![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The warp and weft of England
Jan. 12th, 2011 01:10 pmOver the past couple of years I've called for the rich to be taxed more.
I still feel this. And to a great extent this is about my opinion of social cohesion in Britain. But I also feel that those who invest in the culture and the traditions of England should be given some tax advantages which may offset tax.
For example: there are some 2500 Grade I listed houses in England and Wales which are homes to people. These houses cost a prohibitive amount to maintain, but are part of the warp and weft of English and Welsh culture: they are part of the heritage of Britain, and often, so are the families that occupy them.
When something goes wrong with a Grade I listed building you can't just call in your local handyman to fix things. If a stone falls from an arch, a master mason must replace it like for like, and then the repair must be passed by an inspector from the relevant authority. This costs money. Upgrades in heating systems must first have permission, and then approval of work done. Glazing must comply to listed building regulations and be approved. Even changing the furnishings can require a committee to accept the changes wrought. These houses are a huge drain on the resources of even the richest of individuals. Ergo, if someone buys or inherits a great house then it is quite likely that they will spend most of their time and a whole heap of money just in its upkeep.
If a company or organisation owns a listed building, it has to pass the same stringent requirements as the individuals who own listed houses.
Of course, for Grade II listed buildings the regulations aren't quite as severe, but they are still so far removed from the ordinary experience of building owners as to make buying or investing in a listed building fraught with inconvenience and cost.
This is as it should be: these buildings are part of our heritage, and more often than not of great architectural importance and beauty.
I'm in favour of tax breaks for those folk or organisations who own these money pits. In some cases, considerable tax breaks, especially for individuals or families who may own or inherit such 'piles'. I'd rather see a family who have owned a house for umpteen generations retain ownership of a stately home, than see some faceless organisation turn the thing into a golf course or business conference centre: but also, if that's not possible I'd rather the organisation which owns it to be held to some standards of upkeep and maintenance, given that such an organisation is now caretaker of a piece of British heritage. But I think that acknowledging the expense of the upkeep of our heritage should be reflected in our tax system.
I still feel this. And to a great extent this is about my opinion of social cohesion in Britain. But I also feel that those who invest in the culture and the traditions of England should be given some tax advantages which may offset tax.
For example: there are some 2500 Grade I listed houses in England and Wales which are homes to people. These houses cost a prohibitive amount to maintain, but are part of the warp and weft of English and Welsh culture: they are part of the heritage of Britain, and often, so are the families that occupy them.
When something goes wrong with a Grade I listed building you can't just call in your local handyman to fix things. If a stone falls from an arch, a master mason must replace it like for like, and then the repair must be passed by an inspector from the relevant authority. This costs money. Upgrades in heating systems must first have permission, and then approval of work done. Glazing must comply to listed building regulations and be approved. Even changing the furnishings can require a committee to accept the changes wrought. These houses are a huge drain on the resources of even the richest of individuals. Ergo, if someone buys or inherits a great house then it is quite likely that they will spend most of their time and a whole heap of money just in its upkeep.
If a company or organisation owns a listed building, it has to pass the same stringent requirements as the individuals who own listed houses.
Of course, for Grade II listed buildings the regulations aren't quite as severe, but they are still so far removed from the ordinary experience of building owners as to make buying or investing in a listed building fraught with inconvenience and cost.
This is as it should be: these buildings are part of our heritage, and more often than not of great architectural importance and beauty.
I'm in favour of tax breaks for those folk or organisations who own these money pits. In some cases, considerable tax breaks, especially for individuals or families who may own or inherit such 'piles'. I'd rather see a family who have owned a house for umpteen generations retain ownership of a stately home, than see some faceless organisation turn the thing into a golf course or business conference centre: but also, if that's not possible I'd rather the organisation which owns it to be held to some standards of upkeep and maintenance, given that such an organisation is now caretaker of a piece of British heritage. But I think that acknowledging the expense of the upkeep of our heritage should be reflected in our tax system.
