Half of England owned by less than 1 per cent of population

[ClaphamGT3]

loafer123 said:

So you are arguing that IHT relief is removed, the cost of capital goes up and therefore the value of the land increases? Perhaps you need to think about the logic of that?

That’s not what I’m arguing at all, Read my post again - properly this time

[loafer123]

ClaphamGT3 said:

loafer123 said:

So you are arguing that IHT relief is removed, the cost of capital goes up and therefore the value of the land increases? Perhaps you need to think about the logic of that?

That’s not what I’m arguing at all, Read my post again - properly this time

The alternative argument in your post is that removing IHT relief triggers more efficient use of the land, increasing the value, but that is even less likely. After all, why wouldn’t the existing owners do that, if they could? And even if they did, surely the higher cost of capital would offset it anyway?

Or perhaps I am missing something, which you could explain?

[gothatway]

Fundoreen said:

A land tax will sort this out. A lot of land could be freed up for ramblers and the like.

What on earth does that mean ? How would a land tax "free up " land ? And are "ramblers and the like" a particularly deserving or neglected part of the population ?

[Condi]

Fundoreen said:

A land tax will sort this out. A lot of land could be freed up for ramblers and the like.

Eh? Where do you think ramblers walk at the moment? Somebody owns that land. Also, if you stop caring for the land it becomes a mess, and totally useless for generations until it will eventually return to forest. The countryside is a heavily managed environment, even if it doesn't look like it.

ClaphamGT3 said:

Remove IHT relief and the bulk of the UK’s agricultural land will be in the hands of pension funds and other patient investors within a generation. Land ownership would actually narrow rather than widen, the rural landscape as we know it will be entirely eradicated in order to intensify output and the lobbying power of those institutions will see any attempt to enact policies in the interests of the environment, rural communities and national food production as so much pissing in the wind.

Personally, either I or my daughters would be massively quids-in but it would be a significant backward step for the UK

You think? Pension funds want a return on capital, and I dont see that with farm land. Agricultural businesses are not highly profitable (as you probably know) and certainly dont produce a regular income like flats or industrial buildings. Even James Dyson is struggling to turn a profit, and he has thrown millions at some of the best arable land in the country. Whether that investment will bear fruit over time is to be seen, but ag profitability is well outside the control of the individual operators and at the whim of weather events across the world. Not something that pension funds want exposure to, generally.

If IHT goes, then land returns to a price at which it can be made profitable by active farmers, or becomes cheap enough that wealthy people can afford to buy it and accept the tax burden.

[ClaphamGT3]

Condi said:

Fundoreen said:

A land tax will sort this out. A lot of land could be freed up for ramblers and the like.

Eh? Where do you think ramblers walk at the moment? Somebody owns that land. Also, if you stop caring for the land it becomes a mess, and totally useless for generations until it will eventually return to forest. The countryside is a heavily managed environment, even if it doesn't look like it.

ClaphamGT3 said:

Remove IHT relief and the bulk of the UK’s agricultural land will be in the hands of pension funds and other patient investors within a generation. Land ownership would actually narrow rather than widen, the rural landscape as we know it will be entirely eradicated in order to intensify output and the lobbying power of those institutions will see any attempt to enact policies in the interests of the environment, rural communities and national food production as so much pissing in the wind.

Personally, either I or my daughters would be massively quids-in but it would be a significant backward step for the UK

You think? Pension funds want a return on capital, and I dont see that with farm land. Agricultural businesses are not highly profitable (as you probably know) and certainly dont produce a regular income like flats or industrial buildings. Even James Dyson is struggling to turn a profit, and he has thrown millions at some of the best arable land in the country. Whether that investment will bear fruit over time is to be seen, but ag profitability is well outside the control of the individual operators and at the whim of weather events across the world. Not something that pension funds want exposure to, generally.

If IHT goes, then land returns to a price at which it can be made profitable by active farmers, or becomes cheap enough that wealthy people can afford to buy it and accept the tax burden.

I know. Pension funds - or some of them - like agriculture, particularly cereal producing arable. You’re right to say margins are low but they are fairly predictable and obviously asset-backed. Global markets for the agricultural output are well understood and reasonably predictable in the long term. They are also non labour-intensive and relatively protected against market disruption.

It’s interesting you draw the comparison to PRS as I spend most of my working life in urban regeneration and know the PRS/BTR market well. As an investment asset it has many similar characteristics to agricultural land!

[Condi]

ClaphamGT3 said:

I know. Pension funds - or some of them - like agriculture, particularly cereal producing arable. You’re right to say margins are low but they are fairly predictable and obviously asset-backed. Global markets for the agricultural output are well understood and reasonably predictable in the long term. They are also non labour-intensive and relatively protected against market disruption.

It’s interesting you draw the comparison to PRS as I spend most of my working life in urban regeneration and know the PRS/BTR market well. As an investment asset it has many similar characteristics to agricultural land!

We'll agree to disagree. I saw it from a traders point of view rather than a farm manager/owners POV, but while they might be well understood, they are certainly not predictable and profitability can vary hugely from year to year. Once you take away any IHT relief then even your asset is not as reliable as expected, because your asset is directly linked to profitability of the farm which sits on it. If ag prices tank for 2 or 3 years, and the whole industry makes a loss, then not only are you having to inject cash to support cash flow, but the underlying asset has probably decreased in value as well.

[ClaphamGT3]

Condi said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

I know. Pension funds - or some of them - like agriculture, particularly cereal producing arable. You’re right to say margins are low but they are fairly predictable and obviously asset-backed. Global markets for the agricultural output are well understood and reasonably predictable in the long term. They are also non labour-intensive and relatively protected against market disruption.

It’s interesting you draw the comparison to PRS as I spend most of my working life in urban regeneration and know the PRS/BTR market well. As an investment asset it has many similar characteristics to agricultural land!

We'll agree to disagree. I saw it from a traders point of view rather than a farm manager/owners POV, but while they might be well understood, they are certainly not predictable and profitability can vary hugely from year to year. Once you take away any IHT relief then even your asset is not as reliable as expected, because your asset is directly linked to profitability of the farm which sits on it. If ag prices tank for 2 or 3 years, and the whole industry makes a loss, then not only are you having to inject cash to support cash flow, but the underlying asset has probably decreased in value as well.

Pension funds and other ‘patient investors’ will typically look at long term trends in agricultural returns rather than year-to-year market fluctuations. Typically, participants in this sector are relatively sanguine provided that they can see long-term demand holding up. Undoubtedly, this favours arable over livestock, where fluctuations are greater and demand less predictable but, then, coming back to the original issue of debate, arable consumes far more land than livestock anyway.

[Venisonpie]

eldar said:

Those famous people with thermos flasks and packed lunches, who bring nothing to an area except litter and bad parking.

I think that's a little wide of the mark. As an avid walker myself I don't park badly, leave litter and nor does anyone else I know. Enjoying the countryside is one of life's great pleasures, it brings a lot to many people. To write it off like that is rather silly. And what's wrong with a packed lunch?
Litter is infuriating I agree (anywhere) but I suspect it's not caused by enthusiastic ramblers.

Edited by Venisonpie on Monday 22 April 07:28

[Oilchange]

We’re all falling into this Communist trap, enlivening the debate about an ideology that has failed many many times...

[Teddy Lop]

Oilchange said:

We’re all falling into this Communist trap, enlivening the debate about an ideology that has failed many many times...

that's how politics of envy work. Unbalanced, unfair, who cares, as a regular bum 99ers who'll never amass much but who's done a bit of reading and looking around, I'm stoked to be in this unfair system, show me which one has worked out better for the 99.

[rodericb]

Here's some meta: Three of the four children of the largest shareholder in Asos were killed in the attacks in Sri Lanka couple of days ago. What's the connection with this thread? He is the largest private land owner in the UK! https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48011075

[Dixy]

Venisonpie said:

I think that's a little wide of the mark. As an avid walker myself I don't park badly, leave litter and nor does anyone else I know. Enjoying the countryside is one of life's great pleasures, it brings a lot to many people. To write it off like that is rather silly. And what's wrong with a packed lunch?
Litter is infuriating I agree (anywhere) but I suspect it's not caused by enthusiastic ramblers.

Edited by Venisonpie on Monday 22 April 07:28

And what do you contribute to the area.

[Venisonpie]

Dixy said:

Venisonpie said:

I think that's a little wide of the mark. As an avid walker myself I don't park badly, leave litter and nor does anyone else I know. Enjoying the countryside is one of life's great pleasures, it brings a lot to many people. To write it off like that is rather silly. And what's wrong with a packed lunch?
Litter is infuriating I agree (anywhere) but I suspect it's not caused by enthusiastic ramblers.

Edited by Venisonpie on Monday 22 April 07:28

And what do you contribute to the area.

Blimey, what a question - do you mean environmentally, financially? And what area are you referring to?
It is possible to simply enjoy the countryside without having to make any financial transaction, people should be actively encouraged to adventure onto the outdoors.
However I'll help you out as I suspect your question is a narrow attempt at a needle to challenge if I "pay a contribution" for such a privilege.
Currently sitting outside the boat house on the isle of Isla having had a lunch prepared locally and bought a return ferry ticket for six quid. Anyway, back to your miserable life eh.

[JagLover]

Dixy said:

Venisonpie said:

I think that's a little wide of the mark. As an avid walker myself I don't park badly, leave litter and nor does anyone else I know. Enjoying the countryside is one of life's great pleasures, it brings a lot to many people. To write it off like that is rather silly. And what's wrong with a packed lunch?
Litter is infuriating I agree (anywhere) but I suspect it's not caused by enthusiastic ramblers.

Edited by Venisonpie on Monday 22 April 07:28

And what do you contribute to the area.

That does seem to me to be the wrong way of looking at it. The countryside belongs to all of us, whilst individual landowners are custodians of a part of it. This doesn't need to be in any form of confrontation, rights of way have existed for centuries and it just needs respect on both sides.

[Downward]

warch said:

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.

Interesting how a Trust with 1.2 billion still gets grants given to it....

[andy_s]

Dixy said:

And what do you contribute to the area.

A great contribution is not to leave rubbish for others to trip over, same as in life really.

[Taffer]

rodericb said:

Here's some meta: Three of the four children of the largest shareholder in Asos were killed in the attacks in Sri Lanka couple of days ago. What's the connection with this thread? He is the largest private land owner in the UK! https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48011075

He's also a major player in the effort to 'rewild' his landholdings in Scotland and encourage ecological diversity, for future generations rather than personal gain. Contrast this with many of the other private landowners, whose estates have been 'carefully managed' to become unsupportive scrubland, prone to fires (see recent news), all because a small amount of people want to shoot game.

[sealtt]

grumbledoak said:

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.

That doesn’t sound right to me, USA has real social mobility issues that I am aware of. I had a look at the Wikipedia page and the charts based on various measures do show this, it also shows UK as having poor social mobility which I suppose shouldn’t be surprising, but was to me.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility

[Condi]

Taffer said:

He's also a major player in the effort to 'rewild' his landholdings in Scotland and encourage ecological diversity, for future generations rather than personal gain. Contrast this with many of the other private landowners, whose estates have been 'carefully managed' to become unsupportive scrubland, prone to fires (see recent news), all because a small amount of people want to shoot game.

Not sure you quite understand how moor management works.

A managed more will be burnt occasionally in a controlled fashion, to reduce the risk of wildfires and also encourage new heather to grow. It's abandoned moorland which is more prone to fire. The fires in North Yorkshire earlier this week were on unmanaged land.

Go back 400 years most of the land would have been mixed indigenous forest, with oak, ash, beech etc, while most people's idea of 'rewilding' is simply to leave to nature with little effort to plant anything or sculpt the landscape.

[lockhart flawse]

Ash - I dont think there's anything to stop you leaving everything to the Government now if you want.