I already covered over priced areas in my previous post, and the south west squarely falls into that category.

Frankly if you have 500 or more acres in that area and you aren’t already making bank from farming then you would be an utter, complete moron not to sell for the £10m+ that you would net from the sale. Any of these premium areas have a far higher return on diversification due to increases in tourism and rich fuckers prepared to pay for farm shops, glamping, etc.

You could even buy a similar sized farm in a cheaper area and bank half of it. Plenty of farmers selling up as they have no family who wants to take it on.

Taxation on the rich should be both on salary and on assets, especially assets that appreciate like land, otherwise we end up with the rich owning everything. The rich have massively larger purchase power than everybody else even if they were taxed fairly. We have to start somewhere with reversing that.

Assuming you aren’t living in the Cotswolds or other areas dominated by hobby farmers who over pay and under produce while have significant competition for the price of large houses that pushes up the cost per acre. £5m out side of these areas purchases a good few acres. At £10k an acre (roughly in the upper third for cost) that’s about 500 acres with farm buildings.

Even in a shit year with the wrong sort of production you should be clearing £250 per acre per year, or about £125k for 500 acres. Well run farms who pick the right crops for that year clear double that. £40k is significant but its not going to leave them in the poor house, particularly when you can stagger the payments to allow for inflation and also for poor yielding years.

That doesn’t include the various subsidies, which while even shitter than ever, they are hardly zero if you pick the right crop. Nor does it include any diversification, which any sensible farmer would already be doing. I don’t doubt this is going to result in a number of farms being forced to sell, but then were they ever actually viable in todays market?

The zero inheritance tax rule has to change because of people like Clarkson who have freely admitted to only buying their farm to avoid inheritance tax. Its pushed up the cost of farms as now you are competing against hobby farmers like Clarkson, or those who use a tenant farmer who is now priced out of the market to buy their own farm, or even worse, the farm just notionally farms with tiny herds.

I particularly dislike Clarkson and others pretending that its going to hit 96% of farmers, when the majority are well within the £3m, and with careful planning using the revised gifting rules you can extend it much higher than that. Most of those that are worried have their kids living and working on the farm, by carefully arranging how you hand over their property and some of the land, if done early enough, you can extend that.

They get ten years to pay it, its not subject to payment in one lump sum. Its also half the usual rate of tax, and only on anything over £3m if married and using all the allowances. On a £5m farm its about £40k a year for 10 years, not insignificant but inflation over 10 years will reduce the sting of it and you can even end load it by only paying back 1% initially and more at the end to further let inflation do its thing.

It’s 3m of you are married and use all the allowances. Even then it’s only on the amount over that and at half the usual rate, then you get ten years to pay it back.

A more mundane one, but people on reasonably normal incomes living in a house that’s at least one order of magnitude more expensive than they could ever afford even if they purchased it twenty or thirty years ago. Its particularly bad in things set in expensive areas like London or New York or Tokyo. Like being able to afford a house in central London rather than renting a flat with three other people takes substantial money, you aren’t going to be afford that if you work in a supermarket.