Wednesday, Jan 16, 2008
Who Does Capitalism/The State Really Benefit?
The Independent: Britain's land is still owned by an aristocratic elite
Who owns Britain? Most of us would instinctively reply: we do. The British people own the British Isles. This is a democracy, isn't it? But the facts tell a different story. When you look at a map of the British Isles, you are looking not at your home but at a land mass overwhelmingly owned by a tiny aristocratic elite. Extraordinary though it might seem, in the 21st century, 0.6 per cent of the British people own 69 per cent of the land on which we live - and they are mostly the same families who owned it in the 19th century.
Posted by bearorbull @ 01:46 PM (682 views) Add Comment
17 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. Landedgentry said...
Yes redistribute, I want at least a couple of acres to myself.
Makes you wonder why public transport is so crap, its kept that way so that people are forced to move close to the city thus keeping 'prime property' higher. From Tim Hartford 'The Undercover Economist'.
2. submedia said...
If anyone finds the issue of land and economics interesting they might like to look at the the work of Henry George
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George
3. lierbag said...
How about reparations for the Enclosures Acts? Probably the biggest episode of public theft this country has ever sanctioned.
4. drewster said...
Yes it's an absolute scandal. It has been a scandal for centuries, but nobody has done a thing about it in England and Wales. As usual it falls to the Scots to start showing us how it's done.
These aristocrats should be paying inheritance tax, chopping up their holdings by 40% each generation. But inheritance tax doesn't apply to farmland for some strange reason. Also the land is often secretly owned by dodgy front companies in the Cayman Islands, who don't have to reveal who the true owners are and thereby avoid paying tax. Left-wing newspapers like the Guardian, the Independent, and (in Scotland) the Sunday Herald have been talking about this for years, but of course nobody does anything about it.
LG: Yes that's right - if our transport networks were better, property overall would be more affordable.
Submedia: His proposed land value tax would certainly help matters too, by forcing the land to be used productively.
5. Letthemfall said...
And of course now we have had ownership of houses migrating into the hands of fewer people, though nothing like on the scale of land ownership. Return to feudalism anyone?
6. Dbc Reed said...
Not wishing to quibble with submedia but it's not just land and economics Henry George had sussed, as if that is n't enough. Since you can construct a good house for less then Ģ100,000 (ie materials and labour), it follows that all the HPI is, in fact, coming from the inflated price of the land underneath, making HG not only a bigger influence on the original Labour Party than Karl Marx (in the words of Oxford professor of Politics Iain McLean) but the once and future leader out of the house price mess.
7. Still-waiting said...
yeah, check out Kevin Cahill's book...
8. lvmreader said...
@submedia, great one!
Land Value Taxation
9. lvmreader said...
III. How Land Value Taxation Can Be Applied
Henry George proposes to "abolish all taxation save that upon land values." (This has been called the "Single Tax.") We already take some rent in taxation - directly, in the form of the real property tax. We only have to make some changes in our modes of taxation to take it all.
We must realize, however, that the present system of "property taxation" is a tax on real estate, and real estate is comprised of two very different elements. "Real estate" includes wealth (buildings and improvements) as well as land. So, the first step toward implementing Henry George's remedy would be to increase the "property tax" on land and simultaneously decrease the tax on improvements.
Here is a familiar example. Each of the sites shown has a value of $10,000 but they are used very differently. The conventional property tax system levies a tax of 3% of the total value of the real estate land and buildings on each.
Suppose, instead, a levy of 6% on the land value alone with no taxes on improvements. What would the property tax bill be for each of these parcels? Each parcel has the same land value so the tax would be the same: $600, regardless of the use to this the land is put. So we see that compared with the current system a tax on land value penalizes land speculation and rewards development!
Simply removing the tax burden on buildings would be an immense boon to both urban and rural economies -- but George's remedy would not stop there. Its ultimate goal would be to remove all taxation on the production of wealth, substituting the collection of the full rental value of land for public revenue. Ideally, the value of minerals, and all manner of natural resources and opportunities (such as broadcast frequencies, and geosynchronous orbits), would be collected for public revenue.
Some argue that the rent of land could only be collected once, because if the rent is collected, the price of land will be taken away! Fortunately, that contention is erroneous. The selling price of land depends on a private landholder being able to collect rent in the future. If all of the land rent is collected by the community, the selling price will disappear -- but, the rental value will remain as long as there is demand for the site. Here's more on the relationship between land rent and selling price.
10. shipbuilder said...
Is anyone really surprised at this? Anyone looking at this country from a distance would see very little difference over the last couple of centuries, in terms of the distribution of wealth and power. Democracy? Well you can choose this party on the left, funded by business interests, or this party on the right, funded by business interests....what's the difference, you say? Errrrr......
11. enuii said...
The reason inheritance tax doesn't apply to farming land is that its supposed to be used for growing FOOD.
The ones who should be taxed are the selfish B-stards who buy it up and don't use it for agricultural purposes or keep their pet horses on it!
Round our way we call these country living ex-city dwellers RURAL CHAVS.
12. Maihem said...
@lvmreader
The land tax should not be based on its possible economic value but on its value for its current purpose. woodland makes our environment pleasant - this is valuable. We the people should discount the tax of owners of forestry for making it available.
Start off with an equal tax per square meter and shift it based on how much we like the mere existence of what is on the land. This can replace planning laws that put up the cost of housing and makes housing investment so costly for builders - let residents vote on the land tax displacement for change of purpose and development so unwanted commercial development can go ahead as long as it will have customers paying to reduce the local residents costs. A forest can stay around longer and more easily if its owners have their land tax paid by the residents of the nearby city, etc. When commercial developments use up all the land the local residents can easily have all their tax paid for them and even get cashback in return for accepting higher housing costs.
Put a free market into quality of life and take out the bureaucratic planning crap.
13. the northerner living in oz said...
I have known this most of my adult life
did not know the exact percentages though.
Things will never change at least not in my lifetime.
We do get an occasional M.P that tries to change this but they get
Pushed out very quickly.
14. tick tock said...
Nice to see this issue at least get a mention.
Its shocking that while most of us know about this, the implications are rarely factored into any debate. The media rarely mention the staggering figures regarding land ownership that surely should be relevant to many debates. How can spurious assertions about 'lack of availability of development land', or 'cramped and overcrowded urban residential areas' be allowed to pass by without even a mention of the fact only about 6% of the UK has been developed because most of the land is owned, and fenced off, by a parasitic 'aristocratic elite' whom we have never managed to rid ourselves of?
On the issue of land tax (and HPC) I'd recommend 'boom bust and the depression of 2010' by Fred Harrison.
15. handle_it said...
This is a little out of date.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1117252.ece
As far as I know the exact figure of keeping the royals is kept secret because it would be a security risk. I'm sure most of you knew this anyway... Trouble is most people don't know, or if informed just don't understand, or care even. The sooner they are removed the better imo.
16. drewster said...
enuii: I still don't understand why agricultural land should be exempt? Many farmers are only tenants (especially in Scotland), so a change of ownership of the land would just mean paying rent to a different landlord. The land itself would still be farmed.
Switzerland have interesting rules. Firstly, foreign companies aren't allowed to own property - only named individuals. Secondly, foreigners are not allowed to own more than 200mē of property per family. That'd keep the overseas BTL crowd under control.
17. Maihem said...
@drewster
It is to prevent all our farming land changing its purpose and us having to import *all* our food. Importing food makes devaluing currency - or "stealing" from foreign pound holders for our benefit - difficult and makes inflation devastating. We all pay by having slightly higher inheritance tax for the benefit of a stable, local, supply of food even in the face of economic disaster. I value that stability and for ensuring it is there, discounting farmland owners tax is a price I'm willing to pay.