this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2024
20 points (100.0% liked)

UK Nature and Environment

390 readers
44 users here now

General Instance Rules:

Community Specific Rules:

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
20
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

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Jho 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

My cynical ass cannot stop my eyes rolling into the back of my head when I see "tax breaks for billionaires". But I'll try to put that entire ugly can of worms to the side for now.

Ultimately the devil will be in the details as to how this is implemented, and unfortunately at this stage it seems there's not a whole lot of information as to exactly this will work. From the article: "There’s still uncertainty around how the government will approve eligibility for the projects. [...] adding more guidance is due to be provided in the near future."

I've got so many questions. Like, how much of the land has to be rewilded? Will this land be regularly monitored and checked? How are we going to decide whether or not a plot of land has been sufficiently rewilded? Can the landowner do any sort of rewilding even if it's unsuitable for the surrounding area and it's needs? Is there anything to stop someone from simply creating a monoculture conifer forest, which doesn't provide a great benefit for wildlife?

Are there any measures in place to stop land owners from demolishing these rewilded areas after it no longer becomes profitable to keep them that way? Can someone just create a monoculture conifer forest and then cut it down for timber once the inheretance has gone through on the land? Is there going to be a cap on the tax break itself? If the tax break ends up saving more money than the cost of rewilding an area and then demolishing it afterwards then this is just going to be another way for billionaires to dodge taxes whilst contributing nothing to the UK.

I'm skeptical to say the least.

[–] YungOnions@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's an interesting idea. Not sure how I feel about this, tbh. On one hand - tax breaks for billionaires = bad. On the other hand - encouraging greater rewinding etc = good.

[–] 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!