Think tank that championed farmer tax raid tells Reeves to water down policy
But the National Farmers' Union has warned that scores of family farms, which can often be cash-poor even if the land has a substantial value, risk being split up as a result.
'Better targeted' reforms
In a report published on Thursday, CenTax estimated that working farmers were more likely to be hit by the raid than wealthy landowners.
While it largely endorsed the reforms, saying they were 'better than the status quo', two options were suggested for 'better targeting' the changes while still raising at least as much revenue overall.
The first, branded the 'minimum share rule', would remove inheritance tax relief for 'passive investors' in farmland and other business assets, so they cannot be used as a 'tax shelter'. This would fund an extension of 100 per cent inheritance tax relief for farmers and other business owners to £5m per estate.
The report said: 'This adjustment would better target estates using APR and BPR for tax planning, whilst extending protection for family farms and other businesses.'
The second option would cap inheritance tax relief to the first £10m of a claim. This would fund an extension in the allowance for 100 per cent relief to £2m per estate.
'Reasonable and fair'
After the farm tax was announced, James Murray, the Treasury minister, and Daniel Zeichner, the rural affairs minister, used CenTax to justify the raid, claiming the think tank considered it 'reasonable and fair'.
Ministers have said that the controversial reforms are intended to stop rich landowners avoiding the levy while protecting small family farms.
Last year, Mr Zeichner told MPs: 'Currently, small farms can find themselves facing the same levels of tax bills as much larger farms, despite having a much smaller asset. Twenty per cent of agricultural property relief is claimed by the top 2 per cent; 40 per cent is claimed by the top 7 per cent.
'That is not fair, it is not sustainable, and sadly, it has been used in some cases by wealthy landowners to avoid inheritance tax. That is why the Government has announced plans to reform agricultural property relief.'
However, CenTax found working farmers were most likely to be stung by the change. The think tank estimated the impact of the policy on different types of 'farm estate', defined as the total wealth of a person who died owning farmland or assets, as opposed to the value of a physical farm.
It found that just 20 per cent of landowner estates would be hit by the tax, compared to 25 per cent of tenant farmer estates, 45 per cent of owner-farmer estates, and 67 per cent mixed tenure estates.
In a statement accompanying the report, CenTax said: 'Landowners are less likely to be impacted by the reform than working farmers, representing 64 per cent of all farm estates but 42 per cent of impacted farm estates. Owner-farmers represent 17 per cent of all farm estates but 37 per cent of impacted farm estates.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
EuroMillions: Massive £201 million up for grabs on Friday after prize rolls over
Friday's EuroMillions lottery jackpot is set to hit £201 million after Tuesday's top prize went unclaimed. No one matched the jackpot earlier in the week, meaning the prize fund is rolled over. One UK player came close on Tuesday, winning £680,767 for matching five numbers and one Lucky Star. The National Lottery EuroMillions winning numbers were 18, 28, 42, 46 and 48. The lucky stars were 03 and 09. No tickets matched all five numbers to take home £1,000,000 in EuroMillions Hotpicks, which uses the same numbers as the EuroMillions draw. The massive £201 million jackpot on Friday would make it amongst the largest in history. The record – a staggering £213 million – was won in June. The winning ticket was won by an Irish family who bought it from a retailer in County Cork. Recalling the moment he realised he won, the anonymous winner said: 'I ran upstairs to my wife who had just gone to bed and woke her up. We both checked the numbers multiple times on the website. We sat at the edge of the bed, saying 'oh my god' over and over – I reckon we said it about 50 times. We were in total shock, complete disbelief.' The jackpot is capped at this amount – around €250 million – meaning the man had won the top prize that is currently possible. According to the National Lottery, there is a 1 in 139 million chance of winning the top prize, which increases as the jackpot grows larger and more people try their hand. Lottery winners have 180 days from the day of the draw to come forward and claim their winnings. Tuesday's Lotto numbers were 01, 16, 27, 41, 50 and 55 and the bonus number was 54. In Tuesday's Lotto HotPicks, which uses the same numbers as the Lotto draw, no players matched all five numbers to win the £350,000 top prize. One ticket holder won £13,000 after matching four of the five numbers. The winning Thunderball numbers were 17, 02, 30, 36 and 05 and the Thunderball number was 08. No ticket holders won £500,000 by matching all five numbers plus the Thunderball. Two players matched all five regular numbers, which earned them £5,000 each.
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
You can't demand seats in the Lords and still be an establishment rebel, Mr Farage
As soon as Nigel Farage wrote to Keir Starmer demanding that the prime minister allow him to make some nominations to the House of Lords, I reached for my well-thumbed copy of Reform's 'contract' with the voters at the last election. In its first 100 days, the document says, a Reform government would start to ' replace the crony-filled House of Lords with a much smaller, more democratic second chamber'. It is easy to mock, so let us enjoy the contrast between Farage's high-minded manifesto promises and his demand that some of his cronies should join all the other cronies in the upper house. Let us, in particular, enjoy the next two sentences in Reform's manifesto. Readers wanting to know how this 'more democratic' chamber might be constituted are dismissed briskly: 'Structure to be debated.' The structure of a more democratic second chamber has been debated for more than 100 years; it seems unlikely that anything will be decided in 100 days. Then there is this gem: 'Immediate end of political appointees.' As St Augustine didn't quite say, Lord make it immediate, but not yet. Before the arrival of a Reform government and the immediate end of political appointees, Farage would like the prime minister to ennoble some political appointees on his behalf. It is not fair, the Reform leader says in his letter, that 'the Greens, DUP, Plaid Cymru and UUP have 13 peers between them, but Reform UK has none'. The Scottish National Party also has none, but that is because it disagrees with the House of Lords and means it. Reform, on the other hand, disagrees with the House of Lords but thinks it is a 'democratic disparity' – not that Britain has an appointed upper house but that Reform isn't in it. It is not as if Farage's parties have never had representatives in the Lords. Malcolm Pearson, a former leader of the UK Independence Party, is still a member, sitting as a non-affiliated peer. David Stevens, former chair of United Newspapers when it owned the Daily Express, was also Ukip and is now non-affiliated. Claire Fox, the former Brexit Party MEP, is also a non-affiliated peer. Pearson and Stevens were originally Conservative peers but switched, whereas Fox was nominated by Boris Johnson as a way of mischievously celebrating Britain's departure from the EU. But Farage hasn't been able to hold onto any of them and now wants to put some of his current allies in the Lords. The Times lists Ann Widdecombe, Nick Candy and Zia Yusuf as possible candidates. It is not going to happen. 'This is the same Nigel Farage that called for the abolition of the House of Lords and now wants to fill it with his cronies,' said John Healey, the defence secretary, this morning. 'I'm not sure that parliament is going to be benefiting from more Putin apologists like Nigel Farage.' The constitutional position is simple: nominations to the Lords are a matter for the Crown, as advised by the prime minister. The monarch is a cypher; Keir Starmer is the sole decision-maker. He may choose to invite other party leaders to make nominations, but that is entirely up to him. David Cameron and Boris Johnson, when they were going through green phases, even allowed the Green Party of England and Wales to nominate – Jenny Jones in 2013 and Natalie Bennett in 2019. But it is up to the prime minister, who usually allows him or herself to be fettered by the independent House of Lords Appointments Commission – although Johnson overruled it when it advised against making Peter Cruddas, the Tory former treasurer, a peer. It might be tempting for Starmer to agree to Farage's request. It would make it harder for Farage to present himself as the doughty outsider, locked out of the Establishment. It would mean that Reform had more public representatives and therefore more chances that one or more of them would embarrass the party. And it would be the responsible thing to do, given that there is a real chance that Farage might soon be prime minister: he ought then to have some back-up in the House of Lords. But it is not going to happen, and Farage knows it is not going to happen. His letter is a classic August news story, designed to get attention and to drive home the point that Reform, the most popular party in the country, is treated as unrespectable by the establishment parties. At a time when anti-government and anti-establishment feeling is running high, Farage's status as an outsider is a priceless asset to him.
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
Minister ‘hugely disappointed' as talks to agree UN plastics treaty fail
Environment minister Emma Hardy has said she is 'hugely disappointed' that negotiations for the world's first treaty to combat plastic pollution ended once again in failure. Delegates were seeking to complete a legally binding international agreement on Thursday after 10 days of what was meant to be the final round of UN talks in Geneva, Switzerland. But the gavel came down in overtime on Friday morning with no deal reached after negotiators struggled to break a deadlock over key issues. The biggest sticking point has been whether the treaty should impose caps on producing new plastic or focus instead on things such as better design, recycling and reuse. In a statement later on Friday, Ms Hardy said: 'I'm hugely disappointed that an agreement wasn't reached, but am extremely proud of the way the UK worked tirelessly until the end to seek an ambitious and effective treaty. 'Plastic pollution is a global crisis that no country can solve alone, and the UK is committed to working with others at home and abroad to protect the environment and pave the way to a circular economy.' The UK was part of the 'high ambition coalition' which was calling for binding obligations on reducing production and consumption, sustainable product design, environmentally sound management of plastic waste, and clean-up of pollution. But a smaller number of powerful oil and gas producing nations including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait oppose production limits, which they consider outside the scope of the treaty. Inger Andersen, executive director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), said the talks had been a 'hard-fought 10 days' against the backdrop of geopolitical complexities, economic challenges, and multilateral strains. 'However, one thing remains clear: despite these complexities, all countries clearly want to remain at the table,' he said. 'While we did not land the treaty text we hoped for, we at UNEP will continue the work against plastic pollution – pollution that is in our groundwater, in our soil, in our rivers, in our oceans and, yes, in our bodies.' Over the past few days, Luis Vayas Valdivieso, chairman of the negotiating committee, gathered views from the representatives of 184 countries before writing two drafts of treaty text. But countries ultimately rejected both as the basis for negotiations after they failed to bridge the major rifts between different groups of nations. Mr Vayas Valdivieso said: 'Failing to reach the goal we set for ourselves may bring sadness, even frustration. 'Yet it should not lead to discouragement. On the contrary, it should spur us to regain our energy, renew our commitments, and unite our aspirations.' Every year, the world makes more than 400 million tonnes of new plastic, and that could grow by about 70% by 2040 without policy changes. About 100 countries want to limit production. Many have said it is also essential to address toxic chemicals used to make plastics. Once in the environment, plastic waste can entangle, choke or be eaten by wildlife and livestock, clog up waterways and litter beaches, while bigger items break down into microplastics, entering food chains. Producing plastic, primarily from fossil fuel oil, also has a climate impact, with the World in Data and OECD saying 3.3% of global emissions is down to the production and management of global plastics. Since talks began in 2022, countries have taken part in several rounds of negotiations to reach consensus on tackling the issue. The Geneva talks were arranged after what was originally meant to be the final round of talks in Busan, South Korea, similarly ended without a deal in November. It is understood another round of negotiations could be organised when the location and money for it is found. Environment campaigners, politicians and a coalition of businesses praised the high ambition countries for holding the line for a strong deal and said no treaty was better than a weak one, but they warned of the urgency to tackle the growing crisis. Graham Forbes, Greenpeace's head of delegation at the talks, said: 'The inability to reach an agreement in Geneva must be a wake-up call for the world: ending plastic pollution means confronting fossil fuel interests head-on. 'We cannot continue to do the same thing and expect a different result. The time for hesitation is over.' UK Green Party peer Natalie Bennett said: 'The draft treaty was the product of intense lobbying by the chemical and plastics industries backed by key petroleum states. These vested interests should never have been allowed near the talks in the first place. 'An ambitious treaty, which leads to decisive action to cut plastic production, is absolutely essential and the UK Government must lead the way in closing the door on oil-producing states and fossil fuel and chemical corporations from future talks.' The Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, which represents 200 companies including Nestle, PepsiCo Walmart, Tetra Pak and Unilever, said it was 'disappointed' by the lack of an agreement, but said there is 'cause for optimism'. Rebecca Marmot, chief sustainability and corporate affairs officer at Unilever, said: 'The strong alignment among governments, business and civil society groups calling for a treaty with harmonised regulations across the full lifecycle of plastics is encouraging.'
