gnvqsos Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Probably not as poor of the chances of persuading somebody of the medical profession to rent an ex-council house. They say two heads are better than one but sometimes it is a false idiom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Your accountant isn't selling a house at the moment is he? What do the figures look like for ROI on buy to let right now, I'd have thought they'd be really quite poor. I dont have a clue what you are saying with the ROI etc.My accountant wont be selling a house to you I doubt as he specialises in a professional clientelle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted November 2, 2011 Author Share Posted November 2, 2011 My bold. I own about 3 acres of land which costs me about £200 a yr ish to keep in reasonable nick. A Does this really make me immoral? B How do I go about getting your contribution towards the upkeep of this 'collective resource'? I'd strip you of your ownership of the land, and allow you the right to rent it from the common man (numerically you can consider that the common man = nation/number of citizens). Idle land would be taxed heavily, unless set aside for common leisure (parks etc.). You would still have to pay for keeping it in reasonable nick. A) Not really, unless your actively exploiting the monopoly upon land to better yourself at the expense of everyone else, especially if you know that the reduction in the available amount of land to everyone else, enriches you at their expense. B) Basic income funded by land value tax... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 I'd strip you of your ownership of the land, and allow you the right to rent it from the common man (numerically you can consider that the common man = nation/number of citizens). Idle land would be taxed heavily, unless set aside for common leisure (parks etc.). You would still have to pay for keeping it in reasonable nick. A) Not really, unless your actively exploiting the monopoly upon land to better yourself at the expense of everyone else, especially if you know that the reduction in the available amount of land to everyone else, enriches you at their expense. B) Basic income funded by land value tax... Ouch, bit maoist/khmer rouge year zero isn't it? I've seen hardcore communists that are less full on than that. I'll be interested to see how newbiz reacts to your desire to collectivise the land she bought and fill it with fat people drinking pop and reading about soaps otherwise she face massive taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 My bold. I own about 3 acres of land which costs me about £200 a yr ish to keep in reasonable nick. A Does this really make me immoral? B How do I go about getting your contribution towards the upkeep of this 'collective resource'? I think this not immoral per se but if you use the land to enslave farm labourers or trial GM crops then I will personally summon the Motor Tractor Polizei to evict you.If you ate paying the land wealth tax(AKA council tax/sccc) you will be an approved scheme.If not the MTP will call etc. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 The amount has remained the same but the composition has shifted in favour of private tenants and against the public/social tenant.I hope that is a little clearer.My A-level students seemed to grasp this point without repeated and varied explanations. Maybe they just don't want to spend the time stressing to you that the amount hasn't changed and so there the sale of council housing hasn't created a shortage... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I dont have a clue what you are saying with the ROI etc.My accountant wont be selling a house to you I doubt as he specialises in a professional clientelle. Oooh, a bit of Ad Hominem there, what's ruffled your feathers? I didn't say I wanted to buy a house from your accountant, I asked if he was selling one, since he's advising you to buy one. The implication being that it's not a good investment at the moment, the fact that you don't even know what an ROI makes me think that you're unlikely to get a good return. Personally I let my accountant do my accounting and use a financial adviser for investment advice, but each to there own. I'd give you the contact details for the FA, but they only deal with really professional clientele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I'd strip you of your ownership of the land, and allow you the right to rent it from the common man (numerically you can consider that the common man = nation/number of citizens). Idle land would be taxed heavily, unless set aside for common leisure (parks etc.). Who would you tax if it was owned by everyone? You would still have to pay for keeping it in reasonable nick. Why should he if he didn't own it and was renting it! A) Not really, unless your actively exploiting the monopoly upon land to better yourself at the expense of everyone else, especially if you know that the reduction in the available amount of land to everyone else, enriches you at their expense. What does that even mean? Using it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055497/JEREMY-PAXMAN-Baby-Boomers-selfish-generation-history.html However, all is not as well as it seems for the boomers. The young people of today are unable to keep the ponzi going. Over 20% of them are unemployed. Your pensions are being wiped out, people retiring now are already nursing lower pensions. Inflation is eroded the value of those pensions Your homes are fast falling in nominal value, and that's whilst we have high inflation. They are falling in price faster than you think. When your living standards depend upon the youth's earning power, productive work and ability to breed the next generation of taxpayers, one has to consider how we can move forwards. We need affordable housing, an abundance of jobs, and salaries high enough to be taxed to provide the elderly care. Young people must be able to raise a family. Without that, were all screwed. I apologise in advance for being very very rude but.... are you this dull in real life? Why do the mods not just combine all your threads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Probably not as poor of the chances of persuading somebody of the medical profession to rent an ex-council house.Not everyone shares your revulsion for the poor.Once more, Halibut puts 2 and 2 together and gets 17. It has nothing to do with revulsion for the poor. Aside from the odd (and rare) example quoted above, you won't tend to find all that many doctors living in rented ex-council houses. Look to the nicer suburbs of S7, S10, S11, S17 and you'll find plenty of doctors (and dentists, architects, barristers and various chartered professionals), but not so many will choose a life below their means. Pretty obvious really, but don't miss the opportunity for a dig, eh Halibut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.