• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

General UK politics VIII - The Last Tory

Most of the land round us is owned by either Lord Guisborough, 3rd Baron Gisborough and the Guisborough Estate, Lord Zetland 4th Marquess of Zetland and the Zetland Estate or the Wharton's of Skelton Castle and Gilling Estates.

You can bet they have the inheritance thing all tied up.
 
And in the former case, with no direct descendants, who is there to care about the amount of IHT paid?
It is the first thing that came to my mind, yes.


Most of the land round us is owned by either Lord Guisborough, 3rd Baron Gisborough and the Guisborough Estate, Lord Zetland 4th Marquess of Zetland and the Zetland Estate or the Wharton's of Skelton Castle and Gilling Estates.

You can bet they have the inheritance thing all tied up.
One of the local parents in the scout group advises "high net worth individuals" in the North West (I think the threshold is about £20M).

One wrinkle is to administer the family as a private company, with both shares and preference shares. That way the parent gives most of the value to the kids when they are fairly young but not the preference shares, so the parent still has control. And when it comes to inheritance, they only have the preference shares to inherit.
 
As I remarked before, if your farm is worth millions then surely that is because it's capable of generating a decent return. And even assuming you fail to make any sensible arrangements to avoid the tax entirely, your descendents will have ten years to pay the tax.
I have noticed a culture amongst some farmers Tories that I have known of basically feeling that it's enough to complain about being asset rich and cash poor and that any requirement to convert assets to cash is an affront.
 
I have noticed a culture amongst some farmers Tories that I have known of basically feeling that it's enough to complain about being asset rich and cash poor and that any requirement to convert assets to cash is an affront.

Can't be expexted to give upp the family pile when you've held it since William the Bastard. Maybe farmers need a National Trust so they can keep enjoying the assets while the public pick up the bills, well except for the areas they have to let the plebs into.
 
tractors have driven through a police barrier and forced officers out of the way to go down a closed road.

So now the ***** get locked up yes?

Apparently it's OK because it's an example of two tier policing because the let Hamas terrorist supporters go wherever they want.
I think the Parachute regiment's approach to protests would be appropriate here.
 
What I find most funny about the farmer protests is that they're there to protect the tax cheating efforts of a bunch of fake farmers like Clarkson who are turfing real farmers out on their ears for their own Marie Antoinette fantasies.
I live in a rural constituency and the local secondary schools have farmer kids as a specific subculture. It seems to quite an angry and entitled culture judging from what my kids (and my friends kids at different local schools) have told me. With a dislike rejection of nuance. So basically gammons.

For example, one of the (rich) farmer kids gave his GCSE English oral talk (on a subject that interested him) on Brexit, before the referendum, and he did accurately list a lot of the downsides for his family farm, but he and his parents were still in favour of it.
 
One of the most amusing stories regarding the farmers' IHT was the front page sob story a couple of weeks ago about how poor poor Princess Anne might be affected because Gatcombe Park which she gave or leased to her family members uses it as a second home. <sfx burst of small violins>

:v:
 
I did notice that while there were the inevitable comments on the BBC article on the protests there were also a lot of people who were pointing out exactly this, so I don't think our delightful media is having it all its own way.
To be fair, Victoria Derbyshire made Clarkson look a complete tit when all he had was insults to her calm, factual questions, including admitting he made up the figures for 96% affected and claiming that was ok because he reckoned Reeves had made her figure up and then further tried to insult her (Reeves) by suggesting her only experience was a sixth form debating society.
 
I have noticed a culture amongst some farmers Tories that I have known of basically feeling that it's enough to complain about being asset rich and cash poor and that any requirement to convert assets to cash is an affront.

This stuff about being 'asset rich' and 'cash poor' is absolute nonsense. Vehicles can be depreciated at 25% pa plus you can depreciate farming equipment and machinery at a similar rate, as well as claim capital allowance off your profit & loss a/c for vehicles, to save on corporation tax. Thus when it comes to valuing a farm (quite separately from your primary residence, which is often elsewhere and doesn't count as 'farm assets' unless it's for farm use proper). In effect the only asset that is really valuable is the land itself and possible farm houses for the tenant farmers who work your fields, but then Clarkson, Dyson and Farage always knew that. Then there are the claims that the 'average profit' for a farm is 'just £45K pa' but what they haven't told you is that that is the net profit after the salaries and dividends (and Barbour jackets) that farmers pay themselves (likewise as with any business person). In effect, what's left over. Most middle class people would struggle to save £46K per annum, even if it does get reinvested into the farm or ploughed back into other business. Of course these same people absolutely put aside savings to leave the kids, so of course the kids have plenty of dosh to pay the IHT, if they inherit over the threshold.
 
Contrast Clarkson and Michael Sheen, both in the news for differing reasons. One remortgaged his house to fund the Homeless World Cup, the other protesting about a farm he bought to evade tax.
 
Also, don't forget Don't forget David Gilmour who sold his London house for £3.6 million and donated the proceeds to homelessness projects, and more recently auctioned virtually all his guitars to raise £21 million(!) for climate action.

Gilmour has this "a house for houses" idea where rich people with more than one home are encouraged to sell all but one and give the proceeds away to fund the building of lots of smaller homes for people who really needed them.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom