geezer466 Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 He never amassed the fortune it was dumped on him unexpectedly by virtue of his birthline. But with the fortune came responsibility. It is very true to say that most of it is tied up in complicated trusts and whilst this shelters it from Inheritance tax it also makes it exceptionally difficult to get at any of it. The upside is the estates provide much employment and puts bread on many tables. Politics of greed and envy? I would rather his family owned the land and property and provided the employment than some faceless mobsters from Russia and Turkey and other shite holes across the world...... We both know that would be the alternative Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EssKay Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 Politics of greed and envy? I would rather his family owned the land and property and provided the employment than some faceless mobsters from Russia and Turkey and other shite holes across the world...... We both know that would be the alternative Yep - agreed - it's perfectly fine for his family to shelter their wealth from the inheritance tax that the plebs get hit with because he was OUR plutocrat He let a bit more wealth trickle down his trouser leg than those shady Russians so that makes him a saint in my book Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sikejsudjek Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 There can be no economic or moral justification for anyone inheriting this sort of wealth. Allowing this to continue while we have so many struggling to survive is a disgrace. Its a shame that voters don't use their democratic power to change the system - largely because people who are in debt and scared for their jobs are compliant. Unfortunately not only is most of the wealth held by a small number of people, but they use their power to increase their wealth still further even when it destroys other peoples lives. What they think they are going to gain from this behaviour is beyond me. Most of them are utterly miserable people detached from reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geezer466 Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 There can be no economic or moral justification for anyone inheriting this sort of wealth. Allowing this to continue while we have so many struggling to survive is a disgrace. Its a shame that voters don't use their democratic power to change the system - largely because people who are in debt and scared for their jobs are compliant. Unfortunately not only is most of the wealth held by a small number of people, but they use their power to increase their wealth still further even when it destroys other peoples lives. What they think they are going to gain from this behaviour is beyond me. Most of them are utterly miserable people detached from reality. You will have noticed they chain smoke through the worry and die early anyway........ Money and material wealth Pah!! Don't let it dictate your life..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhail Liebenstein Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 There can be no economic or moral justification for anyone inheriting this sort of wealth. Allowing this to continue while we have so many struggling to survive is a disgrace. Its a shame that voters don't use their democratic power to change the system - largely because people who are in debt and scared for their jobs are compliant. Unfortunately not only is most of the wealth held by a small number of people, but they use their power to increase their wealth still further even when it destroys other peoples lives. What they think they are going to gain from this behaviour is beyond me. Most of them are utterly miserable people detached from reality. My argument against such a large inherited pile is that it it effectively keeps economic resources out of play. I am a strong capitalist, but this is not capital, it is more to do with land than capital. Really there should be a 50% tax on all estates over £10m and no 7 year or trust rules permitted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spunko2010 Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 Doesn't sound like he had much difficulty getting access to the funds given he spent 5m quid on a birthday party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormymonday_2011 Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 Quite. He was both a beneficiary of the iniquities of the leasehold system and an implacable enemy of attempts to reform it. Being a 'good sport' who buys his round isn't enough. I'm sure he's very nice, but that is not really the point when you look at the hard figures. Bill Gates he ain't. Telegraph: "The Duke voiced strong opposition to the Major governments 1993 leasehold reforms, which gave leaseholders (including those in the most valuable homes which had been excluded from earlier legislation) the right to buy their freeholds. The idea that he should be compelled to sell pieces of his estate on unfavourable terms was, he declared utterly against the principles of a land-owning democracy, noting that a large number of Tory MPs stood to benefit from the legislation as Grosvenor tenants. He resigned from the Conservative Party in protest." Apparently we live in a "land owning democracy" that should protect the "rights" of our Norman overlords.....who knew? I suggest we take away all property of those who came in 1066 and stole the land. Where were the "rights" and "land owning democracy" then? He never bought me a drink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juvenal Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 (edited) Has anyone in the MSM questioned how his family got the land in the first place ? The core of the family fortune, prime London real estate, came from a forced marriage to a 12 year old. In 1677 Grosvenor married; he was aged 21 and his wife, Mary Davies, was only 12.[1] She was the daughter of Alexander Davis, a scrivener(scribe) and had inherited land to the west of London. This was part of the Manor of Ebury (previously Eia) and Mary's portion consisted of "swampy meads" (marshland).[1] The area was later to become the Mayfair, Park Lane and Belgravia areas of London, a prosperous part of the Grosvenor estate. Mary was buried in the churchyard of St. Margaret's Church, Westminster, Wikipaedia It was in 1677 that Richard’s 21-year-old great-grandson Thomas married 12-year-old Mary Davies, sole heiress to the manor of Ebury, 430 acres of marshy farmland covering the area which now lies between Knightsbridge and the Thames and between Park Lane, Oxford Street and Bond Street. The estate had been bequeathed by Hugh Audley, a City lawyer, to his nephew, Alexander Davies, a clerk who died in the plague of 1665; Davies’s widow set out to sell their child Mary’s hand in marriage to the highest bidder, gaining £5,000 for herself from Grosvenor. Telegraph obituary today The full account can be found in The Selling of Mary Davies by Simon Jenkins. Marrying an heiress (in the days when a wife's entire property became her husband's upon marriage) was the foundation of many a great fortune. Edited August 10, 2016 by juvenal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 At least he wasn't a banker - apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knock out johnny Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 Look We either believe in property rights or we don't The rest is envy and class war It's funny how the threshold of legitimate government confiscation is a magnitude greater than the holdings of the proposer. Strange that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knock out johnny Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 (edited) Look We either believe in property rights or we don't The rest is envy and class war It's funny how the proposed threshold of legitimate government confiscation is a magnitude greater than the holdings of the proposer. Strange that Edited August 10, 2016 by knock out johnny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenDevil Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 I wonder if he would trade in all that wealth for a few extra years? Pretty young age to die, especially for someone so wealthy. Rich or poor all end up in the same wooden box. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doesn't Commute Anymore Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 (edited) He never bought me a drink. But I bet you paid a premium in London rent, or in the price of food/beer in a London shop/pub due to his stranglehold of the London leasehold monopoly that added to the costs of living for all. You probably kept him in drinks (and me too!). As others have correctly said, there is no justification for having so much wealth, that of ten of thousands or hundreds of thousands of others, and in not using some or most of it to better the causes for which you are passionate. He fits right in with the Bernie Ecccleston, Romain Abrahimovic (sic) ilk of people whose primary passion is themselves in a world where there is such opportunity for the wealthy to make a lasting difference. In 50 years time, nobody will remember him. He could have been revered for centuries. Edited August 10, 2016 by Does Commute Abit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 A lot of the media focus so far hasn't been on his wealth but on the apparent claim he was a "nice chap" and didn't like public schools. He may or may not have been a decent fellow, but who cares? Such unearned wealth is the problem and needs to be addressed. I suspect he lost one too many games of $punky biscuit at Harrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billy budd Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 the local private school was in lieu of public school. What is the difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billy budd Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 Nope. It'll all be held in trusts. There will be almost zero inheritance tax, as the owner of the property, the trust, will not have died. So if it is in a Trust is it not really personal wealth? Is it inaccurate when the media say that the new Duke has inherited a £9bn fortune? - genuine question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 What is the difference? Nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EssKay Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 Look We either believe in property rights or we don't The rest is envy and class war It's funny how the proposed threshold of legitimate government confiscation is a magnitude greater than the holdings of the proposer. Strange that I think most people on here have been arguing for appropriate taxation not confiscation. Leaving aside Hotairmail's point about whether land is currently fairly taxed vs other forms of wealth (there's a good debate to be had there), why should large estates like this be able to shelter pretty much all of their assets from existing taxes - i.e inheritance tax ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knock out johnny Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 (edited) I am a Georgist. If you want exclusive access to land you have to pay the community for the privilege. The community sets the price. It reverses the iniquities and inconsistencies of the current set up. No one can point to ownership that didn't commence with theft from the Commons. It is no surprise that "the Rule of Law", and property "rights" can be traced to 1066. "Property rights" as you describe it is like fencing stolen goods. We need a satisfactory and more equitable alternative that allows people to plan with certainty and reflects reality. Taxing land more is not inconsistent with property rights - it merely sets the threshold for economical hoarding and can trigger the free re-distribution and alternative, more efficient use of land. So if he'd inherited £10bn in gold bars your argument would be moot Edited August 11, 2016 by knock out johnny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.