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?
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.
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.''
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
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...
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.
Condi said:
But any other house you wanted to buy would be cheaper, and so it is less relevant that it seems.
High house prices make people who own houses feel good, but the current rate of house inflation is neither sustainable nor especially desirable.
High house prices drive the economy, a reason amongst many for mass immigration.High house prices make people who own houses feel good, but the current rate of house inflation is neither sustainable nor especially desirable.
the issue you have is people accept situation without any real criticism, because it is perceived to work for there situation.
gothatway said:
Fantastic idea ! What will you do with your one-fortieth of an acre which will most likely be on a remote mountainside in the celtic fringes ? You're not allowed to sell it of course, because that would mean that the buyer would have more land than you.
and you'd lose 1% of it every year to population growth.Condi said:
I maintain it wouldn't make much difference....
Absurd assertion. Leaving aside the catastrophic economic consequences of even a 50% crash, if you could reset prices at a lower level painlessly, which you can't, they would surge back to a level determined by a reduced supply and a demand supercharged by lower prices.I agree lower prices would be a good thing all round but the adjustment would be very painful. It always is and it always bounces back.
Rather than a land redistribution, how about writing off private debt?
Something that some say is overdue to be repeated
E.g
https://www.amazon.co.uk/forgive-them-their-debts-...
http://politybooks.com/bookdetail/?isbn=9781509525...
Something that some say is overdue to be repeated
E.g
https://www.amazon.co.uk/forgive-them-their-debts-...
http://politybooks.com/bookdetail/?isbn=9781509525...
I’ve read the book now
The only part that caused me significant concern is about landfill
“Across England as a whole, I calculate that a staggering 270,000 acres of land is taken up by active and historic landfills. In other words, since the Victorian period, we’ve generated enough rubbish to fill up an area of land almost ten times the size of the city of Manchester.
...
Before the 1990 Environmental Protection Act came into force, landfills were often built without proper linings, and records about what was put into them were often poorly kept or non-existent.
...
As Professor Spencer and her colleague Dr Francis O’Shea have uncovered, there are 20,000 historic landfill sites spread across England and Wales, with a terrifying 5,000 of them located in the Environment Agency’s flood alert areas. ‘The historic landfill sites situated on actively eroding and low-lying coasts clearly present a significant risk,’ they write.“
The only part that caused me significant concern is about landfill
“Across England as a whole, I calculate that a staggering 270,000 acres of land is taken up by active and historic landfills. In other words, since the Victorian period, we’ve generated enough rubbish to fill up an area of land almost ten times the size of the city of Manchester.
...
Before the 1990 Environmental Protection Act came into force, landfills were often built without proper linings, and records about what was put into them were often poorly kept or non-existent.
...
As Professor Spencer and her colleague Dr Francis O’Shea have uncovered, there are 20,000 historic landfill sites spread across England and Wales, with a terrifying 5,000 of them located in the Environment Agency’s flood alert areas. ‘The historic landfill sites situated on actively eroding and low-lying coasts clearly present a significant risk,’ they write.“
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff