International Farmers shutdown London as UK Government looks to destroy farming sector

[Croo67]

A new tax which would see individuals having to shell out £500,000 to the UK Government to inherit a modestly-sized farm from their own family has sent UK farmers berserk, leading to a mass protest in central London.

The tax is expected to raise £560 million and is being billed as being necessary to fund services such as the National Health Service (NHS).

Do you think putting such pressure on the farming industry for the sake of £560m is a wise decision from the same government which spends £3 billion per year housing random men from the third world, recently sent £13 billion to fund a war 2000 miles away, and sends £100 million a year to India?

 

[Gas121]

Another ridiculous move by Starmer. It’s just tax, tax, tax with this guy. Yuck.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Fuck farmers. Immigrants need free healthcare.

 

[UberHere]

Looks like UK needs a MUKGA movement

 

[A Very Serious Cat]

That farm land could be better used for a housing estate. Think of all the vape and betting shops there could be

 

[Islam Imamate]

Fuck farmers.

This but unironically.

 

[Rob Battisti]

This but unironically.

We only need bio-engineered sustenance from mega corporations. Family owned farms have no right to want to pass down their businesses to their kids without extreme fines. Otherwise, how will we combat climate change and inequity?

 

[Rob Battisti]

That farm land could be better used for a housing estate. Think of all the vape and betting shops there could be

There should be no agricultural zoning. The very existence of such practices contribute to the housing crisis.

 

[PaddyO'malley]

Wow. Many much gracious prayer it go towards them from me. They was been suffering so hard from Oppressive Immigrant Imperialist regime, much same to what was have been experienced by our Loyal Brothers and Sisters of the Great North.

Hopefully, soon one day we was marching side by side with one each other. Canadan, UK Citizens, and Ever-Powerful Americans shouting loud for unification as one Great Nation under Eternal Champion #DonaldTrump ! Together, we was create future of glory and strength! #YesWeCanada #UKanDoIt #SupportUnification #ProsperityToTheSky2025

 

[650lb Sumo]

Dekulakisation was the Soviet campaign of political repressions, including arrests, deportations, or executions of millions of supposed kulaks (wealthy peasants) and their families. Redistribution of farmland started in 1917 and lasted until 1933, but was most active in the 1929–1932 period of the first five-year plan. To facilitate the expropriations of farmland, the Soviet government announced the 'liquidation of the kulaks as a class' on 27 December 1929, portraying kulaks as class enemies of the Soviet Union.

More than 1.8 million peasants were deported in 1930–1931. The campaign had the stated purpose of fighting counter-revolution and of building socialism in the countryside. This policy, carried out simultaneously with collectivisation in the Soviet Union, effectively brought all agriculture and all the labourers in the Soviet Union under state control.

The kulaks were a group of affluent peasants who owned land and had workers working for them. They posed a danger to Stalin's collectivisation efforts, which sought to end private land ownership and centralise agricultural production under state supervision. In order to do this Stalin took a number of harsh actions against the kulaks. Many of them were imprisoned, deported, and forced to work in prison camps. Others perished in executions or while travelling to the camps. Millions of kulaks and their families are thought to have been affected by these measures.

 

[Rygu]

The UK is whack these days.

First they kill free speech, now going after farms, what a shithole.

 

[Islam Imamate]

We only need bio-engineered sustenance from mega corporations. Family owned farms have no right to want to pass down their businesses to their kids without extreme fines. Otherwise, how will we combat climate change and inequity?

I'm half joking because I haven't read into this specific issue beyond this article but in general farmer's protests are usually about protecting their privileges which come at the expense of the rest of society through measures like tariffs and subsidies which also forms part of the complaints with this protest.

The last decade has been turbulent. Many British farmers backed Brexit as a chance to get out of the EU’s complex and much-criticized Common Agricultural Policy. Since then, the U.K. has brought in changes such as paying farmers to restore nature and promote biodiversity, as well as for producing food.


Some farmers have welcomed those moves, but many feel goodwill was squandered through bureaucratic bungling — by previous Conservative governments as well as Starmer’s Labour administration — alongside a failure of subsidies to keep up with inflation and new trade deals with countries including Australia and New Zealand that have opened the door to cheap imports.

In regards to the inheritance tax, its technically a tax break that has expired and it exempted agricultural properties from property taxes. Without an inheritance tax its easier for landed elites to accumulate larger estates across generations whereas levying the tax can incentivize larger estates to sell off some land to aspiring farmers. The counter-argument is that depending on the nature of your national agriculture industry you might want to achieve economy of scale and so it might be in the national interest to allow for consolidation in this industry but if that is the case its the lack of an inheritance tax, not the levying of one, that would facilitate that.

 

[avenue94]

I'm half joking because I haven't read into this specific issue beyond this article but in general farmer's protests are usually about protecting their privileges which come at the expense of the rest of society through measures like tariffs and subsidies which also forms part of the complaints with this protest.

In regards to the inheritance tax, its technically a tax break that has expired and it exempts agricultural properties from property taxes. Without an inheritance tax its easier for landed elites to accumulate larger estates across generations whereas levying the tax can incentivize larger estates to sell off some land to aspiring farmers. The counter-argument is that depending on the nature of your national agriculture industry you might want to achieve economy of scale and so it might be in the national interest to allow for consolidation in this industry but if that is the case its the lack of an inheritance tax, not the levying of one, that would facilitate that.

Looks like the current cutoff is 3 million for a couple, this would drop it to 1 million. So not as high a cutoff as say America, but still pretty substantial.

To your point, one of the people complaining is Jeremy Hunt lol.

 

[Natural Order]

Has anything sensible come out of the UK in the last 15 years?

Unsurprised.

 

[Croo67]

The whole NHS fallacy is becoming hysterical.

It gets record funding every year and still can't cope - because the problem isn't money; it's behaviour. There is zero accountability in Britain when it comes to health, people are able to eat themselves into oblivion - make no effort to lose weight - and still get access to NHS care.

If servicing and repairing cars was free, people would run their motors into the ground - but it's not, so they take care of them.

Just think about that - Britain is a country in which people take more care of their car than they do their own health!

 

[panamaican]

Ok, so farms are exempt from inheritance tax. This proposal would remove the exemption for farms worth more than 1 million pounds, adding back in a 20% tax on them.

However, estates worth less than 3 million are still exempt. So even if the farm is worth more than 1 million, if the total estate is less than 3 million, there would no tax. Lastly, the tax rate of 20% is less than the normal rate of 40% for land. The flip side is that investors are supposedly buying up farmland and that's problematic.

I don't live in the UK but that's a tricky one to decide on. It definitely still protects most farmers from any inheritance tax but I have no idea how much a burden it really is on the people.

The real issue is what do you do when a tax break created for regular people starts getting abused by the monied set? Do you continue to let the rich reap the tax benefit since no regular people get harmed or do you modify the tax break to try and put the rich back under the tax umbrella with as little impact as possible for everyone else while knowing it won't be perfect. Hard decision to make.

 

[Staph infection]

Has anything sensible come out of the UK in the last 15 years?

Unsurprised.

Uh hello!!!! Paddy the baddy

 

[A Very Serious Cat]

The whole NHS fallacy is becoming hysterical.

It gets record funding every year and still can't cope - because the problem isn't money; it's behaviour. There is zero accountability in Britain when it comes to health, people are able to eat themselves into oblivion - make no effort to lose weight - and still get access to NHS care.

If servicing and repairing cars was free, people would run their motors into the ground - but it's not, so they take care of them.

Just think about that - Britain is a country in which people take more care of their car than they do their own health!

The nhs is horribly inefficient and broken agree that throwing more money at it won't fix the problems

 

[Staph infection]

Ok, so farms are exempt from inheritance tax. This proposal would remove the exemption for farms worth more than 1 million pounds, adding back in a 20% tax on them.

However, estates worth less than 3 million are still exempt. So even if the farm is worth more than 1 million, if the total estate is less than 3 million, there would no tax. Lastly, the tax rate of 20% is less than the normal rate of 40% for land. The flip side is that investors are supposedly buying up farmland and that's problematic.

I don't live in the UK but that's a tricky one to decide on. It definitely still protects most farmers from any inheritance tax but I have no idea how much a burden it really is on the people.

The real issue is what do you do when a tax break created for regular people starts getting abused by the monied set? Do you continue to let rich reap the benefit since no regular people get harmed or do you modify the tax break to try and put the rich back under the tax arm with as little impact as possible for everyone else. Hard decision to make.

The rich generally find a loophole or way around the tax and if for some reason they cannot. They will just offset the tax by increasing the price of goods or services that they control. Then the smaller people still get screwed over even worse as the tax break they could take advantage of is gone and they have to pay more for good or services from the rich.

 

[Croo67]

The nhs is horribly inefficient and broken agree that throwing more money at it won't fix the problems

I think it would work fine if people took responsibility for their own health or didn't see a GP appointment as a weekly tradition.

When I was last in A&E, there was people hobbling over to vending machines - if you even want to eat whilst in A&E, let alone be able to move to a vending machine, then you shouldn't be in A&E.