A London School of Economics professor has blasted "impoverished millionaires who claimed a need for more support", following Rachel Reeves’ plans to impose a levy on business and agricultural assets worth more than £1 million.

Jeremy Clarkson and Sir James Dyson have been among the most vocal multi-millionaires to slam the Chancellors proposals.

The Treasury has said that roughly three-quarters of farms (73 per cent) will not be impacted by the tax change.

However, this hasn't stopped a backlash.

Clarkson says the Budget makes farming 'nigh on impossible' and believes it's part of a 'sinister plan' to 'carpet bomb our farmland'. 

Writing in The Sun, he said it will be ok for the Labour Party as they will be "living on a diet of quinoa", before adding: "I'm becoming more and more convinced that Starmer and Reeves have a sinister plan.

"They want to carpet bomb our farmland with new towns for immigrants and net zero windfarms.

"But before they can do that, they have to ethnically cleanse the countryside of farmers."

Now, Paul Cheshire, emeritus professor of Economic Geography at the London School of Economics, has hit back.

He told London Economic: “The inheritance tax loophole on farmland, introduced in 1984, simply pushed up the price of land without improving returns to active farmers.

“This is because, like most agricultural subsidies, the value of the relief was capitalised into land values.

  • "As tax planners cottoned on to its role as a licence to avoid IHT, they advised their super-rich clients to buy land and take advantage of it. In the 20 years to 2012, the price of farmland increased fourfold.

“This turned landowning farmers into millionaires but — especially since land represents a cost of production — did no good to the incomes of food producers. It created impoverished millionaires who claimed a need for more support.

Recommended reading:

"At the same time, because more expensive land had to be squeezed even harder for the last drop of revenue, the environmental damage caused by intensive agriculture was made worse.

"Taking at least some of this tax loophole away will do no harm to family farmers but will help both public revenues and the environment.

“Just a shame the relief was not wholly abolished.”