UK Nature and Environment

392 readers

24 users here now

General Instance Rules:

No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or xenophobia.
No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.
No harassment, dogpiling or doxxing of other users.
Do not share intentionally false or misleading information.
Do not spam or abuse network features.

Community Specific Rules:

Keep posts UK-specific. There are other places on Lemmy to post articles which relate to global environmental issues (e.g. slrpnk.net).
Keep comments in English so that they can be appropriately moderated.

Note: Our temporary logo is from The Wildlife Trusts. We are not officially associated with them.

Our autumn banner is a shot of maple leaves by Hossenfeffer.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Kim

GreyShuck

Billionaires Who Rewild the UK Are Set to Get an Inheritance Tax Break (archive.ph)

submitted 8 months ago by GreyShuck to c/nature

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Billionaires and other investors who rewild agricultural land in the UK may no longer be liable for inheritance tax on the property when they die thanks to changes announced in the budget.

UK Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is expanding the type of land that’s exempt from the levy to include some projects such as turning farmland back into forests, managing grassland for flood resilience or connecting river and floodplain habitats. The tax break comes into effect in April of next year and only applies to land managed under an environmental agreement involving the UK government or other approved bodies.

Original link

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Off the top of my head, you could: continue to charge inheritance tax on the land, resulting in 40% going into public ownership, and rewild the now-publicly-owned land.

[–] YungOnions@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Forgive me as I'm not exactly a tax expert, but inheritance tax doesn't result in public ownership does it? I thought the land would need to be sold by the owner before it was publicly owned? Or are you saying the the money generated by the inheritance tax could be spent rewilding already publicly owned land?

[–] mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I was thinking that the land could be given in lieu of tax (like oil paintings are), but equally, the estate could sell the land to pay the tax directly, and the government could buy it. Or, like you say, the state could just use the money to rewild land that is already publicly owned. The problem with the proposed scheme is that the land remains in private hands, and the private landowners may try to un-re-wild it. I am thinking about Dartmoor there. Why would they want to own a tract of wild countryside, after all?

[–] YungOnions@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago

Yeah, they're all good ideas actually. What I wasn't clear from the article is whether the land will be regularly audited to ensure its not, as you say, 'unwilded' at a later date. Given capacity issues I imagine it won't beyond a certain point so that is definitely a risk, as you point out.

Still it is better than nothing, so it's important to remain optimistic. I can see at least some land owners wanting to do this, and this incentive will hopefully be enough to encourage them to do so. Time will tell!