Your toughts on this

kerryjack

OK guys so a lad gets the small farm and house off his parent's thats sound everyone happy with that. so the parents are getting on a bit needs a bit of help they don't want outside help siblings seems to think the lad at home is responsible for them, is this fair

jmrc

nope, not at all imo. the lad at home can be the central communicator but ultimately the parents are the responsibility of all. IMO

The man in red and black

May seem harsh but depends on size of farm. If farm was substantial and it was handed over for free, (so one child gets asset worth 1-2million while rest get nothing), then person that got given farm and house for free should be paying for parents retirement and care. Different if farm was split up or child staying at home bought into the farm business as is more common in north america.

mahoney_j

kerryjack wrote: »

OK guys so a lad gets the small farm and house off his parent's thats sound everyone happy with that. so the parents are getting on a bit needs a bit of help they don't want outside help siblings seems to think the lad at home is responsible for them, is this fair

100% no ,one of my parents has Alzheimer's Parkinson's and now requires a nice bit of care as dose my mam ,possibly more so.in my case I got farm but with certain conditions ,one been a payement in lieu of getting farm which to be fair I got handed in excellent condition and debt free .siblings got very good education paid for and all have good lives and well paid jobs away from home .i live close to parents and do whatever I can for them which I'd expect any son/daughter to do but I won't do it all .not nice watching your dad turn into a shell of his former self and mother constantly stressed .personally don't think it's fair everything should be left to one sibling ,I know no one who just gets handed a farm condition free

_Brian

I really don't think there is any one easy answer for this.

Would be best if parents dealt with this at time of handing farm over so everyone was on the same page.

Personally I think the farm is an asset seperate to people.
Your parents aren't the farm they're parents to all the children in the house, who happen to be farmers. The farm gets passed along but the parents are still parents off all the children in the house, one of whom happens to be a farmer.

I've seen it cause awful divisions in families and know one family who inherited a modest farm and the burden of paying for care which placed a shocking strain on family finances. I thought it was terribly unfair.

rangler1

_Brian wrote: »

I really don't think there is any one easy answer for this.

Would be best if parents dealt with this at time of handing farm over so everyone was on the same page.

Personally I think the farm is an asset seperate to people.
Your parents aren't the farm they're parents to all the children in the house, who happen to be farmers. The farm gets passed along but the parents are still parents off all the children in the house, one of whom happens to be a farmer.

I've seen it cause awful divisions in families and know one family who inherited a modest farm and the burden of paying for care which placed a shocking strain on family finances. I thought it was terribly unfair.

Taking a farm and expecting not to hav eto pay for the parents care sounds a bit naive to me
Person that gets the most of the parents assets of course should be responsible for the care of the parents, they'll have an asset there capable of paying , they'll still have a cheap farm, rest of family won't have that......unless of course one of the siblings is obscenely rich.
Had to do it here in worse times than now

Bass Reeves

There are two sides to this so it is not easy to give a simple yes or no answer. Parents are mother and father to all the children. So visa versa they are the parents of all the children. I often see it quoted about the Rest having got an education or a site or a cash settlement. However in lots of cases this is not the story.

Where issues can arise is where there is cost to be borne. Maybe the parents house has to be adapted, extra home help is needed or the farm may not be transferred long enough to to benefit from fair deal. as well the child that inherited/ took over the farm may be way nearer than other children who may be a distance away and any physical help they give may be at a substantial travel and time cost to them.

It the is a son that usually inherits where upon parents may expect there daughters to support them more. Often at times like like this other grivences over the way the hand over happened can come to the fore.

Mooooo

It all depends on the individual situation really, just sit down go thru what may or may not be needed with the siblings and indeed parents and try as best ye can not to fall out over It. Some farms may be left to a child who did no more than the rest on it and others may be to someone who worked much more and contributed to siblings education, house etc. Or perhaps took on all the parents debt as well. Try the remember they are your parents and they will need the best ye can give them. Also if the person left the farm is depending solely on farm income for themselves the money may well be not there so siblings will have to help out

carrollsno1

rangler1 wrote: »

Taking a farm and expecting not to hav eto pay for the parents care sounds a bit naive to me
Person that gets the most of the parents assets of course should be responsible for the care of the parents, they'll have an asset there capable of paying , they'll still have a cheap farm, rest of family won't have that......unless of course one of the siblings is obscenely rich.
Had to do it here in worse times than now

Situation thats fairly close to me everyone got something. The farmer son has to work the ground he got, was signed over to him last so he was expected to support the contrary father while everyone else got handed ground, houses and cash. The father hasnt been requiring care yet but is turning into a contrary f#cker and the son who farmed for no wage all his life is expected to deal with him day in day out and was expected to provide the father with a living while at the same time putting money into a run down farm. Fierce attitude oh he got the place hes the biggest beneficiary peopls dont realise though what else goes on behibd the scenes

mahoney_j

rangler1 wrote: »

Taking a farm and expecting not to hav eto pay for the parents care sounds a bit naive to me
Person that gets the most of the parents assets of course should be responsible for the care of the parents, they'll have an asset there capable of paying , they'll still have a cheap farm, rest of family won't have that......unless of course one of the siblings is obscenely rich.
Had to do it here in worse times than now

A valueable asset yes but so many variables that asset (farm )may only have value if sold then what ???

J.O. Farmer

Quite a few posts seem to focus on the financial cost of care which is all well and good if the parents are in the nursing home.

However sometimes it's a case of needing someone to be there to help them out which mainly costs time. No matter how valuable the farm nobody was ever given more hours in the day.

In that situation it may be the case that the farmer has most spare time or maybe not maybe it is someone else. Depending on age, family (i.e young kids), location, day job (farm or whatever the others do) an arrangement should be come to where everyone does a bit.

It's a bit cold just to say X got the farm so let them do everything for mam and dad. Mam and dad assuming they were good parents didn't feed X first and give Y the leftovers when they were growing up. They looked all the kids equally and as they get on in years they deserve to be repaid for that whatever about the financial situation time is free unless you're at work in which case it's not.

rangler1

carrollsno1 wrote: »

Situation thats fairly close to me everyone got something. The farmer son has to work the ground he got, was signed over to him last so he was expected to support the contrary father while everyone else got handed ground, houses and cash. The father hasnt been requiring care yet but is turning into a contrary f#cker and the son who farmed for no wage all his life is expected to deal with him day in day out and was expected to provide the father with a living while at the same time putting money into a run down farm. Fierce attitude oh he got the place hes the biggest beneficiary peopls dont realise though what else goes on behibd the scenes

Everyone has to sort their own future, young people are well enough educated to avoid situations like that......if he's not being paid what's he doing there.
Like it or not the heir is gone with their parents security

carrollsno1

rangler1 wrote: »

Everyone has to sort their own future, young people are well enough educated to avoid situations like that......if he's not being paid what's he doing there.
Like it or not the heir is gone with their parents security

These people wouldnt be young though theyd be heading for 60. Twas an eyeopener now and i cant see the farmer son waiting as long to retire when his son is ready to come homd to farm. And i definitly cant see the farming grandson in a rush home to farm after seeing all whats happened as of late there

rangler1

mahoney_j wrote: »

A valueable asset yes but so many variables that asset (farm )may only have value if sold then what ???

JUst hope you're never in the situation, fair deal scheme can go back five years to take assets now......giving away land when your young (60) to get out of that commitent is risky now with broken marriages, etc in the next generation.
As I say the heir is gone with the parents security, there's an unwritten obligation there

Someyolk

rangler1 wrote: »

JUst hope you're never in the situation, fair deal scheme can go back five years to take assets now......giving away land when your young (60) to get out of that commitent is risky now with broken marriages, etc in the next generation.
As I say the heir is gone with the parents security, there's an unwritten obligation there

That's the problem nowadays in a lot of places. Farmers in their 80's hanging on to land till the next generation give up and loose interest.

rangler1

Someyolk wrote: »

That's the problem nowadays in a lot of places. Farmers in their 80's hanging on to land till the next generation give up and loose interest.

And you can't blame them, skip a generation and give it to grandson/daughter, it has worked very well beside here........father/son partnerships definitely doesn't always be great, some will rue the incentives that's available at the moment especially after breakups etc.
A father criticising publicly a sons farming is another thing that grates on me too.... just flagging a few things I've noticed in my travels

Someyolk

rangler1 wrote: »

And you can't blame them, skip a generation and give it to grandson/daughter, it has worked very well beside here........father/son partnerships definitely doesn't always be great, some will rue the incentives that's available at the moment especially after breakups etc.
A father criticising publicly a sons farming is another thing that grates on me too.... just flagging a few things I've noticed in my travels

Sure there's as much a chance that the grandsons marriage will break up too.
I know if any of my lads have an interest at all I'll let them at it when they still have a bit of enthusiasm for it and give them the same opportunity I got.

KatyMac

My older brothers both left the farm when they were 18/19 years old. My mother died when I was 24 and that left me at home with my father. I eventually married and my husband, 2 kids and myself lived with Dad until he died in his late 80s a couple of years ago.
Now, I was left the farm. I looked after my father for the past 10 years or so while dementia overtook him. We had him walking the house in the middle of the nights. We had to hide the door keys or he would be gone, or leave the door open for anyone to walk in. The only time my brothers came near us was to interfere (although it was mostly their wives who did that). So does that make me a bad person that I consider I/we definitely earned the farm?

rangler1

Someyolk wrote: »

Sure there's as much a chance that the grandsons marriage will break up too.
I know if any of my lads have an interest at all I'll let them at it when they still have a bit of enthusiasm for it and give them the same opportunity I got.

Youth doesn't have the monopoly on good farming
There's a good proportion of young farmers not farming as well as the 80 year olds as far as i can see, especially parttimers.
if the grandsons mariage breaks down, so what, but the grandfather would have had another 25yrs security say 60 to 85 yrs age

ganmo

If it's not set out when transferring the farm then it should be equally shared.
Farmers like every other job should be prepared for retirement at retirement age whether it's selling the farm to the next generation or a pension or whatever.

Saddling the successor with the responsibility of caring for the parents after the fact is not on

Muckit

rangler1 wrote: »

Youth doesn't have the monopoly on good farming
There's a good proportion of young farmers not farming as well as the 80 year olds as far as i can see, especially parttimers.
if the grandsons mariage breaks down, so what, but the grandfather would have had another 25yrs security say 60 to 85 yrs age

Youth doesn't have the monopoly on broken marriages either!

rangler1

KatyMac wrote: »

My older brothers both left the farm when they were 18/19 years old. My mother died when I was 24 and that left me at home with my father. I eventually married and my husband, 2 kids and myself lived with Dad until he died in his late 80s a couple of years ago.
Now, I was left the farm. I looked after my father for the past 10 years or so while dementia overtook him. We had him walking the house in the middle of the nights. We had to hide the door keys or he would be gone, or leave the door open for anyone to walk in. The only time my brothers came near us was to interfere (although it was mostly their wives who did that). So does that make me a bad person that I consider I/we definitely earned the farm?

You're given the farm for nothing, surely you have to take what comes then.
as I say unwritten obligation.
I think I;ve made my point, too morbid to carry on with

Muckit

KatyMac wrote: »

My older brothers both left the farm when they were 18/19 years old. My mother died when I was 24 and that left me at home with my father. I eventually married and my husband, 2 kids and myself lived with Dad until he died in his late 80s a couple of years ago.
Now, I was left the farm. I looked after my father for the past 10 years or so while dementia overtook him. We had him walking the house in the middle of the nights. We had to hide the door keys or he would be gone, or leave the door open for anyone to walk in. The only time my brothers came near us was to interfere (although it was mostly their wives who did that). So does that make me a bad person that I consider I/we definitely earned the farm?

You had it well earned. Farming itself would be a piece of p*ss compared to that.

Someyolk

rangler1 wrote: »

Youth doesn't have the monopoly on good farming
There's a good proportion of young farmers not farming as well as the 80 year olds as far as i can see, especially parttimers.
if the grandsons mariage breaks down, so what, but the grandfather would have had another 25yrs security say 60 to 85 yrs age

If good farming is having 2acres per bullock and claiming all your payments and letting the farm grow wild then fair enough because any 80 year olds I know farming that's all they are at.

Bass Reeves

carrollsno1 wrote: »

These people wouldnt be young though theyd be heading for 60. Twas an eyeopener now and i cant see the farmer son waiting as long to retire when his son is ready to come homd to farm. And i definitly cant see the farming grandson in a rush home to farm after seeing all whats happened as of late there

In 20-30 years time farmers ( and anyone dependent on the OAP) will not be able to retire unless they have a separate independent pension. We are seeing the start of the anomaly where because people are healthy and with it into there seventies that retirement will be later. It a reality that some need to cop on to. It is likly that farms will skip generations where the farm is not capable of supporting 2+ incomes

Someyolk wrote: »

That's the problem nowadays in a lot of places. Farmers in their 80's hanging on to land till the next generation give up and loose interest.

This is because we have have a large population of farmers with no sucessor as the farm was not capable of supporting more than one and maybe only a partial income. If the next generation want to farm they can always buy it.

Someyolk wrote: »

Sure there's as much a chance that the grandsons marriage will break up too.
I know if any of my lads have an interest at all I'll let them at it when they still have a bit of enthusiasm for it and give them the same opportunity I got.

Interest and ability are two different things. I see a lot of young lads and all farming is done from the back of a tractor in there opinion.

rangler1 wrote: »

Youth doesn't have the monopoly on good farming
There's a good proportion of young farmers not farming as well as the 80 year olds as far as i can see, especially parttimers.
if the grandsons mariage breaks down, so what, but the grandfather would have had another 25yrs security say 60 to 85 yrs age

Near me it the opposite it the part timers that in general are better farmers. More focused, more into a time/profit ratio.

ganmo wrote: »

If it's not set out when transferring the farm then it should be equally shared.
Farmers like every other job should be prepared for retirement at retirement age whether it's selling the farm to the next generation or a pension or whatever.

Saddling the successor with the responsibility of caring for the parents after the fact is not on

The problem in most case when that happens there are two involved the owner and the successor. A lot of the rest of the family have no input. There is an old say ''it takes two to tango but only one holds the baby''. In many cases there is an understood obligation but what is gone is gone. This is whay many people are reluctant to hand over control to nephews and nieces. The real propblem is when one person put in the effort and another inherits.

Someyolk wrote: »

If good farming is having 2acres per bullock and claiming all your payments and letting the farm grow wild then fair enough because any 80 year olds I know farming that's all they are at.

Good farming has nothing to do with profitability. It is unlikley that any person in there eighties can afford to pay labour to manage a farm fully stocked. I am not sure we want every farm in the country operating at even 80% Larry and Co would have afield day. Most 80 year old and even lads in there seventies that are with it are working the system. They draw maximun payments with minimun inputs. It is quite possible that they are extremely profitable. I might do it some day mysel after all I own it surly I am entitle to farm it to suit myself.

carrollsno1

Good farming has nothing to do with profitability. It is unlikley that any person in there eighties can afford to pay labour to manage a farm fully stocked. I am not sure we want every farm in the country operating at even 80% Larry and Co would have afield day. Most 80 year old and even lads in there seventies that are with it are working the system. They draw maximun payments with minimun inputs. It is quite possible that they are extremely profitable. I might do it some day mysel after all I own it surly I am entitle to farm it to suit myself.[/quote]

I know tis their land and their entitled to do what they like with it, however they would probably make more money tax free as well by leasing the farm to a younger farmer. Letting the farm get overgrown Ps and Ks gone to f#ck not a strand a fence in the place does no body anygood, whether its the ones farming it now or the ones coming after. There is some fine farms only fit for planting once the next generation gets them which is a pity because you cant build another acre (well the emirates are making a fair attempt to be fair)

The part time boy

I got the farm and the house (I put a extenction on to the house for parents and divided it in 2 )

My siblings got education and access to sites prob worth 50 k each

What i got was worth 1.7 mill

I run my mother house (power heat phone )

I would expect to pay all cost assioced with my mother care in the future and to the end .

I think that only fair . Maybe if i had given each sibling 100 k each or they were able to get a family house off my parents then maybe it be differnt .

However if it comes to care rather than money I would hope the rest of them would help . We will have to wait and see with that . That's something there conscience will tell them. I not going to forse them