Page 18 of 35 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 86 to 90 of 171

Thread: Housing Mistakes

  1. #86
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Big where it matters View Post
    The existing law gives too many rights to property owners and doesn't force them to display civic responsibility in how they manage their property.
    That is clearly true. The law does gives too many rights to property owners. Law on maintaining properties rented out to a minimum standard reasonable standard are lacking.

    Using Land Valuation Taxation Tax (LVT), a tax on the value of the land only, whether a building is on it or not, solves all. If values rise one year, so does the tax, if it falls, so does the tax. It is auto adjusting. LVT clears up derelict buildings and plots as full tax is due on the land. Liverpool still has WW2 bomb site in the centre, and London still has two, and Liverpool has thousands of derelict buildings too.

    Second properties that are empty in order to milk its value will be taxed the full land value with LVT. There is nothing wrong with second properties as the UK is empty with only 7.5% of the land settled.

    Housing is not viewed as a social resource, well most of the time it is not. It is now viewed as piece of CAPITAL. Classical economics was laid down by Adam Smith and improved by David Ricardo.

    Classical economics identifies the three factors of production:


    1. LABOUR - Work by people. The return of Labour is wages.
    2. CAPITAL - Anything man-made. The return of Capital is profit or interest.
    3. LAND (and its resources, inc water and air) - Land cannot be made, is inelastic and not made by man. The return of Land & Natural Resources is called "economic rent".


    "A century ago a group of economists colluded to manipulate the
    building blocks of classical economics, to protect the vital interests
    of the privileged few. To do so, they had to concealed unique qualities
    of one of the classic factors of production - Land."

    - Fred Harrison (Economist)

    The moved LAND into CAPITAL creating neo-classic economics, the one we run by now. Ever since there has been boom & busts and two world-wide crashes. Land is now treated like a washing machine - a piece of Capital.

    Advertisements -------

    Is LVT fair? .......
    Because of differences in positional advantages, fertility, natural resources, proximity to essential infrastructure such as rapid-transit rail, etc, some locations are more desirable than others. Demand for access to these features gives land its value. Land Value Taxation, being assessed on these values, is fair in its incidence.

    "When you shift taxes from working and saving to Land Values, you
    get rid of the distortions that make people work less and save less. And
    therefore people are operating in a more efficient fashion."
    - American Professor, Nicolaus Tideman

    An up-to-date register of who owns what? The Land Registry does that, but only half the land is registered. Anyone who owned land before the registry was setup was not put on, so the aristocratic landowners keep the size their lucrative acres away from prying eyes. 0.3% of the population own 70% of the land.

    We clearly do live in culture that celebrates using property as a vehicle to increase personal wealth/status regardless of the price others have to pay. LVT will sort that out. The city tried but failed. We need to try harder. It is the only solution to many problems. Look back at my posts on this thread.
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  2. #87
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter McGurk View Post
    And because we also live in a society that accounts for individual circumstances and eschews an Orwellian totalitarianism that says you do this or we'll kick you in the nuts for having the temerity to own a property which for no fault of your own you cannot sell and you cannot maintain and you cannot occupy!
    Land Valuation Taxation will take the land back into public ownership and sell it for you if the situation with your landowning is that bad. The problem is that many people buy land to make money quick. If LVT is implemented they will only buy land knowing that full tax is due on it knowing they have to make it work. Would you buy 500,000 worth of industrial machinery and leave it idle? No you would not, you would make it work for you. If you did pay 500,000 and left the machinery idle and over 5 years it was worth 100,000 then that would be foolish and your own fault. And people would laugh at you. Own land and the value drops and people lobby the government to keep its value increasing.
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  3. #88
    Member Big where it matters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    19
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    The two 'laws' I mentioned above which are essentially enhanced versions of what already exists would solve the problem of irresponsible property ownership in its two most socially destructive forms: allowing a property to become derelict and letting it to tenants who will behave in a disruptive manner and cause misery for those in surrounding properties. People need to deal with the consequences of owning a property but not being able to maintain it. Why should people in surrounding properties have to suffer the consequences of irresponsible ownership?

  4. #89
    Member Peter McGurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    87
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Big where it matters View Post
    ...Why should people in surrounding properties have to suffer the consequences of irresponsible ownership?
    They shouldn't. But neither should property ownership include the responsibility to nanny society.

    It's a function of (parents and education and) the law and the courts to control anti-social behaviour. And incidentally, not for the community to effectively condone it by its acquiescence - by not speaking up.

    Make no mistake, I do understand that some of these guys can cut up pretty bloody rough but it is everybody’s responsibility to uphold decent standards of behaviour.

    We all have to face up to the responsibility of grassing someone up even if it means doing it anonymously. So yeah, Big Brother is here but the alternative is what we’ve got - mayhem and intimidation, every day, almost 24/7.

    Just maybe, Orwell (and the chattering classes) got that wrong.

    ***

    Property owners do not let properties fall into disrepair willingly, whether it’s their first, second or fourteenth property.

    It’s an entire myth that they can reap the benefits of house prices in their sleep. There are none (“house prices fall another 10%...”) and there is none (sleep). An empty property is a financial and psychological burden to any owner.

    And the changes to the law you suggest would make the penalties for 'irresponsible ownership' so punitive as to put ownership very firmly in the hands of only those who can stomach the loss ie., the very, very rich - or the state.

    ***

    There are advantages to 100% state ownership of housing but let me (as one who has stayed in Russia for a while) say that security, space provision and quality of life are not three of them. And the biggest problem of all is the bill, for the state and for the people. It's simply unaffordable.

    Now I know you didn’t bring that up but that would be the ultimate consequence of your suggestion.

    Back on earth and in Liverpool’s case, the local ‘state’ (ie., council) would end up owning vast tracts of low-grade housing and empty land that it couldn’t develop. Oh...

    ***

    It comes to something when a hollywood actor complains on national TV that she can’t move to London because of house prices and a well-known comedian can joke that the proposed ‘mansion tax’ limit is set too low at a million pounds. It's just a bit harsh when anyone loses their job, the bank repossesses and they can't sell because no-one can afford to live in it.

    It would serve both owner and tenant better if the market were set, through responsible credit control (and a bit of collective social conscience perforce) such that properties were let at rents that were affordable to ‘decent’ folk and we saw more yobs in court, rather than having to put up with them till 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning - every bloody morning (the question is of course, what then with them...)

    ***

    The nation has been screwed-over by bank-sponsored ‘getting on’ for the benefit of only the very few and the very rich indeed.

    Fair dos or thieving b*stards to them but house prices are way out of whack of wages as a consequence. And before it re-balances, we are all going to be paying for it for a very long time to come. And there will be a lot more empty properties to come.

    But it won’t help to kick honest, decent and hard-working folks (just like us) in the slats because they’ve been first mugged by the banks and second, caught out by a failing system.

    ***

    A mate of mine 'self-built' his own house more than thirty years ago. He owns three terraced houses in St Helens he got with his pension, his redundancy and a last year on contract overseas (he was a phone engineer). He struggles to keep them let to decent lads and kept in proper order. What a git.

    Or take that house in Everton. We don't know the circumstances but what if the nursery was run with the help of someone's husband (or wife) and they got divorced and he pulled the plug on the finances. Who are you or we to say she should lose the house as well!?

  5. #90
    Senior Member chasevans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    anfield
    Age
    71
    Posts
    248
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Exclamation A head rings out !

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter McGurk View Post
    Well as an architect, I'm not having that am I?

    There's a bizillion buildings with flat roofs and 'zany' shapes that are all perfectly waterproof. There's many that aren't. Some buildings are built well. Others aren't. Some buildings are maintained. Others aren't. There are almost as many reason for building failure as they are building failures.

    But one thing is certain. If it's the architect's fault he will pay for it. There's not many architects can go bust at the drop of a hat to avoid litigation and many who carry the can for others involved who do.
    Of course you're not having that.
    Living through the architectural disasters of this *area I must say this Peter guy's got a cheek.
    My heart bleeds for him and his fellow arch itects- sorry, I meant to type arch enemies- oh ****, enemas...well that's close enough. What a fine bunch of chaps they must be, sharing the burden for the social engineering mistakes of "others". More a case of kicking the can than carrying it, seems to me.
    Peter, you know you'll never get the chance to live on the Radcliffe estate. Why? ... it's gone. Good riddance.
    Those who refuse to learn from the past are liable to keep repeating it's mistakes. A lot of your posts are full of holes, not unlike the Radcliffe estate's roofs.

    *area
    (City centre, Gillmoss, Everton, Walton, Everton, Birkenhead, Norris Green, Toxteth, and for the past 30 years I've lived in Anfield).
    Chas

Page 18 of 35 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Terraced Housing In Liverpool
    By Bob Edwards in forum Bob Edwards' Liverpool Picture Book
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-05-2013, 09:15 AM
  2. Court Housing in Liverpool
    By Bob Edwards in forum Bob Edwards' Liverpool Picture Book
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-01-2012, 11:41 AM
  3. Eldon Grove Housing
    By Kev in forum Buildings and Structures
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 08-14-2011, 11:31 PM
  4. Insanitary Housing Images
    By Kev in forum In My Liverpool Home
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-07-2009, 02:37 PM
  5. cathedral &housing
    By gregs dad in forum Buildings and Structures
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-09-2007, 08:34 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68