Agricultural crises (another one)

[ajd132]

Maybe, but then whats the point of a life without some graft?

Raising humanity to higher levels of intellectual, cultural and sensory existence. Life in the not to distant future will be unfathomable to what we know, we will look like what a caveman looks to us.

 

[Tubbylew]

The fastest way to reduce the age of active farmers would be to make anyone over retirement age ineligible for subsidy payments.

It wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to who the boss is, they'd just alter the name on the forms. Ever heard the saying "you're not a man till your father is dead"

 

[ollie989898]

Raising humanity to higher levels of intellectual, cultural and sensory existence. Life in the not to distant future will be unfathomable to what we know, we will look like what a caveman looks to us.

Universal income would suggest that those who are working will be paying others not to work. Would you add supplementary payments for people not having children as well?

 

[kfpben]

Raising humanity to higher levels of intellectual, cultural and sensory existence. Life in the not to distant future will be unfathomable to what we know, we will look like what a caveman looks to us.

So media studies, drugs and shagging for all then ? Sounds good

 

[ajd132]

Universal income would suggest that those who are working will be paying others not to work. Would you add supplementary payments for people not having children as well?

We should be colonising other planets by then so I guess the other way of thinking is that those people will generally be forced into some kind of frontier life.

 

[ajd132]

So media studies, drugs and shagging for all then ? Sounds good

Yes but with the added benefit of regeneration therapy and a galaxy to colonise!

 

[Henarar]

Why has everything always got to be about fudging subsidies.

because everybody gets them

 

[Tubbylew]

Raising humanity to higher levels of intellectual, cultural and sensory existence. Life in the not to distant future will be unfathomable to what we know, we will look like what a caveman looks to us.

The only difference between us and the cave men is thousands of years of struggle.

 

[Bald Rick]

This is the most common thing in farming.oldies don’t trust the younger generation and I include people aged 50/60 plus in that
Nick…

Not here.
At 60, I'm buggered if I will get up at 5am every day so handed over the reins pdq to son, 33. He makes the decisions. I just nod.
BTW, none of our staff are over 26. All local and hopefully here for as long as they want or until I get cross and third party bullet them.

 

[Derrick Hughes]

Young people don't seem to want to do anything though. Shortage of lorry drivers, builders, NHS staff, dentists ( well paid ), abattoir workers, veg pickers.........

Would you work like a dog if you did not need to , not to mention all the stress and worry that goes along with it

 

[Goweresque]

Then inheritance tax rules means it’s safer to die with your boots on than relinquish control earlier.

Not true. You can pass land and business assets on to the next generation any time you care, with no tax to pay whatsoever. Gifts of business assets currently attract 100% IHT relief and although the gift is equivalent to a sale for CGT purposes, Hold Over Relief applies to all business assets (this means the recipient acquires the assets at the same CGT base value as the donor had). The only advantage to dying with your boots on is that your estate gets revalued at death and the beneficiaries can sell up free of CGT if they so choose. However by waiting you always risk the chance that the tax rules change before you die. So waiting is actually riskier - you can pass it all on tax free now, by waiting there is a risk (of who knows what size) that will be tax to pay on your eventual death.

If you have an heir or heirs lined up who want to continue farming (and thus don't care about a potential tax bill if the farm was ever sold) then passing it all on while the tax rules are known (and very advantageous) makes far more sense.

 

[Goweresque]

Why has everything always got to be about fudging subsidies.

Because they have been fundamental to farming for 70+ years, and as such the entire structure of the industry (and its supply chain) is built on their existence. Every feature of the industry one might care to look at has in some way or other been shaped by the availability of subsidies.

 

[Nearly]

The cynic would say that pasing it on as gift would make heirs less likely to sell up as they would have a mahoosive tax bill.
Die with your wellies on and heirs can pish it all up a wall and taxman gets sod all.

Best to use a number of strategies passing various assets (to various people) in case of wholesale goalpost moving by govt.

 

[DrWazzock]

Not true. You can pass land and business assets on to the next generation any time you care, with no tax to pay whatsoever. Gifts of business assets currently attract 100% IHT relief and although the gift is equivalent to a sale for CGT purposes, Hold Over Relief applies to all business assets (this means the recipient acquires the assets at the same CGT base value as the donor had). The only advantage to dying with your boots on is that your estate gets revalued at death and the beneficiaries can sell up free of CGT if they so choose. However by waiting you always risk the chance that the tax rules change before you die. So waiting is actually riskier - you can pass it all on tax free now, by waiting there is a risk (of who knows what size) that will be tax to pay on your eventual death.

If you have an heir or heirs lined up who want to continue farming (and thus don't care about a potential tax bill if the farm was ever sold) then passing it all on while the tax rules are known (and very advantageous) makes far more sense.

Agreed. But it’s cleaner (and more tax efficient) to have the CG element reset at the time of death rather than held over for the next generation to pay if they (more than likely) sell it.

 

[Formatted]

Young people don't seem to want to do anything though

There are also just fewer young people, a slow in population growth means we aren't replacing as fast as people are leaving the workforce.

 

[Goweresque]

Agreed. But it’s cleaner (and more tax efficient) to have the CG element reset at the time of death rather than held over for the next generation to pay if they (more than likely) sell it.

We're talking about passing farms on to the next generation so they can continue to farm them, not sell up and spend the cash. And if continuing a farming legacy is the aim then there is no incentive to wait until death, apart from wanting to hang on to control for as long as possible.

 

[thesilentone]

As has been said, this is an old chestnut, 58 has been the average age for decades.

However, we need to consider the ' jam tomorrow ' attitude to family labour. " One day all this will be yours " does not buy the fancy sports car, foreign holidays, meals out and everything else the young want today, not tomorrow.

Even when ' all this ' falls into the hands of the next generation, we usually leave it so late, that hunger for life has dissipated, so many trudge along just like Dad......

How many times do we read threads from young farmers son's who have great ideas but if suggested, know Dad will just shoot them down ?

 

[Lowland1]

View attachment 1007819
There are also just fewer young people, a slow in population growth means we aren't replacing as fast as people are leaving the workforce.

That's the long and the short of it the UK and most of Europe has a declining and aging population. There just aren't enough kids and there's too many old folk. It's actually a very dangerous situation the choice of jobs will mean the youngsters have a choice of jobs and it probably won't be working in care homes looking after the oldies.
Claas are now looking to recruit 12-14 year olds for their academy in the UK obviously they can't start work until they are 16 but they are looking for people to apply in advance with predicted grades etc so they can pick good kids before other companies snaffle them up.

 

[BrianV]

Not true. You can pass land and business assets on to the next generation any time you care, with no tax to pay whatsoever. Gifts of business assets currently attract 100% IHT relief and although the gift is equivalent to a sale for CGT purposes, Hold Over Relief applies to all business assets (this means the recipient acquires the assets at the same CGT base value as the donor had). The only advantage to dying with your boots on is that your estate gets revalued at death and the beneficiaries can sell up free of CGT if they so choose. However by waiting you always risk the chance that the tax rules change before you die. So waiting is actually riskier - you can pass it all on tax free now, by waiting there is a risk (of who knows what size) that will be tax to pay on your eventual death.

If you have an heir or heirs lined up who want to continue farming (and thus don't care about a potential tax bill if the farm was ever sold) then passing it all on while the tax rules are known (and very advantageous) makes far more sense.

That makes good sense unless sons end up getting divorced after you have passed it over, have known a few get caught out this way, there's no absolute fail safe way of passing it over, you just do what you think is best, maybe a family discretionary trust with many "potential" beneficiaries might be an option?

 

[Tim W]

Because they have been fundamental to farming for 70+ years, and as such the entire structure of the industry (and its supply chain) is built on their existence. Every feature of the industry one might care to look at has in some way or other been shaped by the availability of subsidies.

and this is why it is so hard for farmers to see beyond the hand out system ---it's part of the the industry culture ---an addiction so hard to kick