farmers. But when the land gets sold to pay IHT bills, all that will happen is a transfer to even richer, more elite individuals and the result is more of British land in even fewer hands. The age old story of weaponising the masses against a politically inconvenient class using the tools of envy and resentment.
That Fitzgerald quote is a great insight. It's not just "different", it's a belief in their superiority and, most dangerously, that they are not subject to the normal constraints of laws - social, moral, and even physical. Hence the underpinning if unspoken notion that, somehow, they will rise above effects of global heating and economic collapse.
Agreed. Your comment deserves many more up votes. "...that they are not subject to the normal constraints of laws..." This reminds me of the Titan submersible tragedy caused by the trust-fund-baby Stockton Rush.
I've heard that the farmers are protesting again on the 11th this time in their tractors, using subsidised diesel!
Jimmy Swaggart, a discredited American TV preacher, said once that everybody on the planet thinks they are "better" than the next guy for one reason or another. I think this attitude becomes an issue when networks are formed, then become politically powerful and force their desires on others.
I'm also self-employed, and I can tell you that I don't put thousand-pound jackets through the company books. I'd get a raised eyebrow from my accountant if I did, possibly followed by a visit from the taxperson.
my accountant will not let me put any clothes boots ect through the books ......nothing
High land prices are of no benefit to any farmer. I believe that after a certain figure perhaps 2 or 3 millions, land should be taxed on a sliding scale the very large land owners should pay up to 80 percent. The idea being that the land should change hands regularly. Well farmed mixed farms of 270 acres should be enough for a farming family. In Ireland the rent of an acre is from 250 to 425 euro an acre and the renter still makes profit. Sir James Dyson owns enough for 100 farming family's and still manages his business from another country. So I believe death duties capitial transfere tax are in the farmers interests. The same probably applies to trusts.
does the renter make a profit at 400 per acre .......... dairy farmers might just , but the tillage men ....no way
the dairy men are only doing it in order to stay out of derogation for the nitrates .......
Thank you from the USofA. Oh, that attitude of the rich.
I personally think the allowance should be £4m, because of the low return caused by low farm gate prices and until that is redressed. I also think if an asset his shared, all the owners should not get to claim the same relief on it, but it should be shared and finally above the threshold it should be 40% tax, as you said, just as any other asset would be.
I also don't think it's fair that tax can be avoided by the 7 year rule on gifts, surely that should have a limit on it too, the same as inheritance tax relief.
I recommend this Speaker to this Nation,
My grandmother has permanent damage to her wrist due to an accident a number of years ago involving a tractor towing a plough, which was bombing along tiny Welsh lanes. It totalled her car after coming around a blind turn at its fullest speed. The sense of entitlement was clear to all - the farmer obviously thought they owned the road as they owned the fields on either side. In the end my grandmother sued, and got a payout of £15k (it was slightly more impressive at the time, but still a pretty small sum if you ask me).
However, partly due to her injuries, these days she can no longer drive, and is isolated in her house - which has water problems now that the farmer next door (not the same one) is tapping the catchment to supply the caravan park he's built on what was formerly sheep-grazing land. There are so many cases of farmers not only being irresponsible, but willfully inconsiderate of their neighbours and communities. Small surprise that when they're asked to pay back, they simply complain.
You don't even need a drivers licence to drive a tractor on the roads.
@@paulgibbons2320 you do ......
Yea! So clearly put 🎉🎉🎉Thank you Richard 😊
Thanks for the video. It is ridiculous that a landowner, who rents his farmland or keeps huge grouse moors, thinks he is the one providing food. (I suspect the price for oiled barbour coats, while high, is not as high as you suggest.)
That’s what I said on another video; when farmers HAVE to buy their clothes from Primark then I might start having some sympathy for them. 😐
All Death tax should be abolished…. Update the property and land evaluations
It should obviously be abolished, grave robbing is not a tax system.
No idea what you mean by evaluations, none are needed.
True 👍 give them more they will just waste more on more nonsense
How 'up in arms' were wealthy landowners about the enclosures act which was effectively theft?
The really big theft was at the Reformation when the monastic lands were grabbed. They were used to support what we now think of as social services.
I’d love to see Murphy address the issue of corporate land consolidation. He’s doubtless well-intended when he posits that cheaper land will lead to a jubilee of fresh young blood and innovation in UK farming. But, it’s more likely that the mega-corps will swoop in, outbid younger, forward-thinking, would-be farmers, and consolidate larger and larger chunks of UK agricultural land around more rapacious intensive farming practices.
It's time for a new generation of eco-conscious farmers!
We will get more land owned by corporate finance and tenants squeezed to the maximum.
@@physiocrat7143yes
@Eagleowl-403
The IHT changes will speed it up
They are eco conscious. Govt should Butt out
There are plenty. Always have been. It's the biggest agri-corps that have turned the countryside into mono-cultures.
I agree. Allowing the wealthy to shelter their wealth from IHT in agricultural land has led to
agricultural land prices being inflated. The reduction of IHT relief will lead to a reduction of interest by the wealthy in acquiring agricultural land, some may sell up, and this will lead to a drop in agricultural land prices. This is also a gripe by those protesting. Strangely, Jeremy Hunt when Chancellor, proposed to get rid of inheritance tax. This would have led to a drop in agricultural land prices but I don't recall any protests then.
Excellent arguments everyone should hear
Half the story. There is a video on my channel on this topic.
Its propaganda!!
The wealthy are surprisingly good at not parting with their money, definitely people you don't want you owing you any money. And when you chase them, they get very upset that a little person should have the temerity to be asking for money, really you should be grateful to be allowed to work for them for free. Entitlement on steroids.
Those coats were probably bought several generations ago, and carefully looked after by the staff. Truly rich people tend not to drive fancy cars, they drive older cars that can be kept going for a long time. Rich people are rich partly because they hang onto their money as much as possible, hence their hatred for taxation in any form.
The wealthy person's instinct not to part with their money is a financial lesson we could all do with learning. Most money coming into a family is hard-earned, and hence we need to respect it and not fritter it away.
@@tlangdon12 I would agree, the number of expensive new cars bought on payment plans is surprising. But for wealthy folk, most of the money is inherited, rather than earned, even their income derives largely from inherited assets. There's a huge amount of wealth shielded from inheritance tax by trusts, these cost too much for us little folk though. If the wealthy paid inheritance tax as the rest of us have to, we could all perhaps enjoy a lower rate.
Hugh Grosvenor inherited a large chunk of West London, and essentially gets to agree with HMRC what tax he will pay on it. You try that and see how far you get.
Won't someone please think of the poor multi millionaires down to their last few range rovers.
or Barbours.
Interesting video, it says alot They can't get enough and can't have enough
I use to work on farms alot and most were very poorly run and they where run like thay because there parents did, but every now and then I would work on a very smart farmers farm and they where a savy business person and they where very profitable. I have said it for years that letting it pass down with no innovation is what's killing farms profitability. If you can't make it move aside as someone will that's better than you plain and simple. Like the rest of us running businesses
If it’s not yours then purchase it….
It would be like saying your wife ain’t getting hers, so bring her over for a proper shagging
Some good thoughts here. An additional couple I might add. 1) It seems odd to me that Labour decided to target this particular area of wealth, there are plenty of activities the wealthy undertake that damage our wider society, whilst they enjoy the benefits of public services having not really provided any compensation for that. It feels to me like the easiest lowest hanging fruit they could manage. 2) We should be taxing the royal family in the same way. The royal own huge amounts of land privately (I am not talking about the fact the essentially own all land) and pay very little if any tax on the proceeds of both rent and sales / purchase. If we are going to talk about fairness and equality, this seems like a very important step in ensuring everyone, regardless of wealth, pays their fair share.
I mean what would you rather have - a jacket for a £1000 or yet another pensioner freezing to death? there's just no price on fashion dear.
A barbour jacket at 1k ? Seem like you have same brain rot as Richard
Have a go at the Corporations that could be more productive and honest.
With old age care being for-profit, many lose thier estate long before inheritance tax comes into effect. They leave nothing. On the whole, poor or unlucky people start each generation afresh. In the dark ages the serfs were not allowed to build from stone so each generation had to build thier own house again, the land owners could pass down thier buildings compounding thier wealth. This still happens in effect because for wealthy people being richer is the point, if everyone was rich they wouldn't feel special.
Living in a Farming Area and listening to the chatter one point is raised Thay the value of the land has risen due to nin farmers purchasing it and claiming to be a farmer so they dont pay inheritance tax and other benifits but the produce it produces is the same as it was a hundred years ago That 10 acre field still holds the same amount of beasts and the value of the produce has not increased at the same rate as the value of the land. That is the value of the land has not increased by its productivity but by the fact wealthy persons purchasing it as a tax dodge making a shortage in supply.
As always, a great analysis. Newcomers often wonder if it's too late to navigate the financial market, but the market is always unpredictable. Trading has more advantages than simply holding, so it's important to learn before diving in. Active trades are necessary to ride the market's waves. Thanks to Evelyn Infurna’s insights, daily trade signals, and my dedication to learning, I've been increasing my daily earnings, managed to grow a nest egg of around 127k to a decent 532k. Kudos to the journey ahead!
As a beginner, it's essential for you to have a mentor to keep you accountable.
Investing with an expert is the best strategy for beginners and busy investors, as most failures and losses in investment usually happen when you invest without proper guidance. I'm speaking from experience..
She's really good in studying the market and making a strategy and i am learning so much from her already...
I searched for her complete name on the internet and located her page. I then sent an email and scheduled a meeting to converse with her; now, I'm awaiting her response.
Over the years, I've been a part of numerous trading programs, sifting through a barrage of information. Yet, nothing has come close to the sheer clarity, depth, and precision of Infurna’s ’s insights.
An issue I have is that the taxed value is based on opinion, not on the reality of a sale, and conversion to money.
Farming is a low capital return activity which requires economy of scale. The asset value is illiquid and not realisable. Yet the bloated state wants to treat farmers property (and the rest of us) like a cash machine. The government might get say 500 billion over the whole change from removing the inheritance tax relief on farms and this will fund the bloated UK state for 7 whole days. What a joke. I'm glad I watch your videos Richard. If there is any reason to depart this country it's because of the attitudes of people like you. Instead of 'Rich Boy' read 'Atlas Shrugged'. Who is John Galt?
Read altas shrugged 🤣🤣🤣
@@burner9147 He who laughs last laughs hardest 🤣🤣🤣 Atlas is Shrugging 😳
Can certainly detect Richards jealousy on this video . And like labour's policy is just one of political spite which has zero long term value for the uk . It will infact simply lead to all uk farmland foreign owned .
@@Foxtrottangoabc 100% this whole video is screaming class envy and spite.
Even mentioning class envy proves his point.
Problem is most family farmers are not rich, indeed most earn less than the average income .
However Sir Starmer has already made a deal with US corporation Blackrock to buy up all land sold because and take it out of production. Result - food becomes scarce and Prices rise .
They were given it by William the Conqueror. Time things changed 😊.
Take it away from them in 2066. ⚔️
Everyone wants to be comfortably well off and once you are you.dont want your wealth taken from you, nor do you care much about inequality.
If tenant farmers can make a living whilst also paying rent to the landowner for both the farm, and farmhouse then i call bull on farmers who own their farms outright claiming they are making nothing.
What Richard J Murphy and most of the press has missed is that tenant farmers are caught up in the IHT issue, too. It's not all about the changes to agricultural property relief, its also about the changes to Business Property Relief. A tenant farm with livestock, machinery, growing crops, recurrent assets and "tenants improvements" can quite easily have a value above the new threshold.
Well said sir...bang on the nail!