Inheritance - good or bad?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

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.

 

You are arguing your case in a pre war scenario - of course there are still some tenant farmers but most of them bought their farms after the war when death duties split up the big estates. You really do not understand how ownership of the countryside has evolved since the war.

 

Oh and efficiency comes from bigger farms not smaller farms.

[pap]

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.

 

So my argument is null and void because you mention a dictator? Sterling stuff as always, Sergei.

 

Why not look at Denmark instead? They were one of the first nations to truly tackle the issue of land reform, and is perhaps a better example to look at than Zimbabwe. We've had more time to observe the effects, the country is culturally similar to our own and oh, the country isn't run by a complete nutjob.

 

These things help.

[pap]

You are arguing your case in a pre war scenario - of course there are still some tenant farmers but most of them bought their farms after the war when death duties split up the big estates. You really do not understand how ownership of the countryside has evolved since the war.

 

Oh and efficiency comes from bigger farms not smaller farms.

 

Perhaps you'd like to tell us how ownership of the countryside has evolved, given your clear expertise.

 

Who owns Britain's countryside, Sergei?

[buctootim]

You are arguing your case in a pre war scenario - of course there are still some tenant farmers but most of them bought their farms after the war when death duties split up the big estates. You really do not understand how ownership of the countryside has evolved since the war.

 

Oh and efficiency comes from bigger farms not smaller farms.

 

I do, its my job. Its been my job for 20 years. More than half of rural land in the UK is owned by a small number of individuals. The Government, utlities, companies and charities own another 22%. Heres the communist Daily Mail for you. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328270/A-Britain-STILL-belongs-aristocracy.html

 

Efficiency comes from larger fields and production sheds, not larger farms per se (acceptiong that very small farms are inefficient). Beyond a certain size you actually lose efficiency because instead of having one guy with an overall control and hands on management you have to start delegating to managers and end up with a pyramid structure.

 

To put the sizes in context the Duke of Buccleuch owns an area 20 times the size of Southampton (or half of West Sussex). The Duke of Atholl's estate is bigger than the Isle of Wight.

Edited 25 April, 2012 by buctootim

[benjii]

It strikes me that the main substantive concern here seems to be not the principle of inheritance but, in fact, the question of whether one should be permitted to own land at a particularly large scale. Is that, in fact, the main point of the thread?

 

In other words, provided no one amasses too much land in the first place, there ought to be no issue with them passing that land on to whomsoever they choose (presumably with the proviso that the inheritee does not already own such amount of land that would take them over the prescribed limit)? Is that right? Or is really the principle itself of inheritance? Do away with that and you basically advocate arbitrary state appropriation of property (it takes enough ****ing money from people already FFS).

 

So, what is this arbitrary limit to be?

 

And all that needs to be done to get around it is to devolve legal ownership and use trustees etc...

 

The corollary of what Pap really seems to be comtenplating is some sort of fundamental overhaul of the entire principle of legal ownership. Basically, it is uber-Marxist fluff, entirely incompatible with humanity and doomed to distortion, abuse and failure in all but the most simple of low-scale communities but entirely symptomatic of the sort of sixth-form totemistic moralising that would occur on, for example, a football forum.

 

Pap, you should read some Rousseau (maybe you have). Great stuff, but pie-in-the-sky.

[pap]

It strikes me that the main substantive concern here seems to be not the principle of inheritance but, in fact, the question of whether one should be permitted to own land at a particularly large scale. Is that, in fact, the main point of the thread?

 

In other words, provided no one amasses too much land in the first place, there ought to be no issue with them passing that land on to whomsoever they choose (presumably with the proviso that the inheritee does not already own such amount of land that would take them over the prescribed limit)? Is that right? Or is really the principle itself of inheritance? Do away with that and you basically advocate arbitrary state appropriation of property (it takes enough ****ing money from people already FFS).

 

So, what is this arbitrary limit to be?

 

And all that needs to be done to get around it is to devolve legal ownership and use trustees etc...

 

The corollary of what Pap really seems to be comtenplating is some sort of fundamental overhaul of the entire principle of legal ownership. Basically, it is uber-Marxist fluff, entirely incompatible with humanity and doomed to distortion, abuse and failure in all but the most simple of low-scale communities but entirely symptomatic of the sort of sixth-form totemistic moralising that would occur on, for example, a football forum.

 

Pap, you should read some Rousseau (maybe you have). Great stuff, but pie-in-the-sky.

 

Land looms large because it's probably the most tangible example of the unfairness of inheritance, and you can pull nice examples like the Duke Of Westminster out to illustrate it.

 

But you're right - much of the debate has focused on ownership, and rightly so. Inheritance is after all, the transfer of ownership from one person to another.

 

I have to say, I have an open mind on how you'd go about solving the problem. Land tax would be a great start, and would perhaps encourage those that have huge estates to cut their cloth accordingly. Fundamentally though, I don't see why someone gets access to disproportionate wealth on the basis of family connections, particularly when the side-effects have wider damaging implications on society.

 

Call it Marxist fluff if you like ( and I kind of think you're insulting me ) but I haven't seen a single argument on here supporting the excesses of inheritance that have been enumerated. There's probably a good reason for that, namely that the principle is indefensible.

[Thedelldays]

Land looms large because it's probably the most tangible example of the unfairness of inheritance, and you can pull nice examples like the Duke Of Westminster out to illustrate it.

 

But you're right - much of the debate has focused on ownership, and rightly so. Inheritance is after all, the transfer of ownership from one person to another.

 

I have to say, I have an open mind on how you'd go about solving the problem. Land tax would be a great start, and would perhaps encourage those that have huge estates to cut their cloth accordingly. Fundamentally though, I don't see why someone gets access to disproportionate wealth on the basis of family connections, particularly when the side-effects have wider damaging implications on society.

 

Call it Marxist fluff if you like ( and I kind of think you're insulting me ) but I haven't seen a single argument on here supporting the excesses of inheritance that have been enumerated. There's probably a good reason for that, namely that the principle is indefensible.

because it is a football forum and no one really gives a fuk..?

[pap]

because it is a football forum and no one really gives a fuk..?

 

To be ignorant is unfortunate. To project your own ignorance as how everyone else must feel is simply careless.

[Thedelldays]

To be ignorant is unfortunate. To project your own ignorance as how everyone else must feel is simply careless.

can't really see why many..(apart from you, dune and saint andy) feel the need to log onto a football forum and spout political crap constantly

 

 

go on inheritancewebforum.com and have a chat there...they may give you the level of debate you want...

[pap]

can't really see why many..(apart from you, dune and saint andy) feel the need to log onto a football forum and spout political crap constantly

 

 

go on inheritancewebforum.com and have a chat there...they may give you the level of debate you want...

 

Again, the projection of ignorance! Just because you can't see a reason for something, it must not exist!

 

Let me turn this back on you. Why do you even bother reading anything in The Lounge?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

So my argument is null and void because you mention a dictator? Sterling stuff as always, Sergei.

 

Why not look at Denmark instead? They were one of the first nations to truly tackle the issue of land reform, and is perhaps a better example to look at than Zimbabwe. We've had more time to observe the effects, the country is culturally similar to our own and oh, the country isn't run by a complete nutjob.

 

These things help.

 

What do you want me to refer to the collective farms in communism or how inefficient the framing is in France because of the way land is handed down?

[buctootim]

More and more people are becoming aware of how to avoid income tax. What used to be a relatively small problem for HMRC is becoming much more widespread thanks to google and lawyers. It is possible and financially worthwhile for anybody earning over £70,000pa to set up some kind of tax shelter. The same applies to corporation tax - receipts of which (as a proportion of Government income) have dropped by more than half in 25 years.

 

Seems to me the best alternative is to largely scrap income tax and move the focus to assets - tax people and companies on the value of what they own rather than what they earn. I'd also reform inheritance tax - making the threshold dependent on the beneficiaries so that, for example, somebody leaving a £1m estate divided equally to their three children would pay less tax than someone leaving £1m to one person.

[buctootim]

can't really see why many..(apart from you, dune and saint andy) feel the need to log onto a football forum and spout political crap constantly

 

 

go on inheritancewebforum.com and have a chat there...they may give you the level of debate you want...

 

Wake up DD. You are one of the biggest contributors, if not the biggest, in the lounge.

[buctootim]

What do you want me to refer to the collective farms in communism or how inefficient the framing is in France because of the way land is handed down?

 

Desperate stuff. You get proved wrong over and over again so you just drag out another irrelevant red herring.

[Whitey Grandad]

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.

 

That would be extreme in the least. The problem with inheritance planning and saving for your old age is that you don't know when you are going to die. What would be the point of working that bit extra if the state could pull the rug out from under your feet at any time. What's comforting is the thought that if you do have to leave this life early your children will have the benefit of your hard work. Under your scheme nobody would ever bother to lift a finger if they thought that it could all be taken away at a moment's notice. What the state needs to do is reduce its spending to half what it is at the mmoment and cut overall taxes to around 20 to 25% and then the economy (that's you and me) can flourish without this millstone round our necks that's draging us under, to mix my metaphors.

[pap]

What do you want me to refer to the collective farms in communism or how inefficient the framing is in France because of the way land is handed down?

 

No, I'd like you to look at Denmark, and then tells me who owns Britain's countryside. You called buctootim out on it, so I'm presuming you must know.

[Thedelldays]

Wake up DD. You are one of the biggest contributors, if not the biggest, in the lounge.

yeah...but how many threads do we have to have beating the same dead horse

 

we get it, pap does not like the super rich..

 

he did however, concede that should he win BIG on the lottery...that would be different.

 

next week, or the week after, it will be a different thread with the same underlying theme

[Whitey Grandad]

More and more people are becoming aware of how to avoid income tax. What used to be a relatively small problem for HMRC is becoming much more widespread thanks to google and lawyers. It is possible and financially worthwhile for anybody earning over £70,000pa to set up some kind of tax shelter. The same applies to corporation tax - receipts of which (as a proportion of Government income) have dropped by more than half in 25 years.

 

Seems to me the best alternative is to largely scrap income tax and move the focus to assets - tax people and companies on the value of what they own rather than what they earn. I'd also reform inheritance tax - making the threshold dependent on the beneficiaries so that, for example, somebody leaving a £1m estate divided equally to their three children would pay less tax than someone leaving £1m to one person.

The state needs to find ways of reducing expenditure rather than dreaming up yet more ways of stealing our money from us. It's no different from the robber barons going to the peasants' cottages and taking anything they fancied.

[Whitey Grandad]

No, I'd like you to look at Denmark, and then tells me who owns Britain's countryside. You called buctootim out on it, so I'm presuming you must know.

Denmark is completely different to England. The population density is mucvh lower than here for a start.

[buctootim]

The state needs to find ways of reducing expenditure rather than dreaming up yet more ways of stealing our money from us. It's no different from the robber barons going to the peasants' cottages and taking anything they fancied.

 

Wow. Pantomime stuff. So far we've had robber barons, communists and the man with 25,000 posts complaining about people discussing stuff.

 

For the record Im not advocating an increase in the overall tax burden. Indeed if a way is found to tax those super rich who currently avoid it, the tax burden for the majority (and asset purchase prices) would fall.

[buctootim]

Denmark is completely different to England. The population density is mucvh lower than here for a start.

 

Thats irrelevant because the UK population is largely urban. The rural population density is very similar.

[pap]

Denmark is completely different to England. The population density is mucvh lower than here for a start.

 

So are you happy with the idea that certain individuals own huge parts of the country on the basis of their DNA?

[pap]

yeah...but how many threads do we have to have beating the same dead horse

 

we get it, pap does not like the super rich..

 

he did however, concede that should he win BIG on the lottery...that would be different.

 

next week, or the week after, it will be a different thread with the same underlying theme

 

Like all those threads you start about Islamic extremists?

 

Feck me. Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

At least I'm p*ssed off at a different thing each time.

[Thedelldays]

Like all those threads you start about Islamic extremists?

 

Feck me. Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

At least I'm p*ssed off at a different thing each time.

get a grip ffs.

[Whitey Grandad]

Wow. Pantomime stuff. So far we've had robber barons, communists and the man with 25,000 posts complaining about people discussing stuff.

 

For the record Im not advocating an increase in the overall tax burden. Indeed if a way is found to tax those super rich who currently avoid it, the tax burden for the majority (and asset purchase prices) would fall.

 

Not exactly pantomime. I have relatives who lived in the country and suffered such behaviour in the early part of the last century.

 

And for the record, take away everything from what you call the rich and it would make very little difference to the tax burden. What's worse, some people having a lot of wealth, or lots of people living off the state all their lives?

Edited 25 April, 2012 by Whitey Grandad

[Whitey Grandad]

Thats irrelevant because the UK population is largely urban. The rural population density is very similar.

 

The amount of land per person is much higher there.

[Whitey Grandad]

So are you happy with the idea that certain individuals own huge parts of the country on the basis of their DNA?

 

Sure, why not? You're just jealous. Are you happy that Tony Blair, to take just one example, has got filthy rich whilst screwing over the rest of us?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Perhaps you'd like to tell us how ownership of the countryside has evolved, given your clear expertise.

 

Who owns Britain's countryside, Sergei?

 

Inevitably you will have a throwback to the past with a few big Aristocratic families still having big estates but most of the large estates have been split up and sold off after the war. Many of the tenant farmers bought their farms and made good. Today the mega rich like to buy land and that is why the price of land does not reflect the profitability of the land - they will then contract out the land because tenant farmers have powerful rights.

 

Where your analysis is once again shallow is that the really big estates are found in Scotland where people own vast tracts of low production highland estates made up of mountains and if you take out Scotland from the equation then your percentages change significantly. In Scotland it generally costs money to have an estate and these rich landowners actually put much needed money into areas that need the money.

[buctootim]

The amount of land per person is much higher there.

 

So presumably the fact that we have such a large proportion of our very limited land concentrated in such few hands makes the case for reform even more pressing? Or is there some other reason why its actually a very good thing that land which previously belonged to all citizens was parcelled up and given to 0.01% of the population between 1750 and 1840?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I do, its my job. Its been my job for 20 years. More than half of rural land in the UK is owned by a small number of individuals. The Government, utlities, companies and charities own another 22%. Heres the communist Daily Mail for you. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328270/A-Britain-STILL-belongs-aristocracy.html

 

Efficiency comes from larger fields and production sheds, not larger farms per se (acceptiong that very small farms are inefficient). Beyond a certain size you actually lose efficiency because instead of having one guy with an overall control and hands on management you have to start delegating to managers and end up with a pyramid structure.

 

To put the sizes in context the Duke of Buccleuch owns an area 20 times the size of Southampton (or half of West Sussex). The Duke of Atholl's estate is bigger than the Isle of Wight.

 

 

So what does happen to your numbers if you take Scotland out of your sums? Read my rep[ly to Pap?

 

Actually efficiency comes from bigger sheds but most importantly from having the resources to buy bigger machinery. Takling headgerows out is not easily allowed today so bigger fields is a redundant argument.

Edited 25 April, 2012 by Sergei Gotsmanov

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Desperate stuff. You get proved wrong over and over again so you just drag out another irrelevant red herring.

 

Yes really. You still think Heineken tastes awful because it is brewed over here?

[buctootim]

Do you have ADHD Sergei? you never successfully answer questions or make relevant points.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Do you have ADHD Sergei? you never successfully answer questions or make relevant points.

 

So how is pointing out that if you discount Scotland your figures look very different not answering your question?

[buctootim]

So how is pointing out that if you discount Scotland your figures look very different not answering your question?

 

I dont dispute that there are a relatively smaller number but extremely large estates in Scotland and that the average size of estates in England is smaller, in part because the land is more productive and expensive. So what? What has that got to do either with land reform or inheritance?

 

You keep chucking these tangential things out there thinking it is some kind of triumph. It isnt.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I dont dispute that there are a relatively smaller number but extremely large estates in Scotland and that the average size of estates in England is smaller, in part because the land is more productive and expensive. So what? What has that got to do either with land reform or inheritance?

 

You keep chucking these tangential things out there thinking it is some kind of triumph. It isnt.

 

Well you seem to be arguing that a few people own all the land - I pointed out that if you discount Scotland where finacially it is often not worth having the land then your percentages change significantly. Your numbers are distorted as is your argument.

 

I mention Heineken because the last time you were wrong you were pretty patronising and then failed to admit you were wrong.

[Whitey Grandad]

What type of land are we talking about? Arable land, pasture, central city?

[buctootim]

But you havent quoted any statistics to show the percentages change significantly. You are doing exactly what you did in the Heineken thread - which is to ignore the evidence and links posted by me and others and simply claim something as being true, but backed up by nothing.

 

I have quoted verifiable stats for the UK. You claim the situation is different for England. Fine, cite some evidence.

[Jonnyboy]

To be ignorant is unfortunate. To project your own ignorance as how everyone else must feel is simply careless.

 

Lol, a good summary of ze delldayz.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

But you havent quoted any statistics to show the percentages change significantly. You are doing exactly what you did in the Heineken thread - which is to ignore the evidence and links posted by me and others and simply claim something as being true, but backed up by nothing.

 

I have quoted verifiable stats for the UK. You claim the situation is different for England. Fine, cite some evidence.

 

I have not the time to dig around for statistics; as you have proved they can be very deceptive. I have merely pointed out that the really big estates you keep going on about are in the main mountainous highland estates that distort your figures about the percentage of the UK that is owned by a few people. If you looked at the English figures they would be very different. Yes you have a few Aristocratic landowners but your argument about land reform would perhaps be relevant pre first world war but actually today it is pretty irrelevent because land ownership has evolved dramatically since the 40's.

 

With regard to Heineken, I politely pointed out to you that it was in fact imported. You then went to the Heineken UK website and in a very condescendingly manner threw a load of numbers at me that referred to the company and not the brand. I merely explained that it was in fact imported, which it is. (Ring them up or read the label if you still do not believe me.

[buctootim]

If you looked at the English figures they would be very different. Yes you have a few Aristocratic landowners but your argument about land reform would perhaps be relevant pre first world war but actually today it is pretty irrelevent because land ownership has evolved dramatically since the 40's.

 

You are wrong. "The 36,000 members of the CLA own about 50% of the rural land in England and Wales"

http://www.countrylife.co.uk/property_news/article/506200/Who-really-owns-Britain-.html

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Sorry I was working around the 6000 people owning two thirds of the land that was being used on this thread.

 

36000 owning 50% equates to 686 acres each on average (hardly an estate) - about what you would need to make a decent living out of farming - 5 years ago you would have just made a living out of that. Is this too large a farm or will you still be having a handout to make them smaller (and of course more efficient!!!!)

Edited 25 April, 2012 by Sergei Gotsmanov

[buctootim]

Sorry I was working around the 6000 people owning two thirds of the land that was being used on this thread.

 

36000 owning 50% equates to 686 acres each on average (hardly an estate) - about what you would need to make a decent living out of farming - 5 years ago you would have just made a living out of that. Is this too large a farm or will you still be having a handout to make them smaller (and of course more efficient!!!!)

 

Yes, if you disregard Scotland, ignore the 25% of land which isnt registered because it has been in the same ownership for more than 20 years, ignore the fact that the average size of a farm in England is 123 acres and include country businesses such as small equestrian units, sawmills and paintballers you can indeed get the average holding of CLA members down to 686 acres.

 

Alternatively it might look less head in the sand to simplt total up what the 2,000 largest landholders own.

Edited 25 April, 2012 by buctootim

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Sorry just analysing the data you sent me.

 

The CLA is generally a lobby group for toffs so all the people you are trying to bash are incorporated in those numbers - the other 50% of non members would on the whole have smaller farms. Your feudal model is almost completely balls.

Edited 25 April, 2012 by Sergei Gotsmanov

[buctootim]

Sorry just analysing the data you sent me.

 

The CLA is generally a lobby group for toffs so all the people you are trying to bash are incorporated in those numbers - the other 50% of non members would on the whole have smaller farms. Your feudal model is almost completely balls.

 

The belief disconfirmation paradigm

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

The belief disconfirmation paradigm

 

Very clever phrase Buctotim but you fail to contest what I have said. Why would paintballers, sawmills and Equestrian centres be in the CLA? they are businesses who normally rent out their buildings not lanmdowners wanting to be represneted on issues like footpaths.

[buctootim]

Very clever phrase Buctotim but you fail to contest what I have said. Why would paintballers, sawmills and Equestrian centres be in the CLA? they are businesses who normally rent out their buildings not lanmdowners wanting to be represneted on issues like footpaths.

 

Serious question. Do you actually read any of the links, or avoid doing so in case you learn something which contradicts the beliefs you want to hold?

 

Why would paintballers, sawmills and Equestrian centres be in the CLA? This is why http://www.cla.org.uk/Members_Area/Why_join_the_CLA/

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Serious question. Do you actually read any of the links, or avoid doing so in case you learn something which contradicts the beliefs you want to hold?

 

Why would paintballers, sawmills and Equestrian centres be in the CLA? This is why http://www.cla.org.uk/Members_Area/Why_join_the_CLA/

 

It is a recruitment advertisement because they are trying to increase their subs. CLA members in the main wear mustard cords and tweed jackets.

[buctootim]

It is a recruitment advertisement because they are trying to increase their subs. CLA members in the main wear mustard cords and tweed jackets.

 

Thanks. I now know not to take any of your posts seriously again.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Thanks. I know not to take any of your posts seriously again.

 

Yes I thought that about yours when you insisted that Heineken wasn't imported and that it was common practice to release pheasants out of the back of a lorry on the day of a shoot!

 

Anyway good luck with your land reforms and reducing the size of farms to make them more efficient!!

Edited 25 April, 2012 by Sergei Gotsmanov

[Window Cleaner]

Amazing thread, 99 posts now without having established as yet that free money and stuff cannot be anything other than a good number.

 

let's put it this way.If you were in line for an inheritance of say 500K£ in cash and assimilables, how many of you would refuse it or take it and give it all to charity.

 

That should sort the men from the boys.