Inheritance - good or bad?

[pap]

Been thinking a lot lately about the concept of inheritance. Cards on the table, I've never inherited a bean. Money tends to go the other way in my family, but hey, you gotta look after your mum, right? So perhaps the fact that I've never been a beneficiary of inheritance sours my view of the concept.

 

At its heart though, there is something distasteful about the concept of inheritance, namely that it conflicts with a bunch of other things that we in Western societies are supposed to believe. Things like meritocracy, like fairness and even (on a scientific level) natural selection.

 

It also creates problems with resource allocation. Look at the vast tracts of land in perpetual inherited private ownership, or the gross disparities of wealth in the world (and the lengths/tricks pulled to ensure that those disparities are maintained), or indeed, the fact that you have to spend decades working to own a piece of it.

 

My personal view is that we should all own a six-billionth of the world each, and that inheritance has a pernicious effect on society, creating endless conflict between (for want of better terms) the bourgeoise and the proletariat.

 

I'd expect that view to be challenged. What's your view on inheritance? Good or bad?

[benjii]

Been thinking a lot lately about the concept of inheritance. Cards on the table, I've never inherited a bean. Money tends to go the other way in my family, but hey, you gotta look after your mum, right? So perhaps the fact that I've never been a beneficiary of inheritance sours my view of the concept.

 

At its heart though, there is something distasteful about the concept of inheritance, namely that it conflicts with a bunch of other things that we in Western societies are supposed to believe. Things like meritocracy, like fairness and even (on a scientific level) natural selection.

 

It also creates problems with resource allocation. Look at the vast tracts of land in perpetual inherited private ownership, or the gross disparities of wealth in the world (and the lengths/tricks pulled to ensure that those disparities are maintained), or indeed, the fact that you have to spend decades working to own a piece of it.

 

My personal view is that we should all own a six-billionth of the world each, and that inheritance has a pernicious effect on society, creating endless conflict between (for want of better terms) the bourgeoise and the proletariat.

 

I'd expect that view to be challenged. What's your view on inheritance? Good or bad?

 

**** me.

 

 

I can't be bothered with anything more than that. You bemoan the lack of meritocracy in inheritance and then you advocate divying up the world equally. If you can't see how stupid that logic is then there really is no point carrying on.....

[pap]

**** me.

 

 

I can't be bothered with anything more than that. You bemoan the lack of meritocracy in inheritance and then you advocate divying up the world equally. If you can't see how stupid that logic is then there really is no point carrying on.....

 

I said I expected the view to be challenged

 

So is it your contention that ownership of the world should be meritocratic? It certainly isn't now.

[carljack]

How would you allocate the parcels of land ? would I get to choose my few acres,I would be gutted if you got St Marys and I got Nottarf Krap, but then I could turn it into a spud field to feed my family, and you could keep St Marys for football and I could pay for my season ticket with spuds or carrots,we both get what we want and the Skates are History!.It could work you know. LOL

[pap]

How would you allocate the parcels of land ? would I get to choose my few acres,I would be gutted if you got St Marys and I got Nottarf Krap, but then I could turn it into a spud field to feed my family, and you could keep St Marys for football and I could pay for my season ticket with spuds or carrots,we both get what we want and the Skates are History!.It could work you know. LOL

 

First, if we're living in football stadiums, I think there is something slightly wrong with the housing allocation system

 

But it's a good question. Who gets what?

 

Right now, we're saying "if your dad owned it, so do you". That doesn't strike me as a particularly good system either. Historically, it has called all sorts of problems. I wonder how many cases of fratricide have been committed to benefit from the inheritance system. Seemed to happen all the time with kings.

 

I wouldn't be the sort of person to want to smash down the palaces of the mighty just because of what they represent, so who would you give the big stuff to?

 

How's about as a reward for public service, where the place you live in is a recognition of what you've done for your country / fellow man? So for example, if you do great public deeds, you get to camp out in a mansion for a couple of years?

[Window Cleaner]

What's wrong with a bit of inheritance,my wife's dad left her a lot,we've not spent very much of it cos we basically don't need to

but it has helped a bit with putting our 2 kids through Uni,one doctorate and one Masters so far,neither has a penny of debt.

What on earth could anyone find fault with that? My late father in law saved all that money from doing some sort of sh*tty job in Canada,not like he's robbed starving children in some third world country.

[pap]

What's wrong with a bit of inheritance,my wife's dad left her a lot,we've not spent very much of it cos we basically don't need to

but it has helped a bit with putting our 2 kids through Uni,one doctorate and one Masters so far,neither has a penny of debt.

What on earth could anyone find fault with that? My late father in law saved all that money from doing some sort of sh*tty job in Canada,not like he's robbed starving children in some third world country.

 

You've kind of made my point. There are going to be kids finishing university that are saddled with debts. Your kids have an advantage over them.

 

I'll freely admit that I'm going to pay for my kids bills. It's not like I've left them a load of money, but the net effect will be the same. They'll be in a better position than kids who've had to pay their own way. If you were being charitable, you could say this an instance where my duties as a parent override my general principles. If you weren't, you could call me a hypocrite. Both would be true.

 

However, the sort of investment that we're making in our kids (and your father made in you) is small-fry compared to the problems associated with those who have more to pass down. I'm talking the likes of old money, monarchy and the like. A nastier side effect of inheritance is that six thousand people own two thirds of this country ( 40M / 60M acres ). I don't see how that is remotely justifiable, especially given the high prices we all pay for housing.

[Thedelldays]

if you won £1m on the lottery, would you give 2/3 of it away..

 

i suspect you won't

[pap]

if you won £1m on the lottery, would you give 2/3 of it away..

 

i suspect you won't

 

And you'd be right.

 

But still, 6,000 people owning 2/3rds of the country. That can't be right either.

 

At least the lottery is fair.

[swannymere]

I think that when you reach a time when you might need nursing care or a care home your estate should be used to pay for it before the state provides free care. Probably an unpopular view. I also get ****ed off whenever i see an outraged relative on TV whinging about it, all i see is the look in there eyes of that new car, house, holiday slipping through their fingers rather than any real concern for the relative.

[Thedelldays]

And you'd be right.

 

But still, 6,000 people owning 2/3rds of the country. That can't be right either.

 

At least the lottery is fair.

why is the lottery fair...why should 1 person have so much money..?

isn't being born into wealth as much as a lottery..?

 

so, you want others to give it all up..but if YOU came into £1m you would not

 

 

I see your point...lol

[Thedelldays]

I think that when you reach a time when you might need nursing care or a care home your estate should be used to pay for it before the state provides free care. Probably an unpopular view. I also get ****ed off whenever i see an outraged relative on TV whinging about it, all i see is the look in there eyes of that new car, house, holiday slipping through their fingers rather than any real concern for the relative.

I agree..

but the other argument is, they are entitled to the same care as all of us as they pay into the system...probably more over their life time than any of us could imagine...?

[pap]

why is the lottery fair...why should 1 person have so much money..?

isn't being born into wealth as much as a lottery..?

 

so, you want others to give it all up..but if YOU came into £1m you would not

 

I see your point...lol

 

The lottery is fair in the sense that it doesn't discriminate along any other lines other than whether you have the correct numbers. You don't have to have had a dad who had won the lottery, for example.

 

How exactly is this related to inheritance, me ol' mucker? Lottery money is a prize that anyone can win, not something that can only pass to genetic relatives.

[djharvey]

Been thinking a lot lately about the concept of inheritance. Cards on the table, I've never inherited a bean. Money tends to go the other way in my family, but hey, you gotta look after your mum, right? So perhaps the fact that I've never been a beneficiary of inheritance sours my view of the concept.

 

At its heart though, there is something distasteful about the concept of inheritance, namely that it conflicts with a bunch of other things that we in Western societies are supposed to believe. Things like meritocracy, like fairness and even (on a scientific level) natural selection.

 

It also creates problems with resource allocation. Look at the vast tracts of land in perpetual inherited private ownership, or the gross disparities of wealth in the world (and the lengths/tricks pulled to ensure that those disparities are maintained), or indeed, the fact that you have to spend decades working to own a piece of it.

 

My personal view is that we should all own a six-billionth of the world each, and that inheritance has a pernicious effect on society, creating endless conflict between (for want of better terms) the bourgeoise and the proletariat.

 

I'd expect that view to be challenged. What's your view on inheritance? Good or bad?

 

Next you will be telling us that all people should be paid equally whether they work or not, all children should get the same presents/gifts from their parents and there should be standardised answers to any standardised questions asked by all persons.

Everyone is equal, everyone is the same. Not a chance that would ever happen and nor would i want it to!

[Thedelldays]

The lottery is fair in the sense that it doesn't discriminate along any other lines other than whether you have the correct numbers. You don't have to have had a dad who had won the lottery, for example.

 

How exactly is this related to inheritance, me ol' mucker? Lottery money is a prize that anyone can win, not something that can only pass to genetic relatives.

but it is still a lottery...why should 1 person have so much money

 

but then again, you are just having a pop at those lucky enough (in lifes lottery) at being super rich

 

do you ever change the record..?

 

so, when is inheritance acceptable...? do you have to have grown up in a council estate..? do you have to be from the "look at me, I'm a victim" liverpool..?

I find it highly hypocritical that should you be lucky enough in life (see the theme) to elevate yourself to say, millionaire status, you won't give that up. but then, you live in the "look at me, we are so hard done by" liverpool and grew up in a council estate

[Window Cleaner]

You've kind of made my point. There are going to be kids finishing university that are saddled with debts. Your kids have an advantage over them.

 

I.

 

 

Yes and no, there are plenty of parents who spend money on cruises,flash wheels,football and golf trips to Dubai who leave their kids to fend for themselves with Students Loans and stuff.Supporting your kids in their studies is a personal choice, we'd have done it inheritance or no inheritance,as will you,but others prefer a high cost lifestyle for themselves instead.

[Chin Strain]

I think that when you reach a time when you might need nursing care or a care home your estate should be used to pay for it before the state provides free care. Probably an unpopular view. I also get ****ed off whenever i see an outraged relative on TV whinging about it, all i see is the look in there eyes of that new car, house, holiday slipping through their fingers rather than any real concern for the relative.

 

So if you work hard, save your money, invest it wisely, pay tax (maybe at a high rate) all your life, you have to sell your home to pay for your care. If you slob around, contribute nothing in any shape or form over your whole life, have no savings, or estate of any kind, then the state pick up the bill and that's ok.

 

Extreme examples, but you're advocating the person who works hard paying for the slobs care via their state contribution, but they have to pay for their own. That doesn't seem very fair or reasonable.

[Chin Strain]

Yes and no, there are plenty of parents who spend money on cruises,flash wheels,football and golf trips to Dubai who leave their kids to fend for themselves with Students Loans and stuff.Supporting your kids in their studies is a personal choice, we'd have done it inheritance or no inheritance,as will you,but others prefer a high cost lifestyle for themselves instead.

 

Maybe there's an argument that kids who have to fend for themselves financially, despite the wealth of their parents, make for better rounded individuals. There's something quite refreshing about them not being given the silver spoon treatment, and learning the value of money.

[Whitey Grandad]

Maybe there's an argument that kids who have to fend for themselves financially, despite the wealth of their parents, make for better rounded individuals. There's something quite refreshing about them not being given the silver spoon treatment, and learning the value of money.

As Warren Buffet said:

 

“I want to give my kids enough so that they could feel that they could do anything, but not so much that they could do nothing.”

[pap]

but it is still a lottery...why should 1 person have so much money

 

but then again, you are just having a pop at those lucky enough (in lifes lottery) at being super rich

 

do you ever change the record..?

 

so, when is inheritance acceptable...? do you have to have grown up in a council estate..? do you have to be from the "look at me, I'm a victim" liverpool..?

I find it highly hypocritical that should you be lucky enough in life (see the theme) to elevate yourself to say, millionaire status, you won't give that up. but then, you live in the "look at me, we are so hard done by" liverpool and grew up in a council estate

 

Tell you what, mate.

 

Let's pretend that this post never happened. It's not really germane to the argument - really a mish-mash of wilful ignorance and personal attacks.

 

I don't think you've made one post on the subject of inheritance. Go look it up, and if you fancy discussing it, come back and have another go.

[trousers]

"Life's unfair" revelation on popular football forum shocker...

 

;-)

[scotty]

I think that when you reach a time when you might need nursing care or a care home your estate should be used to pay for it before the state provides free care. Probably an unpopular view. I also get ****ed off whenever i see an outraged relative on TV whinging about it, all i see is the look in there eyes of that new car, house, holiday slipping through their fingers rather than any real concern for the relative.

 

Thats pretty much what already happens. Nursing/residential care isn't just provided on the state, it is means-tested. Theres a bit of trickery about your house not having to be sold to pay for it so you don't get kicked out of it, but I think you are forced to take out a loan against its value or something like that. My parents are in pretty much that situation.

[saintfully]

"Life's unfair" revelation on popular football forum shocker...

 

;-)

 

Trousers in smugly predictable complacent "joke" shocker...

 

;-) etc etc.

 

Yawn

[alpine_saint]

Been thinking a lot lately about the concept of inheritance. Cards on the table, I've never inherited a bean. Money tends to go the other way in my family, but hey, you gotta look after your mum, right? So perhaps the fact that I've never been a beneficiary of inheritance sours my view of the concept.

 

At its heart though, there is something distasteful about the concept of inheritance, namely that it conflicts with a bunch of other things that we in Western societies are supposed to believe. Things like meritocracy, like fairness and even (on a scientific level) natural selection.

 

It also creates problems with resource allocation. Look at the vast tracts of land in perpetual inherited private ownership, or the gross disparities of wealth in the world (and the lengths/tricks pulled to ensure that those disparities are maintained), or indeed, the fact that you have to spend decades working to own a piece of it.

 

My personal view is that we should all own a six-billionth of the world each, and that inheritance has a pernicious effect on society, creating endless conflict between (for want of better terms) the bourgeoise and the proletariat.

 

I'd expect that view to be challenged. What's your view on inheritance? Good or bad?

 

Jesus Christ.....

 

[Whitey Grandad]

Thats pretty much what already happens. Nursing/residential care isn't just provided on the state, it is means-tested. Theres a bit of trickery about your house not having to be sold to pay for it so you don't get kicked out of it, but I think you are forced to take out a loan against its value or something like that. My parents are in pretty much that situation.

 

Except in Scotland?

[Jonnyboy]

But still, 6,000 people owning 2/3rds of the country. That can't be right either.

 

That's why an inheritance tax is a good idea.

 

I don't know the rate though. How about 50% of any thing over £500,000?

[pap]

Jesus Christ.....

 

 

I nominate this thread go into the Golden Threads section purely on the basis of Alp's articulate and well-considered retort. The muses of myth must surely be residing in Austria at the moment providing Alpine with these poignant literary insights.

[Whitey Grandad]

That's why an inheritance tax is a good idea.

 

I don't know the rate though. How about 50% of any thing over £500,000?

 

No, inheritance tax is pernicious. It's graverobbing. You work all your life, pay taxes when you earn it, and then people like you want to take it away again. Remember, it's not your money!

[Trader]

Next you will be telling us that all people should be paid equally whether they work or not, all children should get the same presents/gifts from their parents and there should be standardised answers to any standardised questions asked by all persons.

Everyone is equal, everyone is the same. Not a chance that would ever happen and nor would i want it to!

 

It's been tried many times before but somehow it always seems to go wrong.

 

You know, everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.

 

Try reading Animal Farm.

[pap]

That's why an inheritance tax is a good idea.

 

I don't know the rate though. How about 50% of any thing over £500,000?

 

It's currently 40% of anything over £325,000 - but there are exemptions. No tax is payable when a gift passes between husband and wife, so they don't double dip.

 

It was actually designed to hit the super-rich, but the thresholds haven't really gone up with earnings, successive Governments have rather liked that. Something originally designed to get something out of the tycoons that make their fortunes now hit anyone with a decent house and cash in the bank.

 

A much higher threshold with more enforcement seems sensible, but the super-rich often officially quit the country anyway, transferring their assets to a more favourable tax regime. Planned well, and we get nothing

[buctootim]

people like you want to take it away again. Remember, it's not your money!

 

And its not your society. I dont want a society where 8,000 people own 65% of the wealth, and two thirds of them inherited it. I want a meritocracy where entrepreneurs earn more than employees and ther highest tax level is 40%. People should be free to earn or make all they can in their lifetimes and when they die the clock is reset to zero.

[Whitey Grandad]

And its not your society. I dont want a society where 8,000 people own 65% of the wealth, and two thirds of them inherited it. I want a meritocracy where entrepreneurs earn more than employees and ther highest tax level is 40%. People should be free to earn or make all they can in their lifetimes and when they die the clock is reset to zero.

 

That's exactly what I was saying! Once you've earnt it it belongs to you and your children and their children, not the state, not society, no-one else. What you suggest is theft, nothing less. We do not live in a communist state, we are not economic slave units. As for entrepreneurs, even 40% is pernicious, and you haven't included National Insurance, either employee's or employers'.

[pap]

That's exactly what I was saying! Once you've earnt it it belongs to you and your children and their children, not the state, not society, no-one else. What you suggest is theft, nothing less. We do not live in a communist state, we are not economic slave units. As for entrepreneurs, even 40% is pernicious, and you haven't included National Insurance, either employee's or employers'.

 

I don't understand why every challenge to the present system is seen as the heralding of a new Marxist state. It is possible to challenge concepts like inheritance without Stalinist purges.

 

I also think you're a little naive to believe that economic slavery is unique to those sort of societies. How many people can genuinely say "yeah, I'm going to give up the work" and still be paying their bills 12 months on? Oddly enough, many of those who could say that have inherited wealth to sustain them.

 

All you say would be fair enough, if the act of making money was purely down to the individual and that those money-making efforts had no other effects on society. We don't live in a vacuum though, so I think its fair to say that the set-up (for want of a better term) of society has a lot to do with the wealth that someone creates, and that wealth creation can a lot of nasty side-effects, particularly when collective wealth is sacrificed for the benefit of personal wealth.

 

Take the relatively recent Cadbury's sale as an example. The UK lost jobs while a few individuals got very rich off the Kraft money. Would you say that the money senior Cadbury's execs made off that sale was well-earned? That they should take the money made from the back of redundancies and just be able to give the lot to their families?

[buctootim]

That's exactly what I was saying! Once you've earnt it it belongs to you and your children and their children, not the state, not society, no-one else. What you suggest is theft, nothing less. We do not live in a communist state, we are not economic slave units. As for entrepreneurs, even 40% is pernicious, and you haven't included National Insurance, either employee's or employers'.

 

I think you misunderstood some of my point. Im all for rewarding sucess in this life by the individual - but when you die you money and assets return to wellspring just like your body.

 

Meritocracy means you get rewarded for what you do in this life - not that you get to live off what some able ancestor was able to do at the expense of the talented and driven in this generation.

[pap]

I think you misunderstood some of my point. Im all for rewarding sucess in this life by the individual - but when you die you money and assets return to wellspring just like your body.

 

Meritocracy means you get rewarded for what you do in this life - not that you get to live off what some able ancestor was able to do at the expense of the talented and driven in this generation.

 

Succinct.

 

Regarding the distribution of land. Small groups of people inheriting vast tracts of land is ultimately counterproductive. First, most of that land is off the table for good. That results in artificial demand, pushing prices up on the stuff that is up for sale. The Land Registry can still only account for the ownership of 50% of the land in this country, as a lot of people who have owned land for a very long time obscure their true holdings.

 

I agree with you though. Seems mental that we're washing people out of London because of high housing costs when you've got the likes of the Duke of Westminster owning 100 acres in Mayfair ( valued at 3.35 billion 10 years ago ). I very much doubt he's a self-made man

[buctootim]

Succinct.

 

Regarding the distribution of land. Small groups of people inheriting vast tracts of land is ultimately counterproductive. First, most of that land is off the table for good. That results in artificial demand, pushing prices up on the stuff that is up for sale. The Land Registry can still only account for the ownership of 50% of the land in this country, as a lot of people who have owned land for a very long time obscure their true holdings.

 

I agree with you though. Seems mental that we're washing people out of London because of high housing costs when you've got the likes of the Duke of Westminster owning 100 acres in Mayfair ( valued at 3.35 billion 10 years ago ). I very much doubt he's a self-made man

 

I have regular dealings with three billionaires because they fund the charity I work for. One of them is is a Brit living in tax exile overseas who made his money exploiting a monopoly granted to him by a corrupt third world government. The other two are European nationals resident in the UK also as tax exiles - both of them inherited their cash. Two of them own estates - the largest of which is 60,000acres - around 100 square miles - which includes all the real estate and other buildings of three villages. If you are born in one of those vilages you never have any chance of owning your own house in the area you were born. It is practically feudalism. How can it be right for any UK citizen to hold that kind of power through inheritance? - let alone visitors from outside who are only here because they dont want to pay tax in their home country (or anywhere else for that matter).

[saintfully]

I have regular dealings with three billionaires because they fund the charity I work for. One of them is is a Brit living in tax exile overseas who made his money exploiting a monopoly granted to him by a corrupt third world government. The other two are European nationals resident in the UK also as tax exiles - both of them inherited their cash. Two of them own estates - the largest of which is 60,000acres - around 100 square miles - which includes all the real estate and other buildings of three villages. If you are born in one of those vilages you never have any chance of owning your own house in the area you were born. It is practically feudalism. How can it be right for any UK citizen to hold that kind of power through inheritance? - let alone visitors from outside who are only here because they dont want to pay tax in their home country (or anywhere else for that matter).

 

Names please

[buctootim]

Get real. It would be gross breach of confidence and I would deservedly get the sack if I did.

 

The thing is, you react as if you are so surprised that these situations exist that you doubt my post. The sad thing is its not even unusual. There are dozens of stories like that.

 

Edit. This is an example of the estates which commonly exist (which I have no connection to) http://www.roxburghe.net/sportingestate.html.

Edited 24 April, 2012 by buctootim

[saintfully]

Get real. It would be gross breach of confidence and I would deservedly get the sack if I did.

 

The thing is, you react as if you are so surprised that these situations exist that you doubt my post. The sad thing is its not even unusual. There are dozens of stories like that.

 

Edit. This is an example of the estates which commonly exist (which I have no connection to) http://www.roxburghe.net/sportingestate.html.

 

Ha, sorry, didn't want to imply that I didn't believe what you wrote - just wondered if you'd give the names thats all. If you don't ask you don't get etc. Whats the charity? (Can't blame me for trying).

 

As it happens I've every sympathy with what you're saying and simply don't understand people who reject rigorous efforts to combat inherited wealth. If you want a meritocracy its a no-brainer as far as I can see.

[buctootim]

Ha, sorry, didn't want to imply that I didn't believe what you wrote - just wondered if you'd give the names thats all. If you don't ask you don't get etc. Whats the charity? (Can't blame me for trying).

 

As it happens I've every sympathy with what you're saying and simply don't understand people who reject rigorous efforts to combat inherited wealth. If you want a meritocracy its a no-brainer as far as I can see.

 

Ah. I apologise too, I misinterpreted. Sorry cant name the charity because it would make the donors identifiable too, but its an environmental one. I have a friend who works for a major bank who was tasked with organising a 'wealth weekend' for 20 of the banks richest clients. He said what was fascinating was that even though all 20 were billionaires he had only heard of one of them. There is much more hidden wealth controlled by very private behind the scenes individuals than most would believe.

[saintfully]

Ah. I apologise too, I misinterpreted. Sorry cant name the charity because it would make the donors identifiable too, but its an environmental one. I have a friend who works for a major bank who was tasked with organising a 'wealth weekend' for 20 of the banks richest clients. He said what was fascinating was that even though all 20 were billionaires he had only heard of one of them. There is much more hidden wealth controlled by very private behind the scenes individuals than most would believe.

 

Indeed.

 

The level of (soft) corruption in the UK (and probably most other countries?) is shocking when it becomes apparent.

I guess until you see it, then it is hard to imagine just how much power and influence entrenched wealth possesses compared to how little the rest of us do. Fact is, there is an elite and it wants to make sure it stays that way.

[benjii]

That's why an inheritance tax is a good idea.

 

I don't know the rate though. How about 50% of any thing over £500,000?

 

Inheritance tax is terrible and should be abolished. Completely unfair.

[buctootim]

Inheritance tax is terrible and should be abolished. Completely unfair.

 

Lol. But owning half a county because some King took common land and gave it to a distant ancestor 400 years ago is fine.

[Thedelldays]

Lol. But owning half a county because some King took common land and gave it to a distant ancestor 400 years ago is fine.

 

Take said bit of grass and give it to the gov. Then what

 

How does that change your life?

[pap]

Take said bit of grass and give it to the gov. Then what

 

How does that change your life?

 

First, you have more supply of land. Second, the government could sell the land to businesses / home builders / private individuals, raising funds and meaning that we get to share less of the burden. More supply normally equates to cheaper cost, meaning that more people will be able to get onto and stay on the property ladder. Who knows? Maybe the cost of living will go down too, making the UK more competitive.

 

Next, you get tax money. There is no land tax at the moment, so from an Inland Revenue perspective, that land doesn't generate any revenue. Put a house on the land, and you'll get council tax. Put a business there, and you get jobs, corporation tax, PAYE and all the rest.

 

So, cheaper cost of living, more land/housing available, upfront cash for any redistributed land along with more revenue potential later on.

 

There are tons of benefits to land redistribution. Let's not pretend otherwise, eh?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

First, you have more supply of land. Second, the government could sell the land to businesses / home builders / private individuals, raising funds and meaning that we get to share less of the burden. More supply normally equates to cheaper cost, meaning that more people will be able to get onto and stay on the property ladder. Who knows? Maybe the cost of living will go down too, making the UK more competitive.

 

Next, you get tax money. There is no land tax at the moment, so from an Inland Revenue perspective, that land doesn't generate any revenue. Put a house on the land, and you'll get council tax. Put a business there, and you get jobs, corporation tax, PAYE and all the rest.

 

So, cheaper cost of living, more land/housing available, upfront cash for any redistributed land along with more revenue potential later on.

 

There are tons of benefits to land redistribution. Let's not pretend otherwise, eh?

 

Yes it worked so well for Mugabe. Take the land of people and sell it to other people - and then what? Take it off they new people when they get too big? You live in a sort of mythical world. The land you talk about is already a finely tuned business producing food. British farming is as competitive as anybody in the World.

[MongoNeil]

I'm pretty sure this is how communism began.

[buctootim]

Yes it worked so well for Mugabe. Take the land of people and sell it to other people - and then what? Take it off they new people when they get too big? You live in a sort of mythical world. The land you talk about is already a finely tuned business producing food. British farming is as competitive as anybody in the World.

 

I think you are missing the point. Estate owners dont usually farm directly, they have up to 250 tenanted farms and many hundreds of tied houses. Breaking up the estates would enable the tenant farmers who already work the land to buy their own farms - likely improving efficiency - and farm workers to own their own homes.

[buctootim]

I'm pretty sure this is how communism began.

 

Well you're right in that failure to address to completely iniquitous land ownership and inheritance laws bred a lot of anger and made communist revolutions possible. Communism would never have happened if democratic reform had taken place previously.

[Manuel]

I think that when you reach a time when you might need nursing care or a care home your estate should be used to pay for it before the state provides free care. Probably an unpopular view. I also get ****ed off whenever i see an outraged relative on TV whinging about it, all i see is the look in there eyes of that new car, house, holiday slipping through their fingers rather than any real concern for the relative.

There was a scheme mooted by the Conservatives whereby on the day of your retirement, you could choose to pay a one off fee, £8,000 I think it was, and then if you ever needed residential care in the future the state would take care of it indefinitely. A bit of a gamble, but it keeps the house safe. I would certainly think about it when my time comes.