andy-holmes.bsky.social
82 posts
30 followers
12 following
Discussion Master
comment in response to
post
Where did I say 'dictate' ?
comment in response to
post
The gripe is that this tax dodge has inflated the cost of agricultural land massively, driving prospective new farmers out of the industry, putting our future food production at risk.
comment in response to
post
Not cheaper than it was 30 years ago.
Due to the IHT exemption in the 1990's, speculation has inflated the price of agricultural land massively.
comment in response to
post
Rental values are also too high because of higher land values.
comment in response to
post
How many generational farmers do you know, with farms worth over £3m ?
You yourself stated that the industry can't attract new blood. Well the biggest obstacle to new entrants is high agricultural land costs, which delivers insufficient returns on the capital investment.
comment in response to
post
Farmers need to be stopped from being held to ransom by greedy food producers and supermarkets to improve their incomes, rather than using the sticking plaster of IHT relief.
That will make farming much more attractive as a career.
comment in response to
post
Your complaints are improved by reintroducing IHT for farmers.
Farms handed down from generation to generation managed perfectly well until the 1990's, when the tax dodge was introduced.
comment in response to
post
Those family farms aren't affected though.
The average farm is far too small to hit the threshold.
Farming would be more attractive and lucrative if agricultural land was cheaper. Potential new farmers can't get started due to insufficient capital, priced out of land by speculators and tax dodgers
comment in response to
post
This is very true.
comment in response to
post
The factually accurate figure of 28% of farms affected shows the original claim to be true
comment in response to
post
Refugees from persecution, but you already knew that.
comment in response to
post
Aww bless, you're following me around like a love sick puppy.
As usual, you completely miss my point
comment in response to
post
Capitalism has never been unrestrained so far.
However the economies in countries where the process was started 40 years ago, are already showing the signs.
comment in response to
post
You have delusions, not arguments.
comment in response to
post
Immoral and illegal are two different things.
You've still not demonstrated that taxation is theft.
comment in response to
post
Which is yet another irrelevance.
Other working family businesses are subject to inheritance tax.
Farmers should be no different.
comment in response to
post
Refugees aren't illegal aliens.
comment in response to
post
Ah, project fear !!
comment in response to
post
Why do you keep trying to deflect, rather than addressing the original point ?
comment in response to
post
Regulations are what's keeping capitalism alive.
Unrestrained capitalism eats itself.
comment in response to
post
Which is why it needs strict regulations and prefereably, a not for profit competitor.
Unrestrained capitalism eats itself (free market cheerleaders take note).
comment in response to
post
Keep telling yourself that, if it helps you sleep at night.
comment in response to
post
Of course you won't.
You have nothing.
comment in response to
post
Actual, not "avti"
comment in response to
post
Sorry, did I use too many long words for you to understand ?
comment in response to
post
Why on earth would you imagine that the debt needed repaying ?
Debt is continually rolled over and inflation devalues it to insignificance.
The ONLY thing that matters is the ability to service the debt.
comment in response to
post
I don't need to argue.
I have all the evidence I need.
comment in response to
post
He'd have developed it if it was possible.
Wherever his cash is, it's doing no one else here any good.
Without it's value as a tax dodge, agricultural land will become cheaper, for avti farmers to be able to afford.
Win-win.
comment in response to
post
I replied to a populist slogan with a popular slogan.
comment in response to
post
No, I want a civilised forum for everyone.
That means kicking out those intent on disrupting debate, whatever their opinion is.
comment in response to
post
Rubbish.
The reality is that taxes (supplemented by borrowing where necessary) funds govt. spending.
The mental gymnastics used to attempt to prove otherwise, don't stand up to scrutiny.
comment in response to
post
Your opinion, nothing more.
comment in response to
post
The question mark clearly shows that I made no claim.
comment in response to
post
I understand the difference, as does CGT and IHT.
You make the mistake of not reading what I actually say, and inventing quotes for me instead.
Classic straw man argument.
comment in response to
post
By definition, it's literally false.
Taxation is 100% legal, so can't possibly be theft.
comment in response to
post
Your distraction questions are solely intended to regrade an argument that you've already loss.
I'm not playing your game. I'm holding you to your original false claims.
comment in response to
post
Bless your naivety.
comment in response to
post
Conflating low incomes with IHT relief, is a very weak argument.
Low incomes need to be addressed in any case, not used as cover for tax avoidance.
comment in response to
post
It's unearned income to the beneficiaries, and perfectly reasonable that it's liable to tax.
comment in response to
post
MMT nonsense.
comment in response to
post
Given that you've repeatedly demonstrated a vivid imagination, I won't even attempt to answer your riddle
comment in response to
post
I made no such claim.
Your repeated desire to create straw men to argue against, confirm that you don't understand the subject.
comment in response to
post
Where did I say that ?
Your inventions are becoming more extreme with every post.
comment in response to
post
I leave the pretense to you.
comment in response to
post
No, the keyword is 'if'
Realising the gain in the value of an asset is specifically a criteria for liability to CGT, not IHT.
comment in response to
post
You do excel in straw man arguments.
Bless you fir trying though.
comment in response to
post
For which you are both taxed accordingly
comment in response to
post
Because it's recieved by the beneficiaries.
Nothing like tins of beans, but bless you for trying.
comment in response to
post
No, it's called equality.
comment in response to
post
Ever notice how it's people who have no argument apart from slogans, who resort to personal abuse?