The Guardian may or may not consider it a problem. They don't explicitly state. However, the Scottish government _does_ consider it a problem.
> Last month, a major review conducted by the Scottish Land Commission, a government quango, found that big landowners behaved like monopolies across large areas of rural Scotland and had too much power over land use, economic investment and local communities. The quango recommended radical reform of ownership rules.
I'm an American and am totally divorced from this subject so I don't really understand why your response is so argumentative. It seems to me a description of who owns what land is a mild enough "accusation". The Guardian doesn't make mention of farming or food security. They just says who owns what and quote concerned institutions and individuals.
Who would I be arguing with exactly? I think you may be reading tone where none was given.
Are you under the impression people are buying land (land being rural land, not an acre in central London) in the UK for the sake of it? It's not priced in the same league as the USA, it's expensive, if it's not earning a return then it's not happening. So unless you're starting a some sort of windfarm or solar farm, it's generally going to be for farming.
Also, do you realise the opposition party in the UK, Labour e.g. the Guardian, are seriously contemplating pushing a LVT. So they aren't pushing these stories to punish their own. They're pushing these stories to justify what they'll do. And that adds to why would anyone buy any real chunk of land in the UK right now.
As an FYI - a quango is a nonsense lobbying group, it's not independent, anything they come out with can be considered nonsense. Doesn't matter who they work for, it's always doctored stats and the taxpayer getting rinsed.
A land value tax is very common and is universal in the United States. It seems appropriate that those who own the exclusive right to use a parcel of land should pay a tax to the society who enables that exclusive right. If this land is as productive as you say ("if it's not earning a return then it's not happening") then it should be well within their ability to pay the tax. And if its not productive then you'll see land distributed from ineffective landlords to more productive individuals and businesses which can effectively manage the land.
You said it yourself Jeremy Clarkson's farm has only generated $2. If he paid a tax proportionate to his ownership of land he might consider selling that property to someone who could better steward it.
I pay LVT in the United States. I've owned three different plots of land in my life. At no point did this tax prevent me from acquiring land. In fact, it seems like it enabled me to buy this land because in the UK land ownership is significantly lower than in the US.
If land costs _nothing_ to own then it costs nothing to hold as an investment _forever_.
I'm confused. Do you support LVT? I'm under the impression you don't. If England has no LVT and unequal distribution of land wouldn't that imply that LVT is not a prerequisite for that sort of distribution?
I think this kind of factoid can get Americans really riled up, because of how we view real estate as an investment, and how by the 19th Century, we were breaking away from that model of "landed gentry" who get all the perks and governance (see "House of Lords", don't you know.)
Of course, for all our rugged individualism, we're now finding out that homeownership isn't all it's cracked up to be. I, for one, am really happy renting my apartment, because a lot of maintenance and landscaping is done for me, and the amenities that come along with it are simply included in the cost, whether I use them or not. Owners tell me I'm throwing my money away, but it's a matter of perspective, I think.
I think that I learned a lot while viewing "Downton Abbey" and I suppose it's a somewhat faithful perspective on how a large manor house operates. I mean, it's amazing how this one family owns all the land, like a town in itself, with all the help downstairs, plus tenants who work the land; it's a whole economic system in itself. And I can see the benefit in having one owner who does the management, and lets the servants, employees, and tenants worry about things other than the land itself. I think that has benefits.
Now I don't profess to know much about how the feudal systems worked, hundreds of years ago, but I suppose that progress means we don't have fiefdoms anymore (good?) and we don't have oaths of fealty anymore (or do we?) and even though people call me "Sir Knight", I don't ride a horse and I don't rescue damsels in distress or go on crusades.
Perhaps I could purchase an inch of land in Scotland and become a Lord!
Over the last 3 years,
Earning $XX per year in appreciation, $XX per year by renting the extra rooms, $XX per year from paying off the mortgage automatically, and $XX due to the lower monthly total payments compared to renting for a total of $80k/year in earnings is definitely worth mowing the lawn a dozen times a year. I haven’t even mentioned the tax deductions, or non-monetary benefits either.
Homeownership in America, assuming you paid for an inspection and didn’t buy a money-pit, typically means you will be at least middle-class for the rest of your life.
But sssssshhhh don’t tell everyone !! Otherwise there will be more buyers and more competition.
20 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 55.4 ms ] threadI think the metric that matters is the amount of area left per Capita.
here it's <50% of England
> Last month, a major review conducted by the Scottish Land Commission, a government quango, found that big landowners behaved like monopolies across large areas of rural Scotland and had too much power over land use, economic investment and local communities. The quango recommended radical reform of ownership rules.
I'm an American and am totally divorced from this subject so I don't really understand why your response is so argumentative. It seems to me a description of who owns what land is a mild enough "accusation". The Guardian doesn't make mention of farming or food security. They just says who owns what and quote concerned institutions and individuals.
Are you under the impression people are buying land (land being rural land, not an acre in central London) in the UK for the sake of it? It's not priced in the same league as the USA, it's expensive, if it's not earning a return then it's not happening. So unless you're starting a some sort of windfarm or solar farm, it's generally going to be for farming.
Also, do you realise the opposition party in the UK, Labour e.g. the Guardian, are seriously contemplating pushing a LVT. So they aren't pushing these stories to punish their own. They're pushing these stories to justify what they'll do. And that adds to why would anyone buy any real chunk of land in the UK right now.
As an FYI - a quango is a nonsense lobbying group, it's not independent, anything they come out with can be considered nonsense. Doesn't matter who they work for, it's always doctored stats and the taxpayer getting rinsed.
You said it yourself Jeremy Clarkson's farm has only generated $2. If he paid a tax proportionate to his ownership of land he might consider selling that property to someone who could better steward it.
I pay LVT in the United States. I've owned three different plots of land in my life. At no point did this tax prevent me from acquiring land. In fact, it seems like it enabled me to buy this land because in the UK land ownership is significantly lower than in the US.
If land costs _nothing_ to own then it costs nothing to hold as an investment _forever_.
Of course, for all our rugged individualism, we're now finding out that homeownership isn't all it's cracked up to be. I, for one, am really happy renting my apartment, because a lot of maintenance and landscaping is done for me, and the amenities that come along with it are simply included in the cost, whether I use them or not. Owners tell me I'm throwing my money away, but it's a matter of perspective, I think.
I think that I learned a lot while viewing "Downton Abbey" and I suppose it's a somewhat faithful perspective on how a large manor house operates. I mean, it's amazing how this one family owns all the land, like a town in itself, with all the help downstairs, plus tenants who work the land; it's a whole economic system in itself. And I can see the benefit in having one owner who does the management, and lets the servants, employees, and tenants worry about things other than the land itself. I think that has benefits.
Now I don't profess to know much about how the feudal systems worked, hundreds of years ago, but I suppose that progress means we don't have fiefdoms anymore (good?) and we don't have oaths of fealty anymore (or do we?) and even though people call me "Sir Knight", I don't ride a horse and I don't rescue damsels in distress or go on crusades.
Perhaps I could purchase an inch of land in Scotland and become a Lord!
Homeownership in America, assuming you paid for an inspection and didn’t buy a money-pit, typically means you will be at least middle-class for the rest of your life.
But sssssshhhh don’t tell everyone !! Otherwise there will be more buyers and more competition.
—RIP George Carlin