I've changed my mind. And what's the point of having a mind if you can't change it?
After reappraising the situation, it's clear that while the proposed changes to inheritance tax may have been introduced with the intention of addressing wealth inequality and preventing land from being indefinitely locked up in family estates, the unintended consequences could be disastrous for independent farmers.
No Farmers, No Food. Sounds obvious, doesn’t it? Like saying “No Oxygen, No Breathing.” And yet, the reality is that without careful consideration, these tax reforms could accelerate the death of independent farming while handing the spoils to corporate agribusiness. The government argues that scrapping Agricultural Property Relief (APR) from inheritance tax is intended to prevent land from being indefinitely locked within family estates and to ensure a fairer tax system. However, the reality is far more complex, and the unintended consequences could be severe. If you thought food prices were bad now, wait until there’s no one left but monopolistic land barons squeezing every last ounce of profit from the soil.
Let’s be clear: farming is not some cushy hedge fund where the money rolls in while you sip Bollinger on a yacht. Land is a farmer’s primary asset – not a luxury. Take away APR, and when a small farmer dies, their family will be slapped with a tax bill so big they’ll have no choice but to sell up. And guess who’ll be lining up to buy? The highest bidder, which won’t be a fresh-faced young farmer looking to keep the land productive – it’ll be agribusiness, investors, or corporate landlords who view the countryside as a tax-efficient asset rather than a place where food is actually grown.
And the irony? This policy isn’t even going to hurt the ones it’s supposedly aimed at. The big landowners – the ones who don’t actually farm but lease their vast estates – will dodge the worst of it. They’ve got lawyers, offshore trusts, and accountants who specialise in making tax bills evaporate. Meanwhile, the family who’s worked the land for generations will be forced to sell their legacy just to satisfy HMRC.
This isn’t just about farmers losing their land – it’s about food security. When independent farmers are forced out, food production becomes concentrated in fewer hands, making the system more vulnerable to economic shocks, price manipulation, and supply chain failures. When farming becomes the sole domain of corporate giants, expect food quality to nosedive while prices climb ever higher. Small farms tend to be more diverse, more sustainable, and more resilient. Big agribusiness? It’s monocultures, soil depletion, and a level of efficiency that works beautifully – right up until it doesn’t. When the next global crisis hits, and our food supply chains collapse because we’ve wiped out the very people who kept it going, don’t say we weren’t warned.
This is exactly what happened in retail. Independent grocers, butchers, and bakers were once the backbone of British high streets, offering local produce, personal service, and a connection to the communities they served. Then came the supermarkets. By undercutting small businesses with economies of scale, squeezing suppliers to the bone, and homogenising food supply, the supermarket giants wiped out the competition. Now, with only a handful of players controlling the retail food market, we’re left with rising prices, reduced choice, and a system that prioritises shareholder profits over consumer welfare. The same fate now looms over farming – corporate consolidation will push independent farmers out, leaving the public at the mercy of a few agribusinesses that care more about bottom lines than food quality or sustainability.
And here’s another twist: the assumption that land prices will fall when small farmers are forced to sell is, I believe, completely wrong. In reality, land prices will rise as agribusinesses and wealthy investors compete to buy up the newly available farmland. When independent farmers leave the industry, the land doesn’t become more affordable for new entrants – it gets hoarded by the highest bidders, making it even harder for anyone but the mega-rich to start farming. The land market becomes just another rigged game, where control is concentrated in fewer hands, pushing the cost of entry ever higher.
It’s also worth noting that a lot of farmers will not be affected by these inheritance tax changes. However, many small and medium-sized farms may still be at risk, particularly those whose land value is just above the threshold and who lack the financial tools to mitigate the tax burden. While the policy is designed to spare most smaller farms, it does little to protect those caught in the middle – too large to be exempt but too small to absorb the costs without selling off land or assets. The belief is that the tax threshold will be up to a total value of around £3 million, meaning many smaller farms will still be exempt. Furthermore, those with substantial estates can make use of gifting strategies and trusts to completely avoid the tax. In other words, those with the resources to navigate the system will continue to do so, while ordinary working farmers bear the brunt of the changes.
The Farmers’ Union, a powerful lobbying organisation, has doubtless aggregated figures over a number of years rather than purely looking at annual data. This means their projections on how many farms will be affected likely paint a broader picture than the government’s estimates, which focus on yearly figures. While the government claims only a fraction of estates will be hit, the long-term impact of these changes could be far greater than officials admit.
Instead of scrapping APR wholesale, the government should be targeting the non-farmers who hoard land like Monopoly money while doing bugger all with it. A ‘working farmer’ test would be a good start – keep the relief for those who actually farm the land and scrap it for those who treat the countryside as a tax-free piggy bank. Or how about a tiered system, where small farms keep APR, mid-sized farms get a tapered rate, and only the sprawling, hedge fund-owned estates cop the full 40% hit?
Of course, that would require politicians with enough spine to stand up to the landed elite and agribusiness lobbyists, and we all know how likely that is. But if the government is serious about food security, rural jobs, and preventing yet another industry from being monopolised by the wealthiest 0.1%, then it needs to rethink this disaster-in-waiting.
Because if we carry on like this, No Farmers, No Food won’t be a warning – it’ll be a bloody obituary.
11 comments:
I quite agree but I still want to nick all those farmers in behemoth-sized tractors cluttering up city streets. I'm sure we could manage both.
"Meanwhile, the family who’s worked the land for generations will be forced to sell their legacy just to satisfy HMRC." No rhey eon't.
"nd here’s another twist: the assumption that land prices will fall when small farmers are forced to sell is, I believe, completely wrong" whose assumption is that?
In reality, land isn't like consumer goods; it’s finite and desirable, especially to those with capital. As history shows, when independent farmers sell up, land consolidation increases and prices climb, not fall.
While prices might fall initially due to distressed sales, competition from agribusinesses and solar developers could stabilise or even increase prices for prime parcels, creating a more fragmented market.
If new farmers were the only players in the market, then prices would almost certainly drop, but they're not.
"the assumption that land prices will fall when small farmers are forced to sell is, I believe, completely wrong" The only ones majing that 'assumption' / claim are the anti-IHT squad. The actual assumption is that land will lose value when it is no longer a tax haven. Why didn't you highlight that?
Farmers produced just as much before the IHT loophole so no problem. Food security hasn't changed in decades, domestic c60%, Europe c20%, rest of world c20%, so that argument is wrong. In fact all the anti-IHT claims are fatally flawed.
"In reality, land isn't like consumer goods; it’s finite and desirable, especially to those with capital. As history shows, when independent farmers sell up, land consolidation increases and prices climb, not fall." Fallacious claim, land always increases in value and its main attraction has beed tax avoidance.
The idea that land prices only ever rise ignores basic economics. Sure, land is finite, but price still hinges on supply and demand. If IHT forces farmers to sell, the market floods, demand can’t keep up, and prices fall. Consolidation does happen, but only after prices drop—agribusinesses snap up land on the cheap, not at premium rates. And let’s not forget, much of land's allure has been its tax perks. Take those away and the investment appeal wanes, especially for marginal farmland. Long term, prices might recover, but pretending they’re immune to market shocks is fantasy.
" If IHT forces farmers to sell," If, a highly improbable if.
"And let’s not forget, much of land's allure has been its tax perks. Take those away and the investment appeal wanes," Which is why the likes of Clarkson & Dyson are spreading lies.
"Long term, prices might recover, but pretending they’re immune to market shocks is fantasy." Correct, which is why IHT is beneficial.
If applied in a sensible manner that targets the targets and doesn't cause collateral damage.
"consumer goods" False equivalence. Think about it,
"If applied in a sensible manner that targets the targets and doesn't cause collateral damage" That's up to individual landowner. A couple of hours with a local accountant is all that's required contrary to the bs spouted by Fagrage, Clarkson et al.
Post a Comment