1 week Ago
Anyone who reads my columns regularly will know I am basically supportive of many of the measures Rachel Reeves announced in her budget. The UK's public services badly need an injection of capital and, in some cases, everyday spending. And to maintain the solid foundations of the economy that has to require some increase in taxes or trimming of non-essential benefits.
However, it does appear that she used some blunt implements in that search for more government cash - and has left some groups struggling. There is no doubt that many well-off older families did not need the winter fuel payment as it was applied until this year. However, the cut-off point used by the Chancellor for the payment - those in receipt of pension credits - does look very high, especially with the cliff-edge between those who do and do not qualify for the benefit.
The government did make the point that many of those eligible for pension credits didn't claim the benefit - and they were encouraging them to take it up. However, the issue with this is that the form for claiming the credit looks hideously complicated - it runs to 22 pages with 243 questions - and that is enough to put off many potential recipients. Without a more graduated way of applying the benefit, charity donations like the Surviving Winter appeal are increasingly vital this year.
Hopefully, a fairer government scheme will emerge in future years - but in the meantime the generosity of those better off will be vital to keep some homes warm over the winter. Another issue that came up in the budget was the changes to inheritance tax for farmers. This wasn't helped by differing figures being given by the Treasury and DEFRA for the number of farms that would be affected - and confusion about whether the value of the farmhouse (up to £1m ) could be carried over to the farm itself if it wasn't valued that highly.
Clearly many farms will fall into the inheritance tax band here - although the problem could be eased if farmers formally hand over the business to their sons or daughters more than seven years before they die. But clearly there is a concern among many farmers about this change. It is a bit rich though when the likes of James Dyson, Lord Rothermere or even Jeremy Clarkson bang on about this because of their land-ownings.
Mr Dyson apparently owns 36,000 acres of farmland across the country. I don't really see him on the combine or mucking out the pigs! Owning farmland has been a well-known tax avoidance method for decades and the Chancellor's attempt to crack down on that will be welcomed by most people. But there needs to be a lot more thought given to protecting genuine family farms which have been operating for generations on the kind of profit margins that few industries would accept.
I really don't think that finding an equitable formula acceptable to the family farmer but which clobbers the multi-millionaire investor should be beyond the Treasury and DEFRA mandarins with their Oxbridge degrees! This year's budget WAS a very different animal to those we have become used to over the last decade and a half with their emphasis on tax cuts and spending constraints. For many that is a welcome change but the fact is that you aren't going to please all of the people all of the time and there's no guarantee you're going to get everything perfect first time. The pensioners just above the pension credit limit and the farmers worried about the cost of handing over their business to their sons and daughters deserve to be treated well - let's hope we see some evidence of that in the future.
The opinions expressed in this column are the personal views of Paul Geater and do not necessarily reflect views held by this newspaper, its sister publications or its owner and publisher Newsquest Media Group Ltd..
