7 ms·

This is wayy too close to the truth. Historically, the wealthy and elite have dis-proportionally been landowners. And unlike money or precious metals, land actu

by pm90 9y ago

This is wayy too close to the truth. Historically, the wealthy and elite have dis-proportionally been landowners. And unlike money or precious metals, land actually holds value pretty well and, most importantly, can easily be handed down generations.

mattgibson 9y ago
> the wealthy and elite have dis-proportionally been landowners I'd put that the other way around, saying the land owners have disproportionately ended up as the wealthy and powerful. The ownership of land and the huge unearned income derived from renting it to the masses looks more like cause than effect to me.
- chrisseaton 9y ago
  If you think people are wealthy and elite because they have got land, how do you explain how they got the land? I think either they bought it from the Crown, because they were wealthy, or they were granted it from the Crown, because they were part of the elite and did something for the Crown. Since you think it was the other way around, how do you explain how they got the land?
  - gknoy 9y ago
    Swords.
    - chrisseaton 9y ago
      I think you're still making this argument in circles. Where do you get the men and weapons to take land by force if you aren't wealthy or part of the elite?
      - falsedan 9y ago
        I'll take transitional government techniques for 1000 karma thanks Paul. What is an armed revolt?
        chrisseaton 9y ago
        Which major English land owner do you think got their land this way? If you look at how major English land owners got started it all goes back to elites being granted land by the Crown for service.
        falsedan 9y ago
        > Which major English land owner do you think got their land this way? Is this a trick? The Crown got all their land by conquest: the Roundheads, Normans, the Danes, the Romans, &c.
        chrisseaton 9y ago
        You said revolt and now you're saying conquest which aren't the same thing. Of course the Crown got it by conquest. But nobody got land by armed revolt did they? Can you name any major land owning families in England that didn't start off by patronage? I can't think of any.
        falsedan 9y ago
        The Crown. You think the exchange of property has been politely arranged through the Land Registry since the first Brython clonked his annoying boss man on the head?
        chrisseaton 9y ago
        Mate you can't describe the Norman invasion as an 'armed revolt'. That's just not what what the word 'revolt' means. I'm talking about people except the Crown. 1066 and all that reset everything. Otherwise who's patronage would I be referring to?
  - mattgibson 9y ago
    In the England at least, the system was roughly that the crown owned all the land through conquest (1066), then gave chunks of it to trusted nobles as a quid pro quo for fighting in the war that they just won. The nobles used the rent from these lands to maintain private armies which kept the peasants in check and the rent flowing, provided they raised an army on demand for the king as and when required. There was no necessity to be wealthy first (although as you point out, this was often the case). Trouble is, if they were wealthy to start with, how did this happen? It just pushes the same question a bit further back. I suspect that in most cases, there are smaller conquests of local areas by a local family who gradually expand their reach, then lend military support to the king in exchange for being left alone. Also, without the constant income the rents provide, you would not stay wealthy for long even if you had cash to start with, which is why land is so important. Getting money via trade and industry means you have to both be good at what you do and accept a profit margin which may vary depending on market conditions. Renting out land requires no skill and is impervious to competition. Constant cash flow forever with no effort. In order to accumulate serious wealth in the age before industrialisation, there was no better way.
    - Bakary 9y ago
      This interesting passage from Wikipedia: In Marxist economics and preceding theories, the problem of primitive accumulation (also called previous accumulation, original accumulation) of capital concerns the origin of capital, and therefore of how class distinctions between possessors and non-possessors came to be. Adam Smith's account of primitive-original accumulation depicted a peaceful process, in which some workers laboured more diligently than others and gradually built up wealth, eventually leaving the less diligent workers to accept living wages for their labour . Karl Marx rejected this explanation as "childishness," instead stating that, in the words of David Harvey, primitive accumulation "entailed taking land, say, enclosing it, and expelling a resident population to create a landless proletariat, and then releasing the land into the privatised mainstream of capital accumulation". This would be accomplished through violence, war, enslavement, and colonialism. I don't endorse this theory but I thought it was relevant.
      - plafl 9y ago
  - ue_ 9y ago
    >If you think people are wealthy and elite because they have got land, how do you explain how they got the land? By being given it by a state (which you have already said, in turn used force) or by forcefully taking it. It's primitive accumulation in the second instance and favouritism in the first. However both methods involve the creation of the concept of this type of property and further to take it, which requires as Proudhon put it, barbarism.
nugget 9y ago
> and, most importantly, can easily be handed down generations Only if your ancestors win the battles and can stick around to defend it. Land was won and kept with blood, sweat, and tears (in that order).
- DKnoll 9y ago
  I doubt tears did much to win and hold land... I think it would be more of a byproduct.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  Yeah, one generation likely won a war for it, a few more probably had to pick the right sides during the various civil wars, but beyond that keeping land in your family doesn't take blood sweat and tears. It takes a little political bickering and lot of family infighting.
- branchless 9y ago
  Nonsense. The state protects land for the wealthy using taxes from labourers. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COQgS0MUcAA7-RK.png https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COQgS0MUcAA7-RK.png
  - stass 9y ago
    This is just a Marxist propaganda. How did wealthy become wealthy?
    - andybak 9y ago
      The trivially true answer is "by a variety of means" but obviously it's trends and patterns that are of real interest. And this brings us close to studies of "social mobility" (glossing over the difference between class and wealth - which - taking a long perspective - can be assumed to be roughly synonymous). And with social mobility between generations usually fairly low in general - the next most trivially true answer is "because their ancestors were". Attempts to trace this back to some origin myth is slightly silly but on the whole your answer to the "where did it all begin" question indicates your political colour. If you tend to answer "Because they stole it by force" then you're probably on the left. And if you tend to answer "Because they created a strong leadership that protected a group from other groups" that places you on the right. Of course - pure examples of bandits vs noble warrior kings are rare but I suspect there's more of the former in history than the latter. ;-)
simonh 9y ago
Property is included in inheritance tax, which is 40% of the total estate value over £325k (or £425k if you're smart about it). So big land owners do get hammered trying to pass it on down generations. You can try and mitigate that by gifting to your children, but the tax free limit for that is only £3k per year and is still taxed if it's given less than 7 years before you die. Not really enough to do extensive property owners much good.
- unculture 9y ago
  If this were the case, then we wouldn't still have aristocrats. Inheritance tax doesn't apply at this scale. They just put it in trust, even though no one seriously pretends that they don't control the money. E.g., the Grosvenors, who own 3% of London. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/aug/11/inheritance-tax-why-the-new-duke-of-westminster-will-not-pay-billions https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/aug/11/inheritance-ta...
  - Steve44 9y ago
    By using trusts does help highlight another aspect. The 'owners' are more like custodians of the estate, a historical institution to be kept running. Yes they do control it and clearly benefit from it but if you have a look at their spending and lifestyles compared to the new rich they are very different.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  Tell that to the Duke of Westminster: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/aug/11/inheritance-tax-why-the-new-duke-of-westminster-will-not-pay-billions https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/aug/11/inheritance-ta...
- noja 9y ago
  No rich people pay inheritance tax on property, you are leaving in a fairytale if you believe that. They have estate planners, and estate planners use trusts.
- ascorbic 9y ago
  All properly rich people avoid this by using trusts. Inheritance tax is just for the normal well off.

by pm90 9y ago

mattgibson 9y ago

> the wealthy and elite have dis-proportionally been landowners I'd put that the other way around, saying the land owners have disproportionately ended up as the wealthy and powerful. The ownership of land and the huge unearned income derived from renting it to the masses looks more like cause than effect to me.

chrisseaton 9y ago
If you think people are wealthy and elite because they have got land, how do you explain how they got the land? I think either they bought it from the Crown, because they were wealthy, or they were granted it from the Crown, because they were part of the elite and did something for the Crown. Since you think it was the other way around, how do you explain how they got the land?
- gknoy 9y ago
  Swords.
  - chrisseaton 9y ago
    I think you're still making this argument in circles. Where do you get the men and weapons to take land by force if you aren't wealthy or part of the elite?
    - falsedan 9y ago
      I'll take transitional government techniques for 1000 karma thanks Paul. What is an armed revolt?
      - chrisseaton 9y ago
        Which major English land owner do you think got their land this way? If you look at how major English land owners got started it all goes back to elites being granted land by the Crown for service.
        falsedan 9y ago
        > Which major English land owner do you think got their land this way? Is this a trick? The Crown got all their land by conquest: the Roundheads, Normans, the Danes, the Romans, &c.
        chrisseaton 9y ago
        You said revolt and now you're saying conquest which aren't the same thing. Of course the Crown got it by conquest. But nobody got land by armed revolt did they? Can you name any major land owning families in England that didn't start off by patronage? I can't think of any.
        falsedan 9y ago
        The Crown. You think the exchange of property has been politely arranged through the Land Registry since the first Brython clonked his annoying boss man on the head?
        chrisseaton 9y ago
        Mate you can't describe the Norman invasion as an 'armed revolt'. That's just not what what the word 'revolt' means. I'm talking about people except the Crown. 1066 and all that reset everything. Otherwise who's patronage would I be referring to?
- mattgibson 9y ago
  In the England at least, the system was roughly that the crown owned all the land through conquest (1066), then gave chunks of it to trusted nobles as a quid pro quo for fighting in the war that they just won. The nobles used the rent from these lands to maintain private armies which kept the peasants in check and the rent flowing, provided they raised an army on demand for the king as and when required. There was no necessity to be wealthy first (although as you point out, this was often the case). Trouble is, if they were wealthy to start with, how did this happen? It just pushes the same question a bit further back. I suspect that in most cases, there are smaller conquests of local areas by a local family who gradually expand their reach, then lend military support to the king in exchange for being left alone. Also, without the constant income the rents provide, you would not stay wealthy for long even if you had cash to start with, which is why land is so important. Getting money via trade and industry means you have to both be good at what you do and accept a profit margin which may vary depending on market conditions. Renting out land requires no skill and is impervious to competition. Constant cash flow forever with no effort. In order to accumulate serious wealth in the age before industrialisation, there was no better way.
  - Bakary 9y ago
    This interesting passage from Wikipedia: In Marxist economics and preceding theories, the problem of primitive accumulation (also called previous accumulation, original accumulation) of capital concerns the origin of capital, and therefore of how class distinctions between possessors and non-possessors came to be. Adam Smith's account of primitive-original accumulation depicted a peaceful process, in which some workers laboured more diligently than others and gradually built up wealth, eventually leaving the less diligent workers to accept living wages for their labour . Karl Marx rejected this explanation as "childishness," instead stating that, in the words of David Harvey, primitive accumulation "entailed taking land, say, enclosing it, and expelling a resident population to create a landless proletariat, and then releasing the land into the privatised mainstream of capital accumulation". This would be accomplished through violence, war, enslavement, and colonialism. I don't endorse this theory but I thought it was relevant.
    - plafl 9y ago
- ue_ 9y ago
  >If you think people are wealthy and elite because they have got land, how do you explain how they got the land? By being given it by a state (which you have already said, in turn used force) or by forcefully taking it. It's primitive accumulation in the second instance and favouritism in the first. However both methods involve the creation of the concept of this type of property and further to take it, which requires as Proudhon put it, barbarism.

nugget 9y ago

> and, most importantly, can easily be handed down generations Only if your ancestors win the battles and can stick around to defend it. Land was won and kept with blood, sweat, and tears (in that order).

DKnoll 9y ago
I doubt tears did much to win and hold land... I think it would be more of a byproduct.
boomboomsubban 9y ago
Yeah, one generation likely won a war for it, a few more probably had to pick the right sides during the various civil wars, but beyond that keeping land in your family doesn't take blood sweat and tears. It takes a little political bickering and lot of family infighting.
branchless 9y ago
Nonsense. The state protects land for the wealthy using taxes from labourers. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COQgS0MUcAA7-RK.png https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COQgS0MUcAA7-RK.png
- stass 9y ago
  This is just a Marxist propaganda. How did wealthy become wealthy?
  - andybak 9y ago
    The trivially true answer is "by a variety of means" but obviously it's trends and patterns that are of real interest. And this brings us close to studies of "social mobility" (glossing over the difference between class and wealth - which - taking a long perspective - can be assumed to be roughly synonymous). And with social mobility between generations usually fairly low in general - the next most trivially true answer is "because their ancestors were". Attempts to trace this back to some origin myth is slightly silly but on the whole your answer to the "where did it all begin" question indicates your political colour. If you tend to answer "Because they stole it by force" then you're probably on the left. And if you tend to answer "Because they created a strong leadership that protected a group from other groups" that places you on the right. Of course - pure examples of bandits vs noble warrior kings are rare but I suspect there's more of the former in history than the latter. ;-)

simonh 9y ago

Property is included in inheritance tax, which is 40% of the total estate value over £325k (or £425k if you're smart about it). So big land owners do get hammered trying to pass it on down generations. You can try and mitigate that by gifting to your children, but the tax free limit for that is only £3k per year and is still taxed if it's given less than 7 years before you die. Not really enough to do extensive property owners much good.

unculture 9y ago
If this were the case, then we wouldn't still have aristocrats. Inheritance tax doesn't apply at this scale. They just put it in trust, even though no one seriously pretends that they don't control the money. E.g., the Grosvenors, who own 3% of London. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/aug/11/inheritance-tax-why-the-new-duke-of-westminster-will-not-pay-billions https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/aug/11/inheritance-ta...
- Steve44 9y ago
  By using trusts does help highlight another aspect. The 'owners' are more like custodians of the estate, a historical institution to be kept running. Yes they do control it and clearly benefit from it but if you have a look at their spending and lifestyles compared to the new rich they are very different.
crdoconnor 9y ago
Tell that to the Duke of Westminster: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/aug/11/inheritance-tax-why-the-new-duke-of-westminster-will-not-pay-billions https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/aug/11/inheritance-ta...
noja 9y ago
No rich people pay inheritance tax on property, you are leaving in a fairytale if you believe that. They have estate planners, and estate planners use trusts.
ascorbic 9y ago
All properly rich people avoid this by using trusts. Inheritance tax is just for the normal well off.