div>
---------- Post added at 12:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 AM ----------
Originally Posted by
az_gila
Yes... but my point is that the 'planners" did not live in the same environment they were planning for everyone else.
But so...? I guess no-one is forcing anyone to live anywhere. The choice still exists.
And being Green
is a moral issue. It is hard to get on a train or bus when the car is right there but it should be done - as a moral issue. For our children. If only public transport was more accessible and convenient... something I'm sure these 'planners' are advocating.
---------- Post added at 01:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 PM ----------
Originally Posted by
Waterways
I like this... an eco German kit house - Huf Haus. They erect them in the UK
Although I would agree that space standards have fallen terribly and construction costs have unnecessarily increased in the UK, I really can't see what relevance this has to our social housing.
It would be wonderful to have every house in the UK individually designed. A bespoke property for everyone. But are you really suggesting that this is even remotely affordable? Or is it perhaps that council or government will pay? Perhaps the Peabody Trust?
There is also plenty of social housing in Europe - particularly in Germany, and France, and Holland, and... where are these other countries where
most houses are designed individually???? Cloud Cuckoo land? (Actually, Switzerland would be about right).
http://www.huf-haus-owners-group.co....1/10/mack1.jpg
And yeah. I'd be very interested to see the penny heating bills for that property. Particularly in relation to construction cost. With all that glass, it might keep in some heat if tripled glazed but it would cost a fortune to build even in kit form (which BTW kind of suggests they are not so individual as you think) and some of the guys down Norris Green way (got to pick somewhere) would make short work of those windows.
---------- Post added at 02:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:00 PM ----------
Originally Posted by
Waterways
You are very confused. I am a free-marketeer....
The owners of the Everton properties still make money on the land under the decaying bricks...Currently they pay zero tax.
When I say
if I mean if. What you say would tend to lead anyone to expect you to hold socialist views. It's not an accusation - even these days. It is a reasonable deduction, nevertheless it is conditional.
And I am neither confused nor am I stupid. At least not so stupid to take what others have said as proof of what they say. I can read The Times for myself thank you, and interpret same. I don’t need it regurgitated to me as gospel.
Now, you are seriously suggested that Land Value Tax is responsible or even a major contributor to Hong Kong’s wealth. Right, I see. How silly of me.
‘Wealth laying idle’ was at one time income was it not? and taxed as such? was it not? To then attached a causal link to the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few is... tenuous.
Hyams may well have not paid tax on Centrepoint until he realised its increase in value. I think that is rather the point of a tax on income is it not? For sure he spent a great deal of money on all the tradesmen needed to build it. **** him.
It’s a stretch but since it occurs to me... much like the Empire State perhaps. All those workers, working away in a depression, getting paid - what a fool Hoover was to create all that wealth
and spread it around a bit! And no doubt there was and is a tax bill down the line.
And how dare you buy land near a railway line, with money taken from your taxes for the benefit of all it serves. Outrageous! You know what? I’m going to build a line next to you so you have to pay me for it! I'll call it the Canada Dock Branch Line and I’ll call the tax Land Value Tax. There. Fixed.
To suggest that Cornwall taxpayers paid more than their share of the nation's infrastructure costs is disingenuous in the extreme. This is how Crossrail is funded:
www.london.gov.uk/crossrail-brs. So as not to bore everyone with the detail and to summarise - those that benefitted from it, paid for it.
If there is no one that can afford to occupy houses in Everton, do you imagine that money will drop from the heavens to relieve current owners of possession and renovate them to make them more expensive and less affordable?
And if taking tax at source is regressive (and it may well be) how does a wealth tax help? The depletion of 'wealth' to pay tax has a long and regrettably regressive history in this country and yes, that would include the landed gentry less able to pay income tax or inheritance tax or invest in wealth creation - and jobs and services. And this is where you 'betray' your socialist leanings.
However, without a market there can be no wealth and no income whether the owner holds it or tries to flog it for threepence. Without a market, it is worth nothing. There is no wealth to tax. When there is income there will be something to tax. Geddit?
Incidentally the empty house owner in Everton does not pay zero tax. If he’s lucky his community charge is discounted. And BTW it’s not economics. It’s fiscal policy.
Bookmarks