Earl Aelfheah

Doing what exactly?

So when you were out on your doorstep clapping for the NHS, what you really felt was that they deserved to watch their pay shrink in order to protect people being gifted multimillion pound estates from paying any tax on it? BTW, the 22% over 2 years, only brings their pay back to just below the level it was in 2009 in real terms.

How is that meant to be me saying: ? Read it again. I honestly can’t work out if you’re actually a parody account. You sound more and more like ‘Colin from Portsmouth’ every day Are you going to answer the question about who you would like to place a greater tax burden on, before those poor individuals inheriting multimillion pound estates?

And of course not anything I’ve said or suggested anywhere.

It's an estate that they have been gifted. They may choose to earn a living from it, or to sell all, or part of it. In many cases, the land will only have been purchased as a way to avoid tax (as is the case for people like Clarkson, Dyson and other individuals with significant land holdings) and has little to do with farming at all. The idea that if I give you land worth £3m + tomorrow Rocks, it's not an massive windfall, but simply a necessary tool that you need to earn a living is silly. It's no different from someone inheriting any other estate where they would usually be required to pay 40% tax and settle up immediately. If you're opposed to any tax on those inheriting multi-million pound estates - I would be interested in who you would like to place a greater tax burden upon? Or do you simply think we should watch public services collapse even further.

Farmers aren't being gifted anything; Their heirs are being gifted millions of pound worth of income generating assets by chance of birth (in most cases). An estate that they have done nothing to earn. Most farms worth under £3m will still end up being passed on tax free. Those that do have to a pay inheritance tax will do so at just 20% on that part which is over the threshold (rather than the standard 40%), and they'll have 10 years to do so (usually it is payable immediately). So it is still preferential terms for those being gifted a multimillion pound estate So to repeat my previous question... Why do you think people coming into a massive, unearned windfall shouldn't pay any tax, but a nurse who works hard for everything they earn, should pay tax?

Because land has been exempt from inheritance tax wealthy individuals (like Clarkson and Dyson) have used it as a tax avoidance measure. Clarkson is on the record stating that he bought land for precisely this purpose. It is people like him who farmers should be angry with, if anyone, because they have exploited a loophole, which is now being (partially) closed. Yes, I do grasp the concept of inheritance - it's were one is given money, or valuable assets by chance of birth (having done nothing to earn it). As money you have earned, is taxed, it seems odd that money you have not, shouldn't be. I assume you don't disapprove of income tax? Why do you think people coming into a massive, unearned windfall shouldn't pay tax, but a nurse who works hard for everything they earn, should? Everyone has to pay inheritance tax over a certain threshold. In my opinion, if you are fortunate enough to be gifted any amount of money (whether cash, or a valuable asset), to quibble about paying some tax on some of it, seems rather entitled. Most farms worth under £3m will still end up being passed on tax free. Those that do have to a pay inheritance tax will do so at just 20% on that part of it that is over the threshold (rather than the standard 40%), and they'll have 10 years to do so (usually it is payable immediately). So it is still preferential terms for those being gifted a multimillion pound estate.

We're not talking about people who've bought farms. We're talking about people who have inherited multi-million pound estates, having done nothing to earn it. Why should they not have to pay some tax on that.

I'm not sure the heredity principle is the best way to encourage change, innovation and competition. I also don't think it's unreasonable to expect those inheriting multimillion pound estates to pay tax on it.

Lessons from the past, don't bite the hand that feeds you. If farmers have to sell land to pay inheritance tax, then we lose food security and at the moment that isn't a good idea. Or we encourage new blood, innovation and change into an important sector

Everyone rushing to speculate on the cause. Of course we don't know. But instructive that the usual suspects want to suggest 'good reasons' why a car may have driven into a lamppost; When statistically, it's much more likely to be the result of careless / dangerous driving, the type that is commonplace. But let's assume not, try to minimise it (and perhaps post about someone cycling slowly past us on the pavement, because that's a much bigger danger).

If you've got to raise taxes, then those inheriting multi-million pound estates, landlords, second property owners, the privately educated, and wealthier pensioners (considering how they have been disproportionately insulated for many years), doesn't' seem like the most unreasonable places to do so. We can't just keep loading more and more pain on young, working renters because it's less noisy. The fact that the media are absolutely up in arms, suggests there has actually been some political bravery, and that power, wealth and influence isn't acting as an absolute inoculant to tax rises for once.

Money has to be raised in order to slow the almost terminal decline of public services bought on through years of neglect under the last government. There is no way to raise taxes that does not have some negative impacts / trade offs. But if we want public services and infrastructure that work then raise taxes we must. Personally I'm glad that she is has gone some way to narrowing the inheritance loop hole which was being used by rich individuals (who are not farmers) to avoid tax. She's slightly rebalanced the burden away from the young, putting it more on wealthier pensioners (who let's face it, have been disproportionately protected for many, many years). And the NICs increase, whilst undoubtedly inflationary, won't be directly passed on (some will, some will likely be absorbed by companies); it's better than raising it on employees, which would have done more to depress growth. Overall, I think she's sailed a prudent course through very choppy waters. The electorate needs to get serious... you can't have European style services and US levels of tax. Borrowing for tax cuts, Truss style, it is is not. Of course the elephant in the room (growing ever larger now Trump is in office and threatening tariffs) is our relationship with the EU. If we want better growth, we need a closer relationship with our nearest and largest trading block. We will at some point have to review tax on transport more radically (as we see greater up take of electric vehicles). The most economically rational system would be one of dynamic road pricing. But politically, very difficult to do

Nope. I've said the exact opposite, as you can read above. I would prefer them to use more expensive UK sourced stones. Had they done that however, you'd have criticised them for how expensive the materials were. The point is that if you are obsessively against creating a new public space in the first place, then there is really nothing they could do with it that you would approve of.

Yes you're quite right, my mistake.