Work or be homeless!

Generali

SquatNow wrote: »

It's noticable that rather than discuss my point, poeple just insult me.

It's because they can't argue against what I'm saying because it's true.

No, people have tried arguing against you and you refuse to take up good points, go off on unrelated tangents or, your most usual tactic, is to become defensive and refuse to cite sources.

People have started to call you on this stuff over the past couple of days, that's all.

clutton_2

""I just think people should be taxed on the land value to prevent land ownership for the SAKE of land ownership, and to prevent speculation.""

surely Capital Gains Tax is payable here when land is sold ?

Squatnow - there are many other products which people buy to make a profit from - to speculate on - antiques for example. Profit is not a dirty word - folks have been trading since time immemorial - its what makes the world go round.

I have read your reasoned arguments, and found them interesting - you have mentioned that books have been written - whose books ?

lotto-dreamer

clutton wrote: »

I have read your reasoned arguments, and found them interesting - you have mentioned that books have been written - whose books ?

Yes, please let us know.

SquatNow

clutton wrote: »

Squatnow - there are many other products which people buy to make a profit from - to speculate on - antiques for example. Profit is not a dirty word - folks have been trading since time immemorial - its what makes the world go round.

But land is unique... if it NOT a product... no more can be produced. Unlike things like antiques (which I accept cannot be replaced) you need land to live.

nightwatchman wrote: »

What it makes land valuable is its location and the amenities nearby, not the lack of it. I suppose that I could buy 80 acres of land in Sahara desert in exchange for a lame donkey. However I would have been mad to do so, especially, if I was going to be taxed for it.
Therefore only prime land is scarce..

I can see your point, but only PRIME land can be built on. If you could build what you like where you like all that would happen is as soon as you put in infrastructure the value of all the land would spiral making it unaffordable. Consider MK... they built a nw tow in the middle of no-where, and it's prices are as high as everywhere else.

nightwatchman wrote: »

Hypothetically let’s suppose now that all the taxation was based only on land ownership.
Then any high earner, or better any earner, would choose to rent instead to own a house/land.
In turn as the already developed prime land is scarce the rents will reach the sky.

That's what happens now... but as the land woud attract a high tax, the landlord would have to pay a significant portion of that rent as tax.

nightwatchman wrote: »

In turn, as the state can only tax land, it would have to increase taxation to make ends meet and to keep up with the land/home owners earnings.
In turn cost will passed to the tenants.
The ones that are already landowners (big or small) will quickly become rich behind today’s standards.

The more the landlord charges in rent, the higher the value of the land, so the more the landlord will pay in tax.

If the landlord raises the rent too high, he finds himself sans tennants... but still has to pay the tax...

What it does, it force landlords make use of the land, or sell it.

nightwatchman wrote: »

Some high earners they may invest their tax free savings in land so as to have a larger part of the pie.

Then they will pay more tax.

nightwatchman wrote: »

In turn the land/housing will become more expensive.

Exactly the opposite... because owning land and not using it now has a cost, prices are held DOWN. Owning land will have become a liability rather than an asset. Some land could hypothetically end up with a negative value.

nightwatchman wrote: »

In turn the small earner which has not as yet managed to get in to the property ladder it will be impossible to afford a place to live.

No, that's what we have underthe CURRENT system.

nightwatchman wrote: »

That would have create an inequity of wealth grater to what we have now. I dread to imagine a world operating under your vision.

You have everything BACKWARDS!

fc123

clutton wrote: »

I have read your reasoned arguments, and found them interesting - you have mentioned that books have been written - whose books ?

Could be Fred Harrison " Boom, Bust, House prices, Banking and The Depression of 2010". The review mentioned something about land taxes.......all a bit gobbledy gook to me; so I have decided to read it for myself.
Mines on order from Amazon.......just needed a little distraction from frocks, LFW and stuff...plus was hoping he is correct about the date of the impending depression (2010) as , by then , I will be on the right side of the financial line.
I was worried it was going to kick off in April 08.....as then I will forever be pottering about on the DFW board.

clutton_2

""Could be Fred Harrison " Boom, Bust, House prices, Banking and The Depression of 2010".

thanks fc123 i just wonder why Squatnow has not come back and given us some definitive reading ??

Jonbvn

SquatNow wrote: »

It's noticable that rather than discuss my point, poeple just insult me.

It's because they can't argue against what I'm saying because it's true.

SN,

We/I are/am open to discussion. However, it is clear that you will not listen to reason, since you believe your opinions are incontrovertible facts. You have been requested to substantiate such opinions several times. Unfortunately, you revert to type and claim anything found on the net is a Neocon conspiracy, or worse still try and "shout" your original point again. Similar traits perhaps to a certain national socialist empire.

Given the above, the only option is to (deservedly) abuse you.

fc123

clutton wrote: »

""Could be Fred Harrison " Boom, Bust, House prices, Banking and The Depression of 2010".

thanks fc123 i just wonder why Squatnow has not come back and given us some definitive reading ??

Perhaps he hasn't got to the end yet?

fc123

Jonbvn wrote: »

SN,

We/I are/am open to discussion. However, it is clear that you will not listen to reason, since you believe your opinions are incontrovertible facts. You have been requested to substantiate such opinions several times. Unfortunately, you revert to type and claim anything found on the net is a Neocon conspiracy.

Given the above, the only option is to (deservedly) abuse you.

SN, I love reading some of your ideas etc esp the pensions ones, but what they occasionally lack is the life experience that is sometimes needed to sprinkle on the academic theory.

I guess that Lynzpower is some kind of outreach worker / social worker (sorry Lynn if I've got it wrong).
Prior to starting theoretical threads such as this, how about a secondment with Lynzpower for a week or 2?

Sorry, I'm referring to the O Post title.....am still totally lost on land tax issues.

clutton_2

"" Given the above, the only option is to (deservedly) abuse you. ""

i dont think it is at all deserved to abuse someone - just because we dont agree with their views

- and i now apologise to Squatnow for having implied he was a "substance abuser" just because i did not understand his opinions - it was an unworthy comment on my part

in a democracy, we have the legally enshrined right of "free speech" - and laws to prevent such "freedoms" going into the realms of racist abuse etc etc - and so i must defend Squatnow's right to say what he has to say - he rarely abuses others - but is ab used himself quite often and rarely sinks to the "playground response"

which really famous politiican said something like - i cannot ever agree with what you say, but, i will defend to the death, your right to say it.

(not that i would go so far as Death Squatnow !!)

lets try to treat each other with respect and dignity here.... me included .....