[diggers350] Use of CAP to break up large holdings

[Globalnet mail uk]

Dear Peter,

It is easier to destroy the whole CAP concept, than to get that change you
suggest. Your upper limit idea has even been suggested within the beaurocracy.
Watch the Land issue of the New Statesman, think it either next week or week
after. There will be a  small table with an article by Jason Cowley. it
shows what the top 5 landowners get by way of subsidy, led by the Queen who
gets just under £10m, Prince Charles about £14m etc. I compiled the table.
Why not get me names and acreages of all the landowners you know, and I'll
tell you the subsidy.

Yours
Kevin Cahill (Who Owns Britain)



----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Hack <petercrispin at yahoo.co.uk>
To: <diggers350 at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 7:12 PM
Subject: [diggers350] Use of CAP to break up large holdings


   The main point to understand here is that there is no
upper limit on CAP subsidies--- a focused campaign at
this point whereby large landowners ceased to receive
subsidy after 1000acres (say) would act as a financial
leaver to break up larger holdings.

                              Peter Hack





Ecovillage Network UK <evnuk at gaia.org> wrote:
  > Dear Dave,
  >
  > Its not as difficult to redistribute land as you
  > make out.
  >
  > How about a points system much like the housing
  > registers work on now - but
  > with families having priority?
  >
  > There are plenty of ridiculously big landowners who
  > could have their land
  > taxed directly. I mean they have to give up a
  > proportion of their
  > landholding over 1000 acres every year. All this
  > land would be rural to
  > begin with
  >
  > Not everyone, by any means, wants to run a market
  > garden. So demand for
  > land won't be too high. And with strict controls on
  > the types of homes
  > people can build we can make sure there are no
  > legoland style eyesores.
  >
  > The main thing stopping redistribution is the vested
  > interests of those
  > who've put their lives in hock for a roof over their
  > heads. Ie those who
  > stand to loose if housing land prices stop rising
  > or, God forbid, fall to a
  > more realistic level.
  >
  >
  > Tony
  >
  >
  >
  > At 12:02 PM 8/30/04 +0000, you wrote:
  > >Tony
  > >I love your principles but in practice how will you
  > decide who farms 100
  > >acres and who only gets ten?
  > >Personally, I'd take ten acres in Central London
  > and dispense with work
  > >while others created wealth and food for me.
  > >
  > >Dave
  > >
  > >Dave Wetzel
  > >Vice-chair, Transport for London
  > >Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street.
  > >London. SW1H 0TL. UK.
  > >Tel 020 7941 4200
  > >Intl Tel: +44 207 941 4200
  > >
  > >Close to New Scotland Yard.
  > >Buses 11, 24, 148 & 211 pass the door. (507 passes
  > close by).
  > >Nearest Underground - St James's Park tube station.
  > >A walk or short bus ride from from Victoria and
  > Waterloo mainline
  > >stations. Public cycle parking available outside
  > Windsor House.
  > >
  > >
  > >-----Original Message-----
  > >From: Tony Gosling [mailto:tony at resourceforge.net]
  > >Sent: 29 August 2004 18:41
  > >To: diggers350 at yahoogroups.com
  > >Subject: [diggers350] Hurrah! No more LVT on the
  > Diggers list
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >Dear Diggers,
  > >
  > >The idea that subsistence farmers should be taxed
  > for the land they hold
  > >is anathama to many on this list. As is the idea
  > that a landowner should
  > >have to force land into production which he'd
  > rather leave fallow.
  > >
  > >That we should be taxed for the earth we need to
  > play on, build our homes
  > >on, get fuel and raw materials from and grow our
  > food on is abhorrent to
  > >many. And can be seen the thin end of the wedge of
  > the most vile economic
  > >slavery.
  > >
  > >So it'll come as a great relief to many of us
  > Diggers that those who
  > >believe land tax is in any way related to the sort
  > of land reform
  > >envisioned by Gerrard Winstanley, William Everard
  > and the other Diggers
  > >back in 1649 have found somewhere else to discuss
  > their 'economic miracle'
  > >
  > >Winstanley called for nothing of the sort. He
  > believed that land was the
  > >source of our economic wealth and dignity and that
  > by ensuring every
  > >family, every individual in the country had access
  > to land we, in this
  > >nation and beyond, could begin an unstoppable wave
  > of true security (not
  > >the sort that locks and guns bring) which would
  > sweep the land and the
  > >world.
  > >
  > >He also believed that the buying and selling of
  > anything should bring the
  > >death penalty. Which may sound extreme... but he
  > called buying and selling
  > >the 'horrible cheating' which, of course, it is,
  > with the monopolists of
  > >oil, housebuilding and supermarkets eroding small
  > busineses and exploiting
  > >us for our basic human needs.
  > >
  > >Gerrard Winstanley's vision was a simple one. A
  > world without money and
  > >with us all sharing the land which was and is a
  > free gift to mankind which
  > >ever way you look at it.
  > >
  > >Taxing land in Britain today would be an
  > unmitigated disaster. We already
  > >have a farming crisis and as marginal land became a
  > financial burden
  > >farmers would be forced to sell to the wealthy,
  > bringing about even more
  > >yuppification of the countryside. But maybe I
  > should be discussing this on
  > >the new list for those turned on by LVT.
  > >
  > >SEE BELOW
  > >
  > >
  > >From: <davewetzel at tfl.gov.uk>
  > >
  > >I'm emailing to inform you about the new Land Café
  > where a lively discussion
  > >about land related issues takes place and hopefully
  > helps those of us
  > >interested in land reform (especially land value
  > taxation) to take better
  > >informed and more appropriate action.
  > >
  > >If you are interested in these issues - you are
  > warmly invited to join us.
  > >
  > >If you wish to join the Landcafé go direct to:
  > ><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LandCafe>
  > >
  > >If you are already a member pls let me know as I
  > should not have included
  > >you in this mailing.
  > >
  > >Dave
  > >Dave Wetzel
  > >


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]