If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Should we nationalise the Duke of Westminster?
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
I've been pondering the Duke of Westminster, for those of you who dont know he owns a very large amount of London and makes people pay ground rent. This makes him the 5th richest person in the UK with about £6.6Bn.
Why should he have this? Should the UK government take it back and use the ground rent for social housing?
Why should he have this? Should the UK government take it back and use the ground rent for social housing?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
The concept of one individual owning vast amounts of land in a city and charging ground rent is a fucking obscenity.
:thumb:
:thumb:
I'm not saying that you shouldnt' necessarily nationalise him but it would then set a precident to renationalise any bit of land going - and i for one want to hold onto my pocket sized piece of england....
You might want to read some history around that, specifically on the enclosures acts.
Where do you stop? Why should anyone have a billion? Or a million? Or half a million? Why should anyone make money out of property? If you start with the Duke Of Westminster where do you stop? With someone who rents out their house and lives with their parents?
Marxist chat about seizing land might be interesting, it's thankfully an impossibility - no serious mainstream political party advocates it.
can my goat graze in your garden please. the duke of westminster took all the other land
I have no problem with billionaires or people making money out of property. I just don't feel its right for the Duke of Westminster to own so much land in one of the most expensive cities in the world. It belongs to London and the UK, not the Duke of Westminster.
commie
Cos we live in a capitalist society, luckily. However such a large part of prime real estate in our nations capital belongs to the city and the UK.
It's like saying I can't give my house to my kids when I die, because God forbid they make a profit on it.
He can charge so much in rent because people are willing to pay it, and good on him. I wish my ancestors had done something constructive and bought up a few fields or something.
So it happens to be London where most of his land lies. If the capital had been Bognor Regis, some lucky bugger would be in the same situation there as the Duke is in now with London.
If businesses etc are prepared to pay for extortinate prices in London for the sake of 'prestige' and not relocate to other cities, then tough.
Remember, his wealth is taxed. It's not like all his rent goes into his pocket. If it belonged to the council as suggested, they'd probably fuck it all up and the areas would become run down.
I wasnt suggesting that we take money from anyone else, certainly the idea of removing money from (for example) someone like Alan Sugar is maddness.
I just think this case is somewhat different, he has all this land because presumably his ancestors took it by force. However I can totally see the argument against doing this.
I certainly haven't heard a case anywhere else in the world where a man can buy a house but doesn't own the fucking land it's built on- so at the end of the tenure I guess he's supposed to lift the house up and away (presumably by using alien technology), or pay another fortune to keep the house he legally owns and has paid for.
Let the Duke keep the land he lives in. But buy any excess land from him and ensure there is as much social and affordable housing as possible.
I can't believe the attitudes of some people here. I believe it even less because my guess is they are not particularly rich and probably struggling to buy their own home. But no matter. Let the turkeys vote for Xmas!
Could you elaborate on this ?
I`m not clear as to what you are referring to ?
Unless of course the masterplan is to keep 'undesirables' and 'commoners' away from such distinguised areas altogether.
Not as if some rich American who can afford a Mayfair townhouse can't afford it.
Not owning the freehold is normal in London and quite common in the UK. I didn't realise it wasn't like this abroad. Capitalism really, it makes good business sense not to sell the freehold. (In a few years the CofE will no doubt regret the decision to asset strip and flog a lot of its land).
And if you start with the Duke of Westminster where do you stop? Anyone who owns land they're not personally living on?
Tbh I'd call some of the brash investment bankers and rich Russians in these distinguished areas undesirable.
It is deeply, fundamentally wrong that one individual owns vasts amounts of land, specially in a crowded city, and even more so since housing is very expensive and out of reach for so many.
It's about time we start putting people before profits.
Not necessarily. You don't even need to do it to anybody else. Lines can be drawn and common sense be used.
Of course not. Can you not see this is a different example to normal landlords or other land owners? He has this land because his family had influence donkeys years ago.
Seeing as the relative benefit would be rather minimal anyway, it is certainly not a good idea.
You might want to read up on the enclosure acts. Basically, privilged people did say "we own all this" and took common land away.
And even so, are you suggesting people should be held accountable for the actions of their ancestors?
No one is suggesting we chuck him out on the street homeless, just that the land would be better held in trust and the money used for things other than making him very rich.