Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Land Nationalisation Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    That only addresses one of the issues, I would say that the first is the biggest problem in the long term, and 5 a pretty significant issue from the off.
    Point being, the government wouldn't just hand out equal plots of land to the population; you'd still have to pay for it like you do now but you would essentially be renting it from the state.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    There are too many obvious flaws:
    1) Assuming you split it equally, how much land does each man get? Suppose you are in a country of, say 1m square miles with a population of 500k. You could give every man a plot of 1 square mile, which leaves room for growth of 100%, but what do you do after that? You've run out of land, and no matter how it is resolved people will be unhappy. This is an inevitable issue with the only true solution being infinitesimal plots, but then you may as well just not bother.
    2) How does one deal with infrastructure? Airports, for example, would likely cover several plots and are pretty essential. Roads wouldn't be too bad given how narrow they are. This can be extended further, consider factories, how would you allocate land to businesses?
    3) unless it is legislated against, the system would ultimately break down as people would just sell their land and half the purpose has just been defeated.
    4) Given that population density isn't constant, would people living in major population centres be somewhat of an issue, especially considering 3 as you would expect many of them to sell their land in the country that they will make no use of.
    5) how does one value the land for distribution, some people have to have the good land and others have to have the crap land. There is a clear problem that needs to be dealt with here, especially given that the 'fairest' solutions are not at all practical.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Your first ‘flaw’ does not apply to the reform suggested in post 14, ‘All citizens in a nation State would of necessity have to acquiesce in their individual territorial claim being subsumed within the area of the State in which they determine their patrimony is held and in the interest of practicality their nominal plot would be transmuted into an inalienable chose in action (intangible legal entity) which would give them a proportionate interest in every particular sub-division of the State‘s territory’. So the area of the State is not divided up. The use of ‘chose in action’ legalises an individual’s interest in the whole territory. The individual of necessity gives up any right to an individual plot in order to benefit from an interest in the whole.
    The second ‘flaw’ does not arise. A land registry will record whoever holds the first lease on any particular area of land (the people already ‘owning ‘the land automatically become 1st leaseholders). The land registry will value all the territory at a single fixed value for sale (subject to legal restraints) to anyone. An area will have no substantial value until an individual or organization acquires the superior (1st) lease on a particular plot which then becomes the holders exclusive territorial property with a value because the superior lease, once purchased (in advance), can be freely traded or gifted by the leaseholder. The superior lessee would be empowered to (subject to legal restraints);

    1) - Control the use of the property
    2) - Sub-let or transfer the property
    3) - Benefit from the property
    4) - Exclude other people from the property (and require the authorities to expel them immediately, if the trespassers ignore the lease owners request to leave).
    Your third ‘flaw’ does not arise because of the employment of a ‘chose in action’.
    Your fourth ‘flaw’ is immaterial to the suggested system as no matter how dense the population or how large or small the plots are the superior leaseholder will be able to sell his plot or buy another from a willing seller the individual citizen only maintaining an interest for which he is paid ground rent (on their interest in the entire country not any particular leaseholder’s plot).
    Your fifth ‘flaw’ also does not apply since the superior leaseholder would be able to freely trade their leases in what would be an open market in land so price discovery would be a lot less manipulated than it is at present (because 0.6% of the population ‘own’ 70% of the land).
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    As I see it, the state would essentially act as a national estate agent. The right to use a plot of land would be bought from the state, and could sold back at its value. Private sales would not be allowed. You would also pay a land value tax, effectively leasing the land from the people via the state.
    Why would private sales not be allowed?

    Given that under this scenario the state has (presumably without compensation) taken land from owners into public ownership and now allowed people to buy land from the state, why not then let a market develop and pass management to the competition commission so that everybody can still take a share.

    Alternatively since the very idea of state theft sickens me, why not just operate a land value tax now. You hit the rich proportionally higher and pretty much avoid impacting those renting in cities.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Why would private sales not be allowed?

    Given that under this scenario the state has (presumably without compensation) taken land from owners into public ownership and now allowed people to buy land from the state, why not then let a market develop and pass management to the competition commission so that everybody can still take a share.

    Alternatively since the very idea of state theft sickens me, why not just operate a land value tax now. You hit the rich proportionally higher and pretty much avoid impacting those renting in cities.
    Because private ownership of land wouldn't exist. You can't (privately) sell something you don't (privately) own. Same as how you can't sell a flat you are renting right now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by landscape2014)
    Should the land that constitutes the UK be nationalized? Meaning that it would be accepted that all the citizens of the nation (the British) have a an individual territorial interest(their capital) NOT the State (which would hold the nation's territory in trust).
    That would be an unpardonable interference in the property rights of the gentry. Besides, land is no longer the means of production. Though I might favour increasing the rates of taxation on income derived from rents.

    One would be far better off nationalising the banks, utilities and what not.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Why would private sales not be allowed?

    Given that under this scenario the state has (presumably without compensation) taken land from owners into public ownership and now allowed people to buy land from the state, why not then let a market develop and pass management to the competition commission so that everybody can still take a share.

    Alternatively since the very idea of state theft sickens me, why not just operate a land value tax now. You hit the rich proportionally higher and pretty much avoid impacting those renting in cities.
    R21 You will see from post 22 that as far as private sales and exclusive occupation of land is concerned we are on the same page (albeit on different paragraphs). The suggestion is that the individual acquires an interest in the nation’s territory from birth, an individual right that is recorded in an apolitical organization (the land registry) cutting the State and the monarch out of titular ownership (the government of the day would only have the ability to fix the level at which any particular level of tax was levied (and suffer the consequences if they get the level of taxation wrong).
    Your suggestion that a State organization (the Competition Commission) be involved in the management of Captain Haddock’s vision of State controlled land flies in the face of your apparent disposition toward private enterprise. Your alternative suggestion that we institute a land value tax would be a godsend to estate agents and valuers. Post 14 addresses the matter of large and small landholding by proposing a fixed level of tax per M2. Local Authorities could deal with differential land values within their jurisdiction by zoning their areas for taxation purposes.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    Because private ownership of land wouldn't exist. You can't (privately) sell something you don't (privately) own. Same as how you can't sell a flat you are renting right now.
    CH If private land did not exist those in control of the State would determine how it was disposed of, ‘Socialism’ suffocates under the weight of its bureaucratic delivery systems a fact which led in the late C20th to the unlamented demise of many governments based on totalitarian control. That was hailed in the West as a triumph for democracy (a very mistaken assertion). Thomas Merrell (US) expressed the thought that, ‘The right to exclude others is the sine quo non of the concept of property’. John Adams (US) opined “Property must be secure for liberty to exist”. The main reason for the protection of terrestrial property rights is security of occupation (not ownership) - That security can provide an opportunity for the economically active members of society to create the surpluses and private wealth which are the basis of capitalism. Without protected property rights there is no incentive, other than subsistence, for any individual to work the land or at any other remunerative occupation and if a powerful individual, gang, landlord, warlord or the State can filch the fruits of a person’s labour they will not be inclined to produce a surplus unless coerced. The State is an abstract human construct that purports to represent the formalization of a particular human population’s (nation’s) claim to a distinct territorial area of the earth by the use of organisations inhabited by the authority figures of that population and the foundations of a State are its people and the area it occupies. The area is inanimate which leaves the population as the only sentient manifestation of the State. Whilst the bulk of the population are content to be deprived of their birthright (a proportionate interest in their territorial State) they will have to support that section of the nation that profits from their self-imposed impotence. The majority of citizen’s acceptance of themselves as subjects (rather than individuals with an inalienable interest in their territory) of a State , without recognizing that they require concomitant acknowledgement and compensation for their acceptance of that status is the major philosophic stumbling block to any peaceful challenge to the status quo.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    That would be an unpardonable interference in the property rights of the gentry. Besides, land is no longer the means of production. Though I might favour increasing the rates of taxation on income derived from rents.

    One would be far better off nationalising the banks, utilities and what not.

    MU The aversion governments’ display towards land taxation (a view shared by many of the population) reflects a commitment to the status quo by the establishment. When Parliament arrogated the power to tax UK citizens to itself, dispossessing the monarch of that right, it left the UK ostensively owned by the monarch as feudal overlord thus the monarch would be liable for any simple land tax based on ownership imposed by parliament. If we were to tax the monarch on their realm they could charge those who occupy it and induce a more open market in land (or at least furnish the treasury with more tax money) but since much of the land is held freehold (free from any charges from the Crown) they cannot. This creates an anomaly that serves the owners of extensive freeholds well; they own the freehold not the land so the monarch is a buffer between them and a simple direct tax. The monarch cannot charge the freeholder so the monarch could not afford to pay a land tax on their entire domain. The gentry are not now the ‘owners’ of vast areas of the UK, wealthy individuals, international corporations and institutions are. Untaxed UK land is a safe place in which store their wealth. They exclude the British from large areas of their own country without compensating them for it. I do not envisage throwing anybody off ‘their’ land just charging them for the right to exclude others from it. State control suffocates under the weight of its bureaucratic delivery systems a fact which led in the late C20th to the unlamented demise of many governments based on totalitarian control. State control of the means of production has not been a particularly happy experience in the West either.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by landscape2014)
    the monarch would be liable for any simple land tax based on ownership imposed by parliament
    That assertion is not really based on sound legal principles. Parliament would be more than capable of enacting a direct land tax on freeholders, there is absolutely no legal reason that would stop them, and there is no legal principle that is not amenable to being steamrolled by parliamentary supremacy in any case.

    The gentry are not now the ‘owners’ of vast areas of the UK
    My dear fellow, I'm afraid to say that is utter nonsense. It has been estimated that perhaps 15 million of Britain's 60 million acres are owned by about 2,000 families of the aristocracy and senior gentry. Other studies say perhaps one-third (20 million acres) are in the hands of the aristocracy and untitled gentry.

    The Duke of Buccleuch alone owns 240,000 acres. My ex-boyfriend, whose father is a baronet and whose mother was the granddaughter of two earls and great-granddaughter of a Marquess, his parents own two country houses in England a castle in Ireland, and they were not an exceptionally exalted family by aristocratic standards.

    Vast tracts of the country are held by the old landowning families, some untitled due to the land passing through the female line.

    Untaxed UK land is a safe place in which store their wealth. They exclude the British from large areas of their own country without compensating them for it. I do not envisage throwing anybody off ‘their’ land just charging them for the right to exclude others from it.
    We may be in agreement in some aspects of this. I believe undeveloped/unused land should attract a landowner charge of perhaps 0.2% of value per annum.

    I do, however, feel that families from an aristocratic/gentry background who open their country houses / castles to the public should not attract this kind of taxation, that would be most unjust.

    Besides, this land taxation issue is, in many cases a red herring and a product of envy. The real, juicy targets are the true 21st century means of production; banks, the finance industry, internet companies, utilities, and so on.

    State control suffocates under the weight of its bureaucratic delivery systems a fact which led in the late C20th to the unlamnted demise of many governments based on totalitarian control.
    Public ownership of the means of production does not really mean totalitarianism, this country had many sectors in public ownership in the postwar era. Admittedly, some companies are better in the private sector, but it's also a question of philosophy of management.

    If they are run at arms-length from the government, and told to get on with it and the government is merely the majority shareholder but does not install civil servants to run it, there is no reason it cannot be run well. Furthermore, privatisation has not been a particularly happy experience in many cases. Look at the energy sector; we merely privatised it so the French government could buy it up!
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by landscape2014)
    Your first ‘flaw’ does not apply to the reform suggested in post 14, ‘All citizens in a nation State would of necessity have to acquiesce in their individual territorial claim being subsumed within the area of the State in which they determine their patrimony is held and in the interest of practicality their nominal plot would be transmuted into an inalienable chose in action (intangible legal entity) which would give them a proportionate interest in every particular sub-division of the State‘s territory’. So the area of the State is not divided up. The use of ‘chose in action’ legalises an individual’s interest in the whole territory. The individual of necessity gives up any right to an individual plot in order to benefit from an interest in the whole.

    Without attempting to use fancy language to dissuade argument against your point, explain how very finite land and high population aren't an issue? For example, take the current population and area of the UK of ~64m and ~94000 square miles respectively, assuming all land is "privately" owned, per se, that comes out at an average holding of ~0.0014 square miles per person. Now, suppose, we remove Scotland from the mix, that brings population down to ~58m and land to ~60000 that comes down to approximately 3000 square yards, or ~55x55 yards.


    The second ‘flaw’ does not arise. A land registry will record whoever holds the first lease on any particular area of land (the people already ‘owning ‘the land automatically become 1st leaseholders). The land registry will value all the territory at a single fixed value for sale (subject to legal restraints) to anyone.

    I'm just going to stop you right here, are you trying to say that all land has the same inherent value; that a flood plane is worth as much as a meadow, worth as much as a mountain, as a bog until somebody decides to do something with it?...

    An area will have no substantial value until an individual or organization acquires the superior (1st) lease on a particular plot which then becomes the holders exclusive territorial property with a value because the superior lease, once purchased (in advance), can be freely traded or gifted by the leaseholder. The superior lessee would be empowered to (subject to legal restraints);

    1) - Control the use of the property
    2) - Sub-let or transfer the property
    3) - Benefit from the property
    4) - Exclude other people from the property (and require the authorities to expel them immediately, if the trespassers ignore the lease owners request to leave).

    ...and it's also worth noting that, unless I'm missing something, this has little to do with my second objection.

    Your third ‘flaw’ does not arise because of the employment of a ‘chose in action’.
    Please elaborate

    Your fourth ‘flaw’ is immaterial to the suggested system as no matter how dense the population or how large or small the plots are the superior leaseholder will be able to sell his plot or buy another from a willing seller the individual citizen only maintaining an interest for which he is paid ground rent (on their interest in the entire country not any particular leaseholder’s plot).
    Except it isn't, when 80% of the UK population lives in urban areas that leaves nearly 80% of the population with negligible interest in a personal landowning, it leaves the remaining 20% to lay claim to most of the land, and the majority of that 20 won't want a great deal either, likely just somewhere to live, that leaves an even smaller proportion, the farmers and super wealthy to gain large amounts of land, in effect ending up as we are now.

    Your fifth ‘flaw’ also does not apply since the superior leaseholder would be able to freely trade their leases in what would be an open market in land so price discovery would be a lot less manipulated than it is at present (because 0.6% of the population ‘own’ 70% of the land).
    See objection to 4

    Of course, the other massive, probably biggest issue, is that it would never happen, doing this would cause a disgruntled populace, especially among the wealthy. You would in effect alienate the middle and upper class, and most of the working class would be indifferent. So, the only time you could really put it into place would be if an island were to spring up out of nowhere in the middle of the ocean, so no land is privately owned yet, and form a new nation adopting this policy there; of course, in time the population, especially the higher classes with all their influence, would push to get it changed to the way things work today. It's an impractical ideal. And what benefit is there anyway? Extra income for the government? Much simpler way would to just put up income tax for the wealthy instead of taxing their land.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    [/FONT]Without attempting to use fancy language to dissuade argument against your point, explain how very finite land and high population aren't an issue? For example, take the current population and area of the UK of ~64m and ~94000 square miles respectively, assuming all land is "privately" owned, per se, that comes out at an average holding of ~0.0014 square miles per person. Now, suppose, we remove Scotland from the mix, that brings population down to ~58m and land to ~60000 that comes down to approximately 3000 square yards, or ~55x55 yards.



    I'm just going to stop you right here, are you trying to say that all land has the same inherent value; that a flood plane is worth as much as a meadow, worth as much as a mountain, as a bog until somebody decides to do something with it?...


    ...and it's also worth noting that, unless I'm missing something, this has little to do with my second objection.


    Please elaborate


    Except it isn't, when 80% of the UK population lives in urban areas that leaves nearly 80% of the population with negligible interest in a personal landowning, it leaves the remaining 20% to lay claim to most of the land, and the majority of that 20 won't want a great deal either, likely just somewhere to live, that leaves an even smaller proportion, the farmers and super wealthy to gain large amounts of land, in effect ending up as we are now.

    [FONT=Calibri]
    See objection to 4

    Of course, the other massive, probably biggest issue, is that it would never happen, doing this would cause a disgruntled populace, especially among the wealthy. You would in effect alienate the middle and upper class, and most of the working class would be indifferent. So, the only time you could really put it into place would be if an island were to spring up out of nowhere in the middle of the ocean, so no land is privately owned yet, and form a new nation adopting this policy there; of course, in time the population, especially the higher classes with all their influence, would push to get it changed to the way things work today. It's an impractical ideal. And what benefit is there anyway? Extra income for the government? Much simpler way would to just put up income tax for the wealthy instead of taxing their land.
    JD You haven’t grasped the concept of a chose in action. If we can accept that every individual Briton has an inalienable right to an interest in the territory then they cannot sell it (it’s inalienable) and no one (except the grim reaper) can take it away from them. Their interest is held as a chose in action, that is they have a 60 millionth interest in the territory. If the territory is sub-divided then they have a 60millionth interest in every sub-division. The individual has an interest in the territory they do not own anything until they either purchase the superior (1st) lease on a plot from the land registry or purchase a superior lease from a willing seller. Once it is acquired they will pay an annual tax that depends on the area the lease covers. That payment is to compensate their fellow citizens for your right to exclude any person from your property. The territory is not going to be divided into 60million plots. (the above should dispose of the 2ND , 3rd , 4th and 5th ‘flaws’).
    The land registry is just that a repository for all the Superior leases that are issued. A periodic re-evaluation of the fixed amount to be charged per M2 would be made. Say the registry was selling at £X/acre and several people applied to buy it, on a particular day a person chosen by lot would be offered the lease. This would not occur very often because all the prime land already has Superior leaseholders and the bulk of transactions would between individual sellers and buyers who would register the transaction with the registry for a small administration fee. The registry would monitor the prices being paid for particular leases over a period of time and adjust their price for equivalent land accordingly.
    0.6% of the population hold about 70% of UK land. Of the remaining 30%; about 5% is urban and distributed between about 17m property holderswho pay substantial property related taxes in an artificially restricted land market rigged in favour of those with extensive landholdings who have no incentive to sell because they are not directly taxed annually on their occupation of the nation’s territorial asset. The market in land has been cornered by a miniscule proportion of the population who because of our feudal system of land holding are protected from direct taxation, a situation which operates as a ‘dead hand’ on that market. The ability of the nation to directly tax land would encourage its disposal by those not making productive use of it (or they could contribute tax) and so create a more open market in land which citizens and entrepreneurs (and through them the wider economy) could take advantage of.

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    That assertion is not really based on sound legal principles. Parliament would be more than capable of enacting a direct land tax on freeholders, there is absolutely no legal reason that would stop them, and there is no legal principle that is not amenable to being steamrolled by parliamentary supremacy in any case.



    My dear fellow, I'm afraid to say that is utter nonsense. It has been estimated that perhaps 15 million of Britain's 60 million acres are owned by about 2,000 families of the aristocracy and senior gentry. Other studies say perhaps one-third (20 million acres) are in the hands of the aristocracy and untitled gentry.

    The Duke of Buccleuch alone owns 240,000 acres. My ex-boyfriend, whose father is a baronet and whose mother was the granddaughter of two earls and great-granddaughter of a Marquess, his parents own two country houses in England a castle in Ireland, and they were not an exceptionally exalted family by aristocratic standards.

    Vast tracts of the country are held by the old landowning families, some untitled due to the land passing through the female line.



    We may be in agreement in some aspects of this. I believe undeveloped/unused land should attract a landowner charge of perhaps 0.2% of value per annum.

    I do, however, feel that families from an aristocratic/gentry background who open their country houses / castles to the public should not attract this kind of taxation, that would be most unjust.

    Besides, this land taxation issue is, in many cases a red herring and a product of envy. The real, juicy targets are the true 21st century means of production; banks, the finance industry, internet companies, utilities, and so on.



    Public ownership of the means of production does not really mean totalitarianism, this country had many sectors in public ownership in the postwar era. Admittedly, some companies are better in the private sector, but it's also a question of philosophy of management.

    If they are run at arms-length from the government, and told to get on with it and the government is merely the majority shareholder but does not install civil servants to run it, there is no reason it cannot be run well. Furthermore, privatisation has not been a particularly happy experience in many cases. Look at the energy sector; we merely privatised it so the French government could buy it up!
    MU The aversion governments’ display towards land taxation (a view shared by many of the population) reflects a commitment to the status quo by the political establishment (lib dem, lab and con). Since the expenses scandal exposed scores of MP’s involved in property scams I cannot see the suggested reorganisation of landholding being dispassionately considered by those with a vested interest (which goes for any group that benefits from the status quo through not compensating the nation for their exclusion from it, a prerequisite for secure property rights.
    So their ownership has the fallen to a fourth or a third (being generous) of what it was in the late C19th – still quite extensive. The landed families are no longer the major (though substantial) holders of UK land rich individuals, international corporations, institutions, NGO’s and foreign governments are.

    The motivation for the suggestion is equity not envy, equitable treatment for the all individuals who constitute the nation. In the case of land it is security of occupation, not ownership, which is the essential foundation of economic order. A nation, for the protection of the individual’s stake, needs to set up in the case of land guarantees and safeguards against the threats implicit in any theory of property which it need not necessarily set up in the case of any other form of property (which will incorporate an element of labour that undisturbed earth does not). Any property rights incorporated in inherited and territorial citizenship are compromised by any existing legal codes that permits the private and intergenerational transfer of land by citizens who do not recognise their fellow citizen’s interest in all the territory the nation considers its patrimony.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by landscape2014)
    JD...

    Straight up, either use the full screen name or don't use it at all (and while I'm at it, please either a) use a larger font size; and/or b) use an easier to read font)

    You haven’t grasped the concept of a chose in action.
    Maybe if you were to explain in in a simpler way I might?

    If we can accept that every individual Briton has an inalienable right to an interest in the territory then they cannot sell it (it’s inalienable) and no one (except the grim reaper) can take it away from them. Their interest is held as a chose in action, that is they have a 60 millionth interest in the territory. If the territory is sub-divided then they have a 60millionth interest in every sub-division. The individual has an interest in the territory they do not own anything until they either purchase the superior (1st) lease on a plot from the land registry or purchase a superior lease from a willing seller. Once it is acquired they will pay an annual tax that depends on the area the lease covers. That payment is to compensate their fellow citizens for your right to exclude any person from your property.
    So let me get this straight, the individuals with the land pay a tax on this land, which is then distributed to all those with less land. Ie, you either take the land or can afford to be more idle? I see a problem there.


    The territory is not going to be divided into 60million plots. (the above should dispose of the 2ND , 3rd , 4th and 5th ‘flaws’).

    The land registry is just that a repository for all the Superior leases that are issued. A periodic re-evaluation of the fixed amount to be charged per M2 ...[/quote]
    I would assume you use "M" to mean mile, but it is rather ambiguous albeit arbitrary.

    ...would be made. Say the registry was selling at £X/acre and several people applied to buy it, on a particular day a person chosen by lot would be offered the lease. This would not occur very often because all the prime land already has Superior leaseholders and the bulk of transactions would between individual sellers and buyers who would register the transaction with the registry for a small administration fee. The registry would monitor the prices being paid for particular leases over a period of time and adjust their price for equivalent land accordingly.

    By which you mean: manipulate the tax rates and slowly push them up and never pull then down again to gain extra revenue off the wealthy but then not actually use it for anything particularly beneficial?

    [quote]0.6% of the population hold about 70% of UK land. Of the remaining 30%; about 5% is urban and distributed between about 17m property holders...[quote]
    And about 50m residents. This also leaves up to 25% in the hands of about 20% of the population. Now, where does bsuiness and the government come into it? Do they get lumped into that 0.6% so as to inflate the 70% figure, or are then in the 25%?

    ...
    who pay substantial property related taxes in an artificially restricted land market rigged in favour of those with extensive landholdings who have no incentive to sell because they are not directly taxed annually on their occupation of the nation’s territorial asset.

    Instead, they are taxed on their use of it. Most of that land will be used for farming, won't you agree? They may not be taxed directly, but they are still taxed indirectly. They have to use that land to grow their crops, rear their cattle etc, which they go on to sell, generating income which is then taxed.

    The market in land has been cornered by a miniscule proportion of the population who because of our feudal system of land holding are protected from direct taxation, a situation which operates as a ‘dead hand’ on that market.
    Is somebody just upset that they don't have enough land?

    The ability of the nation to directly tax land would encourage its disposal by those not making productive use of it (or they could contribute tax) and so create a more open market in land which citizens and entrepreneurs (and through them the wider economy) could take advantage of.
    Along with the possibility of driving off investors that want to own large country estates but don't want to be taxed directly for it because a small portion of the population own most of the land, despite most of that land being used for farming or conservation work benefiting the country, but a few people own some it for purely recreational purposes, and therefore all must suffer.

    Please come back with figures on how much of that 70% is being used for farming purposes, or just in general a more detailed breakdown of how the land is used.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by landscape2014)
    [FONT=Calibri]MU The aversion governments’ display towards land taxation (a view shared by many of the population) reflects a commitment to the status quo by the political establishment (lib dem, lab and con). Since the expenses scandal exposed scores of MP’s involved in property scams I cannot see the suggested reorganisation of landholding being dispassionately considered by those with a vested interest (which goes for any group that benefits from the status quo through not compensating the nation for their exclusion from it, a prerequisite for secure property rights
    I wouldn't entirely agree. Most politicians are not major landowners. Some own a few buy-to-lets, but that hardly makes them part of the landowning elite; many earn more from speaking fees and corrupt deals than from land interests.

    So their ownership has the fallen to a fourth or a third (being generous) of what it was in the late C19th – still quite extensive. The landed families are no longer the major (though substantial) holders of UK land rich individuals, international corporations, institutions, NGO’s and foreign governments are.
    Their ownership may have fallen to a third of the total land ownership, but they still own much of the most valuable lands. For example, the Grosvenor Estate and the Cadogan Estate which own much of central London. I don't think there are any major landowning individuals who are not from the aristocracy.

    Though I do concede that government and corporations own vast tracts of land, and these days more than the aristocracy. One of my main points was that the aristocracy/gentry should not be liable for a landowner tax if they open their country houses to the public.

    The motivation for the suggestion is equity not envy, equitable treatment for the all individuals who constitute the nation. In the case of land it is security of occupation, not ownership, which is the essential foundation of economic order
    If you want true equity, nationalise the banks, utilities and internet companies, not the land. Those are the true means of production in the 21st century.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    There needs to be some radical form of land redistribution, the state of land distribution is beyond ridiculous in this country.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Though I do concede that government and corporations own vast tracts of land, and these days more than the aristocracy. One of my main points was that the aristocracy/gentry should not be liable for a landowner tax if they open their country houses to the public. (Part of post 34 by most uncivilised)
    Undeveloped/unused land should attract a landowner charge of perhaps 0.2%of its value (part of post 32 by most uncivilised)
    Why should one business enterprise be treated any differently to another, it sounds like special pleading on your part. In general Individuals, citizens and organizations (national and foreign) could acquire a life-time lease on a parcel of unallocated land or water (price fixed by land registry) for their exclusive use, or purchase a superior lease from a willing seller. The lease could allow for sub-letting but the superior leaseholder would be wholly responsible for the payment of the tax and would be liable for an additional unemployed area tax if the leased area is not put to use for more than 2 years, to help create an unfettered market in territory. The tax would discourage any leaseholder from handicapping the economic life of the community and also dissuade individuals or organizations from occupying an area just because they can afford to speculate.
    Citizens or entrepreneurs who wish to put an area to use would be encouraged to invest because of its availability and the protection of their territorial rights by the State. The tax demanded (in arrears) for the lease and the unused area tax will be directly related to the area it covers. The area tax would be fixed; the additional unused area tax would be an additional fraction (say 0.07) of the area tax and progressive (doubling the land tax in 10yrs). This provision would have little effect in rural areas since an area could be used to grow grass. Its impact would be felt in the domestic, retail and industrial areas where abandonment blights the urban landscape.

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Straight up, either use the full screen name or don't use it at all (and while I'm at it, please either a) use a larger font size; and/or b) use an easier to read font)


    Maybe if you were to explain in in a simpler way I might?


    So let me get this straight, the individuals with the land pay a tax on this land, which is then distributed to all those with less land. Ie, you either take the land or can afford to be more idle? I see a problem there.


    The territory is not going to be divided into 60million plots. (the above should dispose of the 2ND , 3rd , 4th and 5th ‘flaws’).[/FONT]
    The land registry is just that a repository for all the Superior leases that are issued. A periodic re-evaluation of the fixed amount to be charged per M2 ...
    I would assume you use "M" to mean mile, but it is rather ambiguous albeit arbitrary.


    By which you mean: manipulate the tax rates and slowly push them up and never pull then down again to gain extra revenue off the wealthy but then not actually use it for anything particularly beneficial?

    [FONT=Calibri][quote]0.6% of the population hold about 70% of UK land. Of the remaining 30%; about 5% is urban and distributed between about 17m property holders...
    And about 50m residents. This also leaves up to 25% in the hands of about 20% of the population. Now, where does bsuiness and the government come into it? Do they get lumped into that 0.6% so as to inflate the 70% figure, or are then in the 25%?


    Instead, they are taxed on their use of it. Most of that land will be used for farming, won't you agree? They may not be taxed directly, but they are still taxed indirectly. They have to use that land to grow their crops, rear their cattle etc, which they go on to sell, generating income which is then taxed.


    Is somebody just upset that they don't have enough land?


    Along with the possibility of driving off investors that want to own large country estates but don't want to be taxed directly for it because a small portion of the population own most of the land, despite most of that land being used for farming or conservation work benefiting the country, but a few people own some it for purely recreational purposes, and therefore all must suffer.

    Please come back with figures on how much of that 70% is being used for farming purposes, or just in general a more detailed breakdown of how the land is used.
    JD I seem unable to enlighten you with regard to the meaning of chose in action. Since it is fundamental to understanding my suggestion for land reform you could do a little research There is a brief reference to it on Wikipedia and references you can follow, alternatively you could visit the law section of your local library to inform yourself of its meaning.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    There needs to be some radical form of land redistribution, the state of land distribution is beyond ridiculous in this country.
    DS99 I assume you have followed the posts and have an opinion on the suggested reform. Have you any ideas on how to affect some radical form of land redistribution?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by landscape2014)
    DS99 I assume you have followed the posts and have an opinion on the suggested reform. Have you any ideas on how to affect some radical form of land redistribution?
    A large review was commissioned by the Scottish government earlier this year made some interesting recommendations. I'd be in favour of a limit on land ownership as well as compulsory purchase sale orders and a pretty hefty land value tax. The first thing we'd need to do was commission a review into who owns what as we don't really know at the moment.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Wow, this has turned into a socialist circle-jerk. The whole idea is ridiculous, as with most far left ideas it seems to be focused on undermining and punishing the 'rich' while actually delivering almost no benefits for the 'poor'.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.