House prices rose 7.3% this year, average now almost £250k

[Vanilla]

You're missing the point, these are all rounding errors compared to the scale of the problem, and will only distract from the real issue. We need an overhaul of the entire housing system.

We need to raise £100 billion a year, put 2 million people to work and built 500,000 houses every single year. The money can be raised by bringing property taxes inline with most of the developed world (average OECD property tax revenue per total country's property wealth is about 2%, UK is about 0.50%). People need to be trained, lands will need to be renationalised, industries will need to be reignited.

This is not about empowering billionaires to do the right thing, time for that has passed. We need the government to interfere, and take on the role of the builder of last resort.

No, YOU are thinking small scale. The real scale of the problem means it's outside of the market forces, there are no tens of thousands of benevolent billionaires sitting on land waiting to build them if only they're allowed. If these benevolent land owners were going to do the right thing, they'd have done it decades ago. God knows the entire government, local or national, is in the pockets of the landowner class.

These landowners who have kept the land away to create supply shortages will need their lands to be renationalised, built on by a non-profit government project, and sold to first-time buyers at zero margin.

Renationalisation. Taking land from billionaires. Government built. Zero margin.

...and then you wake up from the dream and go make a coffee.

 

[HACO]

Renationalisation. Taking land from billionaires. Government built. Zero margin.

...and then you wake up from the dream and go make a coffee.

It won't happen anytime soon. I'm just pointing out what we need to do. Maybe after a political uprising by the young generation we'll get some concessions.

Yes, I am a pessimist. I have very little confidence in our ability to maintain our civilisation and way of life in the long term.

 

[Semple]

Maybe after a political uprising by the young generation we'll get some concessions.

I doubt that either.

I imagine most future politicians (those in 20/30/40 years time) will likely have inherited a lot of land/properties from their parents, and it's unlikely they'll just give it all away.

Britain's population boom is slowing down, and there's even concerns that it'll contract and we'll have a future will a smaller population. That's likely to have a greater effect on housing availability, than persuading a load of rich people to give up their land.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

It won't happen anytime soon. I'm just pointing out what we need to do. Maybe after a political uprising by the young generation we'll get some concessions.

Yes, I am a pessimist. I have very little confidence in our ability to maintain our civilisation and way of life in the long term.

So you want to take away the land of those that pay the highest taxes in numbers to give away.

Then in a years time when tax revenues fall to historically low levels how do you suggest you pay for all these schemes?

 

[touch]

What a ridiculous attempt at a personal attack. I think I may have hit a nerve that you even remember that in such level of detail, please, take it easy on yourself.

Land reclamation comes at seas, and yes, you also need to build the high speed commute infrastructure to get these people where they will be most economically productive.

I'm not sure how you've managed to take that personally - that wasn't the intention. I'll remove that post if it offends you.

 

[HACO]

I doubt that either.

I imagine most future politicians (those in 20/30/40 years time) will likely have inherited a lot of land/properties from their parents, and it's unlikely they'll just give it all away.

Britain's population boom is slowing down, and there's even concerns that it'll contract and we'll have a future will a smaller population. That's likely to have a greater effect on housing availability, than persuading a load of rich people to give up their land.

You don't persuade them, you eat the rich They can take away their lands to foreign countries if they want to, or wait, they can't

So you want to take away the land of those that pay the highest taxes in numbers to give away.

Then in a years time when tax revenues fall to historically low levels how do you suggest you pay for all these schemes?

Good old Sonny thinks bringing land taxation to a level compared to OECD average results in tax revenues falling to historically low levels.

Reminds me of hacks in the US who say providing healthcare to everyone will bankrupt the country.

I'm not sure how you've managed to take that personally - it's not intended as a personal attack.

Lots of people have pointed out that there's cheaper housing available in various other parts of the country but your argument was that you need to be in London. How will a new city built on reclaimed land outside of London be any different?

It did feel like a personal attack, if it wasn't intended that way, I take your work for it.

Our housing crisis doesn't start and end with me and I do care beyond my own personal needs. I want to live in a country where good quality housing is not only for the rich, but available to anyone earning an average income.

Median housing price to household income is now over 9x in the UK, over 11x in England. Saying "cheap houses are there outside London" doesn't solve our housing crisis. Cheaper housing might be available for someone with a high London salary, but those are still very expensive for locals.

Like I said, "countrywide" plan, not "Londonwide" plan.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

You don't persuade them, you eat the rich They can take away their lands to foreign countries if they want to, or wait, they can't



Good old Sonny thinks bringing land taxation to a level compared to OECD average results in tax revenues falling to historically low levels.

Reminds me of hacks in the US who say providing healthcare to everyone will bankrupt the country.



It did feel like a personal attack, if it wasn't intended that way, I take your work for it.

Our housing crisis doesn't start and end with me and I do care beyond my own personal needs. I want to live in a country where good quality housing is not only for the rich, but available to anyone earning an average income.

Median housing price to household income is now over 9x in the UK, over 11x in England. Saying "cheap houses are there outside London" doesn't solve our housing crisis. Cheaper housing might be available for someone with a high London salary, but those are still very expensive for locals.

Like I said, "countrywide" plan, not "Londonwide" plan.

Jesus your worse than foxeye.

Can you read?

Because I never said anything like that.

You said to take all their land away nothing about taxation in the post I quoted.

Do you have dementia?

When you take all their land away. Tax revenues fall. How are you proposing to pay for all these schemes with no money?

 

[HACO]

Jesus your worse than foxeye.

Can you read?

Because I never said anything like that.

You said to take all their land away nothing about taxation in the post I quoted.

Do you have dementia?

When you take all their land away. Tax revenues fall. How are you proposing to pay for all these schemes with no money?

Nationalisation isn't taking someone's stuff away. Land nationalisation happens every single day in every single country. It's called compulsory purchase in English Land Law. I'm proposing that it should be done to help with our housing and land shortage.

You tax existing land at levels comparable to OECD average and you raise an extra £100 billion per year, every single year, for the rest of time. Yes, your rental income will go down, yes, your property won't appreciate as fast as it has, guess what? You'll survive and tens of millions will be much better off.

How awful would it have to be for poor landlords that they'd have to have a lifestyle comparable to other landlords in other OECD countries? If landlords need therapy after it, I'm sure the communist NHS will be happy to provide.

I know, it's communism to you. No wonder. Anything that changes the status quo towards making things better for the poor and younger generation seems crazy to you, a beneficiary of the current state of things.

Like I said before, I don't expect you to support these policies, they won't benefit someone whose family has massive property portfolios and has benefited from rental income for a very long time. After all, from what I understand, this is how you life your life. You take income other people pay for the privilege of being on the land you and your family have acquired.

The rest of us who work for a living and have to sort out our housing have a slightly different prespective.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Nationalisation isn't taking someone's stuff away. Land nationalisation happens every single day in every single country. It's called compulsory purchase in English Land Law. I'm proposing that it should be done to help with our housing and land shortage.

You tax existing land at levels comparable to OECD average and you raise an extra £100 billion per year, every single year, for the rest of time. Yes, your rental income will go down, yes, your property won't appreciate as fast as it has, guess what? You'll survive and tens of millions will be much better off.

How awful would it have to be for poor landlords that they'd have to have a lifestyle comparable to other landlords in other OECD countries? If landlords need therapy after it, I'm sure the communist NHS will be happy to provide.

I know, it's communism to you. No wonder. Anything that changes the status quo towards making things better for the poor and younger generation seems crazy to you, a beneficiary of the current state of things.

Like I said before, I don't expect you to support these policies, they won't benefit someone whose family has massive property portfolios and has benefited from rental income for a very long time. After all, from what I understand, this is how you life your life. You take income other people pay for the privilege of being on the land you and your family have acquired.

The rest of us who work for a living and have to sort out our housing have a slightly different prespective.

Yeah your correct I've never worked ever. Unless you count sitting on a gold throne commanding my subjects.

It's like talking with a brick wall. I'm done.

Off to tell all my tenants they can keep their accomodation for free.

 

[Simon]

You have said multiple times you got nothing from family and worked yourself to get where you are.

Talk about deaf ears

 

[BigT]

.....there are no tens of thousands of benevolent billionaires sitting on land waiting to build them if only they're allowed. If these benevolent land owners were going to do the right thing, they'd have done it decades ago. God knows the entire government, local or national, is in the pockets of the landowner class.

These landowners who have kept the land away to create supply shortages will need their lands to be renationalised, built on by a non-profit government project, and sold to owner-occupied first-time buyers at zero margin (on conditions that capital gains are taxed at 100% above inflation, letting is not permitted, empty properties are heavily taxed, etc).

I looked up the biggest land owners in the UK. Ironically, but not surprisingly once you see them, none of the Top 5 are billionaire individuals:

1. Forestry Commission
2. National Trust
3. MOD
4. The Crown
5. RSPB

Made me laugh a little. I actually know the first individual ranked at no. 6 and he is actually a billionaire on paper.

 

[Vanilla]

I looked up the biggest land owners in the UK. Ironically, but not surprisingly once you see them, none of the Top 5 are billionaire individuals:

1. Forestry Commission
2. National Trust
3. MOD
4. The Crown
5. RSPB

Made me laugh a little. I actually know the first individual ranked at no. 6 and he is actually a billionaire on paper.

There are only about 50 odd billionaires in the UK anyway

 

[Vanilla]

Talk about deaf ears

1700's Britain

Wah wah evil rent charging Crown land owners wah wah who do they think they are

2020

wah wah evil working/middle class property owners who do they think they are

 

[HACO]

I looked up the biggest land owners in the UK. Ironically, but not surprisingly once you see them, none of the Top 5 are billionaire individuals:

1. Forestry Commission
2. National Trust
3. MOD
4. The Crown
5. RSPB

Made me laugh a little. I actually know the first individual ranked at no. 6 and he is actually a billionaire on paper.

These are all the government, lol. Do you want to sum up roads, hospitals, schools, etc as well? I hear NHS has some prime real estate!

Are you surprised that the biggest land owner in the country is the government? Did you actually think before you wrote the post?

Go and look up PRIVATE land ownership and the role the aristocracy plays in land ownership in the country.

Half of England is owned by less than 1% of the population (2500 people)

1700's Britain

Wah wah evil rent charging Crown land owners wah wah who do they think they are

2020

wah wah evil working/middle class property owners who do they think they are

Read above, and learn something.

Do you seriously think the 1% of the population that owns 50% of England are working or middle property owners?

I'm just speechless.

 

[dlockers]

What kind of statistic is 50% is owned by 1%? Talk about getting the numbers to match a narrative.

 

[HACO]

What kind of statistic is 50% is owned by 1%? Talk about getting the numbers to match a narrative.

The study found that 50% of land in England is owned by 2500 people. Do you have any other study to rebut this or is it just your way of saying you're ignoring facts because life is more comfortable in ignorance?

I'm sure people are going to argue that these 2500 people are working class people who worked hard to buy these properties for themselves and it's unfair to tax/renationalise them as it sends them into poverty and it's unfairrrrrrrr

 

[dlockers]

The study found that 50% of land in England is owned by 2500 people. Do you have any other study to rebut this or is it just your way of saying you're ignoring facts because life is more comfortable in ignorance?

I'm sure people are going to argue that these 2500 people are working class people who worked hard to buy these properties for themselves and it's unfair to tax/renationalise them as it sends them into poverty and it's unfairrrrrrrr

No I was just curious. 50% of land is owned by 2500 makes a lot more sense.

No need to be so salty. If you want you can come round my 450k house and see what compromises I have had to make.

 

[BigT]

These are all the government, lol. Do you want to sum up roads, hospitals, schools, etc as well? I hear NHS has some prime real estate!

Are you surprised that the biggest land owner in the country is the government? Did you actually think before you wrote the post?

Blimey, are you in a really bad mood? Firstly I think only two of those I listed are the Government, and actually I was indeed surprised the landed gentry ranked behind the RSPB if I’m honest. Don’t you think it’s interesting? I was also surprised by how much land the Church owns. None of this means I have any interest in defending private land owners. I think our housing situation is as messed up as I suspect you do so maybe you could be a little less rude please?

 

[HACO]

Blimey, are you in a really bad mood? Firstly I think only two of those I listed are the Government, and actually I was indeed surprised the landed gentry ranked behind the RSPB if I’m honest. Don’t you think it’s interesting? I was also surprised by how much land the Church owns. None of this means I have any interest in defending private land owners. I think our housing situation is as messed up as I suspect you do so maybe you could be a little less rude please?

Sorry, it's fundamentally dishonest to throw MOD!!!!!!!, National Trust, Forestry Commission or The Crown into the mix when we talk about housing policies. And you knew it before you posted it. These institutions are not hoarding commercially transferrable land that can be used for housing. I have no idea why you thought it's actually a contribution to the discussion about housing, and I'm sure next on that list are other non-commercial lands, e.g. roads, bridges, rivers, our seas too! We have a lot of those.

And you ignored the link I sent you, which says 50% of England land is owned by 2500 people. These are the people I'm talking about, not MOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!, Forests Commission or National Trust. Actual people or for-profit companies owning commercially available land. Not forests, roads, military camps, but commercial lands.

And finally, sorry for being a little too direct, maybe my tone was a little too harsh, I however do stand by what I said and if you generally agree with the concerns over the housing situation and don't want to defend private land owners, you shouldn't be equating them with the likes of National Trust or MOD.

 

[BigT]

Sorry, it's fundamentally dishonest to throw MOD!!!!!!!, National Trust, Forestry Commission or The Crown into the mix when we talk about housing policies. And you knew it before you posted it. These institutions are not hoarding commercially transferrable land that can be used for housing. I have no idea why you thought it's actually a contribution to the discussion about housing, and I'm sure next on that list are other non-commercial lands, e.g. roads, bridges, rivers, our seas too! We have a lot of those.

And you ignored the link I sent you, which says 50% of England land is owned by 2500 people. These are the people I'm talking about, not MOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!, Forests Commission or National Trust. Actual people or for-profit companies owning commercially available land. Not forests, roads, military camps, but commercial lands.

And finally, sorry for being a little too direct, maybe my tone was a little too harsh, I however do stand by what I said and if you generally agree with the concerns over the housing situation and don't want to defend private land owners, you shouldn't be equating them with the likes of National Trust or MOD.

I haven’t ignored your link and I’m sure it’s very true. I have no issue with it’s validity nor how it is contributory to the problem which is why I didn’t include it in my quote. I wasn’t suggesting we tear up forests for housing, I did not mean to infer those organisations play any role in solving the housing crisis and I was merely interested in something tangential to the debate around land ownership. I’m sorry I offended you for posting such a thing but I really think you’re interpreting something in my post that just isn’t there. I’ll leave you to it.