chem1st   10 #37 Posted August 7, 2013 Your thinking is flawed. Lets say some bright spark took your idea in 1952 and divvied up all the common land to our 50million in habitants. Where would the extra 15 million we've got today live?  We are a small island with limited resources. Building willy nilly with no standards or law is chaos. You've put forward nothing that will change my view (or even answered most of the questions I've put)  The solution to that problem is a progressive land value tax and citizens income, to ensure the land is divided more fairly amongst a nations inhabitants, and to ensure each citizen can afford a small plot of land upon which to live.  I don't think we should divide the land and have outright ownership of it. That has already happened when the commons were stolen from the people by a few (many many years before 1952), that is why we have some of the most unequal land distribution in the entire world, and have so many problems when it comes to housing and the likes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
llamatron   10 #38 Posted August 7, 2013 In the South East there are sheds with beds and now there are also shanty towns emerging. Up here we have derelict and unfinished buildings being squatted and also sheds with beds are starting to emerge. There is also a massive increase in HMO tenements. Gone are the days of a private bathroom for new entrants to the property 'market'. ---------- Post added 07-08-2013 at 13:27 ----------   Do you want to live in a better house?  Would you improve your dwelling if you were not suffering the financial burden of excessive rent?  ---------- Post added 07-08-2013 at 13:29 ----------   We need to bring back common land. UK citizens need access to UK land.  Building in a day would not really be suitable for self build, however, large buildings containing multiple housing units can be constructed in a day.  ---------- Post added 07-08-2013 at 13:31 ----------   Your entitled to your opinion.  And whilst I might be a tad obsessive, I'm hardly a crackpot as my fears are being realised.  Do you really want your children and grandchildren to end up homeless or living in substandard accommodation due to a perverse system that stops people from building decent accommodation, actively demolishes it and forces up its price and in turn penalises the productive and prudent whilst rewarding non productive rentiers?  I would like future generations to enjoy fields and woods and wildlife! That is far more important. These fields and woods and wildlife protect our food and water sources and give everyone fresh air and space to exercise.  ---------- Post added 07-08-2013 at 15:50 ----------  I really can't work out why such a good idea should have been ignored for 525 years:huh:     ...oh wait-yes I can! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
monkey104 Â Â 10 #39 Posted August 7, 2013 Jesus, it's like groundhog day! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jeffrey Shaw   89 #40 Posted August 7, 2013 I'd tend to agree with the freeing up of land You mean, removing land from its owners (like that nice, democratic Mr Mugabe does)? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
chem1st   10 #41 Posted August 9, 2013 You mean, removing land from its owners (like that nice, democratic Mr Mugabe does)?  And how did they come into ownership?  All land has been stolen. People occupying land should pay a tax unto everyone else for depriving them of access and use. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Longcol   594 #42 Posted August 9, 2013 People occupying land should pay a tax unto everyone else for depriving them of access and use.  You can occupy land without owning it - it's called renting.  And I assume you've heard of inheritance tax? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
truman   10 #43 Posted August 9, 2013 You can occupy land without owning it - it's called renting. And I assume you've heard of inheritance tax?  And stamp duty? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Longcol   594 #44 Posted August 9, 2013 And stamp duty?  Thank you.  Yes, that as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
chem1st   10 #45 Posted August 9, 2013 You can occupy land without owning it - it's called renting. And I assume you've heard of inheritance tax?  IHT can be avoided by the land owning elite, and as the property is not sold, it is not subject to stamp duty. CAP can still be claimed.  So you can inherit large landholdings and claim large landowners benefits and avoid paying tax... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
truman   10 #46 Posted August 9, 2013 IHT can be avoided by the land owning elite, and as the property is not sold, it is not subject to stamp duty. CAP can still be claimed. So you can inherit large landholdings and claim large landowners benefits and avoid paying tax...  If IHT is so easy to avoid then why are receipts going up? http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-2382475/Inheritance-tax-receipts-rise-highest-level.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Longcol   594 #47 Posted August 9, 2013 IHT can be avoided by the land owning elite, and as the property is not sold, it is not subject to stamp duty. CAP can still be claimed. So you can inherit large landholdings and claim large landowners benefits and avoid paying tax...  Interesting - can you point out the "large landowner benefits" that they can claim.  http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/inheritancetax/how-to-value-estate/basics.htm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Swan_Vesta   11 #48 Posted August 9, 2013 Erection of Cottages Act?  Didn't George Michael get charged under this? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...