Land commission

joethegrinder

in the old days could a farmer borrow money from the land commission to pay off debt on the neighbours

Farm or off his own. Or were they just paying off the land bonds to the landlords

epfff

I think you are mixing three things connected but not really

Mrs cockett

I believe when the Land commission divided a farm among neighbouring farmers, they gave the new tenant farmer a loan to pay for it, which was then paid back twice yearly

joethegrinder

who many years were they given to pay back the money for the land

paddysdream

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122285390#Comment_122285390

Not sure. Uncertain which land act the place here was bought under( presume prior to WW 1) but the little final demand slips ( from memory similar to a bank lodgement slip) came here till the mid 90's. Think it was about 10 pounds each moiety ( twice a year)

Did all the small ones not get wound up around that time as the money was so little ?Ours did anyways.

Donald Trump

There was an article in the paper a few weeks back calling for a new "Land Commission" to help younger farmers get access to land.

While I wouldn't necessarily think that repeating what was done previously is possible, I would think that something should, and could, be done about land being so attractive to "local businessmen". Looking at the auction reports in the independent over the last while, I can't help noticing that a lot of the high prices are being paid by "local businessmen".

Yes, there is an argument that anyone should be able to own property. But I can foresee a future where there are not really any serious farmers left because any available land is getting hoovered up by "local businessmen" who won't farm it anyway, but who use it to either speculate or simply take advantage of Ag-relief type rules for the inter-generational transfer of wealth. Such rules are meant to preserve the viability of farming, not endanger it.

Cattlepen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122312246#Comment_122312246

what and who will say what is a “serious” farmer??

And if the children of a “local businessman” want to be farmers what’s wrong with farms been bought for them.? Whoever is missing out on buying land because they can’t afford it should have maybe tried being a “businessman”instead of being groomed as heir apparent by loving parents

dmakc

That and latest trend here is energy tycoons buying up looking for battery storage. The land doesn't even need to be for sale. Knocking on doors for 20k-60k/ac until the old farmer gives in, dropping hundreds of years of lineage overnight leaving the rest of us with an industrial estate.

Coming soon to an area near you, the Greens damage won't end with their election results.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122315055#Comment_122315055

Ones that produce food. Would you like to become a modern day serf to a wealthy landlord? The vast majority of people are not going to do that. That model was tried and gotten rid of over 100 years ago. You'll work your own land and try to improve it and maybe try to extend and build up over time but most are not going to do that on 100% rented land. You may be different and you might be happy to doff the cap. Ironically, that system eventually crashed due to many large estates becoming uneconomical. The original land commissions were to allow the tenants working the land to own it so that there would be an incentive for them to modernise and improve it. Why would anyone want to go back to that kind of a model?

If you relegate the value of land to simply being an instrument used to store and transfer wealth, then don't be surprised if that is all it eventually becomes used for. It merely becomes an artificial token to avoid taxes for wealthy people.

You're argument of someone "becoming a businessman" actually illustrates the issue. The nonsense about "being groomed as hair apparent" just comes across as bitter. Someone who is left land is not going to be buying that land. The value of land that anyone inherits is meaningless unless you are going to sell it! And someone who is a businessman is not going to be farming it (except on a part-time or hobby basis). Your suggestion for a model amounts to "if you want to farm, you need to go and do something else instead of farming".

If we had a society where half of all nurses were over 60 years old, nobody would suggest creating a system where an 18 year old who wants to become a nurse needs to go to work in a high paying tech job so that they can afford a permit allowing them to be a nurse at the weekends. The State could created a strictly limited number of those permits, then allow anyone to buy and sell them, with the incentive that they would be exempt from inheritance tax.

Your concern for the children of local businessmen who want to become farmers could be easily alleviated. Currently, under Ag relief, the person inheriting the farm must be a qualified farmer and farm it for 6 years, or rent it to a qualified farmer. So you could keep the former and do away with the latter.

My preferred solution would be, that instead of doing the 90% reduction in value, you could choose between (1) option whereby that the State keeps a share of say 40% in the land or (2) regular 33% CAT up front. For option (1) the State's share would decrease by 1% per year and is written off at death if any remains. You can argue for 2% per year etc. That's the basic idea.

Grueller

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122315236#Comment_122315236

Last paragraph is a super idea I think. I'll vote for you in the US election if you can get that one through.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122317250#Comment_122317250

MAGA - Make Agriculture Great Again

My suggestion solves the problem which (I presume) Ag Relief is intended to solve - that being a situation where a beneficiary is forced to sell (part of) a family farm in order to pay death duties - while also making land less attractive to be used as a simple inheritance tax avoidance scheme.

I will likely buy land at some point in the future. And I won't mind paying more than it is intrinsically worth. The reason being because of the other advantages that buying it brings aside from the value of what it produces. When I buy it, a farmer with no additional income, or windfall to dip into, will not be able to outbid me based on what he will earn from it if I really want it. Which is mental and distorts the market but you have to play within the system as it exists.

If you are the young neighbouring farmer to that future block of land, trying to make improvements to build up your own place to protect its future, well it's not my priority that that land might be worth to me in the short term for tax reasons what it would take you 10 or 20 years to return from it by working it.

148multi

Most of the land that was redistributed around here has been sold now. All it did was slow the inevitable.

A competitive type of farmer is what's needed to be promoted, not one with the hand out, just because.

wrangler

I did a lot of driving today and saw thousands of acres not being farmed, a lot more than ACRES and organics can be blamed for.

If that's the way farming is going then maybe we're better off not subsidising it as the land will go wild on it's own. no need for farmers.

We came a across a solar farm today, it looked about50 acres of worked out sand pit, it'll be some mess in a few years when the briars and blackthorns get going

green daries

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122323243#Comment_122323243

They won't be let do anything like that

Lime Tree Farm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122322782#Comment_122322782

It fulfilled a need at the time, labourers got a bit along with a cottage, raised a family, the next generation availed of education. Small tenant farms that existed at the time added a bit to their lot as well. Come into the 21st century, you see the original tenant farms survive, selling sites only on the acquired land, never on the original home farm. None of the 'labourers' farms have survived around here, their families have gone on to better, some very successful.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122323243#Comment_122323243

That was my point above. I don't see the point in them having a system where a random fella can throw down 3m for a farm in order that - even ignoring the expectation of getting a bit of inflation protection - his kid can later avoid a million in inheritance tax. Then by the time it comes around, maybe the kid has to go and temporarily throw a couple of hundred k into other land to meet the asset test.

The income from working it would be far less than the tax savings anyway, so they might as well not bother. Especially if they don't know where to even start.

Cattlepen

hi again. I just like to clarify that I am not bitter about anything. The “heir apparent “ reference is to the fact that most farmers are farmers by the very good luck of inheritance . Generally they are identified afrom a young age and are aware of this all their lives. You have to admit that this is a great start in life, well above average so to speak. These IMO are the same chaps that think along the lines of rules being changed to stop anybody else eg business men from buying land because it is causing the price of land to rise thus leaving the heir apparent types not able to afford it because the actual business of farming can’t pay for the current market value of land. They then throw they’re toys out of the pram and want they’re fragile egos to be protected by legislation. Farming should be open to the ebb and flow of free markets including the land itself.
I don’t get the tangent about the nurses either

green daries

Thisccommentonly makes sense if things were free market capitalist society across the board for everyone. there would be very few people able to bid against any farmers for land due to the fact that food would be possibly 5 or six times the price it is now. And there would be mass hunger and probable famines on a regular basis in a lot of countries . There would be no business grants or agricultural tax breaks to buy land as a transferable asset. Taking it one step further anyone falling on hard times would end up in a ghetto as there wouldn't be any social contracts to luck after those with less soooo which do you want rules regulations and tax jiggery pokery or something close to a third world country .......if we're lucky

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122323963#Comment_122323963

Get rid of agri relief, get rid of tax free leasing, do not allow agriculture land to be purchased within a company structure and watch the price of land fall.

However it will be the Bass's of this world that will benefit

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122327513#Comment_122327513

If someone inherits the land …. they aren't buying it. The businessman affects those trying to buy - not those who inherit. So I'm not sure where you are connecting inheritance with businessmen buying up land. If the beneficiary is going to sell it - they are going to want tax reliefs for the businessman so that the businessman will pay him more for it. If the beneficiary is going to farm the land then the value of that land under him is completely irrelevant as regards his normal day-to-day farming.

The example of the nurse is that you appeared to be saying that if a person wants to farm then they should go off an become businessmen first so that they can compete with the other businessmen who are mainly buying due to the inheritance tax benefits and some speculative appreciation. We wouldn't have a system where if a person wants to become a nurse that they have to go off and make a fortune in tech in order to return to be able to return to purchase the ability to be a nurse so why would it be suggested as a model for farming?

What do you think would happen to farming as an industry if - hypothetically - the government decided that in order to meet environmental targets that any PAYE taxpayer could pay zero tax on their first 100k in any year that they rented 10 acres and left it for wildlife? Extreme examples may not be plausible, but they are useful in illustrating a concept. On a much lower scale, the government restricted the long-term leasing somewhat due to its distorting effects.

K.G.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122328573#Comment_122328573

First step would be to get rid of sfp and the like.then you see who would be doing the farming

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122327563#Comment_122327563

In a completely capitalistic free market (not that I am advocating for it) land would be unlikely to be 5 or 6 times the price that it is now. The value of land would be linked to what it could produce. On a simplistic pure actuarial or financial basis, if you demand a gross return of 10% annually then the value of that land should be 10x what it makes for you annually. So for an acre making 100k, you'd need to be returning 10k annually on it. But land is merely only one component to that produce going out the gate. Machinery/labour etc. So in reality, the preceding example actually underestimates the value of what needs to go out the gate annually to justify the 100k price.

The price to which food would rise would be limited - in the pure capitalistic free market - by the unrestricted flow of food in from other countries.

Prior to the 60's or 70's or thereabouts, land was more sensitive to the value of what it could produce as there was no income tax and farmers paid rates on their land. Ironically, where we saw sensitivity coming back in due to dairy profits over the last few years. I was looking at a block there a while back. It went for 7 figures and I couldn't justify that at this point in time based on what it would return. I know the history of the block and I know that it was seized bit by bit as the farmer who owned it didn't/couldn't pay his rates. The thing is that in 10 or 20 years, I might be in a position where it would be worth that and more to me because of tax rules - but not because of what it could produce.

green daries

No I didn't say land would be 5 or 6 times the price my view was simplistic food price would only be regulated by the farmer ability to purchase input as there would be huge wild swings in prices from year to year worldwide .......remember its capitalist society there's no intervention .......... it would be in short a complete shitshow .....that's before the wars etc.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122329382#Comment_122329382

Fair enough. I misread that!

Cattlepen

I’m really not looking for aggro here but the nurse thing is purely hypothetical, the business man buying land is reality. If you start a new version of land distribution or making rules regarding farmers being more entitled to buy land because they are farmers you will totally distort everything. Economies and market are constantly evolving and changing over decades. This has always been the case. Intervening with legislation has rarely been a success

Cattlepen

and Donald you were saying that you didn’t agree with business men lumping down 3 million or whatever for a piece of land. You seem to think that land purchase should only be allowed at a realistic price to farmers IE people that have inherited land ! By the sounds of you’re opinion no one else need apply

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122332651#Comment_122332651

I'm not looking for aggro either. The nurse thing was an absurd response to what I considered the equally absurd suggestion that in order to become a farmer, someone should necessarily do something else to make money so that they can afford to be a farmer. I have no problem with the idea of going off and earning to set yourself up as regards having some capital, but the idea that you have to do it to buy land because you're never going to be able to come close to paying it back based off what you earn from it seems perverse to me. And I say that as someone who is looking to buy land on the back of money earned in an 9-5!

I never said anything about a new version of land distribution. That was earlier in the thread. I only addressed the distortion whereby wealthy individuals with no connection to agriculture can use land as a loophole to avoid inheritance tax when passing on wealth to the next generation. That is an existing intervention in legislation which already distorts things. Often these things are brought in with good intentions, but then they are taken advantage of and used for other reasons. I don't see the harm in cutting off loopholes once they become obvious. They should have been anticipated in the first place but that is besides the point. There is also a business relief which is equal to the Ag relief in terms of reduction but the requirements are slightly different. Ag relief is very easy once the beneficiary can pass the asset test. Business relief is easy too if you have a genuine business to pass on, but buying one simply to fulfil the conditions would not be.

100 acres goes up for sale for 3m. Apart from an intensive niche operation, could a regular farmer buy that and pay for it by working it? Not a hope. But a wealthy individual can use it to park their wealth for a few years to save their kids 1m in tax. So it is always going to be more valuable to them than it will be to you. That is a completely artificial construct which adds nothing to society. For the wealthy individual, the price per acre does not matter. What the land can produce does not matter. All that matters is that the value is preserved over time and that they get their tax relief at the end.

Say my name

Yet we are constantly reminded of France where non farmers are not allowed buy farmland. Only farmers need apply and even a subset only young farmers need apply first.

They saw the issue to introduce that.

Here we had a td bring a motion in Dail to discuss Coolmore accumulating land for sport from sport and the motion was denied for discussion in the Dail.

People died in this country for the right to buy out leased land. You had a political party reward members only via the land commission. And you had those excluded join the opposition party. Then we had two powerful political parties in the country. And still the land commission files are being kept a state secret for fear of troubles from people who were denied at the time.

This is Ireland. 2024.

Edit: this is not in response to DT but the general theme before.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122329208#Comment_122329208

The biggest influence on land prices are inheritance relief, paying through a company structures and long term leasing tax relief.

Tax free leasing is encouraging older farmers and inheritors to retain land and take the leasing income tax free.

Inheritance relief is encouraging wealthy people to use it to transfer wealth to there children.

Buying through company structure allows untaxed income for land purchase ( subject to 12% tax)

The three of these that have driven up the price of land

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122329270#Comment_122329270

No you are not a capitalist. You believe in price control of housing and land. The reason it is expensive is due to the tax benefits I posted to above.

The problem is we suffer from the law of unintended conquences. Yes traditionally we had rates which were abolished in the late 70's due to a constitutional case regarding rateable valuations.

In the mid 80 the FG/Lab government brought in a 2% tax on farm sales to replace rates and income-tax ( very few farmers were paying incomec tax) on farms but opposition from farm lobby groups got it repealed a couple of years later. In a way the opposition to it was shortsighted as it would have saved dairy farmers a fortune in accountancy and tax consultant fees and no need of a company structure.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122332942#Comment_122332942

You say I believe in price control, and then "explain" that the reason land is expensive is because of policy reasons ….. but don't seem to understand that I am only advocating for changes to, or removal of, those policies.

The price of land is being effectively controlled as is. It is just that there is an artificial support being placed under it

Are you advocating for a completely free capitalistic free market yourself? No SFP and unlimited competition from NZ and Brazil? No checks or regulations or restrictions- consumer can choose what to buy?

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122332700#Comment_122332700

You seem to have crossed wires in that you are going on about only people inheriting land being able to farm it, while apparently supporting policies that make it difficult for those that don't inherit it to buy it and farm it.

Son A inherits a farm. Son B doesn't inherit land but still wants to farm. I'd prefer to see a system where Son B could have a realistic chance at doing so off the back of what could be earned from it.

An no, I didn't say anything about "land purchase only being allowed" to any specific person or category. I say the artificial value given to land through administrative decisions could and should be reduced. Let the businessman lump down his 3m if he wants. But change the Ag relief to fulfill its intended purpose while eliminating tax avoidance loopholes. He can still buy it - he will just have to keep it and work it to avail of the reduction. He is more than welcome to do so.