Half of England owned by less than 1 per cent of population
Discussion
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/half-england-owned-less-...
''Less than one percent of the population — including aristocrats, royals and wealthy investors — owns about half the land, according to Who Owns England, a book that is to be published in May.''
''Britain’s net worth more than tripled between 1995 and 2017, driven primarily by the value of land, which rose much faster than other kinds of assets.''
poverty gap wider, is there really a fairness to wealth distribution?
''Less than one percent of the population — including aristocrats, royals and wealthy investors — owns about half the land, according to Who Owns England, a book that is to be published in May.''
''Britain’s net worth more than tripled between 1995 and 2017, driven primarily by the value of land, which rose much faster than other kinds of assets.''
poverty gap wider, is there really a fairness to wealth distribution?
30 land owners own half of West Berkshire: https://whoownsengland.org/2017/04/17/the-thirty-l...
Includes an interactive map too. Very interesting if you live in the area.
Includes an interactive map too. Very interesting if you live in the area.
t.Read a bit further in to that article, the guy writing the book is a true red commie and thinks all the UK's land should be divvied up fairly to huge swathes of knuckle-draggers who wouldn't have the first idea what to do with it. Land has to be managed, and managed well.
The largest landowners in the UK are the forestry commission, National Trust, MOD, pension funds, utilities and transport, Crown Estates and the RSPB - almost 6 million acres in total.
Naturally, bodies such as the forestry commission, National Trust and RSPB are just greedy landowners who have no purpose other than the wholescale rape and pillaging of our natural landscape and stripping those bodies of the assets and allowing socialists to argue about its management can only be for the greater good......
The largest landowners in the UK are the forestry commission, National Trust, MOD, pension funds, utilities and transport, Crown Estates and the RSPB - almost 6 million acres in total.
Naturally, bodies such as the forestry commission, National Trust and RSPB are just greedy landowners who have no purpose other than the wholescale rape and pillaging of our natural landscape and stripping those bodies of the assets and allowing socialists to argue about its management can only be for the greater good......
Thesprucegoose said:
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/half-england-owned-less-...
''Less than one percent of the population — including aristocrats, royals and wealthy investors — owns about half the land, according to Who Owns England, a book that is to be published in May.''
''Britain’s net worth more than tripled between 1995 and 2017, driven primarily by the value of land, which rose much faster than other kinds of assets.''
poverty gap wider, is there really a fairness to wealth distribution?
Should there be a fairness to wealth distribution?''Less than one percent of the population — including aristocrats, royals and wealthy investors — owns about half the land, according to Who Owns England, a book that is to be published in May.''
''Britain’s net worth more than tripled between 1995 and 2017, driven primarily by the value of land, which rose much faster than other kinds of assets.''
poverty gap wider, is there really a fairness to wealth distribution?
There will always be a top 1% but is it always the same 1% or do fortunes wax and wane. I'm sure JK Rowling was living on benefits before become a multimillionaire.
It is interesting research imo. The ‘what should be done’ part will be very socialist in this case.
A modern revisit of the last definitive study by Cahill back in 2006. A lot more data available now.
The redistribution piece is bonkers, but I do think there is some merit in considering whether someone who owns 20,000 acres because his ancestor knew billy the conkerer should be able to hold it, run a business on it without it being liable to business rates (eg shoots), receive state aid for tending it and then pass it on to descendants tax free.
A modern revisit of the last definitive study by Cahill back in 2006. A lot more data available now.
The redistribution piece is bonkers, but I do think there is some merit in considering whether someone who owns 20,000 acres because his ancestor knew billy the conkerer should be able to hold it, run a business on it without it being liable to business rates (eg shoots), receive state aid for tending it and then pass it on to descendants tax free.
voyds9 said:
There will always be a top 1% but is it always the same 1% or do fortunes wax and wane. I'm sure JK Rowling was living on benefits before become a multimillionaire.
JK Rowlings are uncommon anywhere. Social mobility varies by country. The US is pretty good - most people born poor don't stay there. In some bits of the Old World - I think Florence was the counter example I read - the same three families have held all the wealth for five hundred years. UK is in the middle I think.
I would guess that's probably a better stat than most of the world. Personally I couldn't give a toss and it's in line with wealth in general.
I'm all for greater opportunity but I've also known many, many people who were doomed to financial oblivion entirely because of their own mind set.
As for redistribution I think it's valid where the system is feudal and failing like many a place in Scotland. If it's ticking along just fine and non controversially then no.
I'm all for greater opportunity but I've also known many, many people who were doomed to financial oblivion entirely because of their own mind set.
As for redistribution I think it's valid where the system is feudal and failing like many a place in Scotland. If it's ticking along just fine and non controversially then no.
Dixy said:
In view of the fact that there are enormous tracts of moors and forests that's hardly a great surprise then.
Quite.Let’s take back control of Dartmoor!
Well it’s in national hands but fair enough. What do you plan to do with it?
Build houses!
On Dartmoor?
Let’s take back control of The New Forest!
Well it’s in national hands but fair enough. What do you plan to do with it?
Build houses!
Well you could. Not sure chopping down all the trees is a good look.
Let’s take back control of the Sutherland Estate! It’s tens of 1000s of square kilometres.
fair enough. What do you plan to do with it?
Build houses!
On the northern coast of Scotland?
Ad nauseum.
Edited by Ridgemont on Sunday 21st April 01:31
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff