|
|
Post by northwestman on Nov 19, 2024 16:15:43 GMT 1
Victoria Derbyshire catches out Clarkson.
Jeremy Clarkson clashed with Victoria Derbyshire before he addressed farmers at a protest today.
The Newsnight presenter asked Clarkson if he was angry, before saying: “So it’s not about you - it’s not about your farm and the fact you bought the farm to avoid inheritance tax?”
Clarkson interrupted saying: “Classic BBC there - classic,” before adding: “Oh yeah, it’s not ‘the fact’, ‘the fact’ that I bought the farm to avoid inheritance tax -’the fact’.”
Ms Derbyshire pressed on, saying: “You told the Sunday Times in 2021 that’s why you bought it?”
To which Mr Clarkson responded: “Okay, let’s start from the beginning, I wanted to shoot, ok?
“That’s even worse to the BBC, I wanted to shoot, which comes with the benefit of not having to pay inheritance tax, now I do.
“But people like me will simply put it in a trust and as long as I live for seven years that will be fine.”
Daily Telegraph.
|
|
rob62
Midland League Division Two
Posts: 210
|
Post by rob62 on Nov 19, 2024 21:37:40 GMT 1
The farmers may well have a point, and I can understand their anger if they cannot pass the farm onto their children
However in my opinion Clarkson is a grade one Prick
|
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Nov 21, 2024 10:35:42 GMT 1
Farmers are being expected to join the real world, pay some of their fair share like everyone else. Should they not take heed and plan ahead, their estate would only pay 20%, everyone else pays 40%. In a country left so broke the pensioners had to lose their winter fuel allowance it's only right. Stop protesting and start inheritance tax planning.
|
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Nov 21, 2024 17:55:52 GMT 1
Farmers are being expected to join the real world, pay some of their fair share like everyone else. Should they not take heed and plan ahead, their estate would only pay 20%, everyone else pays 40%. In a country left so broke the pensioners had to lose their winter fuel allowance it's only right. Stop protesting and start inheritance tax planning. That’s utter b………cks straight from the mouth of Rachel Thieves. Of course people can make some plans ahead to mitigate IHT , but you can only do it provided you live a further 7 years. The new IHT will kick in next year. Perhaps you and Rachel have some longevity medicines to provide to elderly farmers to help them overcome this sudden and cavalier rule change. It’s nothing short of scandalous. Anyway, well done for voting Labour. Just add the IHT fiasco to the ever increasing list of catastrophes that this shower have presided over in just a few short months of government. |
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Nov 21, 2024 19:08:03 GMT 1
Farmers are being expected to join the real world, pay some of their fair share like everyone else. Should they not take heed and plan ahead, their estate would only pay 20%, everyone else pays 40%. In a country left so broke the pensioners had to lose their winter fuel allowance it's only right. Stop protesting and start inheritance tax planning. That’s utter b………cks straight from the mouth of Rachel Thieves. Of course people can make some plans ahead to mitigate IHT , but you can only do it provided you live a further 7 years. The new IHT will kick in next year. Perhaps you and Rachel have some longevity medicines to provide to elderly farmers to help them overcome this sudden and cavalier rule change. It’s nothing short of scandalous. Anyway, well done for voting Labour. Just add the IHT fiasco to the ever increasing list of catastrophes that this shower have presided over in just a few short months of government. First of all, if the person who dies has a spouse then the whole of the estate goes to the spouse with no inheritance tax to pay. Secondly, The first £1M is exempt, you can utilise the spouse's allowance even if the have already passed away. Not sure how it works, but I have seen that the first £3 Million will be exempt for most. Thirdly, with everyone else's inheritance tax rules, there is taper relief after 3 years, so the 40 % rate is reduced each each year after that down to zero after 7 years. What farmers should be pushing for is favourable taper relief rules to fit in with the governnment's timescale, so that the rate is reduced from 20% earlier. |
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Nov 21, 2024 21:37:04 GMT 1
That’s utter b………cks straight from the mouth of Rachel Thieves. Of course people can make some plans ahead to mitigate IHT , but you can only do it provided you live a further 7 years. The new IHT will kick in next year. Perhaps you and Rachel have some longevity medicines to provide to elderly farmers to help them overcome this sudden and cavalier rule change. It’s nothing short of scandalous. Anyway, well done for voting Labour. Just add the IHT fiasco to the ever increasing list of catastrophes that this shower have presided over in just a few short months of government. First of all, if the person who dies has a spouse then the whole of the estate goes to the spouse with no inheritance tax to pay. Secondly, The first £1M is exempt, you can utilise the spouse's allowance even if the have already passed away. Not sure how it works, but I have seen that the first £3 Million will be exempt for most. Thirdly, with everyone else's inheritance tax rules, there is taper relief after 3 years, so the 40 % rate is reduced each each year after that down to zero after 7 years. What farmers should be pushing for is favourable taper relief rules to fit in with the governnment's timescale, so that the rate is reduced from 20% earlier. You should work for the government. Did anyone not tell you about the value of farmland and how this brings even modest sized farms into the net. Of course things can be passed on tax-free to a spouse, but what we are talking about is passing it on to the next generation when IHT does kick in. You must inhabit the same parallel universe as the government. |
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Nov 21, 2024 21:56:37 GMT 1
First of all, if the person who dies has a spouse then the whole of the estate goes to the spouse with no inheritance tax to pay. Secondly, The first £1M is exempt, you can utilise the spouse's allowance even if the have already passed away. Not sure how it works, but I have seen that the first £3 Million will be exempt for most. Thirdly, with everyone else's inheritance tax rules, there is taper relief after 3 years, so the 40 % rate is reduced each each year after that down to zero after 7 years. What farmers should be pushing for is favourable taper relief rules to fit in with the governnment's timescale, so that the rate is reduced from 20% earlier. You should work for the government. Did anyone not tell you about the value of farmland and how this brings even modest sized farms into the net. Of course things can be passed on tax-free to a spouse, but what we are talking about is passing it on to the next generation when IHT does kick in. You must inhabit the same parallel universe as the government. I inhabit the universe where everyone else, including business owners, can be liable for inheritance tax at 40% and does not have a £1 million cushion. |
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Nov 21, 2024 22:30:41 GMT 1
Farmers are being expected to join the real world, pay some of their fair share like everyone else. Should they not take heed and plan ahead, their estate would only pay 20%, everyone else pays 40%. In a country left so broke the pensioners had to lose their winter fuel allowance it's only right. Stop protesting and start inheritance tax planning. Exactly. I'd add that any 20% IHT charge can be paid over 10 years, interest free (unlike the rest of the population). Farmers have legitimate grievances. They were sold out by brexit (even though many inexplicably voted for it) and the unfavourable trade deals agreed in haste by the last government. They lost their EU subsidies and the government (both of them) have since drastically cut the subsidies paid to them. That shouldn't have surprised anyone. There are many sensible farmers wanting to distance their arguments from bandwagon-jumping Farage (who was a leading instigator of their present difficulties) and Clarkson (whose tax avoiding motivation makes him an unhelpful ally). Those two are divisive figures and that's no help when you're trying to win some concessions. And the signs are that there will be concessions, designed to protect older farmers who haven't begun to pass on their farms and who are less likely to survive 7 years. Hopefully there'll be no concessions to the big, corporate landowners for whom farming is not a way of life but simply a tax efficient investment. Anyone who gives a higher priority to preserving Clarkson's wealth than rebuilding our public services is beyond redemption. |
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Nov 22, 2024 10:52:49 GMT 1
Farmers are being expected to join the real world, pay some of their fair share like everyone else. Should they not take heed and plan ahead, their estate would only pay 20%, everyone else pays 40%. In a country left so broke the pensioners had to lose their winter fuel allowance it's only right. Stop protesting and start inheritance tax planning. Exactly. I'd add that any 20% IHT charge can be paid over 10 years, interest free (unlike the rest of the population). Farmers have legitimate grievances. They were sold out by brexit (even though many inexplicably voted for it) and the unfavourable trade deals agreed in haste by the last government. They lost their EU subsidies and the government (both of them) have since drastically cut the subsidies paid to them. That shouldn't have surprised anyone. There are many sensible farmers wanting to distance their arguments from bandwagon-jumping Farage (who was a leading instigator of their present difficulties) and Clarkson (whose tax avoiding motivation makes him an unhelpful ally). Those two are divisive figures and that's no help when you're trying to win some concessions. And the signs are that there will be concessions, designed to protect older farmers who haven't begun to pass on their farms and who are less likely to survive 7 years. Hopefully there'll be no concessions to the big, corporate landowners for whom farming is not a way of life but simply a tax efficient investment. Anyone who gives a higher priority to preserving Clarkson's wealth than rebuilding our public services is beyond redemption. I’m sure like Staffordshire you’ll be looking forward to the day when you go into your local supermarket and find many of the shelves bare. You’ll be the first to complain. With regard to the whole issue of IHT, it is one of the most unfair and iniquitous taxes ever devised. The constant (deliberate) failure of successive governments to change the thresholds mean that it hits far more ordinary people…..not the super wealthy….people who have largely paid tax on their income and who now look at the government emptying their savings accounts/pensions/property when they die. It either needs abolishing completely or radically reforming. |
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Nov 22, 2024 13:45:51 GMT 1
Exactly. I'd add that any 20% IHT charge can be paid over 10 years, interest free (unlike the rest of the population). Farmers have legitimate grievances. They were sold out by brexit (even though many inexplicably voted for it) and the unfavourable trade deals agreed in haste by the last government. They lost their EU subsidies and the government (both of them) have since drastically cut the subsidies paid to them. That shouldn't have surprised anyone. There are many sensible farmers wanting to distance their arguments from bandwagon-jumping Farage (who was a leading instigator of their present difficulties) and Clarkson (whose tax avoiding motivation makes him an unhelpful ally). Those two are divisive figures and that's no help when you're trying to win some concessions. And the signs are that there will be concessions, designed to protect older farmers who haven't begun to pass on their farms and who are less likely to survive 7 years. Hopefully there'll be no concessions to the big, corporate landowners for whom farming is not a way of life but simply a tax efficient investment. Anyone who gives a higher priority to preserving Clarkson's wealth than rebuilding our public services is beyond redemption. I’m sure like Staffordshire you’ll be looking forward to the day when you go into your local supermarket and find many of the shelves bare. You’ll be the first to complain. With regard to the whole issue of IHT, it is one of the most unfair and iniquitous taxes ever devised. The constant (deliberate) failure of successive governments to change the thresholds mean that it hits far more ordinary people…..not the super wealthy….people who have largely paid tax on their income and who now look at the government emptying their savings accounts/pensions/property when they die. It either needs abolishing completely or radically reforming. The shelves will not be bare because an IHT relief has been made less generous (but still far more generous than 40 years ago). That's just hysterical nonsense. Not surprisingly I disagree with you about IHT. Of course the longstanding freezing of the threshold has brought more people into its net but: 1. It's still quite easily sidestepped. 2. Nobody's estate has yet had to pay IHT on a pension. Older people fortunate enough to have final salary/DB pensions never owned their pension pot, it was only ever a right to income. 3. DC pension pots will be subject to IHT from 2027, but why should they be treated any differently to other forms of saving? Most will either have been surrendered for an annuity (so ending on death anyway) or will have depleted through drawdown. Income tax relief will have been obtained on all the contributions, the fund itself will have been tax exempt, the pensioner and spouse will have been supported in retirement as much as they needed - why should the descendants of those wealthy enough not to have used up their pension also get a guaranteed tax free payout? 4. The greater part of most people's estates is likely to be the value of the property they lived in. Yes they might have bought that out of their taxed income but all the growth in its value has been exempt from tax. In principle, why shouldn't there be some tax on that on death? 5. I believe there's a far more iniquitous 'tax' than IHT, and that's the cost of social care. That strikes randomly and you can't do much to plan for it, but if it hits it can wipe out a family's finances. I saw my grandparents' estates whittled away to nothing because my grandmothers lived quite a long time in residential care. Now I'm seeing my parents' savings going the same way - that's equivalent to paying out '000s in tax every month while you're still alive. I would much rather see estates taxed on death than those needing residential or nursing care have their estates bled out during their lifetimes. A national care service is the reform we desperately need, and if more estates paying IHT helps to fund that I say that's fair and just. The arguments around tax have become infantile. We complain about our public services, the state of our roads, our defences and so on but it's a brave politician who tries to address these things in any meaningful way. |
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Nov 22, 2024 18:51:40 GMT 1
I’m sure like Staffordshire you’ll be looking forward to the day when you go into your local supermarket and find many of the shelves bare. You’ll be the first to complain. With regard to the whole issue of IHT, it is one of the most unfair and iniquitous taxes ever devised. The constant (deliberate) failure of successive governments to change the thresholds mean that it hits far more ordinary people…..not the super wealthy….people who have largely paid tax on their income and who now look at the government emptying their savings accounts/pensions/property when they die. It either needs abolishing completely or radically reforming. The shelves will not be bare because an IHT relief has been made less generous (but still far more generous than 40 years ago). That's just hysterical nonsense. Not surprisingly I disagree with you about IHT. Of course the longstanding freezing of the threshold has brought more people into its net but: 1. It's still quite easily sidestepped. 2. Nobody's estate has yet had to pay IHT on a pension. Older people fortunate enough to have final salary/DB pensions never owned their pension pot, it was only ever a right to income. 3. DC pension pots will be subject to IHT from 2027, but why should they be treated any differently to other forms of saving? Most will either have been surrendered for an annuity (so ending on death anyway) or will have depleted through drawdown. Income tax relief will have been obtained on all the contributions, the fund itself will have been tax exempt, the pensioner and spouse will have been supported in retirement as much as they needed - why should the descendants of those wealthy enough not to have used up their pension also get a guaranteed tax free payout? 4. The greater part of most people's estates is likely to be the value of the property they lived in. Yes they might have bought that out of their taxed income but all the growth in its value has been exempt from tax. In principle, why shouldn't there be some tax on that on death? 5. I believe there's a far more iniquitous 'tax' than IHT, and that's the cost of social care. That strikes randomly and you can't do much to plan for it, but if it hits it can wipe out a family's finances. I saw my grandparents' estates whittled away to nothing because my grandmothers lived quite a long time in residential care. Now I'm seeing my parents' savings going the same way - that's equivalent to paying out '000s in tax every month while you're still alive. I would much rather see estates taxed on death than those needing residential or nursing care have their estates bled out during their lifetimes. A national care service is the reform we desperately need, and if more estates paying IHT helps to fund that I say that's fair and just. The arguments around tax have become infantile. We complain about our public services, the state of our roads, our defences and so on but it's a brave politician who tries to address these things in any meaningful way. If the revenues raised in the budget were being used in a sensible and logical way there might be less antagonism, but to merely state that it will go to the NHS is nauseating claptrap. The NHS is a broken model and until it is properly reformed it will confuse to eat taxpayers money until eventually it eats itself. No word from Kier Hardie about any significant reform, just endless meaningless platitudes. |
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Nov 23, 2024 12:45:29 GMT 1
The shelves will not be bare because an IHT relief has been made less generous (but still far more generous than 40 years ago). That's just hysterical nonsense. Not surprisingly I disagree with you about IHT. Of course the longstanding freezing of the threshold has brought more people into its net but: 1. It's still quite easily sidestepped. 2. Nobody's estate has yet had to pay IHT on a pension. Older people fortunate enough to have final salary/DB pensions never owned their pension pot, it was only ever a right to income. 3. DC pension pots will be subject to IHT from 2027, but why should they be treated any differently to other forms of saving? Most will either have been surrendered for an annuity (so ending on death anyway) or will have depleted through drawdown. Income tax relief will have been obtained on all the contributions, the fund itself will have been tax exempt, the pensioner and spouse will have been supported in retirement as much as they needed - why should the descendants of those wealthy enough not to have used up their pension also get a guaranteed tax free payout? 4. The greater part of most people's estates is likely to be the value of the property they lived in. Yes they might have bought that out of their taxed income but all the growth in its value has been exempt from tax. In principle, why shouldn't there be some tax on that on death? 5. I believe there's a far more iniquitous 'tax' than IHT, and that's the cost of social care. That strikes randomly and you can't do much to plan for it, but if it hits it can wipe out a family's finances. I saw my grandparents' estates whittled away to nothing because my grandmothers lived quite a long time in residential care. Now I'm seeing my parents' savings going the same way - that's equivalent to paying out '000s in tax every month while you're still alive. I would much rather see estates taxed on death than those needing residential or nursing care have their estates bled out during their lifetimes. A national care service is the reform we desperately need, and if more estates paying IHT helps to fund that I say that's fair and just. The arguments around tax have become infantile. We complain about our public services, the state of our roads, our defences and so on but it's a brave politician who tries to address these things in any meaningful way. If the revenues raised in the budget were being used in a sensible and logical way there might be less antagonism, but to merely state that it will go to the NHS is nauseating claptrap. The NHS is a broken model and until it is properly reformed it will confuse to eat taxpayers money until eventually it eats itself. No word from Kier Hardie about any significant reform, just endless meaningless platitudes. The NHS is not a broken model. |
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Nov 23, 2024 16:22:32 GMT 1
The shelves will not be bare because an IHT relief has been made less generous (but still far more generous than 40 years ago). That's just hysterical nonsense. Not surprisingly I disagree with you about IHT. Of course the longstanding freezing of the threshold has brought more people into its net but: 1. It's still quite easily sidestepped. 2. Nobody's estate has yet had to pay IHT on a pension. Older people fortunate enough to have final salary/DB pensions never owned their pension pot, it was only ever a right to income. 3. DC pension pots will be subject to IHT from 2027, but why should they be treated any differently to other forms of saving? Most will either have been surrendered for an annuity (so ending on death anyway) or will have depleted through drawdown. Income tax relief will have been obtained on all the contributions, the fund itself will have been tax exempt, the pensioner and spouse will have been supported in retirement as much as they needed - why should the descendants of those wealthy enough not to have used up their pension also get a guaranteed tax free payout? 4. The greater part of most people's estates is likely to be the value of the property they lived in. Yes they might have bought that out of their taxed income but all the growth in its value has been exempt from tax. In principle, why shouldn't there be some tax on that on death? 5. I believe there's a far more iniquitous 'tax' than IHT, and that's the cost of social care. That strikes randomly and you can't do much to plan for it, but if it hits it can wipe out a family's finances. I saw my grandparents' estates whittled away to nothing because my grandmothers lived quite a long time in residential care. Now I'm seeing my parents' savings going the same way - that's equivalent to paying out '000s in tax every month while you're still alive. I would much rather see estates taxed on death than those needing residential or nursing care have their estates bled out during their lifetimes. A national care service is the reform we desperately need, and if more estates paying IHT helps to fund that I say that's fair and just. The arguments around tax have become infantile. We complain about our public services, the state of our roads, our defences and so on but it's a brave politician who tries to address these things in any meaningful way. If the revenues raised in the budget were being used in a sensible and logical way there might be less antagonism, but to merely state that it will go to the NHS is nauseating claptrap. The NHS is a broken model and until it is properly reformed it will confuse to eat taxpayers money until eventually it eats itself. No word from Kier Hardie about any significant reform, just endless meaningless platitudes. Wes Streeting is on the case. In July 2024, Wes Streeting, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, commissioned Lord Darzi to carry out an independent investigation into the NHS in England. The result of that rapid review: www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-investigation-of-the-nhs-in-england/independent-investigation-of-the-national-health-service-in-england-accessible-version |
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Nov 23, 2024 18:27:14 GMT 1
Let’s believe all this political window-dressing if and when it happens. There are legions of politicians over the decades who have been ‘on the case’ and nothing substantial has ever happened. I suspect the same will be true of Streeting/ Darzi. In the meantime, I would advise you not to believe the hype. |
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Nov 23, 2024 18:29:29 GMT 1
If the revenues raised in the budget were being used in a sensible and logical way there might be less antagonism, but to merely state that it will go to the NHS is nauseating claptrap. The NHS is a broken model and until it is properly reformed it will confuse to eat taxpayers money until eventually it eats itself. No word from Kier Hardie about any significant reform, just endless meaningless platitudes. The NHS is not a broken model. There are none so blind…..etc. etc, |
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Nov 23, 2024 18:59:23 GMT 1
Let’s believe all this political window-dressing if and when it happens. There are legions of politicians over the decades who have been ‘on the case’ and nothing substantial has ever happened. I suspect the same will be true of Streeting/ Darzi. In the meantime, I would advise you to believe the hype. No one wants to pump the NHS full of money to keep it on life support. But, rather than diagnosing that the model is broken, let's work on a cure. It's going to be a slow recovery needing injections of resources and constant monitoring of progress. Everyone, farmers included, benefits from a health service that's fit. |
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Nov 23, 2024 21:31:26 GMT 1
The NHS is not a broken model. There are none so blind…..etc. etc, Good job I’m right then. |
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Nov 23, 2024 22:36:40 GMT 1
There are none so blind…..etc. etc, Good job I’m right then. It sounds like a good idea, but seeing as ithe NHS has been ailing for decades, why has no-one……y’know actually done anything about it? This shower of a government are absolutely unlikely to deliver any kind of sensible solution…….too many sacred cows in the way. They will just shovel ever increasing taxpayers money into the bottomless pit. Black hole? What black hole? |
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Nov 23, 2024 22:37:55 GMT 1
There are none so blind…..etc. etc, Good job I’m right then. Pathetic |
|
