Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
i don't know much
Or at least proper taxation on land.
Not buildings, that'd be daft.
I know the years are showing
Look at this life
I still don't know where it's going
an Englishman's home is his castle and all that
Why doesn't the queen just own all of the land and let people live on it provided they farm it for her?
bought a property or business and it gets taken off you. Depends what the state does with it I suppose.
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?
afaik you're a tory so you're probably agreeing with raanraals? are you just being RaNdOm?
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.
but no more silly than *the state* owning all buildings. But you knew that, which is fine.
was inherited, rather than bought through the labours of the owners.
and all get one each.
Bagsy Trafalgar Square.
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.
to divide up land according to whether someone would be able to sustain themselves from it.
I can see how the state would reward and punish people with the concept of owning land.
:( I have no flag
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.
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
Thanks for calling me a dickhead though.
leaseholds and freeholds etc
if the nation owned the land, would you really want to own the building on it? idk
that i started working it out earlier and then couldn't be bothered finishing
that bagsy on trafalgar sq is well out of line
0.00095 square miles each. I've no idea what that amounts to. Fuck the Welsh and Scottish though.
I feel like I've missed a decimal point.
So a plot that's 62m long and 62m wide. You could have a decent chunk of Trafalgar Square.
which is 62.2m x 62.2m
Really depends which but you get though. I'll have a bit of gold mine please.
nevermind think about converting things properly
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
C'mon guys, let's get this right!
Ok, here’s what I got:
Size of the UK: 243610 km2
Remove the 1680 km2 covered in water
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.
as a lot of people live in them already
Good work, Kitchmo.
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.
47,400m2 each in Sweden
218m x 218m
because, in theory at least, each citizen is a shareholder with the ability to sack the board
'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.
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?