Half of England owned by less than 1 per cent of population
Discussion
JPJPJP said:
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.
How about a simple land tax. Stops people/companies hoarding, makes them more likely to use the land or to sell off when it's unproductive.If the land is owned offshore then increase the tax(or the income derived from it).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.
JPJPJP said:
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.
Take a look at what’s happened to the estates in Scotland due to IHT. They’ve been broken up and in many cases now have overseas absentee landlords who have limited interest in the estate other than for sport. There’s been a fairly large impact as a result on the local communities who used to work for the local owner who had more skin in the game than someone who visits for a couple of weeks in August. I’m not saying that the situation is ideal, necessarily, but be very getting what you wish for. Some of these estates barely make money.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.
hyphen said:
Roofless Toothless said:
I own my little bit. I can't say I care very much who owns the rest, or how it affects me in any way. I'm very happy with what I've got.
And that how the 1% become the 1%. By the middle classes being given just enough.
The boy was quiet for a while thinking about this, and then asked, "If you buy it, how do you get it home?"
As always 'out of the mouths of babes ...'
I have learned from this. Why should I be interested in owning anything that I can't take home? It really doesn't worry me that the property owning statistics are so skewed. Could somebody explain to me why I should be concerned?
I suppose I am 'middle class' - lower at least - but class isn't something I spend time fretting about. If I have 'just enough', then I am content.
I don't ask this question as a gambit in an argument, I genuinely want to understand what are the pitfalls here.
Wiccan of Darkness said:
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......
Can't speak for the others but the National Trust is a greedy money grubbing corporation that has grown extremely wealthy off the back of volunteer labour.I’m a shareholder with my father and brothers in a reasonable sized farming business in East Anglia. Very few people realise how much time and capital it takes to make anything approaching a reasonable living out of land. This is especially the case if, as we have done for the last 25/30 years, you take the conscious decision not to develop any of the land or sell it for development.
People will always focus on the capital value of the land (usually a highly optimistic capital value) but they’ll never think about the investment needed to manage that land or how hard it is to generate income
People will always focus on the capital value of the land (usually a highly optimistic capital value) but they’ll never think about the investment needed to manage that land or how hard it is to generate income
Wiccan of Darkness said:
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......
This is where socialist ideology falls over. The UK is 100,000 mi2 and there are about 60m people. If it's all divided up equally we get 0.001 mi2 each. 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......
Fine if you end up with your 0.001 mi2 in a town, not so much if it's in the middle of the moors.
Same goes for wealth redistribution. If say we take the UK's richest man (10bn) and share his wealth out we all get about £150 each. Then you got the fact that his wealth isn't actually a pile of money, it's a business.
Edited by 98elise on Sunday 21st April 08:46
Roofless Toothless said:
hyphen said:
Roofless Toothless said:
I own my little bit. I can't say I care very much who owns the rest, or how it affects me in any way. I'm very happy with what I've got.
And that how the 1% become the 1%. By the middle classes being given just enough.
The boy was quiet for a while thinking about this, and then asked, "If you buy it, how do you get it home?"
As always 'out of the mouths of babes ...'
I have learned from this. Why should I be interested in owning anything that I can't take home? It really doesn't worry me that the property owning statistics are so skewed. Could somebody explain to me why I should be concerned?
I suppose I am 'middle class' - lower at least - but class isn't something I spend time fretting about. If I have 'just enough', then I am content.
I don't ask this question as a gambit in an argument, I genuinely want to understand what are the pitfalls here.
hyphen said:
Count how times you use I or I'm. If your sole concern is yourself than is up to you, but generally people tend to consider how their fellow humans are living too.
It is interesting that you point that out, Hyphen, but I bet I am a bit further to the left than many people on this forum!Hoever, you are still not answering my question. I can see how people's use of their land can impinge on the well being of others, say, if they remove public access, strip vegetation, block waterways, mine or pollute, etc., etc., but this comes down to a question of behaviour. That will always be a problem. Society has responses to this; you can't always do just what you want even on your own property. Believe me, I live in a conservation area!
What I fail to understand is how the actual statistic of 1% owning 50% is in itself something that should concern me, as the OP seems to imply.
voyds9 said:
Should there be 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.
This isn't even a particularly good guide to wealth distribution as there are many farmers who own large amounts of land who don't have a particularly high income or much wealth when you reflect that the value of land without planning permission for building is far lower. 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.
Then as pointed out above you have all the people who own large amounts of land that is not even suitable for farming.
ClaphamGT3 said:
I’m a shareholder with my father and brothers in a reasonable sized farming business in East Anglia. Very few people realise how much time and capital it takes to make anything approaching a reasonable living out of land. This is especially the case if, as we have done for the last 25/30 years, you take the conscious decision not to develop any of the land or sell it for development.
People will always focus on the capital value of the land (usually a highly optimistic capital value) but they’ll never think about the investment needed to manage that land or how hard it is to generate income
nonsense, anyone can farm, come the revolution your lands shall be seized and those with farming experience slaughtered.People will always focus on the capital value of the land (usually a highly optimistic capital value) but they’ll never think about the investment needed to manage that land or how hard it is to generate income
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.''
That wasn’t breaking news when I was at school c1976, must be a great book ''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.''
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-47886902
Maybe the Communist Chinese are buying everything up to redistribute it to the poor :-)
Maybe the Communist Chinese are buying everything up to redistribute it to the poor :-)
Teddy Lop said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
I’m a shareholder with my father and brothers in a reasonable sized farming business in East Anglia. Very few people realise how much time and capital it takes to make anything approaching a reasonable living out of land. This is especially the case if, as we have done for the last 25/30 years, you take the conscious decision not to develop any of the land or sell it for development.
People will always focus on the capital value of the land (usually a highly optimistic capital value) but they’ll never think about the investment needed to manage that land or how hard it is to generate income
nonsense, anyone can farm, come the revolution your lands shall be seized and those with farming experience slaughtered.People will always focus on the capital value of the land (usually a highly optimistic capital value) but they’ll never think about the investment needed to manage that land or how hard it is to generate income
Roofless Toothless said:
I have learned from this. Why should I be interested in owning anything that I can't take home? It really doesn't worry me that the property owning statistics are so skewed. Could somebody explain to me why I should be concerned?
This is something I often ponder. I know of a couple of people who own woods. It's a lot of hassle. They're not really an investment. They don't get to them very often. I can go and sit in a wood for free and then find another one when that one bores me.
There are a fair few farms around me that are up for sale for 2-3 million quid. The only thing the land is good for is letting sheep walk around it. You can't grow anything on it. There's no money in sheep.
I'm sure there are subsidies to milk but why would I want to tie up that much value and future maintenance in something effectively useless? It's not remotely liquid either. Some of them have been for sale for several years.
I'm glad some people are willing to take on the grind of owning huge tracts. I'll leach off it for free and if I want to make money I'll find much more agile ways of doing it.
Teddy Lop said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
I’m a shareholder with my father and brothers in a reasonable sized farming business in East Anglia. Very few people realise how much time and capital it takes to make anything approaching a reasonable living out of land. This is especially the case if, as we have done for the last 25/30 years, you take the conscious decision not to develop any of the land or sell it for development.
People will always focus on the capital value of the land (usually a highly optimistic capital value) but they’ll never think about the investment needed to manage that land or how hard it is to generate income
nonsense, anyone can farm, come the revolution your lands shall be seized and those with farming experience slaughtered.People will always focus on the capital value of the land (usually a highly optimistic capital value) but they’ll never think about the investment needed to manage that land or how hard it is to generate income
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff