Here is the News.

So the hypothetical situation we're discussing is that the farm land, buildings and equipment is worth say £3.5m, yet the owners are actually very poor and have no cash each month? And therefore when the farmer & wife/husband leave the farm to the son or daughter, the son or daughter will be unable to pay the inheritance tax of 40% on the £500K that is above the threshold? Have I got that about right?

It's 20% rate proposed payable over 10 years I think?

Yeah 20% over 10 years.

Obviously this is all made up figures, all cases will be different, We have farmers who make good money and others who barely make minimum wage.

There will also be ways round it, boom times for tax advisors. I'm sure that is everyone's hoped for outcome.

The full anti avoidance rules aren't out yet, I think there is a consultation in the new year.

So 20% of 500,000 is 100,000. Over 10 years is 10,000 a year. Surely if the farm is worth £3.5m this person can afford that? I mean, fuck sake, sell it and put the £3.5m in investments and live of the proceeds comfortably the rest of your life no?

All I've seen so far is rich people getting pissed off that they have to pay tax on things that the rest of us already do. And a better rate than we do.

I'd like some examples of where this is actually a bad thing and people are genuinely going to struggle. What are the numbers for these cases if they exist?

Presumably who won't be effected by this.

This is a good, if long, explanation.

Then who grows the food?

From the viewpoint of the hypothetical situation we've just discussed, who gives a fuck. You've a young farmer who can put £3.5m in his bank and never work again OR he can earn almost nothing after costs (I'm told), be poor the rest of his life (I'm told), and pay the Government £10,000 a year for 10 years (I'm told).

As I said, happy for someone to give me some numbers and examples to show me I'm wrong, but from what I've read this removal of IHT relief is only going to effect very rich people. Isn't that what we've been wanting for the last two decades? To tax the rich more? (Accepting yes, there's plenty more people that also need this principal applying to).

Reducing tax avoidance is good. And I think the rules can be tweaked to target that mor effectively but the principle is solid. It also, with a bit of squinting, gives smaller farms a small advantage compared to larger ones for a change.
And yes, it can be a tough lonely lifestyle, especially with the extra pressure for owner-farmers. Proper social and economic support should not preclude equitable taxation.
Spent junior years in rural Somerset and my uncle owned a dairy farm which he sold for a shitload on retirement because my cousins had no interest in that life.

We've got an obesity epidemic, we don't need food.