Boards

State ownership of all buildings

alcxxk [Edit] [Delete] 77 replies 10:08 March 19th, 2013

why not?

Reply

View NestedLinear

I don't trust the State

Raanraals | 19 Mar '13, 10:09 | X | ^ This | Reply
- you are the state
  
  alcxxk @Raanraals | 19 Mar '13, 10:09 | X | ^ This | Reply
  
  ohgood this'd this
  - *a state.
    
    DaddyorChips @alcxxk | 19 Mar '13, 22:20 | X | ^ This | Reply
dunno

andyvine | 19 Mar '13, 10:09 | X | ^ This | Reply
buildings should read land i guess

i don't know much

alcxxk | 19 Mar '13, 10:10 | X | ^ This | Reply
- you mean common ownership? rather than State ownership presumably
  
  Body_In_The_Thames @alcxxk | 19 Mar '13, 10:11 | X | ^ This | Reply
  
  Raanraals this'd this
  - what's the difference?
    
    idk
    
    alcxxk @Body_In_The_Thames | 19 Mar '13, 10:14 | X | ^ This | Reply
    - probably a legal one
      
      Body_In_The_Thames @alcxxk | 19 Mar '13, 10:26 | X | ^ This | Reply
- look at this face
  
  I know the years are showing
  Look at this life
  I still don't know where it's going
  
  Balonz @alcxxk | 19 Mar '13, 10:13 | X | ^ This | Reply
Land maybe.

Or at least proper taxation on land.

Not buildings, that'd be daft.

saps | 19 Mar '13, 10:11 | X | ^ This | Reply
- whywould it be daft?
  
  idk
  
  alcxxk @saps | 19 Mar '13, 10:13 | X | ^ This | Reply
  - Well, if the state owned all buildings it would get really complicated if you wanted to do anything to the building you lived in.
    
    I know there's already planning legislation and stuff but who would pay for alterations and changes?
    
    I think it would get in the way of people doing cool things to their homes.
    
    Land though, definitely should be considered. And taxed at the very least. It's a fucking joke that people like the Duke Of Westminster own half of London and pay next to nothing on the income they make from it.
    
    saps @alcxxk | 19 Mar '13, 10:32 | X | ^ This | Reply
    - i dont really get how land and property works
      
      leaseholds and freeholds etc
      if the nation owned the land, would you really want to own the building on it? idk
      
      alcxxk @saps | 19 Mar '13, 14:03 | X | ^ This | Reply
      - a freehold refers to the building itself and the land underneath it
        
        a leasehold is basically a set of legal rights - you don't own anything physical with it, just the right to use the building as per the terms of the lease. it's the same basic concept as renting, except you pay up front, have more rights, and can sell the lease on or sublet the property
        
        the leasehold/freehold system in England is utter bullshit and basically exists to preserve the urban class structure
        
        guntrip @alcxxk | 19 Mar '13, 14:42 | X | ^ This | Reply
Yes and ho!

Steved | 19 Mar '13, 10:11 | X | ^ This | Reply

alcxxk, GayGuevara, SenorDingDong, eltham, monoshono, and Spicer this'd this
- really? fuck
  
  cat_race @Steved | 19 Mar '13, 10:15 | X | ^ This | Reply
couldn't hurt boss.

Jordan_229_2 | 19 Mar '13, 10:13 | X | ^ This | Reply
Yes, and ho!?

cat_race | 19 Mar '13, 10:14 | X | ^ This | Reply
FIX the economy and the housing crisis

alcxxk | 19 Mar '13, 10:14 | X | ^ This | Reply
ipads for all dogs!

cat_race | 19 Mar '13, 10:14 | X | ^ This | Reply

Jordan_229_2 and andyvine this'd this
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21719731
  
  Smee @cat_race | 19 Mar '13, 10:18 | X | ^ This | Reply
  - awww :D
    
    cat_race @Smee | 19 Mar '13, 10:19 | X | ^ This | Reply
    
    DaddyorChips this'd this
yes please

ohgood | 19 Mar '13, 10:16 | X | ^ This | Reply
Feels a bit pre Magna Carta

an Englishman's home is his castle and all that

JustJay | 19 Mar '13, 10:18 | X | ^ This | Reply
Oooh, I know!

Why doesn't the queen just own all of the land and let people live on it provided they farm it for her?

Raanraals | 19 Mar '13, 10:25 | X | ^ This | Reply
- democracy n that
  
  alcxxk @Raanraals | 19 Mar '13, 10:26 | X | ^ This | Reply
  
  ohgood this'd this
- Would it not be fairer if we stopped this perverse and arrogant policy of
  
  seeing people and land as being different legally? Surely the people who live on a bit of land should be the property of whoever owns the land?
  
  Kitchmo @Raanraals | 19 Mar '13, 10:28 | X | ^ This | Reply
  - honestly cant work out what you're getting at
    
    afaik you're a tory so you're probably agreeing with raanraals? are you just being RaNdOm?
    
    alcxxk @Kitchmo | 19 Mar '13, 10:30 | X | ^ This | Reply
    - Chill out Cat_Race, I was just being silly
      
      but no more silly than *the state* owning all buildings. But you knew that, which is fine.
      
      Kitchmo @alcxxk | 19 Mar '13, 10:35 | X | ^ This | Reply
      - wE'Re AlL bEInG RanDoM
        
        alcxxk @Kitchmo | 19 Mar '13, 10:35 | X | ^ This | Reply
        
        Sorry for not taking your thread seriously, it seems to have made you act a bit peculiar.
        
        Kitchmo @alcxxk | 19 Mar '13, 10:56 | X | ^ This | Reply
        
        oojimaflop this'd this
        
        you're very strange
        
        i started a fairly silly thread to find out the main arguments against this happening. you make a post that doesn't make sense to me so i ask you to clarify if you have a point or are just being silly, you tell me to chill out and that you're just being silly, and i reply that we're both being silly, and then you give this dickhead reply
        
        alcxxk @Kitchmo | 19 Mar '13, 11:21 | X | ^ This | Reply
        
        dickhead reply=probably a bit harsh, sorry
        
        alcxxk @alcxxk | 19 Mar '13, 11:25 | X | ^ This | Reply
        
        Hmmm, I think you may have rather misjudged the tone of my last post.
        
        Thanks for calling me a dickhead though.
        
        Kitchmo @alcxxk | 19 Mar '13, 11:26 | X | ^ This | Reply
        
        are you okay?
        
        oojimaflop @alcxxk | 19 Mar '13, 11:08 | X | ^ This | Reply
It would be a bit annoying if you worked your arse off all your life

bought a property or business and it gets taken off you. Depends what the state does with it I suppose.

steinbolt | 19 Mar '13, 10:27 | X | ^ This | Reply
- Somewhere in the region of about 85% of all the land in this country
  
  was inherited, rather than bought through the labours of the owners.
  
  marckee @steinbolt | 19 Mar '13, 10:36 | X | ^ This | Reply
  - To be honest
    
    even those who buy houses with their own blood, sweat and tears tend to be given a helping hand by their parents. I don't think we should stop people giving their kids money or property when they die, even if the houses or wealth goes back a very long time.
    
    steinbolt @marckee | 19 Mar '13, 17:46 | X | ^ This | Reply
    - Apparently,
      
      'Eight in ten first-time buyers under 30 rely on financial help from their parents to help them get onto the property ladder.'
      
      Lucky them. I am the 20%, hear me roar.
      
      Inheritance happening on the level it does is a pretty shoddy state of affairs imo.
      
      TheWza @steinbolt | 20 Mar '13, 01:00 | X | ^ This | Reply
- I can just see Kate Middleton now
  
  on her hands and knees scrubbing the floor till her skin is raw.
  
  Fred Goodwin Meanwhile is cleaning other peoples shitty loos 60+ hours a week.
  
  creakyknees @steinbolt | 19 Mar '13, 11:13 | X | ^ This | Reply
  - Almost there...
    
    DaddyorChips @creakyknees | 19 Mar '13, 22:22 | X | ^ This | Reply
How about we divide it all up into 65 Million different pieces of land

and all get one each.

Bagsy Trafalgar Square.

oojimaflop | 19 Mar '13, 11:08 | X | ^ This | Reply
- Its actually quite a difficult equation
  
  to divide up land according to whether someone would be able to sustain themselves from it.
  
  creakyknees @oojimaflop | 19 Mar '13, 11:14 | X | ^ This | Reply
- How much land would that be each?
  
  Royter-Hatfood @oojimaflop | 19 Mar '13, 14:20 | X | ^ This | Reply
  - you'll be pleased to know
    
    that i started working it out earlier and then couldn't be bothered finishing
    
    cat_race @Royter-Hatfood | 19 Mar '13, 14:20 | X | ^ This | Reply
    - about 3.9 sqm unless i've done something wrong in my snotty haze
      
      that bagsy on trafalgar sq is well out of line
      
      cat_race @cat_race | 19 Mar '13, 14:23 | X | ^ This | Reply
      - WRONG
        
        cat_race @cat_race | 19 Mar '13, 14:25 | X | ^ This | Reply
        
        For England each person would get
        
        0.00095 square miles each. I've no idea what that amounts to. Fuck the Welsh and Scottish though.
        
        Royter-Hatfood @cat_race | 19 Mar '13, 14:29 | X | ^ This | Reply
        
        Wow, 2460 sq meters! What's that? 50m by 50m?
        
        I feel like I've missed a decimal point.
        
        Royter-Hatfood @Royter-Hatfood | 19 Mar '13, 14:31 | X | ^ This | Reply
        
        If you do it by UK and Uk pop it is even better, 3888.986 m2
        
        which is 62.2m x 62.2m
        
        Really depends which but you get though. I'll have a bit of gold mine please.
        
        Kitchmo @Royter-Hatfood | 19 Mar '13, 14:39 | X | ^ This | Reply
        
        joeymahone this'd this
        
        What happens if you deduct lakes, waterways, and National Parks
        
        C'mon guys, let's get this right!
        
        Royter-Hatfood @Kitchmo | 19 Mar '13, 14:42 | X | ^ This | Reply
        
        Ok, give me 10 mins.
        
        Kitchmo @Royter-Hatfood | 19 Mar '13, 14:44 | X | ^ This | Reply
        
        but some people might want to construct a little house on stilts over a lake that they can fish in
        
        cat_race @Royter-Hatfood | 19 Mar '13, 14:45 | X | ^ This | Reply
        
        something about thwarn being a bog monster
        
        Royter-Hatfood @cat_race | 19 Mar '13, 14:50 | X | ^ This | Reply
        
        Ok, here’s what I got:
        
        Ok, here’s what I got:
        
        Size of the UK: 243610 km2
        Remove the 1680 km2 covered in water
        Leaving 241930
        
        National Parks are 22660km2 so minus that
        
        So 219270 km2
        
        1.2% of the UK is covered in roads, so if that is an average we can apply it to out remaining total, giving us 216638.76 km2
        
        Divide this by a population of 62641000 people gives you 0.003458418
        
        Convert to m2 = 3458 m2 per person.
        
        Kitchmo @Royter-Hatfood | 19 Mar '13, 14:58 | X | ^ This | Reply
        
        You're late
        
        Royter-Hatfood @Kitchmo | 19 Mar '13, 15:00 | X | ^ This | Reply
        
        All I ask is for some praise.
        
        Kitchmo @Royter-Hatfood | 19 Mar '13, 15:04 | X | ^ This | Reply
        
        probably shouldn't discount national parks though
        
        as a lot of people live in them already
        
        guntrip @Kitchmo | 19 Mar '13, 15:06 | X | ^ This | Reply
        
        I CAN ONLY WORK TO THE BRIEF I WAS GIVEN
        
        Kitchmo @guntrip | 19 Mar '13, 15:09 | X | ^ This | Reply
        
        Royter-Hatfood and oojimaflop this'd this
        
        Busy day at work?
        
        Raanraals @Kitchmo | 19 Mar '13, 15:12 | X | ^ This | Reply
        
        Can't do anything until after the Cyprus vote.
        
        Kitchmo @Raanraals | 19 Mar '13, 15:14 | X | ^ This | Reply
        
        laughsnort
        
        Good work, Kitchmo.
        
        joeymahone @Raanraals | 19 Mar '13, 17:42 | X | ^ This | Reply
      - Nearly - it's about 3900 square metres
        
        So a plot that's 62m long and 62m wide. You could have a decent chunk of Trafalgar Square.
        
        joeymahone @cat_race | 19 Mar '13, 14:32 | X | ^ This | Reply
        
        yeah i can't even type today
        
        nevermind think about converting things properly
        
        cat_race @joeymahone | 19 Mar '13, 14:42 | X | ^ This | Reply
        
        can I have the bit with the 4th plinth
        
        oojimaflop @joeymahone | 19 Mar '13, 15:09 | X | ^ This | Reply
I don't really see how anyone can 'own' land

I can see how the state would reward and punish people with the concept of owning land.

:( I have no flag

creakyknees | 19 Mar '13, 11:15 | X | ^ This | Reply
Henry George probably had it right

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

whilst land isn't nationalised, the right to develop it is - this is the planning system. i think it's a fair compromise.

the issue with the 'housing crisis' is more one of systemic failure on both the priorities of government and the nature of the way the private sector operates. the former withdrew from providing housing almost entirely in 1979, the latter have absolutely no incentive to provide a sufficient amount of housing because it would devalue their own profits.

guntrip | 19 Mar '13, 11:19 | X | ^ This | Reply
- right so i read that Monbiot piece someone posted the other day
  
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/21/i-agree-with-churchill-shirkers-tax
  seems bang on, right?
  so how would this play out if it happened? what would happen to rent prices? would landlords not just make up the tax losses in rent hikes?
  
  alcxxk @guntrip | 20 Mar '13, 10:17 | X | ^ This | Reply
no good reason why not

/thread

brusma | 19 Mar '13, 12:25 | X | ^ This | Reply
great respect to that dividing the country up sub thread.

oojimaflop | 19 Mar '13, 15:10 | X | ^ This | Reply
- works out at
  
  47,400m2 each in Sweden
  
  roomy
  
  218m x 218m
  
  Body_In_The_Thames @oojimaflop | 19 Mar '13, 22:19 | X | ^ This | Reply
  - Not if we all move there ;)
    
    oojimaflop @Body_In_The_Thames | 20 Mar '13, 10:18 | X | ^ This | Reply
Why is the state always seen as beneficial in your world?

SarcasticFringehead | 19 Mar '13, 21:17 | X | ^ This | Reply
- the state at least has the capacity to act in the common good
  
  guntrip @SarcasticFringehead | 19 Mar '13, 22:07 | X | ^ This | Reply
- it's the corporation it's OK to like
  
  because, in theory at least, each citizen is a shareholder with the ability to sack the board
  
  Body_In_The_Thames @SarcasticFringehead | 19 Mar '13, 22:36 | X | ^ This | Reply
  
  Royter-Hatfood and alcxxk this'd this
- why wouldn't it be?
  
  alcxxk @SarcasticFringehead | 20 Mar '13, 10:15 | X | ^ This | Reply
  - Giant shapeshifting lizards
    
    Royter-Hatfood @alcxxk | 20 Mar '13, 10:17 | X | ^ This | Reply
    - 533m5 13G17
      
      alcxxk @Royter-Hatfood | 20 Mar '13, 10:18 | X | ^ This | Reply

Reply to this thread

View NestedLinear

« Back to Social