Most farmers consider the statement a lie. Whether it is or not is to be proven.
Here I examine a take on inheritance tax that may be a surprise, I argue why this is not the case, but it may explain why many grass roots Labour and Trade Unionists have little sympathy with farming. At the same time I explain how this is becoming an issue of trust in government (or lack of it). I have low regard for party politics, but this is about policy and how it is being inadequately explained and people's fears dismissed out of hand almost in an act of arrogance.
In 2002 I found myself privy to a conversation where I discovered a surprising insight into inheritance tax. The person speaking was the family owner of a large country estate that owned most of a village and several farms together with a large Country House at its heart. The estate was over 400 years old. To my surprise this person said, “I believe it is entirely fair and equitable that my estate pays inheritance tax at the current rates.” They then went on to explain that almost every activity on the vast Estate to maintain and improve it had enjoyed subsidies and grants of one form or another and that inheritance tax was a reasonable claw-back of the government for that investment. After all they could sell a couple of houses in the village to pay the bill.
Now this argument might be used for farming. The Common Agricultural Policy saw the largest diversion of funds into farming ever. The reality is that this represented a diversion of state capital from other industries such as coal, steel and manufacturing that all shrank whilst agriculture expanded from the 1970’s on. Many farmers enjoyed the subsidies, grants and environmental payments. Therefore is it reasonable for that to be clawed back with Inheritance Tax?
No -the reason I say this is that farmers, and certainly small family farms, were not net beneficiaries of this. They were effectively set on a treadmill of increasing costs, increasing production, low prices from sales and artificially inflated land prices as larger investors sought to get a piece of this at a scale that was beneficial. The net beneficiaries of the subsidizing of agriculture were chemical firms, fertilizer manufacturers, drug companies, agronomists, machinery manufacturers, land agents, banks, supermarkets, finance companies and large corporate investors who entered at a scale where return on capital was achievable. This is documented in Richard Body’s various books most notably The Triumph and the Shame. I know many farmers disagree, but if you then ask them to correlate fertilizer prices or the price of machinery you start to see the penny drop.
It has to be noted that increasingly farming is being treated like it is a moral act to steward the countryside, an earthbound British patriot that feeds people whilst taking care of the countryside. This is a dangerous view as it overlooks the reality of it being a business with a need to be economically sustainable. It also overlooks the need for it to be socially sustainable. This is dealing with peoples lives and with social structures.
There is a disturbing note to the fact that business property relief on all shares not listed on markets of recognized stock exchanges is reduced to 50%. This favours big business and combined with the alteration to the allowance for Trusts rides a coach and horses through some existing succession planning. My fear with this process is that it favours large often foreign investors to the detriment of ordinary farmers as there is a rush to environmental investment such as tree planting for offset schemes and solar panels to the financial, economic and social detriment of the countryside and its people.
This fear can be dismissed as paranoia, but the simple fact is that few farmers trust politicians of either colour as they appear to blindly follow ideology without thought or concern for them. Anybody doubting this can see this lack of trust seeping into the general population by simply examining the low poll turn out at the last general election. The repeated party lines on this policy further re-enforce this lack of trust. Past failings and fears are re-enforced by blood scandals, Post Office scandal, immigration and the repeated failings of core institutions such as the justice system, NHS, care and education. These failings crossed many administrations of all political colours.
Ideology in farming and countryside management has a very chequered history. It saw badly run collective farms in Russia, China and Cambodia. It saw land grabs and clearances in Germany, Poland, Scotland, Ireland and Israel. That this is deemed more insidious is led by Labour policy in Wales.
Trust in politicians is at an all time low. Will the current government earn our trust? The repeated line on this policy is so obviously a party line being stuck to without reason that it further undermines the trust in government.
Comentarios