Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

A Land Tax is 200 years overdue - more

On 11 January, the Guardian published a letter by Kevin Cahill in response to the article on Monday. Kevin Cahill is author of "Who Owns Britain and Ireland"

"There is only one legal owner of land in the UK, the Queen (A land tax is 200 years overdue, January 8). All others have one of two forms of medieval tenure, either freehold or leasehold. When Adam Smith argued for a land tax, 97% of the land was held by about 3,000 families and the rest held not so much as a blade of grass. Now 70% of the population have a stake in a private home and, indirectly, in land. Of the UK's 60m domestic acres, the 41m acres of agricultural land, constituting 69% of the surface of the UK, are held in freehold by 158,000 people or families, about 0.26% of the population. The land occupied by home owners is about 2.5m acres, just 4.1% of the domestic land mass. Residential property is not an unproductive asset, it is the sole shelter and main asset of 70% of the population. What is proposed is an increase tax on homeowners, who constitute 70% of the population, while ignoring the 0.2% who hold 69% of the country."

This is very interesting. If there is only one legal owner of land in the UK, the Queen, and all others have one of two forms of medieval tenure", Is not the abolition of these medieval tenures overdue?

Her Majesty could then collect the rent of her land (at its current value) and use it for its rightful purpose - to pay for the expenses of government. It is a proper function of a Monarch to ensure that this is done.

There would then be enough money to run the country without having to be constantly on our backs with ever-increasing demands for more and more taxes.

Kommentarer

Skicka en kommentar

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

Importing people to sustain demand

I got involved in a discussion with a Youtuber called “Philosophy all along”. This was in connection with criticism of Trump’s policy of deporting illegal migrants, which he argued would be bad for the economy as it would reduce demand. This implies that there is a need to import people to sustain demand. There is no obvious reason why a population should not be able to consume everything that the same population produces. If it can not, then something else is going on. It is a basic principle that wages are the least that workers will accept to do a job. Wages are a share of the value added by workers through their wages. The remainder is distributed as economic rent, after government has taken its cut in taxes. Monopoly profit is a temporary surplus that after a delay gets absorbed into economic rent. Land values in Silicon Valley are an example of this; it's like a gold rush. The miners get little out of it. Rent and tax syphon purchasing power away from those who produce the g...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer

The Zombie Train that refuses to die

The Guardian has published a couple more articles against HS2, one by specialist rail commentator Christian Wolmar, and another today by journalist Simon Jenkins. The main arguments in favour will doubtless be wheeled out by the commentators: the need for capacity and the disruption caused by upgrading existing routes. HST itself will severely disrupt services to Euston during the construction period. Capacity can be increased at a fraction of the cost by a variety of measures, provided that it is accepted that the additional traffic will run at existing speeds. It is not generally known that the Midland main line is, or was, four track all the way from London to Trent Junction, between Nottingham and Derby. This is because the additional tracks are separate, having been added for coal trains which trundled down to Brent sidings, on the edge of London, from a collection point at Toton in Nottinghamshire, where the Midland Railway build a huge marshalling yard. Beyond Derby, the main l...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer

How much more will the British tolerate?

The British are phlegmatic, tolerant and slow to rouse. Thus there was no great reaction after the terrorist attack in July 2005. The murder of Lee Rigby created a sense of outrage, but nothing more, since it appeared to be an isolated incident. Two serious incidents within a fortnight are another matter. Since the first major terrorist incident in 2001, authority has tried to persuade the public that Islam is a religion of peace, that these were isolated events, or the actions of deranged "lone wolves", having nothing to do with Islam, or to reassure that the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were infinitesimally small. These assurances are are beginning to wear thin. They no longer convince. If government does not act effectively, people will take the law into their own hands. What, however, would effective action look like? What sort of effective action would not amount to rough justice for a lot of innocent people? Given the difficulties of keeping large n...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer