Land Reform Needed

[Gmart]

Britain comprises approximately 60 million acres, but more than 99 per cent of its population of 60 million are confined to a mere five million acres, with 150,000 private estate owners occupying in excess of 40 million acres.
Rural communities have witnessed the manipulations of estate owners who benefited from this land shortage and still act as though we are in the 18th century. This has contributed to the price of the average house now being the most expensive in Europe and beyond the reach of many hopeful first-time buyers.

And we, the populace, pay £15.5bn in community charges each year, but the landed gentry pay £120m, while receiving in excess of £3bn a year in grants.



It is time the British people began to question and the unearned privileges many of our landed gentry have bestowed on themselves, and to implement a land reform and redistribution programme in Britain for the greater benefit of the majority.

A new system is needed to replace Council Tax, and so I would suggest a system which taxes by the square metre, with a personal allowance for each person. Thus less tax would be paid if you built up, moving the supply curve for space to the right and leading to a fall in price and a rise in competitiveness.

Any other ideas?

 

[dessiato]

not got any ideas, but if your figures are correct, then it is time the population did something other than just moan about things!

 

[Gmart]

I got them from the Independent, though of course I accept that that doesn't mean they are accurate.

 

[Tom A]

Britain comprises approximately 60 million acres, but more than 99 per cent of its population of 60 million are confined to a mere five million acres, with 150,000 private estate owners occupying in excess of 40 million acres.

As much as that sucks I don't like the idea of every square inch in Britian being opened up to development and urban sprawl, especially since there are a lot more empty houses than there are homeless people.

 

[Gmart]

As much as that sucks I don't like the idea of every square inch in Britian being opened up to development and urban sprawl, especially since there are a lot more empty houses than there are homeless people.

Of course! That's not what i'm saying. There would need to be the National trust and the Forestry Commision etc to ensure that the countryside is not concreted over. Maybe even a tax break for keeping the forest well-maintained.

The key is to get a modern system which manages the resource of space to the greatest degree and for the common good.

 

[becky p]

A new system is needed to replace Council Tax, and so I would suggest a system which taxes by the square metre, with a personal allowance for each person. Thus less tax would be paid if you built up, moving the supply curve for space to the right and leading to a fall in price and a rise in competitiveness.

Any other ideas?

I like that idea. It could be really popular.

 

[Gmart]

I like that idea. It could be really popular.

Thanx, tho i suspect that it is too radical, and the people who own the land are the ones who are generally in power, so they are unlikely to allow it to happen.

The high prices of space in Europe is a vast Albatross around the neck, affecting our competitiveness, our number of jobs and thus our general happiness. But the owners of the land quite like the high price of space as it lines their pockets.

There ARE answers to our problems, but we don't have the balls to grasp the nettles we have created and the rich would much rather the poor suffer than they change. Oh well! Good idea tho!

 

[becky p]

Thanx, tho i suspect that it is too radical, and the people who own the land are the ones who are generally in power, so they are unlikely to allow it to happen.

The high prices of space in Europe is a vast Albatross around the neck, affecting our competitiveness, our number of jobs and thus our general happiness. But the owners of the land quite like the high price of space as it lines their pockets.

There ARE answers to our problems, but we don't have the balls to grasp the nettles we have created and the rich would much rather the poor suffer than they change. Oh well! Good idea tho!

Have you thought of promoting this as an idea with campaign groups or political parties?
I think it would be highly popular with people in this country.
The council tax is already quite an issue and land reform should be. So it would be good to bring the 2 issues together.

 

[academia]

Is there a source for the 99% figure?

 

[academia]

"the task is enormous as 40 per cent of land in England and Wales has not been registered by its owners. More than half of all rural land and rural buildings are unregistered"

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article2434964.ece

What's to stop you moving onto this land and building a house if they can't prove it belongs to anyone?!

 

[Matt S]

See Land Value Taxation, which is Green Party policy:

http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/Land.html

Matt

 

[becky p]

See Land Value Taxation, which is Green Party policy:

http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/Land.html

Matt

Looks good.But perhaps they need to promote it more actively?

 

[Jessiedog]

As a Hong Konger, I can see the eminent sense of "building up" rather than "building out" - high rise living can be convenient, stylish and offer superb views.

But you don't need to faff with the tax system to encourage it.

There are already planning laws in place. Simply ammend the planning laws (may not even need ammending, administrative measures may do the trick).

In HK, nobody bar a very few get permission to build anything other than upwards.



Woof

 

[The Black Hand]

The only land reform to have is communism (note NOT state communism), but libertarian communism, anything else is merely moving the ball around the park...

 

[Tom A]

The only land reform to have is communism (note NOT state communism), but libertarian communism, anything else is merely moving the ball around the park...

But like that's going to happen (in this or any other "developed" country) at any time in our lifetimes...

 

[kyser_soze]

And we, the populace, pay £15.5bn in community charges each year, but the landed gentry pay £120m, while receiving in excess of £3bn a year in grants.

Hmmm, while I see what you're saying, who USES Council Services more? What are the consituent parts of the £3bn in grants paid out? I suspect that much of that money is for conservation management, not to mention farming subsidy (another matter altogether). While I agree that someone who owns X thousands of hectares around the UK should be taxed for it (and taxed heavily, or even simply be dispossesed of anything they don't activley work in some way), funding local government simply on the basis of land volume won't work - if I build 10 or 20 floors up my land is potentially worth 10, 15 or 20 times what it would be if I leave it as a piece of land, but your idea of taxing land 'out' instead of 'up' as well would allow me to make a shedload and not be taxed for it.

 

[Gmart]

Hmmm, while I see what you're saying, who USES Council Services more? What are the consituent parts of the £3bn in grants paid out? I suspect that much of that money is for conservation management, not to mention farming subsidy (another matter altogether). While I agree that someone who owns X thousands of hectares around the UK should be taxed for it (and taxed heavily, or even simply be dispossesed of anything they don't activley work in some way), funding local government simply on the basis of land volume won't work - if I build 10 or 20 floors up my land is potentially worth 10, 15 or 20 times what it would be if I leave it as a piece of land, but your idea of taxing land 'out' instead of 'up' as well would allow me to make a shedload and not be taxed for it.

So how would you do it then Kyser?

 

[kyser_soze]

Blimey...ermmm...within the current structure of government...

Negotiate a final settlement with the existing landowners over their whole estates - from the countryside stuff to the cities and basically buy them out (and if they don't want to sell CPO their property at well below market value)

Socialise ownership of the resulting land, with revenues raised going to local authorities to spend on things that LAs spend money on

In the countryside it'd be a little different since 1000 HA of forest isn't going to bring that much money in. I'd look to encourage local conservation projects (which in many cases would be a continuation of what happens now) using the current subsidy. I'd also look at how it would be possible to re-create common land that no one owns, and enshrine the non-ownership principle in very tight law (i.e. make it hard to amend).

The only way to even start to reform land in the UK will be to alter the ownership structure, and TBH I reckon it'd be cheaper to buy the fuckers out (when amortised over say 50 years) then try and write new tax law that people would find a way around.

 

[Gmart]

Socialise ownership of the resulting land, with revenues raised going to local authorities to spend on things that LAs spend money on

I'd also look at how it would be possible to re-create common land that no one owns, and enshrine the non-ownership principle in very tight law (i.e. make it hard to amend).

What do you mean socialise? If you mean common ownership then I sadly disagree. I considered it before coming up with the system above, but though it sounds great, all the real life examples of common ownership lead to over usage.

Thus ownership is necessary. I agree with you basically though. Ensure that all the land is accounted for because much of it is not as yet registered. But then either have the Forestry take over all forests (difficult) or give tax breaks for well managed forests, with the option to sell to the Forestry Commision at market price, which would solve the problem once and for all.

My beginning for this was the obvious tendency which exists of many keeping houses empty while the market goes up (because of this lack of supply). Also it is noticeable that the Tiger economies have created much more growth through building up and so if there is a basic tax on square metrage then the owners will want to build up to maximise their returns. I would also suggest this for the regeneration of council estates.

The original figures in the OP shows an elitism of ownership but if we make having land with no one living there an expensive thing, then eventually this land will be released onto the market by those land owners who are unable to afford to keep the land. I would be MUCH happier if the land went to some kind of National Trust and was thus managed well for the good of the country.

That said it should also be pointed out that we suffer from a vast centralisation problem where everything is centred on London and so i would like a system where the tax is higher in London than in say Burnley. This along with moving our national institutions to the rest of the country would lead to regeneration of the rest of the country as opposed to just London.

 

[The Black Hand]

But like that's going to happen (in this or any other "developed" country) at any time in our lifetimes...

Doh! Oh ye of little vision...

They didn't expect Paris May 1968 either, or the fall of the Berlin wall...etc.

 

[Tom A]

Doh! Oh ye of little vision...

They didn't expect Paris May 1968 either, or the fall of the Berlin wall...etc.

It's a nice idea, but I find it a million times less fustrating to advocate pragmatic baby steps instead of obsessing over utopian pipe dreams.

 

[The Black Hand]

It's a nice idea, but I find it a million times less fustrating to advocate pragmatic baby steps instead of obsessing over utopian pipe dreams.

Funnily enough I find it a million times less frustrating to talk in common sense language and get people thinking about the theft of the land from the people, including themselves. It is one of the easiest arguments to win from an anarcho/communist pov.

 

[kyser_soze]

My beginning for this was the obvious tendency which exists of many keeping houses empty while the market goes up (because of this lack of supply).

One of my ideas on the 2nd property thing is that they have to occupy 50 weeks a year else the owner gets either a punitive local property tax OR a 6 month warning on a CPO OR reform the repossession laws to make squatters harder to evict. Since it's gonna be difficult to rent a holiday cottage for 50 weeks a year the taxes could be ploughed back into maintanence/building of homes for locals in rural areas blighted by 2nd home ownership.

Funnily enough I find it a million times less frustrating to talk in common sense language and get people thinking about the theft of the land from the people, including themselves. It is one of the easiest arguments to win from an anarcho/communist pov.

When talking to other anars/comms it probably is. I reckon that the response you'd get from most people on explaining it is 'Yeah, and?' It's not about winning the argument, it's about changing people's minds...

 

[Gmart]

We have to find a system which encourages going down and up, whilst at the same time also ensuring that the poor are entitled to live in a certain area tax free. A progressive system which ensures that certain types of land such as forests and meadows are protected by the relevant authority.

 

[The Pious Pawn]

Britain comprises approximately 60 million acres, but more than 99 per cent of its population of 60 million are confined to a mere five million acres, with 150,000 private estate owners occupying in excess of 40 million acres.
Rural communities have witnessed the manipulations of estate owners who benefited from this land shortage and still act as though we are in the 18th century. This has contributed to the price of the average house now being the most expensive in Europe and beyond the reach of many hopeful first-time buyers.

And we, the populace, pay £15.5bn in community charges each year, but the landed gentry pay £120m, while receiving in excess of £3bn a year in grants.



It is time the British people began to question and the unearned privileges many of our landed gentry have bestowed on themselves, and to implement a land reform and redistribution programme in Britain for the greater benefit of the majority.

A new system is needed to replace Council Tax, and so I would suggest a system which taxes by the square metre, with a personal allowance for each person. Thus less tax would be paid if you built up, moving the supply curve for space to the right and leading to a fall in price and a rise in competitiveness.

Any other ideas?

Revolution

 

[Gmart]

Sadly somewhat unlikely, due to too many people with vested interests and too many people who would be scared to lose their house!!

 

[Giles]

Just a point: I remember the Indie article going on about "unregistered land" as if this was some scam by which people avoided paying their "dues" or something.

In reality, this registered / unregistered thing means very little. Not that far back, ownership was listed on physical deeds for each piece of farmland, house and garden, etc.

When a central computerised registry was set up, they decided, for common-sense and practical reasons, to simply register all land as it was sold from one person to another.

Now, having got pretty far with this, they are in a position to set about registering that land and property whose ownership is still given in old-style paper deeds.

"Unregistered land" is not "owned by no-one", or "secretly owned" by anyone. Its just not been bought and sold since they set up the Land Registry database.

And regarding ideas for "land reform" - so much depends on what a person wants to DO with what they own. A person occupying 5 acres as a personal garden has a lot, and is probably very rich. A farmer with 5 acres doesn't really have much at all, in terms of what can be made from that amount of land.

Giles..

 

[Gmart]

And your solution Giles?

 

[Giles]

And your solution Giles?

My solution to which "problem", exactly?

To deal with high house prices, much more land should be made available for the building of a lot more houses: I see no other sensible solution to the problem of unaffordable housing. This is largely created by a shortage. Fix the shortage and the price will come down.

Giles..

 

[Gmart]

You seems a bit confused Giles. You ask “What problem?” as if I haven’t described the problem in detail, and then go on to answer the exact problem i’ve been on about! It is a LAND problem you state but actually it is a SPACE problem, and the only 2 unlimited resources of this are up and down.

Your “let’s build on more land” idea is exactly the kind of lack of vision our politicians suffer from.

My land tax idea would ensure that the limited resource, which our current system fails to organise well enough, is organised to the benefit of the economy and of the jobs it would create. A tax free amount would also ensure that the poor are not impacted on too much.

Europe as a whole has land which is too expensive and all too many land owners who have proved that they do not go remotely towards an optimal through limitting the supply leading to high prices which impact on the whole economy. The time has come to change this archaic system, and to organise the evident market failure. That is the duty of any government, and should be done as soon as possible.

There is no need for revolution we can just organise it so that those who have a lot of land for their own personal use, pay for the privilege.