Half of England owned by less than 1 per cent of population
Discussion
Condi said:
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.
ash73 said:
Another reason to abolish inheritance completely. Give everyone a lump sum when they are born, or a fixed allowance each year, and they can earn as much as they like on top of that and live like kings, but it should all go back to the government or good causes when they die.
No more problems with footballers etc earning £300K/week; we all benefit eventually.
What should all 'go back' to the government? If there is no ability to pass money on [how will you legislate that?] then it will all be spent by the time clogs are popped and the government won't get a bean.No more problems with footballers etc earning £300K/week; we all benefit eventually.
Footballers earning 300K isn't a problem if you understand the market [supply/demand, longevity of earnings, income sourced from fans via TV not 'the public'] and aren't resentful of others.
Did I miss a parrot...?
andy_s said:
ash73 said:
Another reason to abolish inheritance completely. Give everyone a lump sum when they are born, or a fixed allowance each year, and they can earn as much as they like on top of that and live like kings, but it should all go back to the government or good causes when they die.
No more problems with footballers etc earning £300K/week; we all benefit eventually.
What should all 'go back' to the government? If there is no ability to pass money on [how will you legislate that?] then it will all be spent by the time clogs are popped and the government won't get a bean.No more problems with footballers etc earning £300K/week; we all benefit eventually.
Footballers earning 300K isn't a problem if you understand the market [supply/demand, longevity of earnings, income sourced from the fans via TV not 'the public'] and aren't resentful of others.
Did I miss a parrot...?
So clearly time for currency controls, just like the Marxist shaker chancellor wants
ash73 said:
Another reason to abolish inheritance completely. Give everyone a lump sum when they are born, or a fixed allowance each year, and they can earn as much as they like on top of that and live like kings, but it should all go back to the government or good causes when they die.
No more problems with footballers etc earning £300K/week; we all benefit eventually.
It is a massive misunderstanding to think that all money is some kind of loan from government. Benefits, much?No more problems with footballers etc earning £300K/week; we all benefit eventually.
Randy Winkman said:
Dont lots of people claim to the contrary?
Do they? I don't know. I do know that regular controlled burns are done to burn the old, dead heather, and it also encourages the new heather to grow. Green heather is much less likely to burn. I did also read that the latest wildfire in Yorkshire was on land which had been unmanaged for the last few years, under the guise of 'rewilding'. You may know better, in which case feel free to correct me.
AIUI rewilding does need a bit of a kickstart in most cases.
https://www.rewildingbritain.org.uk/rewilding/what...
https://www.rewildingbritain.org.uk/rewilding/what...
grumbledoak said:
ash73 said:
Another reason to abolish inheritance completely. Give everyone a lump sum when they are born, or a fixed allowance each year, and they can earn as much as they like on top of that and live like kings, but it should all go back to the government or good causes when they die.
No more problems with footballers etc earning £300K/week; we all benefit eventually.
It is a massive misunderstanding to think that all money is some kind of loan from government. Benefits, much?No more problems with footballers etc earning £300K/week; we all benefit eventually.
I could debate that but it’s too easy
Condi said:
Randy Winkman said:
Dont lots of people claim to the contrary?
Do they? I don't know. I do know that regular controlled burns are done to burn the old, dead heather, and it also encourages the new heather to grow. Green heather is much less likely to burn. I did also read that the latest wildfire in Yorkshire was on land which had been unmanaged for the last few years, under the guise of 'rewilding'. You may know better, in which case feel free to correct me.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun...
https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/features/bl...
Randy Winkman said:
A PH favourite
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun...
https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/features/bl...
I'm confused what point you're making. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun...
https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/features/bl...
Any article on environmental matters by Monibot is not worth the paper it's written on, and the York University article just discusses different practices of removing old heather - ie burning vs mowing. There is no discussion of its affect on wildfires or 'rewilding' the landscape.
Land values are in a bubble.
You can’t buy a farm to make a decent ROI on now. You’d have to work for 100+ years just to repay a mortgage.
The function for many wealthy in buying farms/land is tax efficiencies.
Tax legislation during a bulk of the period of maximum growth was during Labour (left) leadership.
Government policy on trade, and EU policy, dictate market competitiveness of domestic produce, and thus means we need to subsidise farming.
If land was valued appropriately, just like average homes that average people can’t afford, then this wealth disparity would disappear overnight.
Government (both left and right) have allowed the wholesale misuse of fundamental societal needs (land for farming, houses as homes to live in) to become tax efficient investment vehicles for the wealthy.
There is no other issue here except that one.
You can’t buy a farm to make a decent ROI on now. You’d have to work for 100+ years just to repay a mortgage.
The function for many wealthy in buying farms/land is tax efficiencies.
Tax legislation during a bulk of the period of maximum growth was during Labour (left) leadership.
Government policy on trade, and EU policy, dictate market competitiveness of domestic produce, and thus means we need to subsidise farming.
If land was valued appropriately, just like average homes that average people can’t afford, then this wealth disparity would disappear overnight.
Government (both left and right) have allowed the wholesale misuse of fundamental societal needs (land for farming, houses as homes to live in) to become tax efficient investment vehicles for the wealthy.
There is no other issue here except that one.
Mr Whippy said:
Land values are in a bubble.
You can’t buy a farm to make a decent ROI on now. You’d have to work for 100+ years just to repay a mortgage.
The function for many wealthy in buying farms/land is tax efficiencies.
Tax legislation during a bulk of the period of maximum growth was during Labour (left) leadership.
Government policy on trade, and EU policy, dictate market competitiveness of domestic produce, and thus means we need to subsidise farming.
If land was valued appropriately, just like average homes that average people can’t afford, then this wealth disparity would disappear overnight.
Government (both left and right) have allowed the wholesale misuse of fundamental societal needs (land for farming, houses as homes to live in) to become tax efficient investment vehicles for the wealthy.
There is no other issue here except that one.
Serious question. Do you genuinely long for a state of affairs where every person in the country would have the same net worth as every other?You can’t buy a farm to make a decent ROI on now. You’d have to work for 100+ years just to repay a mortgage.
The function for many wealthy in buying farms/land is tax efficiencies.
Tax legislation during a bulk of the period of maximum growth was during Labour (left) leadership.
Government policy on trade, and EU policy, dictate market competitiveness of domestic produce, and thus means we need to subsidise farming.
If land was valued appropriately, just like average homes that average people can’t afford, then this wealth disparity would disappear overnight.
Government (both left and right) have allowed the wholesale misuse of fundamental societal needs (land for farming, houses as homes to live in) to become tax efficient investment vehicles for the wealthy.
There is no other issue here except that one.
Mr Whippy said:
Land values are in a bubble.
If land was valued appropriately, just like average homes that average people can’t afford, then this wealth disparity would disappear overnight.
Government (both left and right) have allowed the wholesale misuse of fundamental societal needs (land for farming, houses as homes to live in) to become tax efficient investment vehicles for the wealthy.
There is no other issue here except that one.
Sorry but I have to call this out for the arrant bIf land was valued appropriately, just like average homes that average people can’t afford, then this wealth disparity would disappear overnight.
Government (both left and right) have allowed the wholesale misuse of fundamental societal needs (land for farming, houses as homes to live in) to become tax efficient investment vehicles for the wealthy.
There is no other issue here except that one.
ks that it is.Bubble created by the tax policies of recent Government's??!! Help is all out and point us to any point in our nation's recorded history where land hasn't been predominantly in the hands of the wealthy?
Oh, and by the way, I could annihilate your argument about farming needing to be subsidised but, frankly, it would be just too easy...
The headline post is the ultimate expression of the Politics of envy.
Being sufficiently driven to acquire a little more wealth than you already have seems quite reasonable to many people.
Being satisfied with the minimum that the state can offer you, is perhaps the biggest human failing one could possess. In Zimbabwe, Mugabe confiscated the land on behalf of poor people and only achieved total chaos.
Ownership of land means very little, in reality.
Being sufficiently driven to acquire a little more wealth than you already have seems quite reasonable to many people.
Being satisfied with the minimum that the state can offer you, is perhaps the biggest human failing one could possess. In Zimbabwe, Mugabe confiscated the land on behalf of poor people and only achieved total chaos.
Ownership of land means very little, in reality.
Mr Whippy said:
Land values are in a bubble.
You can’t buy a farm to make a decent ROI on now. You’d have to work for 100+ years just to repay a mortgage.
The function for many wealthy in buying farms/land is tax efficiencies.
Tax legislation during a bulk of the period of maximum growth was during Labour (left) leadership.
Government policy on trade, and EU policy, dictate market competitiveness of domestic produce, and thus means we need to subsidise farming.
If land was valued appropriately, just like average homes that average people can’t afford, then this wealth disparity would disappear overnight.
Government (both left and right) have allowed the wholesale misuse of fundamental societal needs (land for farming, houses as homes to live in) to become tax efficient investment vehicles for the wealthy.
There is no other issue here except that one.
Not sure how true this is. Real (inflation adjusted) agricultural land prices are the same as they were 50 years ago...You can’t buy a farm to make a decent ROI on now. You’d have to work for 100+ years just to repay a mortgage.
The function for many wealthy in buying farms/land is tax efficiencies.
Tax legislation during a bulk of the period of maximum growth was during Labour (left) leadership.
Government policy on trade, and EU policy, dictate market competitiveness of domestic produce, and thus means we need to subsidise farming.
If land was valued appropriately, just like average homes that average people can’t afford, then this wealth disparity would disappear overnight.
Government (both left and right) have allowed the wholesale misuse of fundamental societal needs (land for farming, houses as homes to live in) to become tax efficient investment vehicles for the wealthy.
There is no other issue here except that one.
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.
What vile rubbish. I pay £10 a month and can go to any number of wonderful places as a result. Less than the price of a pack of fags.The volunteers who work there are more than happy, they are mainly retired and in need of things to to to enable a social life and to remain active
The organisation needs a huge amount of money to buy, restore and preserve places of great beauty and cultural interest
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff