Hector

You seem to be suggesting that institutions with long term fixed commitments (e.g. annuity providers) have chosen not to back them with long term gilts of a similar maturity, even though these appear to be available, but have instead chosen to back them with gilts of a shorter maturity. In other words, short term funding for long term business. What reason is there for thinking the institutions have employed such an exceptionally risky strategy?

aaarh where do these smileys come from???

Typos above, can't work out how to edit my post - not smiley but - in source should be "thesalarycalculator.co.uk" (also spelt wrong in a)

120k is an exaggeration. But even quite high earners can be little better off. To take an example, two parents, 3 teenage children, 1 parent working, living in west London: a) Scenario A - 35 hours a week at £7 an hour, gross annual income £12,740, net annual income £11,618 (thesalarycaluclator.co.uk). Total benefits eligbile including tax credits, housing benefit, child benefit, council tax support = £32,370 (entitledto.co.uk). Total after tax income £43,988. Scenario B - A well paying job at £65,000. Net annual income £44,664 (entitledto.co.uk). No benefits, as earnings too high. So, in return for earning and extra £52,260 under Scenario B, the extra take home pay is £676 a year. That's a marginal tax rate of 98.7%. Do you see a tiny problem here?

I didn't say they were entirely irrational, as you well know. They have one specific constraint, which is to continue farming. Within that, they act rationally. Your opinions seem to be based on prejudicial and inaccurate assumptions about land ownership and use. Dairy farming apparently is an evil and idle use of land if the land is owned by "gentry", but I assume not if the land is owned by a farmer with 100 acres and a modest income. To me this sounds more like class hatred than economic logic.

It isn't a show stopper, no. But it creates a giant loophole that will be extensively exploited by many of its supposed targets.

It makes no economic sense if you assume that all farmers are "rational" profit maximising actors. They are not, for the reasons given above.

You really know nothing about farming, do you? So all the beef, lamb and dairy farmers in Britain are willfully choosing to put their land to unproductive use, because they could be more productive growing tomatoes instead?

Or indeed butter, or cheese, or cream, or drunk milk?

Have you ever eaten beef or lamb?

I have not made them up. Average farm size in England is 50 hectares, or 124 acres: My link Average farm land value in England, without planning permission for residential development, is £5,800 My link This makes average farm worth £719,200 in land value alone. This ignores residential and other farm buildings, under existing use this land is worth a lot more per acre - say £800,000 in total. OK maybe £1m was a bit too high. Average farmer's income is £20,600: My link 1% on £800,000 = £8,000 - 40% of the farmer's pre-tax income. Sure you could have a lower %age rate for farmland. You don't think the "landed gentry" might see a loophole here?

The average farm is worth just under £1m in land value terms. The average farmer earns around than £20,000. A tax of 1% has been suggested, that's half the farmer's incomd gone at a stroke.

You're displaying your ignorance. Pastures are an example of underutilised land, are they?

Live in a city, do you? You have no idea of the reality of country life.

So 70% of UK land is about to come up for sale, is it? To be bought by whom?