Wild fires in BC Canada.

[whereistheceilidh]

Cancel culture, when logic prevails and the left run for cover.

OK...I have stood on the sidelines with this one, but no longer.
Deema much as I respect your opinions on other matters, you really have in essence continued to kick the can down the road. Nothing you have offered fits within the timescale we probably have to do anything meaningful about about the change in our climate.
I am not talking about those You Tube wizards, but about scientists who have studied the changes in our climate & global environment. Just because you have seen other views & hope, from perhaps a political point of view, they are right, it seems very unlikely. Follow the money. Why would a bunch of scientists fabricate climate change & the rate of it. Look to energy companies reliant on fossil fuels for an input of money - masses of it.
Unfortunately we need to do something rapidly. You have said what we cannot do. Now, given your expertise, come up with solutions that fit a very short time frame. The climate will not wait whilst we argue & dither.

 

[Tris]

The Greens are, their very policy is to determine what land is used for, for government to have control over what land can and cannot be used for.

Worked pretty well in ww2

 

[Jameshow]

That's not a case, that's a copy and paste.

It's a common turn of phrase!!

 

[Phil Pascoe]

If you want to limit migration, try making things better for people in their homeland.

We do. It costs us £billions in foreign aid.

 

[Adam W.]

Um....Oh, whatever.

 

[Chris152]

It's a common turn of phrase!!

Yes, it is.

 

[Jacob]

The Greens are, their very policy is to determine what land is used for, for government to have control over what land can and cannot be used for.

The government already controls land use in many and various ways.
The bigger issue is land ownership which is fairly feudal in Britain, even more so in Scotland. It's the basic form of wealth, and hanging on to it the basic raison d'etre of the Conservative party. Avoiding inheritance tax is their main concern in life, followed by avoidance of any other taxes, as they loudly and publicly protest. This entails having to manage the country as a whole, which they would rather not, and hence do it very badly.
It's an incredible waste of resources for the rest of the population, not only over simple things like access and usage, but more the various ways non-property owners have to pay for the right to exist at all.
Adam Smith expands on this at great length in "The Wealth of Nations".
I'll be voting green - also because of the utter feebleness and dishonesty of the current Labour regime.

 

[deema]

That’s an interesting perspective @Jacob, not one that actually reflects the actual world, but it certainly appeals to people of a certain political agenda.
There are good reasons for land to be IHT, if you are a farmer you cannot pass your land into the next generation which had been the case for millennia if the next generation are faced with huge IHT. Ti secure our food chain, and to maintain farming IHT is good. All business (yes it’s a big simplification) can be passed on after death without attracting IHT, so the fact that land falls into this category is no different.

Let’s consider the agricultural land, when driving around do you see vast swathes of fields not being tended and productive? No, they are all farmed. As a business model being able to rent fields makes far better sense than buying them. Depending on where it is in the country and the grade of the soil determines its value. But as an example, if land is valued at £15K / acre it typically might rent out for £200 / acre. So it would take 75 years of renting to match the acquisition price. Simply not a good financial model. You would need to be able to rent out land for circa £1500/ acre before it starts to make economic sense to buy rather than rent.

So, to a lot of farmers rent land, in fact it seems to be usual to own and rent land to build / run a farm. You can hire in machines and operators to run the farm, so in fact your overal capital investment can be fairly low to start up. Like most businesses the larger the business the greater the opportunity to make savings, so larger farms are more economic than smaller ones.

The question is, how come Deema knows anything about farming? He’s an engineer isn’t he? Yes, I was an engineer, my mother was a farmers daughter and my father in law was a very large farmer in Lincolnshire. A very good knowledge and reading the farmers weekly was essential for family harmony around the dinner table

 

[Jacob]

That’s an interesting perspective @Jacob, not one that actually reflects the actual world, but it certainly appeals to people of a certain political agenda.

The political agenda follows from reflecting on the real world

..

Let’s consider the agricultural land, when driving around do you see vast swathes of fields not being tended and productive? No, they are all farmed. ....

No they are not.
Much of the land is devoted to leisure activities of the very wealthy. Not only the millions of acres of grouse moors but just count the number of horses you see, or look at the empty farms now used as second home, holiday cottages, luxury dwellings. Spot the wide new drives and the big 4wd cars! Ditto the once busy villages and their lost communities.
You can see how wealth has drifted upwards in recent years, by these big changes in the countryside all over Britain.

https://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/33...a_Progressive_Annual_Wealth_Tax_(2021)_v2.pdf

 

[Cobbs]

That’s an interesting perspective @Jacob, not one that actually reflects the actual world, but it certainly appeals to people of a certain political agenda.
There are good reasons for land to be IHT, if you are a farmer you cannot pass your land into the next generation which had been the case for millennia if the next generation are faced with huge IHT. Ti secure our food chain, and to maintain farming IHT is good. All business (yes it’s a big simplification) can be passed on after death without attracting IHT, so the fact that land falls into this category is no different.

Let’s consider the agricultural land, when driving around do you see vast swathes of fields not being tended and productive? No, they are all farmed. As a business model being able to rent fields makes far better sense than buying them. Depending on where it is in the country and the grade of the soil determines its value. But as an example, if land is valued at £15K / acre it typically might rent out for £200 / acre. So it would take 75 years of renting to match the acquisition price. Simply not a good financial model. You would need to be able to rent out land for circa £1500/ acre before it starts to make economic sense to buy rather than rent.

So, to a lot of farmers rent land, in fact it seems to be usual to own and rent land to build / run a farm. You can hire in machines and operators to run the farm, so in fact your overal capital investment can be fairly low to start up. Like most businesses the larger the business the greater the opportunity to make savings, so larger farms are more economic than smaller ones.

The question is, how come Deema knows anything about farming? He’s an engineer isn’t he? Yes, I was an engineer, my mother was a farmers daughter and my father in law was a very large farmer in Lincolnshire. A very good knowledge and reading the farmers weekly was essential for family harmony around the dinner table .

And how long ago was that? Things change Deema and I can tell you now, given the choice between renting and buying, every farmer's son or daughter I know, would rather own. The vast majority of land in this country is now owned by business men who wouldn't know a cow's @sre from it's udder and is treated as nothing more than an investment, hence the disproportionately huge inflation in land prices. The city boys farm for the subsidy and don't give a damn about the land.

 

[John Brown]

I don't know where you live, Deema(well I do, but I'm not familiar with the area), but round here there is quite a lot of agricultural land that is not being used for anything productive. Probably used to be sheep grazing, but these days there's not a lot of money in sheep, as far as I know.

 

[Jameshow]

The political agenda follows from reflecting on the real world

No they are not.
Much of the land is devoted to leisure activities of the very wealthy. Not only the millions of acres of grouse moors but just count the number of horses you see, or look at the empty farms now used as second home, holiday cottages, luxury dwellings. Spot the wide new drives and the big 4wd cars! Ditto the once busy villages and their lost communities.
You can see how wealth has drifted upwards in recent years, by these big changes in the countryside all over Britain.

https://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/33...a_Progressive_Annual_Wealth_Tax_(2021)_v2.pdf

Rubbish in Devon the second most popular tourist county it is still farming that is the major industry in the region.

The reason why there are farm houses as tourist let's is because of mechanisation. Like tractors shock horror!

Of course in jacobs brave new world those will be outlawed as they use oil, then we will need all the ditchers hedgers and farm hands to work the land!

 

[artie]

I don't know where you live, Deema(well I do, but I'm not familiar with the area), but round here there is quite a lot of agricultural land that is not being used for anything productive. Probably used to be sheep grazing, but these days there's not a lot of money in sheep, as far as I know.

There's also the fact that farmers are being paid to not farm the land with set aside payments and diversification grants.

 

[John Brown]

There's also the fact that farmers are being paid to not farm the land with set aside payments and diversification grants.

I thought set aside was a thing of the past.

 

[bansobaby]

This thread, as usual with anything that has remotely political nuance, is fascinating and highly entertaining.

Whilst the protagonists produce some excellent points and some frankly bizarre ones, I feel that there is a rather more fundamental point to be discussed:

It's not the scientists, the plebiscite or political parties of any persuasion who need to be convinced to save the planet, it's the ones with the money, and I'm afraid they will (with a very few laudable exceptions) make whichever decisions lead to them making even more money.

The big oil companies are some of the leading researchers into alternative energy, not through any great sense of altruism, but because they want to make money. They couldn't give a rats **se where it comes from, but are perfectly aware that the planet needs energy and have the resources to invest in development.

There are allegedly some other hugely rich and powerful interests who have little interest in disturbing the status quo but will react to any changes in a way that protects those interests.

As far as I'm aware, Homo Sapiens is the only species on our planet to display the trait of greed, although I stand (as always) to be corrected, and in fact would be interested if anyone could come up with examples.....

 

[Cobbs]

As far as I'm aware, Homo Sapiens is the only species on our planet to display the trait of greed, although I stand (as always) to be corrected, and in fact would be interested if anyone could come up with examples.....

You've not met my dogs then...

 

[paulrbarnard]

As far as I'm aware, Homo Sapiens is the only species on our planet to display the trait of greed, although I stand (as always) to be corrected, and in fact would be interested if anyone could come up with examples.....

Ever seen two dogs with one bowl of food? Pretty much the same as two businesses/countries competing for the same resources.

 

[Jameshow]

Ever seen two dogs with one bowl of food? Pretty much the same as two businesses/countries competing for the same resources.

Especially Labradors!

 

[Phil Pascoe]

You've not met my dogs then...

Labradors or boxers?

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Assume inheritance tax is payable on agricultural land at the current rate of 40% and speculate on the possible consequences.

• to be paid some land would almost certainly need to be sold
• it would likely be sold to a business. Individual farmers are less likely as earlier IHT would likely have left them with limited "free" capital anyway
• IHT (as for most other share holdings) would then be payable on the value of shares held, not the land or other underpinning assets.
• the government is effectively extracting capital from the agricultural sector through taxation. There are consequences - possibly lower investment, lower environmental standards, reduced food production as imports become relatively cheaper

The alternative - the government acquire the land just as property left to National Trust is exempt from IHT. Assuming their intent would be to ensure the land is used for the benefit of the community for food production, it is open to debate whether they would:

• farm the land directly as a nationalised business, or
• rent out land to individual farmers in much the same way as social housing

Both scenarios require government to legislate controls to to ensure that the land is used for appropriate purposes and to agreed environmental standards, with remedies for non-compliance.

It is unclear what material benefits there are to justify making changes to the status quo - it risks degrading the quality of the agricultural sector rather than enhancing it. The answer should depend on the solution best able to optimise value to the community, not driven by political dogma and envy.