chem1st Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 no, the young man who does all that is the criminal, there are plenty of other people in similar situations who don't turn to crime and never would No difference to his theft under moral law. His enforced poverty by the thieving powers that be has led to his behaviour. It's the thieving gets at the top/behind the scenes that drove him to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 No difference to his theft under moral law. His enforced poverty by the thieving powers that be has led to his behaviour. It's the thieving gets at the top/behind the scenes that drove him to it. what thieving powers that be? you're turning paranoid moral law is a matter of perspective, and I really don't think a person who is proud of the fact he uses illegal substances has any right to make any pronouncements in what is and isn't moral Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Actually, it is. Prices rise when something is in demand but short supply, like . . . Land monopoly is not the only monopoly, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies -- it is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly. Your talking about supply and demand, but what of the land, more precisely the monopoly of the land. housing. If there were less people and more houses, property would be much cheaper. Not necessarily. When considering supply and demand, you must consider all the other factors too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 what thieving powers that be? you're turning paranoid Your not paranoid if the thieving gets are actually trying to rob you, or if you worry about their drones arresting you for smoking a spliif of homegrown without hurting anyone. moral law is a matter of perspective, and I really don't think a person who is proud of the fact he uses illegal substances has any right to make any pronouncements in what is and isn't moral How do I hurt you by smoking a joint? What if I forced you to pay me rent. And render you a serf. Is that moral? Is it eckers like, it is violence, and it is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 How do I hurt you by smoking a joint? you hurt yourself What if I forced you to pay me rent. And render you a serf. Is that moral? Is it eckers like, it is violence, and it is wrong. if you were my landlord then i would be quite content to pay you rent and i really don't see how that makes me anyone's serf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 you hurt yourself The Suicide Act 1961 (9 & 10 Eliz.2 c.60) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It decriminalised the act of suicide so that those who failed in the attempt would no longer be prosecuted. Seeing as I am not very good at killing myself, what with it being practically impossible, extremely time consuming and prohibitively expensive for me to administer cannabis to myself in a manner that would make me peg it. And with suicide being legal. Then I fail to see the problem. if you were my landlord then i would be quite content to pay you rent and i really don't see how that makes me anyone's serf If I were your landlord I would be happy to exploit you, but I don't want to be a landlord, nor do I think it is a just master-slave relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 If I were your landlord I would be happy to exploit you why do you think you would be exploting me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 why do you think you would be exploting me? I should have no claim upon your labour. By owning the property you occupy, and charging you rent I'm exploiting you, you are in effect my slave. Perhaps if I built the property myself, on land I created myself, with resources I created myself, and you rented the property entirely of your own free will. Then it would be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 I should have no claim upon your labour. By owning the property you occupy, and charging you rent I'm exploiting you, you are in effect my slave. Perhaps if I built the property myself, on land I created myself, with resources I created myself, and you rented the property entirely of your own free will. Then it would be different. Are you GOD:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Yes, they are based upon the 1991 value. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=712059&highlight=increase+council+tax They need to be re-banded. As most of Sheffield houses are band A. If you ask me, anything over £70k should now be in band B. Taking into account inflation (RPI), only houses under about 66k would be band A based upon the 1991 bands. However, the bands are set according to authority and 1991 value and don't bare much relation to the property value. Hence a single man in a £10k bedsit/caravan in Lancaster, can pay more than a family of billionaires in a multi million pound mansion in Westminister. The actual prices may have risen with inflation, but the differences in value are still very similar to what they were in 1991. It doesn’t matter whether a Band A value is 40k, 400k, or 4 apples. A 5 bedroom property in Ecclesall might be band E or F, and a 2 up two down in Grimesthorpe probably band A – based on their values in 1991, and adjusting that to values in 2012 will make little difference except cases like you suggest which seek to penalise home ownership. What you suggest is pushing more and more houses into higher bands just because their value on paper is higher – eventually by your logic everything would be Band H, apart from maybe tramps’ cardboard boxes. Don’t you see the unfairness of it? Say a couple on a low income bought a house 20 years ago at a relatively low value. They’re still on low income, still paying their mortgage, but their house value (on paper) has risen 3 fold. That doesn’t mean they earn more or can afford more, just that – on paper – they have collateral in their property. They’re already paying twice as much council tax as they used to, thanks to many years of above-inflation rises under Labour. Why should they be pushed up into a higher council tax band – why do you want to punish them like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.