Labour tax raid on farmers to cost Treasury up to £2bn
Inheritance tax reforms due to come into force next April will cause family businesses to slash investment and jobs and lead to a slowdown in the economy, according to independent consultants at CBI Economics.
Its estimates suggest that changes to business property relief (BPR) and Agricultural Property Relief (APR) will backfire and, instead of saving money, it will cost the Treasury £1.9bn by 2030.
Under the changes, inherited farms worth more than £1m will be taxed at a rate of 20pc after having been shielded from the levies for decades – while a 20pc rate will also be charged on inherited business assets over £1m when someone dies.
The Government has said it is expecting to raise £1.8bn from family-owned businesses and farms from the reforms by 2030.
Analysis from the Office for Budget Responsibility last October said this estimate accounted for how business owners and farmers would respond to the policies, although admitted the costing had a 'high degree of uncertainty'.
Family Business UK, the industry group which commissioned the research, said: 'Far from increasing tax receipts into the Treasury and stimulating the economic growth the Government is trying to deliver, the changes to BPR and APR in the October Budget achieve the opposite.'
The organisation said the Government risked 'inadvertently undermining [its] mission of sustained economic growth, which we agree is an absolute necessity to deliver prosperity and improved living standards for working people'.
The analysis found that more than 60pc of family businesses and farms were planning to reduce investment by over a fifth in light of the changes.
Around a quarter have already cut staff. By the end of this parliament, more than 200,000 jobs are expected to be lost, the research showed. Areas including Yorkshire, the East of England and Northern Ireland are expected to be the hardest hit.
Report must 'serve as a wake-up call to Treasury'
It comes amid a growing backlash over the inheritance tax raid and calls for the reforms to be delayed.
Charities have reported a surge in calls from distressed business-owners. In November, John Charlesworth, 78, took his own life after his family said he had been 'eaten away' by fear of the tax raid.
Neil Davy, chief executive of Family Business UK, said the findings showed 'just how far-reaching, and immediate, the impact of these policy changes is'.
He added: 'No industry, sector, region or parliamentary constituency will be immune... The Government must urgently reconsider these policy changes.'
Tom Bradshaw, president of the National Farmers Union, said: 'This report must serve as a wake-up call to Treasury, or we face major cuts to investment and significant job losses.'
Mo Metcalf-Fisher of the Countryside Alliance said: 'It would be an act of foolishness to ignore the very real and irreversible damage these changes pose to the stability of the agricultural sector.'
Meanwhile, Andrew Griffith, the shadow business secretary, said: 'Labour plan to steal the futures of a generation of entrepreneurs on the back of some hooky treasury maths and a blatant breach of election promises.
'The Conservative position is crystal clear. A family business death tax has no place in a society where we celebrate risk takers and wealth creators. No if's or buts. Our first Conservative budget will reverse this damaging measure.'
Separate data published on Monday showed the impact Labour's tax policies are having on the economy.
Estimates compiled by former Treasury economist Chris Walker found at least 10pc of non-doms have already left the UK in the wake of Labour's crackdown.
If more than 25pc of non-doms leave the UK, forecasts suggest the Treasury would start losing revenue. Analysts have suggested the crackdown on non-doms could cost the UK more than £10bn a year in lost economic growth.
A Treasury spokesman said: 'Our reforms to Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs will mean three quarters of estates will continue to pay no inheritance tax at all, while the remaining quarter will pay half the inheritance tax that most estates pay, and payments can be spread over 10 years, interest-free.
'This is a fair and balanced approach which helps fix the public services we all rely on'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
23 minutes ago
- Reuters
UK's online safety law is putting free speech at risk, X says
LONDON, Aug 1 (Reuters) - Britain's online safety law risks suppressing free speech due to its heavy-handed enforcement, social media site X said on Friday, adding that significant changes were needed. The Online Safety Act, which is being rolled out this year, sets tough new requirements on platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, TikTok and X, as well as sites hosting pornography, to protect children and remove illegal content. But it has attracted criticism from politicians, free-speech campaigners and content creators, who have complained that the rules had been implemented too broadly, resulting in the censorship of legal content. Users have complained about age checks that require personal data to be uploaded to access sites that show pornography, and more than 468,000 people have signed an online petition calling for the act to be repealed. The government said on Monday it had no plans to do so and it was working with regulator Ofcom to implement the act as quickly as possible. Technology Secretary Peter Kyle said on Tuesday that those who wanted to overturn it were "on the side of predators". Elon Musk's X, which has implemented age verification, said the law's laudable intentions were at risk of being overshadowed by the breadth of its regulatory reach. "When lawmakers approved these measures, they made a conscientious decision to increase censorship in the name of 'online safety'," it said in a statement. "It is fair to ask if UK citizens were equally aware of the trade-off being made." X said the timetable for meeting mandatory measures had been unnecessarily tight, and despite being in compliance, platforms still faced threats of enforcement and fines, encouraging over-censorship. It said a balanced approach was the only way to protect liberty, encourage innovation and safeguard children. "It's safe to say that significant changes must take place to achieve these objectives in the UK," it said. A UK government spokesperson said it is "demonstrably false" that the Online Safety Act compromises free speech. "As well as legal duties to keep children safe, the very same law places clear and unequivocal duties on platforms to protect freedom of expression," the spokesperson said. Ofcom said on Thursday it had launched investigations into the compliance of four companies, which collectively run 34 pornography sites.
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Trump demands firing of senior official after jobs numbers report
Donald Trump demanded the firing of a top Joe Biden official overseeing the country's 'jobs numbers' after a lackluster report. The president is taking out his frustration on Dr. Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of labor statistics, who was appointed to the role by Biden. He accused her of 'faking' jobs numbers before the 2024 election to 'try and boost Kamala's chances of victory,' in a blistering post to Truth Social. 'We need accurate jobs numbers. I have directed my team to fire this Biden political appointee, IMMEDIATELY. She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified,' he stated. Hiring growth dropped dramatically last month and unemployment ticked up, the latest jobs report released on Friday showed. Nonfarm payrolls added 73,000 in July, far lower than the 100,000 expected by analysts. The unemployment rate also ticked up to 4.2 percent. The report also sharply revised down the figures for May and June by a combined 258,000 jobs from the previously released figures. Following the revision June's total was left at just 14,000 and May's at 19,000 — effectively flat. Analysts say July's figure is also likely to be revised lower, possibly into negative territory. Stocks tumbled in pre-market trading with the S&P 500 down around one percent, and the Nasdaq down around 1.1 percent before the bell. The latest figures suggest cracks are in fact starting to show up in the economy, despite a slew of previous better-than-expected economic data released recently. It comes after the Federal Reserve once again held rates steady at its July meeting on Wednesday.
Daily Mirror
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
What car finance ruling means for YOU - and why you could still get compensation
The Supreme Court has largely sided with banks in a ruling involving a car finance scandal - but the issue is far from over, with huge implications for more than 20 million drivers The Supreme Court has partially overturned a landmark ruling on car finance commissions. The move will have huge implications for banks that may have faced tens of billions of pounds in compensation payouts. However, experts are poring over the ruling to assess what it means for the up to 23 million drivers who were expecting a payout. The Treasury said: 'We respect this judgment from the Supreme Court and we will now work with regulators and industry to understand the impact for both firms and consumers. 'We recognise the issues this court case has highlighted. That is why we are already taking forward significant changes to the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Consumer Credit Act. These reforms will deliver a more consistent and predictable regulatory environment for businesses and consumers, while ensuring that products are sold to customers fairly and clearly.' Like all these things, the ruling was far from straightforward and is still being pored over in detail. But essentially the judges largely sided with the finance firms in the case, with all other banks breathing a sigh of relief because of what it could have meant for them too. It centred on commissions that were paid by finance firms to dealers when selling, in these cases, second hand cars. As the ruling said, there was 'either no disclosure to the customer of the existence of the commission or partial disclosure to the effect that a commission (of unspecified amount) might be paid'. The three customers involved claimed that the commissions amounted to 'bribes', or to 'secret profits' received by the dealers. Essentially, the Supreme Court was looking at whether hidden commission payments to dealers - even when the interest rate on the finance deal was set in advance - were unlawful. It could have seen compensation paid to almost all people who had bought a car on finance. Some estimates had put the potential bill at up to £45billion. However, in one of the cases the court did decide the level of commission was unfair, with all the interest to be paid back. So is that the end of it? Yes, and no. It reduces the number of people who could have potentially received compensation, and lowers the possible bill to banks and finance houses. But there is a separate - though linked - issue around how some dealers were paid bigger rewards if buyers were charged higher interest rates. These so-called discretionary commission arrangements were banned by regulators in 2021. Around 40% of all car finance deals arranged between 2007 and 2021 had this discretionary - rather than fixed - element to them. It is these cases that first led to concerns by regulators and which will now be of focus. What happens next? The Financial Conduct Authority launched an investigation into discretionary commission arrangements early last year. It had put the matter on ice until the outcome of the Supreme Court cases. It has acted swiftly by announcing it will confirm over the weekend if it will launch a scheme for victims of car finance mis-selling to get compensation. Whether there will be such a redress scheme and how it will work will be part of any consultation that takes place. How might it work, and what might I get back? These are key questions for any consultation, if such a scheme is announced. One option is for banks to go back through their records to assess which customers were affected, although this industry-led approach may well be seen as flawed. Another is almost like the PPI scandal, where firms would be forced to pay out to anyone where the discretionary commission applied. There is a good chance it will be automatic - and free - which is why people are being warned about using claims management firms that may end up taking a big chunk of any payout. Then there is the question of how much the compensation would be. It could that customers receive back the same amount as the dealer got in commission. Alternatively, it could be that the interest rate charged is compared with what it would have been had the commission not applied. The customer could then receive the over-payment, in other words the additional interest that was charged. Or it could be all the interest is paid back. Consumer champion Martin Lewis, founder of estimated the level of refunds could now be anything from £5billion to £15billion, but 'rather than the up to £45billion if the Supreme Court had upheld all of it.' He added: "My biggest message is while we wait is, don't do anything. Don't sign up to a claims form. You don't need to do anything right now. Take you hands, sit on them."
