Why should farmers be exempt from inheritance tax that applies to everyone else? It's a method of wealth redistribution, not just income distribution, it's actually quite socialist, and one of the only such measures in our system.
Millionaire farmers driving around in their tractors protesting that when they die, their wealth shouldn't be redistributed to any degree is pathetic.
Why should farmers be exempt from inheritance tax that applies to everyone else?
In theory, the problem is one of compounding assets. If you have a family farm with multiple inheriting children and the farm has to be sold to pay off the inheritence tax debt, who buys them? Inevitably, bigger industrial agriculture firms. So more and more plots are aggregated within a smaller and smaller number of privately owned farming companies.
In practice, this has already happened decades prior (centuries prior, if you look at the history of land ownership in Ireland). The people buying up small plots of land aren't pioneering farmer entrepreneurs. They're people explicitly looking to dodge taxes by converting their accumulated wealth into an untaxable asset. So you're not seeing small farmers shielded from consolidation thanks to inheritance taxes. You're seeing celebrities and mega-millionaires shielding cash assets behind an accounting trick.
Millionaire farmers driving around in their tractors protesting that when they die, their wealth shouldn’t be redistributed to any degree is pathetic.
Wealth in the UK isn't being redistributed, its being aggregated. The prior and current governments have gone all in on private equity as a cure for sluggish growth. This is purely Rich Guy on Rich Guy violence.
If you genuinely care about protecting the assets of the working class, you need less middling Starmerism and more radical Maoism.
The maoist uprising against the landlords was the largest and most comprehensive proletarian revolution in history, and led to almost totally-equal redistribution of land among the peasantry
- Michael Parenti
They're people explicitly looking to dodge taxes by converting their accumulated wealth into an untaxable asset. So you're not seeing small farmers shielded from consolidation thanks to inheritance taxes. You're seeing celebrities and mega-millionaires shielding cash assets behind an accounting trick.
This is exactly what the policy is aiming to address. Even if it doesn't fix the consolidation of farmland by big companies, I don't see how addressing this loophole is a bad thing, especially when you describe the drawback to it as having already happened anyway
I live in a rural area and speak to lots of farmers. Chatting to one of my neighbours in the pub about it and they're righteously angry about it.
Drill down into their assets though and they have: modest sheep flock and attendant land, equipment etc, large family home, profitable machining and engineering business, separate from the farm, 4 other properties that they let their children live in rent free or rent out to other tenants.
I do think that the government is using a hammer to tighten a screw, but my sympathy ends for farmers when they're hoarding assets to that degree and that isn't even particularly large when I compare it to some of the families I work for. One I can name employs around 200 people in a major dairy operation with dozens of old family farms consolidated into the ownership of 3 siblings.
Land and farm assets like animals, equipment etc should be exempt so that they're not just bought up by corporations. The rest should be subject to the same level of taxation as the rest of the country has to pay.
The corporations should just be taxed twice as heavily on it, reducing tax isn't the answer to prevent corporations buying up the farms. As they don't die, corporations should just have to pay 'inheritance' tax every 50 years.
Good. Farmers need to be taxed and regulated like all other industries. Unchecked water usage has led to the most inefficient water methods and they don't pay household rates for water. Little oversight in how pesticides are used so the farmer pays for a helicopter to swoop and spray the area, regardless of the need for pesticides on the entire field with down wind effects for anyone living in the path of the aerosol poisons.
Farmers need to change with the times and start farming like they have satellite pictures and basic math available to them.
Are the farms collectively owned? If not, why are they collectively subsidized?
I'm fine with Corporate mega farms getting taxed. And I'm in favour of all of us paying taxes "fairly".
Probably the little people will wait get fucked
I don't know what it's like over in Canada, but here in Australia it seems like the two biggest problems farmers face are the increasingly extreme climate and the vicehold the supermarket duopoly has over the market, giving them both monopoly and monopsony power, allowing them to completely screw over farmers.
We have two main parties, one which has consistently been more in favour of action on climate change than the other, and which is also the less friendly one to corporate interests. We also have a third somewhat-major party that has extremely strong policies on climate change and monopolies. Guess which of these three parties farmers have consistently overwhelmingly voted for over the past 30+ years?
So nah, fuck 'em. They've brought it on themselves. I've no interest in taxpayers subsidising them.
But maybe circumstances in Canada are different.
Yeah, that pretty much sounds like the exact same thing here.
Exactly the same in NZ too.
Tax breaks for the farmers working the fields, or tax breaks for the international corporations and land speculators that own nearly all the fields?
Farming subsidies have little to do with the food a nation needs, and everything to do with elections. Countries where farmer's votes don't swing elections, don't have farming subsidies
CGP Gray's rules for rulers still sticks with me.
I forgot where that was from. Thanks!
If we are talking about an industrialized country, then absolutely, farmers need to be taxed just like everybody else. Farmer subsidies leads to overproduction of food, much of which is then intentionally destroyed (by the farmers, or supermarkets) to keep prices high. If you think that the elimination of farmer subsidies will lead to higher food prices and thus hunger, do note that it is possible to redirect subsidies into food allowances for the poor. For instance, the US spends about $14 billion per year in agriculture subsidies (barring covid, during which subsidies jumped to above $40 billion). On the other hand, for the entire world, the cost of eliminating (or drastically reducing) hunger can be as low as $7 billion per year depending on the approach.
And this isn't even the radical solution. The actually radical solution for eliminating the food problem entirely would be to nationalize the agriculture industry and switch the whole country to a vegetarian diet. If we do this in the entire industrialized world, and fund aggressive hunger elimination programs, then the question of food instability, even taking climate change into account is solved.
Based
Lemmy.
MarxismLenninismMyLandisMyLand >:^[Toddler wants what he wants reality be damned.
