Why are Britain's farmers protesting over Labour's inheritance tax changes?
Farmers and their allies will begin to gather from midday on Tuesday for speeches outside Parliament. Industry leaders say the plan put forward by chancellor Rachel Reeves during her first Budget last October, is 'marching the UK into a food crisis'.
Police have warned attendees that they face arrest if they bring unauthorised tractors to Whitehall, as has been seen at previous events. This marks the first time such a warning has been put in place, with several tractors hitting the streets on central London in recent months.
A Metropolitan Police spokesperson said: 'It is a criminal offence to breach the conditions or to incite others to do so – anyone doing so may face arrest.' However, a limited number of agreed tractors have been authorised.
Organiser and farmer Olly Harrison has said the protesters will aim to explain to MPs 'the levels of investment needed in agriculture just to produce something simple like a pancake'.
Here's everything you need to know about the issue:
Previously, farming businesses qualified for 100 per cent relief on inheritance tax on agricultural property and business property.
But now the tax is being imposed on farms worth more than £1 million, with an effective tax rate of 20 per cent on assets above the threshold, rather than the normal 40 per cent rate for inheritance tax.
The Government says that the actual threshold before paying inheritance tax could be as much as £3 million, once exemptions for each partner in a couple and for the farm property are taken into account.
The government has said 'difficult decisions' had to be made to fill a £22 billion fiscal hole it inherited from the Conservatives, and it is targeting the agricultural inheritance tax relief to make it fairer.
It said figures showed that 7 per cent of the wealthiest estates account for 40 per cent of the total value of agricultural property relief, costing the Treasury £219 million.
According to the Treasury, some 27 per cent of estates claiming agricultural property relief (APR) were above the £1 million threshold in 2021/2022, suggesting that nearly three-quarters of farms would not fall within the scope of the charges.
The Treasury says around 500 estates a year are expected to pay inheritance tax under the changes.
However, the National Farmers' Union (NFU) says farm businesses have also qualified separately for business property relief, which can cover things such as harvested grain and livestock, machinery and diversified businesses such as camping on a farmer's field.
Now the two are combined, with a single £1 million allowance before inheritance tax is levied, which could mean more farms are in scope.
The NFU points to figures from the Environment Department (Defra) showing that 66 per cent of farm businesses in England have a net value of more than £1 million.
But the government has countered that analysis, saying that looking at asset value alone does not necessarily mean the farm will be affected, as it depends on individual circumstances.
According to the NFU, while farms may have a high nominal asset value – the value of their land and business assets – the returns from farming are often very low, so farming families may not have the reserves to pay for inheritance tax liabilities without selling off assets.
The NFU's president Tom Bradshaw said the change had left elderly farmers in the 'cruellest predicament', as they may not live for another seven years to take advantage of exemptions for gifting assets, or to hand over assets in a way that qualifies for the gifting exemption.
He has also warned the changes could undermine investment as farmers will be wary of increasing the balance sheet as they will be liable to pay inheritance tax on it.
There are also concerns that it could affect tenant farmers if landowners no longer benefit from having a tax exemption for farmed land.
Mr Bradshaw said there was a feeling among farmers that the Government did not understand food production.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
31 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
One Year of Starmer as UK PM: Where Does Labour Stand?
00:00 Some degree of calm has returned, at least for the markets in Britain, with Chancellor Rachel Reeves underlining her commitment to fiscal discipline and reassurances about her position in the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer. Now the market moves have really underscored the fragility of Britain's economic position as the Labour Party marked one year in power. Let's get more now from Bloomberg opinions. Rosa Prince Good morning, Rose. We've seen the Labour Party promising to make growth its top mission. So really, as we review this first year in office for Starmer, how is the party doing so far? Yeah, not so great. As you say, I think I thought that they could put everything into growth as a way of balancing those books. But it's easier said than done. You can't just press a button and suddenly achieve growth. So there are some measures which have been successful. They've put through some planning reforms and greenlit a lot of infrastructure projects, which I think they hope will achieve growth in the longer term. Shorter term, not so much, particularly that budget that Rachel Rees herself unveiled back in the autumn, which really hit businesses hard and led to a lack of investment, a lack of job creation. And the figures speak for themselves, really. I think we're on course for growth of about an anemic 1%. And what have been the winners this year? Yeah. It's not been all bad. I think if you had asked Keir Starmer at the start of his term whether he thought he'd do better on the domestic front or the foreign well around, I think he would have said domestically. But in fact, it's he's proved rather a and adept world leader. He's handled President Trump in particular better than most other world leaders. Britain has signed three important trade deals India, the European Union, and that trade deal with America and I think has been the only country so far to manage to mitigate some of those tariffs he's been talking about this morning. So that's probably the big policy win from him. And of course, we've got to talk about the chaos this week, Rose. The drama really centering around Starmer's U-turn, forced U-turn on welfare reform. But there've been a series of walk backs recently. Looking ahead, what are the challenges that he's going to face in terms of seeing through his big agenda? I think the major challenge and the thing that everything comes back to really is that this government is so boxed in on it's room for maneuver on the economy. So as we were saying, he had wanted to get some growth going in the British economy and really be able to fund those projects that he cares about, like improving public services. The growth hasn't come. They had hoped then to make the numbers add up by doing some public sector cuts. And as the welfare reform debacle showed this week, that's proved harder than they expected as well. So that really leaves only breaking the borrowing rules, which Rachel Reeves again committed to not doing. She says that she will continue to balance the budget and that borrowing will not rise. Then we've only got tax rises left, which again is the last thing that this Labour government wanted to do. So going forward, they've got a budget coming down the track. Then again, we don't know exactly when, but it'll probably be at the end of October or early November and the difficult choices are coming. And I wonder, Rachel Reeves was finding the pressure really quite tough.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Analysis-Crunch nears for UK's Reeves, with stability elusive and markets wary
By Andy Bruce, Kate Holton and Elizabeth Piper MANCHESTER, England (Reuters) -After a year in office, Britain's finance minister Rachel Reeves faces a reckoning over unmet promises of economic stability, with a stop-start economy and restive bond markets pointing to another tax-raising budget that she had hoped to avoid. Wednesday saw the biggest collapse in British government bond prices since the ill-fated 2022 economic agenda of former prime minister Liz Truss, sparked by investor fright at a tearful appearance by Reeves in parliament. A major rebellion in Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour Party against welfare reforms - which forced him to gut key parts of the plan - also fed doubts about its ability to cut spending and raised questions about party control. Economists say events this week have increased the chance that Reeves will need to raise tens of billions of pounds in taxes later this year after the government's plan to grow the world's sixth largest economy failed to sufficiently deliver. That would further heap pressure on a party that has consistently trailed Nigel Farage's insurgent, right-wing Reform U.K. in the polls. Economists say the government is caught between unruly lawmakers, a disgruntled electorate and rising borrowing costs that risk getting higher still if investors think the government has lost control of the public finances. "The economy is still stuck with sluggish growth," Michael Saunders, senior adviser to Oxford Economics and a former member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee, told Reuters. "That means voters are persistently disappointed because they don't feel the living standards are getting any better." While more tax hikes are likely coming, he questioned whether the government had the stomach to raise the sums needed to put the public purse back on a sustainable footing - again raising the issue of investor confidence. ECONOMIC STABILITY Reeves and Starmer came to power a year ago, vowing to deliver political and economic stability and sustainable growth after 14 often-chaotic years of Conservative government rule. To win over investors, Reeves set what she described as non-negotiable fiscal rules, and angered businesses and households by raising 40 billion pounds ($55 billion) in taxes at her first budget, the biggest tax increases for three decades. Reeves had said that would be a one-off event to fund much-needed investment in Britain's decaying infrastructure. But economists say the limited headroom she had against that fiscal target has likely been wiped out by the reversal of cuts to the ballooning welfare budget, and a warning of a growth downgrade from the official economic forecaster - requiring higher taxes to keep the fiscal plans on track. "That ballpark (of repeating her first budget) is very much within the realms of the possible," said Ben Zaranko, associate director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank. That prospect means investors are increasingly questioning the credibility of an approach that leaves the government scrambling to find ways to restore fiscal headroom whenever there is bad news on the economy. And the violent market moves on Wednesday encapsulated unease over slipping budgets and the potential for more borrowing, with public sector debt currently just below 100% of GDP. "Any tax hike needs to be big, and it needs to be clear. Then you can restore the market's confidence," said Simon Harvey, senior macroeconomist at Swiss-based hedge fund LB Macro. "What we don't need is another round of 15 different measures where you question where the accounting is coming from." Harvey said Britain's economy might require a painful reset before it can recover: higher taxes, an economic slowdown and then fast Bank of England rate cuts which will eventually boost growth and the public finances. All of that will cause alarm in Starmer's Downing Street, which has been criticised for its handling of the welfare vote, and its connection with the parliamentary party group. Some Labour lawmakers expressed frustration that his team didn't listen to their concerns on financial cuts for disabled people, and the prime minister admitted he had been distracted by international events before he focused on the welfare vote. But lawmakers, many of whom feel greater loyalty to their voters than to the government, could now lobby for other policy changes, especially an end to a two-child cap that lets parents claim financial support only for their first two children. Starmer has responded by listing his government's achievements to show it is making a difference, citing trade deals, inward investment and more money for schools and hospitals. But the polls have refused to budge and some investors are joining the fray by criticising Britain's leadership. A hedge fund manager who has supported Labour said voters and many businesses did not realise that the government had to rein in its spending, and that Starmer needed to "lead on how to get out of the predicament" because the options were likely to "feel dreadful". ($1 = 0.7322 pounds) Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tears of the UK's treasury chief spooked financial markets
LONDON (AP) — The weekly session in which the British prime minister is questioned by lawmakers in Parliament can be an ordeal for the government leader. For Cabinet members, it's usually simply a matter of backing their boss. But on Wednesday the spotlight ended up on Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves during the Prime Minister's Questions session because it became evident that she was crying as she sat beside Prime Minister Keir Starmer. It's not known what triggered the tears, later said to have been personal. They came as Starmer sought to fend off attacks that his year-old government was losing its authority and that he was about to fire Reeves to regain the initiative. Markets spooked Traders got spooked, with the interest rate charged on the U.K.'s 10-year benchmark bond in the markets up sharply, and the pound down. The moves were a sign investors had lost confidence in U.K. financial assets. Reeves had become associated with fiscal discipline, in particular a rule of covering day-to-day government spending with tax revenue, said Andrew Wishart, an economist at Berenberg Bank. 'The markets are concerned that if the Chancellor goes, such fiscal discipline would follow her out of the door," he added. With Starmer insisting Thursday that Reeves would remain in post, the markets calmed down. Prime minister's weekly ordeal Prime Minister's Questions, or PMQs, can come as close to a gladiatorial contest as is possible in a modern legislative chamber. Very little deference is given to the man or woman holding the highest office in the land. The prime minister is considered the first among equals. Like all other members of Parliament, the prime minister represents one of 650 constituencies. And nowhere is that shared connection more noticeable than at noon every Wednesday in the House of Commons. Starmer stands for half an hour every week to be quizzed by friends and foes. He may get soft balls, but there's always a potential zinger around the corner. The leader of the biggest opposition party, currently the Conservative Party's Kemi Badenoch, has the best chance to knock the prime minister off course. With six questions, she can lay traps and go for the jugular. Typically it's more theater than substance, and the weekly shouting match is consistently the most-watched parliamentary event, viewed around the world, including on C-Span in the United States. This week was fraught This week's session appeared to have more at stake than usual following a chaotic run-up to a welfare reform bill. With scores of Labour lawmakers opposed, Starmer was forced to scrap key planks of the bill — at a cost, politically and economically. For a prime minister, with one of the biggest majorities in history, it was a sign of weakness. Many Labour MPs blame Reeves, for her rigid adherence to her budget rules. As usual, Starmer was flanked to his left by Reeves, who didn't look her usual self, clearly bloated around the eyes. Badenoch showed little mercy, describing Reeves as 'absolutely miserable' and a 'human shield' for Starmer. She asked Starmer whether he could repeat a pledge that Reeves would stay in her post until the general election, which has to take place by the middle of 2029. While praising Reeves' handling of the economy, Starmer didn't give that assurance, and it was around this point that Reeves wiped away a tear. 'How awful for the Chancellor that he couldn't confirm that she would stay in place," Badenoch responded. The immediate political aftermath Starmer's Downing Street operation faced questions over Reeves' teary appearance. Could it have been hay fever? Had Starmer told Reeves she would be fired for the government's recent woes, which has seen Labour's approval ratings slide? Starmer's press spokesman said it was a 'personal matter,' insisted Reeves was 'going nowhere' and had the prime minister's 'full backing.' Later, Starmer told the BBC that Reeves would be Chancellor for a 'very long time' and that it was 'absolutely wrong' to suggest her distress was related to the welfare U-turn. A day on Images of Reeves' agitated state were emblazoned across newspapers and remained a key item on the news agenda. Starmer repeated on Thursday that Reeves would remain Chancellor 'for years to come" and sought to explain why he hadn't comforted Reeves during PMQs. 'In PMQs, it is bang, bang, bang," he said at an event where he and Reeves hugged. "That's what it was yesterday and therefore I was probably the last to appreciate anything going on in the chamber.' Reeves appeared more like her usual self. 'People saw I was upset, but that was yesterday," she told Sky News. 'I guess the thing that is different from my job and many of your viewers is that when I'm having a tough day, it's on the telly.' Sign in to access your portfolio
