Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
but it's hard to feel guilty when I'm this relaxed.
it was immoral to have a company car, so on here, yes, definitely. In the real world, no. Fill your boots.
It is immoral to be a government and not seek to rectify a situation where people are unable to afford their own place because of others owning a second home.
But the changes to the planning regulations will not solve, or even ease the problem.
"Hi, I'd like to buy one of your new builds that are almost good but were built just a bit too quickly to not get crappy in a couple of years."
"Ah, tough shit, all the estate agents round here bought them to extort massive rents from or sell at a premium back when they were barely a glint in the architect's eye."
plus THE GENERAL DISPROPORTION OF RESOURCE ALLOCATION TO PEOPLE THAT IS DISCONNECTED FROM THEIR EFFORT OR INTEGRITY OR NEED.
But yeah, what Marckee said. We can probably tax the shit out of things that aren't immoral.
to buy twice as much food as you need and throw half of it away (in the context of a world where not everyone has enough food).
the only logical answer is to live as an ascetic.
in my own way, I was fine with it, but i couldnt cope with the distress it caused freinds and family
without following that logic to its absurd conclusion?
not in a hardened definate way, but just to be aware of the factors that come into play when you start to go down the route of asceticism......for instance by having tried in a few ways to do this (and yet not remain totally isolated and irrelevant to the current world) I have found several aspects that make it difficult, thus allowing me to comment on those that judge the protestors for 'not being pure' with some experiance and knowledge of what that involves and whether the ability to be pure and unmuddied by mammon is actually just down to personal integrity or whether it is also influenced by artificial human influence from outside.
but that's a pretty tough case to make out as an absolute moral evil.
Also that's opening a whole barrel of various-shit-nearly-everyone-does-that's-a-bit-first-world-and-wasteful, that I'd rather not get into. (I'm looking at you, vast pile of expensive, esoteric and utterly unused musical equipment)
Is there a moral aspect to social/civic responsibility? Second homes are pretty damaging to local communities in my experience.
when people resort to shit, reductive reasoning.
if you explained what you meant by this
but I don't want to open a whole barrel of ... Well, you get where I'm going with that sentence.
people can buy what they want and if it's another house, then cool.
it's not immoral to own 50 cars,
The environmental impact of the manufacture of 50 cars is quite significant. On the plus side you can only drive one at a time so that would save on oil.
Take him away, boys
those 50 cars have already been built OR you are buying them and therefore you are contributing that part.
but yeah, i was being silly.
I don't think so
It holds supremacy over all the posts below.
for the right to own as many properties as you like/are able to. Apologies if the rest of you literally mean owning two homes.
But any rental income derived from it should be taxed at 90/95/100%*.
*delete as appropriate
Buy/consume/own what you like, but expect to be taxed in accordance with the knock-on effects of what it is you that you want to buy/consume/own.
Every siongle decision you make has knock on effects to the wider world.
and say if you can show that second-home ownership causes significant damage to communities etc, then we should at least make some attempts to address that damage - and that how-far-would-you-take-this type arguements aren't really helpful.
I'm not dead sure that this makes it a moral evil, but ethics are a bitch huh.
because you can ask *how far does this go* without taxing leftover sandwiches - should there be 100% VAT on the Go-Karting stuff that TheWza likes to do? On it's own it is harmless, just like second home ownership, but cumulatively it destroys the enviroment and pushes up demand for a natural resource. Saying *nah you're just being reductive* doean;t really help with a practiucal question.
It's a fairly simple matter of prioritising, and prioritising is something that everyone does every day, usually without too much thinking or trouble.
it is a large number of people owning second homes and a lack of affordable housing being build which causes the harm. Unless you want to get sidetracked into minutae which is a waste of time.
I agree with you on prioritising of course, but that doesn;t mean I can't ask a quaetion of how far one induvidual would take the idea he is supporting, and where else he would apply it.
as a separate phenomena to a market where that is prevalent- I'd consider that getting 'sidetracked into minutae'.
I said a question such as the one you have posed is reductive primarily because the question asked was 'is X immoral?'. Although the question of whether or not Y is immoral and how it relates to X is interesting, it's not an answer to the original question.
As for how far I'd support the extension of the logic I've used RE: second-home ownership... Difficult question, as I don't have a comprehensive manifesto or a detailed enough knowledge of the many variables. It's worth pointing out too that I didn't advocate change to even the housing situation, I merely stated an ethical viewpoint on it. But my instinct is that fundamental changes to something as broad and all-encompassing as housing would probably ease many of the inequalities elsewhere.
'Buy/consume/own what you like, but expect to be taxed in accordance with the knock-on effects of what it is you that you want to buy/consume/own'
He was not just talking about housing. You may be, but I don't remember posting anything at/to you.
Secondly all you've said is that it is immoral. Ok, why? becasue if it is duie to the effect it has, then I think it is fair to ask; what other things are immoral according to this rule? How far does it go?
Your question sums up exactly how our thinking differs- for me, there is no 'rule' that has to be followed once applied to one specific scenario, regardless of absurd its inevitable conclusion is. With that in mind, I cannot offer you much of an answer to your question.
Just saying "nah you're being reductive" and shutting down the discussion is unhelpful, sure. But so is shutting it down by saying "well you like this silly wasteful thing and I don't seeing you wanting that taxed EH HYPOCRITE, CONVERSATION OVER"
There's an open discussion to be had on whether taxing the shit out of second houses is a good plan, just as there is one for go-karting - preferably based on the actual damage thy're doing in real life. It doesn't help to use a glib bit of rhetoric / Phil 101 to instantly dismiss this, either way.
I just asked thewza how far he'd go. How direct an influence would he need to be willing to tax at such a high rate.
I think you and DK are mistaking a question which was trying to get a Wza's logic with a rhetorical device.
And don;t call me names emo-boy, no wonder noone adds you on facebook ;-)
no-one actually discusses things here with genuine questions rather than cheap rhetoric, do they? That would be such a fucking drag.
Can't believe I'm gonna answer a "Look a student with an iPhone! All students are rich!" line of debate with something approaching an actual answer, but...
The environment-destroying petrol that a go-kart uses will have been subject to the same fuel duty as any other motor vehicle.
And the venue will be subject to business rates, etc, etc blah
Or do you go to Laser Quest as well?
You back the fuck off RIGHT NOW.
CARTOONS AND COMICS AND FUN R 4 KIDS.
that I thought of because we were taking about something you said.
I'll say it again. You said 'Buy/consume/own what you like, but expect to be taxed in accordance with the knock-on effects of what it is you that you want to buy/consume/own'
How far do you take this principle?
The go karting is taxed and pays it's way.
Other negative outcomes from other activities/consumption can be taxed accordingly if a proper case is made for it.
How far do you take the principle? As far as it needs to be taken in order to reach some sort of sensible situation.
economic plans and markets then capitalism will always deliver unfair results and will not provide freedom for some, because it will allow some playa's to exploit that which is not reflected due to it being 'a bit subtle' or 'a bit too detailed'
But there needs to be some housing available for renting (students, other short term residences) and landlords need somewhere to live. Taxing so much would mean the landlord makes a loss or rent is obscenely high.
"there needs to be some housing available for renting (students, other short term residences)"
Once upon a time, the government had a healthy stock of council housing...
"landlords need somewhere to live"
This presupposes the need for landlords to exist. But assuming they do, they can live in house #1 that they bought in the same way as any normal person buying a house. They can also buy House #2. And let it out. But not profit from it via rent.
"the landlord makes a loss"
Lets not confuse 'not making an immediate quick buck profit' with 'making an actual loss'. They can use the rent from letting out house #2 to pay off the mortgage (if required) on house #2. Then, after 0-X years (depending on whether they bought the house outright, or via a mortgage of X years), they'll own two houses. How is owning two houses losing out? Speculative fly-by night buy-to-let chancers can gtfo.
"...or rent is obscenely high"
Rent will only be what the market can bear. And this brave new world of fairly priced housing stock, house purchase prices will be more reasonable. And so will house rental prices. The heat has been taken out of the market.
For good measure, here are a couple of additional new rules:
Mortgages... to only be available from co-operatives or mutual building societies, ensuring that housing finance isn't provided by institutions dedicated to pleasing shareholders.
Inheritance tax... Anything inherited by one person up to the value the average house price is a freebie. Yeah, go on, house your offspring if you've made a mint. Anything over that is taxed at [high]% (pick a figure). You can't take it with you. And you can't hoard it intergenerationally. Offspring off the rich can have a hand-me-down freebie house, sure, but let's not pretend that anything more than that is 'giving them a leg up'. It's not. Anything more is verging on hegemonic.
(inevitable now, I know), I've no problem with your comment about there having once been a healthy stock of council housing. However, there isn't now, so the key problem is how you get from a position of not having enough provision to having enough for all needs so you can enact your >90% tax?
At best, you've given an aspiration, not something workable in the medium term.
I'm not in the business of laying down thoroughly itemised manifestos. I'm just trying to imagine alternative scenarios and then see what sticks.
So, yeah, there's a gap between the amount of existing council housing, and that which would be needed.
So, in said medium term, rather than a dramatic switch from one way of doing things to another, can we ramp up the tax toward that figure over time? Like, say, the fuel multiplier thingy. We might find that we get to where we want to be before we reach the >90% tax. So be it. Within reason (and a clear taxation strategy seems to be reasonable), it's the end result we're aiming for here.
keeps me in a job
go and read this, and every article linked from it.
Then come back and... hopefully I'll have died by then.
They're all like 20-40ish, none very wealthy, all struggle to afford a place to live, none can even think about buying. The towns and villages are bereft of young adults, and full of holiday homes owned by rich people in London.
My god. Things are more desperate for this country than I thought.
Tell us the one about little englanders <3
There are some real ghost towns FULL of second homes with no real services or communities left. And I think that's bad for RURAL ENGLURND.
is just bizarre now. And the accommodation is all shit. And now the market's collapsed but none of it is suitable as a first home. Grim.
but it’s also part of a wider issue of dormitory towns which both eat the soul of the commuter belt villages and ghettoise the urban areas too.
It’s built upon the ‘agrarian myth’ of a rural existence and, as we’ve said on here before, a not insignificant amount of little-englander racism.
gawd bless ya
(ahem) and he was asking where we were from and we told him London and he said oh, my wife's from London, she couldn't live there now though, it's so crowded and noisy and we were like oh whereabouts and he said Harrow and then we laughed at him after he left.
we just enjoy laughing at commoners. Tally ho!
I wouldn't personally be able to square owning a second home there with my morals.
(obviously does not apply to things that come in pairs.)
is property theft?
and to own shares.
and investment products.
it's all exploiting the working classes, innit.
aslong as for every second home you buy, you give one to a member of the great unwashed.
I think immoral is a bit strong
I'd happily see it outlawed tho.
and buy two little houses.
Surely two little houses are ok if one big mansion is?
(There are caveats to this, namely housing density, but that's an aside to the main thrust of the point.)
life is harsh
i have a pertinent story about it, too.
medium length story, short:
kids from the big school came to my primary school selling sweets for some reason or other. took my pocket money pennies in, all excited. they sold out. i was pretty put out because they were blatantly gonna sell out at the rate they were sellign to the kids at the start of the queue. i pointed this out, and suggested that they could've rationed the sales so everybody got some sweets (yes, i was a precocious kid). the answer the teachers gave was pretty much exactly what you've said. specifically: "life isn't fair, wza. life isn't fair".
lesson learnt: most people in charge are gits who shirk responsibility in the face of fuck ups. but also, yeah, life isn't fair.
if i'd have been one of the kids at the front of the queue I would have helped you out Wza.
Sold you some of my sweets that I'd bought from the big kids.
Of course they would be at a highly inflated price from the amount I bought them for.
if we do this then the super-rich will be forced to build AMAZING FUCKING CASTLES. Think how great that would be.
almost 100 replies and the Tory 'heavyweights' haven't crawled in yet. Might start troll threads more often.
ee.g. is it moral to own 5 houses, that are very very large and expensive, then represent your country in parliament, then get some of thje costs for one of your houses paid for partly by people who you represent who cannot even afford a single house or even a nice rented property, who is struggling on the breadline.......Is this moral?
then take away that the person is a parliamentary representative and i and instead substitute the MD of a company (perhaps a cleaning services company....where the md works 55 hours a week, ye an amployee works 80 hours per week yet the employee can only afford a scummy flat.......is this moral?
Is there such a thing as morality outside of our own value system? I dont think so......therefore people that represent you should be detailed about what their internal moral views are, so thjat people can select accordingly.
an 'unfair ammount' (inequitable ammount)
BROKEN BRITAIN =(
owning a second home as in a place that sits empty waiting for you to visit (or a holiday home), or about owning another place you rent out.
I do the latter.
Bite my balls.
...I am going to do. Too busy screwing over my tenants to have time for that.