chem1st Posted February 12, 2012 Author Share Posted February 12, 2012 To be fair, you needn't get rid of the stately homes to be able to provide housing. There is plenty of land, but if it was a choice between them or housing for the people... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riannon Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 To be fair, you needn't get rid of the stately homes to be able to provide housing. There is plenty of land, but if it was a choice between them or housing for the people... Don't you just think that it is you that wants everyone else to bestow their worldly goods upon yourself so you can have an easy life without making any personal effort? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarkysod Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Have the people of Darnall been robbed of land, which might belong to them here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share Posted February 13, 2012 Don't you just think that it is you that wants everyone else to bestow their worldly goods upon yourself so you can have an easy life without making any personal effort? No. Not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riche Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 So the land is owned by the elite? Do what that shiney black guy did in Africa and take it of them and ruin it. They don't own it they run it. Who would run it and how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordonb Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Instead of paying people millions of pounds to merely own land, we charge them rent for depriving others of land. This will lead to them giving up the land, unless of course they can use it productively enough to make a profit and pay the rent. Unused land which is not being used productively can then be rented to the people who need it for housing and business activity, i.e. those whom can use it more productively for the betterment of society as a whole. The collected rent can then be divided by the number of citizens and each man woman and child paid an equal share. Some land could be exempt from taxation and held in common, for example parks. Certain activities could be encouraged via tax breaks, such as food production. Isn't this what Mugabe has done in Zambia? The land used to be owned and farmed successfully by the ruling White elite. It was known as the breadbasket of Africa. Along comes Mugabe and nationalises the land then allocates it to his cronies. It is now one of the poorest countries in Africa on account of the masses can't make it work as they don't have the knowledge or ability. As has been said elsewhere on this thread some people can't even look after a garden and from personal knowledge some can't look after the house that they are allocated so maybe they should have their houses removed from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Mugabe's policies would probably seem quite sensible compared to the bizarre ideas the OP has. Some land is owned by 'the elite'. In the uk a huge amount of land is owned by the MOD, and a lot by the Church, and a surprising amount by some universities. Then there are the millions of people who are not elite but own their own bit of land, anything from the plot their cottage sits on to their 5000 acre farm. They're all landowners. Many of them bought their land, either as freehold with the property they live in or as agricutural/commerical land to make a living. Why should they pay a tax just for owning their bit of land? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigthumb Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Isn't this what Mugabe has done in Zambia? Priceless...:hihi::hihi: Obviously a really well researched posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 No. Not at all. Have you had a thought yet about finding someone who will let you use their unkempt garden to grow veg? As in my earlier post: http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8573530&postcount=12 If those who want a garden but haven't got one were matched with the people who have a garden but don't want to cultivate it, it could be a win-win situation! I'm sure the council would be pleased as they would benefit from the improvements on many of their estates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuy Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Their ancestor John Cavendish dealt the fatal blow to Wat Tyler, and was subsequently beheaded by Jack Straw. He's a dark horse that guy http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00981/Jack-Straw_981694c.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.