It may not be the norm - which I didn't assert - it's an example of what a farm looks like if you are trying to make a full time living off it and these are the people who are hit hardest by the legislation because the land value and the income don't line up the way most assets do.Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 12:01 pmYou were using 500 / 1000 acres as if it was the norm, I pointed out that's not the case. If they're farming rented land, it doesn't attract IHT. In fact if they're renting it opens up the possibility of them being able to buy the land they're farming, which is a good thing, no? The legislation hits farmers who own their own farm if its a whack larger than the average. You haven't provided numbers with any backing, just made them uup and expected us to take it as true. They don't represent typical farms and your assertions about everything else are just that, assertions with no evidence etc.Dinsdale Piranha wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 11:15 amFeel free to show me any numbers I have given that are incorrect.
I have pointed out what it takes to make an actual living on a farm. Smaller farms are frequently rented out to a farmer who may well be farming several farms. For all I know the owners may well own it to avoid IHT. This legislation catches the full time, multi generational farmer with their own farm.
But as you said, there aren't many of them so you don't care.
My assertions are based on half my family and some friends being farmers so I know what a good year is, a bad year, and what a decently profitable farm looks like - if you think they are wrong then I'm open to knowing which ones.
Farming can be a tough business and the people you probably most want to keep as farmers are the ones most affected by the changes. If my cousin sells the farm on inheritance due to being unable to pay IHT she'll have a chunk of money but the family won't be farmers anymore after 3 generations on the same land.