Half of England owned by less than 1 per cent of population
Discussion
markjmd said:
Serious question. Do you genuinely long for a state of affairs where every person in the country would have the same net worth as every other?
Umm, the disparity is enhanced by agri land values being so excessive vs the ROI you’d attain using them for intended industrial purpose... never mind just keeping them ‘pretty’ as non-industrial eco-zones.Land values could be 1/4 as much, and it’d be beneficial to most farmers.
Just as house values could be 1/4 as much and it’d be beneficial to most home owners.
The only losers are those using farm land and houses as financial instruments... rather than as industrial units and homes.
ClaphamGT3 said:
Sorry but I have to call this out for the arrant b
ks that it is.
Bubble created by the tax policies of recent Government's??!! Help is all out and point us to any point in our nation's recorded history where land hasn't been predominantly in the hands of the wealthy?
Oh, and by the way, I could annihilate your argument about farming needing to be subsidised but, frankly, it would be just too easy...
Blanket APR.ks that it is.Bubble created by the tax policies of recent Government's??!! Help is all out and point us to any point in our nation's recorded history where land hasn't been predominantly in the hands of the wealthy?
Oh, and by the way, I could annihilate your argument about farming needing to be subsidised but, frankly, it would be just too easy...
1950-1960.
Feel free. You clearly speak for the champagne lifestyle land owners, not actual farmers.
Mr Whippy said:
Umm, the disparity is enhanced by agri land values being so excessive vs the ROI you’d attain using them for intended industrial purpose... never mind just keeping them ‘pretty’ as non-industrial eco-zones.
Land values could be 1/4 as much, and it’d be beneficial to most farmers.
Just as house values could be 1/4 as much and it’d be beneficial to most home owners.
The only losers are those using farm land and houses as financial instruments... rather than as industrial units and homes.
Erm not that helpful to anyone who currently owns a home, as someone who was a first time buyer less than two years ago and who worked my arse off to buy my house, I would rather that it's value wasn't cut by three quarters overnight on the whim of some hippy socialist. Land values could be 1/4 as much, and it’d be beneficial to most farmers.
Just as house values could be 1/4 as much and it’d be beneficial to most home owners.
The only losers are those using farm land and houses as financial instruments... rather than as industrial units and homes.
Rebew said:
Erm not that helpful to anyone who currently owns a home, as someone who was a first time buyer less than two years ago and who worked my arse off to buy my house, I would rather that it's value wasn't cut by three quarters overnight on the whim of some hippy socialist.
But any other house you wanted to buy would be cheaper, and so it is less relevant that it seems. High house prices make people who own houses feel good, but the current rate of house inflation is neither sustainable nor especially desirable.
Condi said:
But any other house you wanted to buy would be cheaper, and so it is less relevant that it seems.
High house prices make people who own houses feel good, but the current rate of house inflation is neither sustainable nor especially desirable.
High house prices drive the economy, a reason amongst many for mass immigration.High house prices make people who own houses feel good, but the current rate of house inflation is neither sustainable nor especially desirable.
the issue you have is people accept situation without any real criticism, because it is perceived to work for there situation.
Thesprucegoose said:
Condi said:
But any other house you wanted to buy would be cheaper, and so it is less relevant that it seems.
High house prices make people who own houses feel good, but the current rate of house inflation is neither sustainable nor especially desirable.
High house prices drive the economy, a reason amongst many for mass immigration.High house prices make people who own houses feel good, but the current rate of house inflation is neither sustainable nor especially desirable.
the issue you have is people accept situation without any real criticism, because it is perceived to work for there situation.
markjmd said:
If the alternative to "accepting the situation" is to wave some magic wand and reduce the price of every house in the country by 75%, without any consideration apparently given to trivial little details such as how much they actually cost to build, then long live the status quo.
If any consideration was given to the cost of actually building the thing, Persimmon wouldn't be making £66,000 per house profit. 
I would guess with their economies of scale that works out to be somewhere between a 60 and 70% margin, and as a headline figure has tripled in 5 years.
Condi said:
Rebew said:
Erm not that helpful to anyone who currently owns a home, as someone who was a first time buyer less than two years ago and who worked my arse off to buy my house, I would rather that it's value wasn't cut by three quarters overnight on the whim of some hippy socialist.
But any other house you wanted to buy would be cheaper, and so it is less relevant that it seems. High house prices make people who own houses feel good, but the current rate of house inflation is neither sustainable nor especially desirable.
it’s called huge negative equity which undermines society and the financial sector. Condi said:
But any other house you wanted to buy would be cheaper, and so it is less relevant that it seems.
High house prices make people who own houses feel good, but the current rate of house inflation is neither sustainable nor especially desirable.
And I could easily buy the much cheaper house.... once I have paid off the £130k negative equity I would have in my mortgage. Genius! High house prices make people who own houses feel good, but the current rate of house inflation is neither sustainable nor especially desirable.
best thing you can do is have property in ownership. Try working in social housing- you give homes/land to people for free: they can't look after it.
with new build these days, we purposely shrink gardens, tarmac front gardens and do open plan/no fencing to try and mitigate the fact they are all lazy.
any front garden nicely lawned with a fence will just be smashed down and a car driven onto it.
any fenced rear garden will be full of refuse/animal waste and eventually smashed to bits.
think I'm lying: we spend £40K a week, just clearing waste and felling weeds/grass/shrubs etc from void prop gardens.
with new build these days, we purposely shrink gardens, tarmac front gardens and do open plan/no fencing to try and mitigate the fact they are all lazy.
any front garden nicely lawned with a fence will just be smashed down and a car driven onto it.
any fenced rear garden will be full of refuse/animal waste and eventually smashed to bits.
think I'm lying: we spend £40K a week, just clearing waste and felling weeds/grass/shrubs etc from void prop gardens.
PositronicRay said:
What about publicly owned land? For instance the forestry commission manages 1.7 million acres. Devide it up and give a little piece to everyone?
Fantastic idea ! What will you do with your one-fortieth of an acre which will most likely be on a remote mountainside in the celtic fringes ? You're not allowed to sell it of course, because that would mean that the buyer would have more land than you.gothatway said:
Fantastic idea ! What will you do with your one-fortieth of an acre which will most likely be on a remote mountainside in the celtic fringes ? You're not allowed to sell it of course, because that would mean that the buyer would have more land than you.
and you'd lose 1% of it every year to population growth.Rebew said:
Condi said:
But any other house you wanted to buy would be cheaper, and so it is less relevant that it seems.
High house prices make people who own houses feel good, but the current rate of house inflation is neither sustainable nor especially desirable.
And I could easily buy the much cheaper house.... once I have paid off the £130k negative equity I would have in my mortgage. Genius! High house prices make people who own houses feel good, but the current rate of house inflation is neither sustainable nor especially desirable.
House prices really only affect those at the start and end of their property 'lives', if you will.
Condi said:
House prices really only affect those at the start and end of their property 'lives', if you will.
Correct. Until some idiot contrives to slash house prices by 3/4, at which point almost everyone with a mortgage will be in negative equity. The lucky ones will be unwilling to sell at a massive loss, the rest will lose their home but still owe the money. They will probably consider themselves "affected" by this.And the rest of the planet will start buying up every house until prices reach an international price/risk parity.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff