@jclanoe ❤️📺🇬🇧,🇫🇷 tosseur, flâneur
LightNews LightNews
banner
jclanoe.bsky.social
@jclanoe ❤️📺🇬🇧,🇫🇷 tosseur, flâneur
@jclanoe.bsky.social
100 followers 120 following 0 posts
THE one and only Fronche Anglophile.
TV, etymology & all things 🇬🇧 are my passion.
Depressed dark comedian aka laziness in progress.
The new comic £%¥&! to ♥.
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by @jclanoe ❤️📺🇬🇧,🇫🇷 tosseur, flâneur
pickardje.bsky.social
letter to the FT
this letter to the FT says: Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour. https://www.ft.com/content/ab358521-8d7e-424a-92c7-349155b08e79 Far from “protecting the family farm”, as claimed by Tom Bradshaw, president of the National Farmers’ Union (Opinion, FT.com, November 5), the inheritance tax loophole on farmland, introduced in 1984, simply pushed up the price of land without improving returns to active farmers. This is because, like most agricultural subsidies, the value of the relief was capitalised into land values. As tax planners cottoned on to its role as a licence to avoid IHT, they advised their super-rich clients to buy land and take advantage of it. In the 20 years to 2012, the price of farmland increased fourfold. This turned landowning farmers into millionaires but — especially since land represents a cost of production — did no good to the incomes of food producers. It created impoverished millionaires who claimed a need for more support. At the same time, because more expensive land had to be squeezed even harder for the last drop of revenue, the environmental damage caused by intensive agriculture was made worse. Taking at least some of this tax loophole away will do no harm to family farmers but will help both public revenues and the environment. Just a shame the relief was not wholly abolished. Paul Cheshire Emeritus Professor of Economic Geography London School of Economics, London N7, UK
November 12, 2024 at 7:09 PM