Comments by "IIIRattleHeadIII" (@badass6300) on "Furious farmer who hates James O'Brien calls in to debate inheritance tax | LBC" video.

Finally someone said it, thank you.
20
He is not a millionaire... -_-
6
@nelch I rarely see a rich farmer...
5
@Soril2010 Corporations, and then in the future 40% of people's income will go for food.
5
There should be no inheritance tax...
5
Yeah sell it to the corporations, can't wait for 40% of people's salaries to be spent on food in the future... -_-
4
No inheritance tax.
3
@gordonstrong5232 Yeah you delivered only to the rich ones, have you ever thought about that?
3
@fricozoid1 Farmland is one of those assets that shouldn't be considered at all as an asset to begin with...
3
@jimpaddy79 because you use it to work on it, unless you are a billionaire and hire other people to work on it...
3
@jimpaddy79 because you won't sell your land, since it's your profession and last time I checked we need food and the last thing we need is for it to be bought out by corporations and billionaires.
3
@chatteyj sadly people can't differentiate between net worth and income even to this day.
3
There should be no inheritance tax... -_-
2
@gordonstrong5232 Most farmers have tiny margins and don't have a ton of cash, just expensive land.
2
@am3ient Have you ever thought that perhaps there should be no such taxes to begin with?
2
@PJH13 8-9x is if you count next to empty or empty towns and villages, realistically it's 9-12x. Also it's not a supply and demand problem, it's a problem of companies and rich people buying them out or straight up building them, and then renting them out or just keeping them empty and using the net worth generated by them to get more loans and invest further in other ventures or repeat this one. Then they use algorithms with regional income data to price them for two median incomes for the median home and scale from there. My country went from 11 million people down to 6.5 million people in the past 30-35 years, and at the same time we have built 3-4x more homes than there were 30-35 years ago. The funny thing is that back then the average home, which was 74-78m² costed 2-3x Individual median yearly salaries, now the median home is 48-51m² and it costs 9-12x individual median yearly salaries... And the government doesn't allow you to build your own house either...
2
Net worth doesn't mean anything... the land may even be worth a billion dollars, he isn't rich because of it... net worth and income are two different things. And he works as an electrical engineer precisely because he doesn't earn enough money from the farm... -_-
2
So people want farmers to sell their land when they inherit it? Insanity... oh well enjoy mega corporations owning all the land, let's see how you like it when 40% of your salary goes just to feed you in the future... -_- This man makes 25-30k a year... will people learn the difference between net worth and income one day? Just because his land is worth a ton, does NOT make him rich...
2
@col.hertford9855 My country has a fraction of your fees and taxes and yet we have the same and even a bit more services and items provided by the government than the UK and we are mega corrupt too... -_- I wonder where your taxes go.
1
@IPFreely-u2t This policy(inheritance tax on farms) will lead to corporations buying out the farms and making an oligopoly.
1
@IPFreely-u2t the government won't do it directly, they'll use the corporations. Let's remind ourselves what the economic model of the governments working with big private companies for their mutual benefit while oppressing the masses is called. It's not Capitalism, it starts with an F If I say anymore youtube will delete my comment.
1
@gordonstrong5232 rich in income or rich in net worth?
1
Net worth and income are not the same thing... -_-
1
@TalesOfWar So by the 5th generation there is no more land, the mega corporations own it and food costs 40% of everyone's salaries, fuuun.
1
@PJH13 the average salary was 3 times lower than the house now the average salary is 9-12 times lower than the home(in populated areas) and the homes are worse... well maybe not in the UK...
1
@PJH13 So why with close to 70%(64%) empty homes in the capital do homes cost 9-12x median salaries?
1
@PJH13 I'm talking about my country. Also the official stats lie by misinterpretation. They only look at how many are given for rent or sale... they keep them without doing either. It's like with natural diamonds, they mine tons upon tons, but only let a few kg a year on the market, because De Beers is almost a monopoly.
1
@PJH13 not monopolistic, it's oligopolistic. It's not monopolistic here either, it's many companies and rich people buying them out and using the same algorithms in different tools to price them. It's like that everywhere, read on it. Here nobody has 1% of the market either. As I said they use tools that are based on the same or similar algorithms to technically price fix, but it's legal, since they didn't directly collude together, they used an application too.
1
@PJH13 There is supply they just don't put it on the market and then the statistics say that there aren't enough homes for sale/rent...
1
@PJH13 Not exactly, this works as their net worth, and it appreciates like crazy so they can get loans and manipulate the numbers to get even more money and there are many benefits they also gain from having real-estate. Again they may be separate, but they use the same software and literally act as one, legal collusion.
1
@PJH13 Because this increases the value of the property, thus increasing their net worth and they operate with loans/debt, so they win by doing so. And some do it, but not many, you win more money if your real estate appreciates 20% and you can take a massive loan against it.
1
@PJH13 go research who owns the majority of homes across europe and north america.
1
@PJH13 yeah it's not one individual firm, but they collectively own 40% of the market and they use the same software to price them which is technically collusion, but legally not.
1
@PJH13 65% of all homes, we are talking ones in populated big cities/metropolitan areas.
1
@PJH13 I really suggest using google. I can't send links because youtube deletes comments with links.
1
@PJH13 53% of the UK residents "own" their home, this includes people paying mortgage and people having homes in empty or near empty towns and villages... what more do you want to be said? You haven't grown much in the past 3 decades population-wise either.
1
So make people sell their farm land to corporations? Enjoy paying 40% of your salary just for food in the future...
1
Solar Panels and wind farms are dumb... Solar panels are good for home use, but that's about it. Wind farms are just dumb. Nuclear Reactors and Salt towers are the real green way of producing massive amounts of energy.
1
@ernestbailey9194 Solar panels emit ions in the soil, and they are very in-efficient, nuclear power and especially salt solar towers are a much better option.
1
Corporations are buying out the land, so in the future have fun when 40% of your salary goes for food...
1
@annov7500 You assume he heats the same way as you... he likely uses wood and coal for heating.
1
@jimpaddy79 Why what?
1
@robclarkson Speculation.
1