British farmers

Given how many farmers backed Brexit, it’s hardly a stretch to call them thick.

Oh dear, paragraph after paragraph of bilge, your points about train drivers are just ridiculous, the sort that Chris Philips tried on Mick Llynch ( are you sure you didn’t google some of it ? ) and how’d that go for him ?

I’ll simplify my attitude to your last paragraph
The farmers have happily allowed Jezza to impose himself as their megamouth. He talks absolute bollox and bullies anybody who doesn’t back down to him. So yeh, I don’t support the farmers who are too thick to realise that he will only detract from their aim.

Carry on as much as you like, I’ve got loads of time on my hands.
Or we could agree you think I’m ill-informed, dumb, ignorant and I in turn judge you a dufus and leave it at that.
If you can’t then I’m going to have to keep highlighting your loony French example 👍


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Your continued reference to the France example i gave is just more evidence of your stupidity and the barrel scraping you are having to do to try and discredit what i have said.

Just avoid the actual issues and focus on what Clarkson said and my hypothetical (big word, sorry, you may need to google this to gain an understanding of the context ) example, as a reason to dismiss legitimate concerns and issues.

Now calling farmers thick. Jeez I would say a there's a village somewhere missing an idiot somewhere, but that would imply you live in a rural area. Given your complete ignorance of these issues, it would be wrong to imply this. Thick as 2 short planks is probably more appropriate

_________________________________________

Nope, I keep using the French thingy because it is monumentally stupid, the funny thing is I don't think you understand why it was.Must be that lived experience hey ?



Yes i did state some farmers are thick, if you read the words i used it was clear that i aimed it at any who see Clarkson as their saviour. I'm sticking by that one.

I live near Stamford Lincs, so carry on with your silly wrong assumptions if you like, i genuinely am entertained.
If i were you though I'd lay off the barbs, your attempts are just lame, just advice, don't get all pisssy about it.

Be back in the morning if you like, the wife will be home soon and if i haven't done the housework I'm in for it.

Passez une bonne soirée.



Reply | Add Comment | Complain | Share

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 11 minutes ago
Dev

Any inheritance train drivers pass on is subject to 50% more IHT than farmers, don't think they also get 10 years to pay it off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

But the equivalent would be where train drivers have to own the train to actually be a train driver.

Any farmer HAS to have these very valuable assets to make it work, and the assets are all expensive. Land £10k-15k an acre, cattle £1-£1.5k a head, Tractors £200K each, combine harvester £500k, buldings and barns etc etc

They are often asset rich but cash poor.

Now if a farmer (or any land owner) sells his farm then fine, tax him, because he's walking away with all the value of those assets.

Much like if your parents leave you their house, you own an asset that you are able to sell and realise the value and you get taxed.

The difference with farmers is that if handing it on to a member of the family to farm, then there is no realising the value of the asset, its not putting money into the pockets of their kids, its just passing on the big assets that are necessary to make farming possible.

If, like inheriting your parents house, you sell it to pay the tax bill then the family farm is lost.

My solution would be relief where the farm is genuinely being handed down through the family (up to a certain value threshold to ensure the larger estates are captured) and with a time limit on that...so say its handed to a son who sells 5 years later, then they should still be subject to tax at that point.

This then does not destroy the succession process or harm the viability of the business, but maintains family farms and all the benefits to our food supply, to quality, to the rural economy and the environment that they bring about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That isn’t a half bad idea.

I’d up the time limit a little, but you could surely then fully justify removing the 50% concession on the rate as well.

comment by It’s time for some Lancashire hotPote, R... (U17054)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 11 minutes ago
Dev

Any inheritance train drivers pass on is subject to 50% more IHT than farmers, don't think they also get 10 years to pay it off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

But the equivalent would be where train drivers have to own the train to actually be a train driver.

Any farmer HAS to have these very valuable assets to make it work, and the assets are all expensive. Land £10k-15k an acre, cattle £1-£1.5k a head, Tractors £200K each, combine harvester £500k, buldings and barns etc etc

They are often asset rich but cash poor.

Now if a farmer (or any land owner) sells his farm then fine, tax him, because he's walking away with all the value of those assets.

Much like if your parents leave you their house, you own an asset that you are able to sell and realise the value and you get taxed.

The difference with farmers is that if handing it on to a member of the family to farm, then there is no realising the value of the asset, its not putting money into the pockets of their kids, its just passing on the big assets that are necessary to make farming possible.

If, like inheriting your parents house, you sell it to pay the tax bill then the family farm is lost.

My solution would be relief where the farm is genuinely being handed down through the family (up to a certain value threshold to ensure the larger estates are captured) and with a time limit on that...so say its handed to a son who sells 5 years later, then they should still be subject to tax at that point.

This then does not destroy the succession process or harm the viability of the business, but maintains family farms and all the benefits to our food supply, to quality, to the rural economy and the environment that they bring about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That isn’t a half bad idea.

I’d up the time limit a little, but you could surely then fully justify removing the 50% concession on the rate as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well indeed.

And it also has the desired effect of driving wealthy land investors out of the market if all they can do is hold an asset and pass it on but will get taxed on it when they come to sell. It becomes pointless in holding it especially as agricultural land investment is small returns in capital growth and fairly low rental value/income.

You could also exclude from that relief sale of land which is just held as land and not as part of a farm holding, so those landowners who have simply invested in land, leased to to farms, make and income but don't actually pay an IHT....these measures target the wealthy large scale owners and the tax avoiding wealthy but not the genuine family farmers.

And yes, i gave 5 years as an example but think it should be longer, and may be even on a sliding scale. so 40% in years 1 to 5 and tailing back over an extended period.

It's not just fairer but it avoids the massive long term damage the currently policy will deliver.

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by It’s time for some Lancashire hotPote, R... (U17054)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 11 minutes ago
Dev

Any inheritance train drivers pass on is subject to 50% more IHT than farmers, don't think they also get 10 years to pay it off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

But the equivalent would be where train drivers have to own the train to actually be a train driver.

Any farmer HAS to have these very valuable assets to make it work, and the assets are all expensive. Land £10k-15k an acre, cattle £1-£1.5k a head, Tractors £200K each, combine harvester £500k, buldings and barns etc etc

They are often asset rich but cash poor.

Now if a farmer (or any land owner) sells his farm then fine, tax him, because he's walking away with all the value of those assets.

Much like if your parents leave you their house, you own an asset that you are able to sell and realise the value and you get taxed.

The difference with farmers is that if handing it on to a member of the family to farm, then there is no realising the value of the asset, its not putting money into the pockets of their kids, its just passing on the big assets that are necessary to make farming possible.

If, like inheriting your parents house, you sell it to pay the tax bill then the family farm is lost.

My solution would be relief where the farm is genuinely being handed down through the family (up to a certain value threshold to ensure the larger estates are captured) and with a time limit on that...so say its handed to a son who sells 5 years later, then they should still be subject to tax at that point.

This then does not destroy the succession process or harm the viability of the business, but maintains family farms and all the benefits to our food supply, to quality, to the rural economy and the environment that they bring about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That isn’t a half bad idea.

I’d up the time limit a little, but you could surely then fully justify removing the 50% concession on the rate as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well indeed.

And it also has the desired effect of driving wealthy land investors out of the market if all they can do is hold an asset and pass it on but will get taxed on it when they come to sell. It becomes pointless in holding it especially as agricultural land investment is small returns in capital growth and fairly low rental value/income.

You could also exclude from that relief sale of land which is just held as land and not as part of a farm holding, so those landowners who have simply invested in land, leased to to farms, make and income but don't actually pay an IHT....these measures target the wealthy large scale owners and the tax avoiding wealthy but not the genuine family farmers.

And yes, i gave 5 years as an example but think it should be longer, and may be even on a sliding scale. so 40% in years 1 to 5 and tailing back over an extended period.

It's not just fairer but it avoids the massive long term damage the currently policy will deliver.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

comment by kramthered (U10304)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago

Nope, I keep using the French thingy because it is monumentally stupid, the funny thing is I don't think you understand why it was.Must be that lived experience hey ?



Yes i did state some farmers are thick, if you read the words i used it was clear that i aimed it at any who see Clarkson as their saviour. I'm sticking by that one.

I live near Stamford Lincs, so carry on with your silly wrong assumptions if you like, i genuinely am entertained.
If i were you though I'd lay off the barbs, your attempts are just lame, just advice, don't get all pisssy about it.

Be back in the morning if you like, the wife will be home soon and if i haven't done the housework I'm in for it.

Passez une bonne soirée.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the context of the now famous "french example", cut and pasted:

"For example if I've heard correctly, wholesale price of wheat in 1984 was £140 per kg, after 40 years it's £180 which in real terms accounting for inflation in that time is a fcking joke.

If they campaigned and went on strike over this they'd get far more public support.

No doubt any such increase in wholesale prices would impact on supermarket prices for all of us, but we need to either accept that or force supermarkets to reduce their extortionate prices by shopping somewhere else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No. Supermarkets would import. Simple!

Get in the real world! You can tell from 90% of the comments on here that no one gives a feck about farmers and the countryside, and if there were British mil at £2.50 for 4 pints and french milk for £1.50 then you would buy the latter."


* * * * * * *

So, whoever made the comment above mine was stating that protesting/union organised strikes could bring much greater fairness to the wholesale market and farmers would be paid better. This acknowledges that it would raise prices on the shelves.


My response, was simply stating that if prices go up then supermarkets would, as they always do, source cheaper imports.

You have laboured on the fact i have referenced France. But i was not making a point about France, or milk. It could be equally applied to any produce from any country.

The principle being that supermarkets would import cheaper products, as we already see with a lot of farm produce.

Take Lamb for example, despite it having to be shipped across half the world, New Zealand lamb is the same price as UK Lamb in the supermarkets.

What happens if domestic lamb prices rise considerably? Punter will buy NZ. It's quality is superb, there's no reason not to buy it.

And in fact there has been considerable criticism of the outcome of Brexit and agreed trade deals with NZ, and the loss of the CAP which have seen British lamb producers struggle to compete.

Therefore, it is by no means a stretch of the imagination that a European neighbour could under cut domestic prices if our prices increase markedly.

Please explain how this logic is "monumentally stupid"


And living in Lincolnshire, you should know that world renowned farmer, Sir James Dyson is the largest land owner in the county.

Hell, i'm all for him being taxed fairly when he hands that estate on. But that's because 1. such wealthy land owners can afford it; 2. he's not farming, he's just investing in farming 3. The very reason he owns so much is probably because he would dodge IHT on it.

These are precisely the sorts who should be hit for their share. Not the average family farm wanting to pass it on through the family but face a huge tax bill just to keep farming.

Farmers aren't necessarily thick. They have a type of intelligence that isn't considered mainstream intelligence. Like the ability to hit some straw with a sharp pole. And waaank off a cow. It's not traditional intelligence but a more practical intelligence, that is very useful and something not a lot of us have.

comment by Keiran Keane (U1734)
posted 13 minutes ago
Farmers aren't necessarily thick. They have a type of intelligence that isn't considered mainstream intelligence. Like the ability to hit some straw with a sharp pole. And waaank off a cow. It's not traditional intelligence but a more practical intelligence, that is very useful and something not a lot of us have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

And like if you see a farmer leaning on his gate with a piece of straw in his mouth and ask him directions to somewhere... And he says






Well oi wouldn't start from 'ere...

comment by Keiran Keane (U1734)
posted 14 hours, 28 minutes ago
Farmers aren't necessarily thick. They have a type of intelligence that isn't considered mainstream intelligence. Like the ability to hit some straw with a sharp pole. And waaank off a cow. It's not traditional intelligence but a more practical intelligence, that is very useful and something not a lot of us have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Whoever first looked at a cow, and marvelled at those udders swinging beneath and thought, I'm gonna pull on them and then drink whatever comes out, really does have a special level of intelligence.