George Monbiot @GeorgeMonbiot · 14h The question I've never been able to resolve is why far right conspiracy fictions seem, for so many online influencers, to be the key to massive audiences. What is it about this nonsense that attracts so many people?
Are they really far right conspiracies? It seems to me a lot are what the wacko left are also big into for as long as I can remember i.e. global carbal of elites who really run the world, MSM never tell the whole truth & "speakers of truth" get shut down....
I think the popularity is down to similar reason why Trump got elected (remember he appealed to lots of blue collar life long Democrat voters many who work in unionised jobs with similar stickt).
Alwyn Turner @AlwynTurner · 9h In 2015 readers of Prospect magazine voted Russell Brand the fourth most significant thinker in the world, behind Thomas Piketty, Yanis Varoufakis and Naomi Klein.
The readers of Prospect were correct to put Brand in that company.
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.
It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.
Nope.
We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.
When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.
They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.
The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.
The scale of the housing crisis is so large that we should provide homes as efficiently as possible - in areas with existing infrastructure and on small amounts of land.
Plastering the UK with detached new builds with no schools, public transport, GP surgeries (etc) or other infrastructure is the least cost effective way to provide the homes we need.
My tenement has 25 people living in it, takes up the space of one house, and is a max 10 minute walk from all essential services. 50,000 people live within a 15 minute walk of me.
And for the people who don't want to live in an Arcology?
Packing more and more people into smaller and smaller spaces is already having detectable mental effects. There was a paper I was reading, just the other day - the author correlated property size and quality with mental health. And the results were completely unsurprising.
Parks!
And there are loads of beautiful detached houses, with large gardens and plenty of bedrooms, where people could bring up their children.
Problem is they are packed out by retirees (or are the second home of retirees, or holiday homes, or airbnbs...)
The UK, as a whole, has one of the highest ratios of people to bedrooms out there.
Much like the mythology of empty tower blocks of flats being hoarded by Fu Manchu & Co., there isn't a hidden stockpile of housing we can just release.
We need to build some more Liverpools. One or 2 a year. For the foreseeable future.
Getting some crumblies out of the family home is a speck of fly shit, compared to that need.
Shame about the Lake District and the Yorkshire Dales, but hey....
London has a lower density than most comparable cities. Some building of more homes can be in existing urban areas.
In London, they are building tower blocks in the angles between major roads, railways and next to roundabouts.
Unless you move Heathrow to an island or build on the parks, where is this building going to take place?
London has huge amounts of low density housing, from victorian terraces to 60s council estates to 80s developments. Look at Rotherhithe on Google maps satellite, for example.
One of the few downsides of right to buy is that the local authorities can't move people out and densify these areas.
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.
It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.
Nope.
We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.
When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.
They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.
The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.
The scale of the housing crisis is so large that we should provide homes as efficiently as possible - in areas with existing infrastructure and on small amounts of land.
Plastering the UK with detached new builds with no schools, public transport, GP surgeries (etc) or other infrastructure is the least cost effective way to provide the homes we need.
My tenement has 25 people living in it, takes up the space of one house, and is a max 10 minute walk from all essential services. 50,000 people live within a 15 minute walk of me.
And for the people who don't want to live in an Arcology?
Packing more and more people into smaller and smaller spaces is already having detectable mental effects. There was a paper I was reading, just the other day - the author correlated property size and quality with mental health. And the results were completely unsurprising.
Parks!
And there are loads of beautiful detached houses, with large gardens and plenty of bedrooms, where people could bring up their children.
Problem is they are packed out by retirees (or are the second home of retirees, or holiday homes, or airbnbs...)
The UK, as a whole, has one of the highest ratios of people to bedrooms out there.
Much like the mythology of empty tower blocks of flats being hoarded by Fu Manchu & Co., there isn't a hidden stockpile of housing we can just release.
We need to build some more Liverpools. One or 2 a year. For the foreseeable future.
Getting some crumblies out of the family home is a speck of fly shit, compared to that need.
Shame about the Lake District and the Yorkshire Dales, but hey....
London has a lower density than most comparable cities. Some building of more homes can be in existing urban areas.
In London, they are building tower blocks in the angles between major roads, railways and next to roundabouts.
Unless you move Heathrow to an island or build on the parks, where is this building going to take place?
I refer you to the answer Stuartinromford gave above. “Dignified terraced townhouses, four storey mansion blocks. That sort of thing.” Instead of the large swathes of London that have 2-storey semi-detacheds.
Alwyn Turner @AlwynTurner · 9h In 2015 readers of Prospect magazine voted Russell Brand the fourth most significant thinker in the world, behind Thomas Piketty, Yanis Varoufakis and Naomi Klein.
The readers of Prospect were correct to put Brand in that company.
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.
It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.
Nope.
We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.
When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.
They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.
The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.
The scale of the housing crisis is so large that we should provide homes as efficiently as possible - in areas with existing infrastructure and on small amounts of land.
Plastering the UK with detached new builds with no schools, public transport, GP surgeries (etc) or other infrastructure is the least cost effective way to provide the homes we need.
My tenement has 25 people living in it, takes up the space of one house, and is a max 10 minute walk from all essential services. 50,000 people live within a 15 minute walk of me.
And for the people who don't want to live in an Arcology?
Packing more and more people into smaller and smaller spaces is already having detectable mental effects. There was a paper I was reading, just the other day - the author correlated property size and quality with mental health. And the results were completely unsurprising.
Parks!
And there are loads of beautiful detached houses, with large gardens and plenty of bedrooms, where people could bring up their children.
Problem is they are packed out by retirees (or are the second home of retirees, or holiday homes, or airbnbs...)
The UK, as a whole, has one of the highest ratios of people to bedrooms out there.
Much like the mythology of empty tower blocks of flats being hoarded by Fu Manchu & Co., there isn't a hidden stockpile of housing we can just release.
We need to build some more Liverpools. One or 2 a year. For the foreseeable future.
Getting some crumblies out of the family home is a speck of fly shit, compared to that need.
Shame about the Lake District and the Yorkshire Dales, but hey....
London has a lower density than most comparable cities. Some building of more homes can be in existing urban areas.
In London, they are building tower blocks in the angles between major roads, railways and next to roundabouts.
Unless you move Heathrow to an island or build on the parks, where is this building going to take place?
Here's part of the answer- on top of existing houses. But tastefully.
Cyclefree -This may be a little minimal for your needs, but I thought it might interest you: From Sandburg's biography of Lincoln, I learned that early settlers in what is now the Midwest often built a simple lean-to for their family, and then sheltered in it for weeks, or even months, while something more substantial was being built.
The family would huddle together in the lean-to, and build a fire in front of it, if the weather turned cold.
(I assume I missed the better pictures of this replica, posted when a travel writer visited Kentucky. Along with pictures of the auto plants, that produce no fewer than 1.3 million cars per year, according to their state government.)
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.
It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.
Nope.
We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.
When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.
They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.
The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.
The scale of the housing crisis is so large that we should provide homes as efficiently as possible - in areas with existing infrastructure and on small amounts of land.
Plastering the UK with detached new builds with no schools, public transport, GP surgeries (etc) or other infrastructure is the least cost effective way to provide the homes we need.
My tenement has 25 people living in it, takes up the space of one house, and is a max 10 minute walk from all essential services. 50,000 people live within a 15 minute walk of me.
And for the people who don't want to live in an Arcology?
Packing more and more people into smaller and smaller spaces is already having detectable mental effects. There was a paper I was reading, just the other day - the author correlated property size and quality with mental health. And the results were completely unsurprising.
Parks!
And there are loads of beautiful detached houses, with large gardens and plenty of bedrooms, where people could bring up their children.
Problem is they are packed out by retirees (or are the second home of retirees, or holiday homes, or airbnbs...)
The UK, as a whole, has one of the highest ratios of people to bedrooms out there.
Much like the mythology of empty tower blocks of flats being hoarded by Fu Manchu & Co., there isn't a hidden stockpile of housing we can just release.
We need to build some more Liverpools. One or 2 a year. For the foreseeable future.
Getting some crumblies out of the family home is a speck of fly shit, compared to that need.
Shame about the Lake District and the Yorkshire Dales, but hey....
London has a lower density than most comparable cities. Some building of more homes can be in existing urban areas.
In London, they are building tower blocks in the angles between major roads, railways and next to roundabouts.
Unless you move Heathrow to an island or build on the parks, where is this building going to take place?
Here's part of the answer- on top of existing houses. But tastefully.
I was actually in the area today. It only came about because of a community that was heavily invested in a needing bigger houses. And was able to crush any local opposition.
The article is carefully illustrated with the nicest examples, incidentally.
Alwyn Turner @AlwynTurner · 9h In 2015 readers of Prospect magazine voted Russell Brand the fourth most significant thinker in the world, behind Thomas Piketty, Yanis Varoufakis and Naomi Klein.
The readers of Prospect were correct to put Brand in that company.
I reckon there will be some people trying to black hole all their praise for revolutionary thinker Brand, to go with similar praise they had for the likes of Assange & Snowdon, before without missing a beat tweaking 1000s of times about Russian interference in elections led to Brexit / Trump.
George Monbiot @GeorgeMonbiot · 14h The question I've never been able to resolve is why far right conspiracy fictions seem, for so many online influencers, to be the key to massive audiences. What is it about this nonsense that attracts so many people?
Are they really far right conspiracies? It seems to me a lot are what the wacko left are also big into for as long as I can remember i.e. global carbal of elites who really run the world, MSM never tell the whole truth & "speakers of truth" get shut down....
I think the popularity is down to similar reason why Trump got elected (remember he appealed to lots of blue collar life long Democrat voters many who work in unionised jobs with similar stickt).
Can part of the loathing on the left for people like Trump be explained by their resentment at being usurped in that role?
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
How would you manage the spare bedroom thing? Count everyone’s rooms? What’s a spare bedroom vs an office?
Would you reduce taxes by combining 2 small bedrooms into one larger one?
The window tax was more sensible!
Just tax land and leave it at that.
A block of flats, or 2 detached homes, or four semis all on the same land would attract the same land tax if they use the same land.
That’s a take or pay contract.
Why should the government effectively force someone to use land if they don’t want to? I will fight for the right to do nothing.
Your right to do nothing imposes a cost on the community - by reducing the availability of housing.
The necessity of the limitation of personal rights, to the benefit of society as a whole is the whole reason we don't live in anarchist/Ayn Rand heaven. Or is it hell?
Making someone pay for the externalities associated with their *action* is fine. Not charging them for *inaction*.
You are upending the relationship between the state and the individual
Inaction is an action. In many countries and societies, it is considered perfectly sensible, that if an individual refuses to do anything with a piece of land that is of value to the community, it can be compulsorily purchased and put to use.
In the UK the state’s power derived from the consent of the people. That’s not the same in other countries (L’etat, c’est moi)
Alwyn Turner @AlwynTurner · 9h In 2015 readers of Prospect magazine voted Russell Brand the fourth most significant thinker in the world, behind Thomas Piketty, Yanis Varoufakis and Naomi Klein.
The readers of Prospect were correct to put Brand in that company.
I reckon there will be some people trying to black hole all their praise for revolutionary thinker Brand, to go with similar praise they had for the likes of Assange & Snowdon, before without missing a beat tweaking 1000s of times about Russian interference in elections led to Brexit / Trump.
Remember when Ed Miliband counted him before the 2015 election.
George Monbiot @GeorgeMonbiot · 14h The question I've never been able to resolve is why far right conspiracy fictions seem, for so many online influencers, to be the key to massive audiences. What is it about this nonsense that attracts so many people?
It explains why they are in a shit position in life (the game isnt fair) at the same time as explaining why they are smarter than everyone else (they figured it out)
George Monbiot @GeorgeMonbiot · 14h The question I've never been able to resolve is why far right conspiracy fictions seem, for so many online influencers, to be the key to massive audiences. What is it about this nonsense that attracts so many people?
Are they really far right conspiracies? It seems to me a lot are what the wacko left are also big into for as long as I can remember i.e. global carbal of elites who really run the world, MSM never tell the whole truth & "speakers of truth" get shut down....
I think the popularity is down to similar reason why Trump got elected (remember he appealed to lots of blue collar life long Democrat voters many who work in unionised jobs with similar stickt).
Can part of the loathing on the left for people like Trump be explained by their resentment at being usurped in that role?
In terms of online, there are some massively popular influencers who play the left wing version of these right wing grifters, who have also said / done a litany of dodgy things. To think this shtick is only what some think is for the alt-right just isn't true.
Ultimately they are all pushing at open doors of people unhappiness / resentment, the difference is now they can reach millions.
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.
It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.
Nope.
We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.
When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.
They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.
The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.
The scale of the housing crisis is so large that we should provide homes as efficiently as possible - in areas with existing infrastructure and on small amounts of land.
Plastering the UK with detached new builds with no schools, public transport, GP surgeries (etc) or other infrastructure is the least cost effective way to provide the homes we need.
My tenement has 25 people living in it, takes up the space of one house, and is a max 10 minute walk from all essential services. 50,000 people live within a 15 minute walk of me.
And for the people who don't want to live in an Arcology?
Packing more and more people into smaller and smaller spaces is already having detectable mental effects. There was a paper I was reading, just the other day - the author correlated property size and quality with mental health. And the results were completely unsurprising.
It can be done - literally half the population of S Korea lives in high rise apartment buildings. Though considering how little flat land they have, that's not entirely surprising.
George Monbiot @GeorgeMonbiot · 14h The question I've never been able to resolve is why far right conspiracy fictions seem, for so many online influencers, to be the key to massive audiences. What is it about this nonsense that attracts so many people?
Presumably asking for the technique as he'd like to know how to attract more people to his nonsense.
Diversity, density, and globalization. All good things, according to most right thinkers.
And I would -- mostly -- agree with them, but I would add this caveat: All three of them increase our risks from pandemics. Diversity, because different peoples have different sets of diseases. Density, for obvious reasons. Globalization, for equally obvious reasons.
(I would add that I am beginning to wonder whether the higher density in some of our largest cities may be bad, psychologically, for many people. Haven't seen any data on that question, but would like to.)
George Monbiot @GeorgeMonbiot · 14h The question I've never been able to resolve is why far right conspiracy fictions seem, for so many online influencers, to be the key to massive audiences. What is it about this nonsense that attracts so many people?
Are they really far right conspiracies? It seems to me a lot are what the wacko left are also big into for as long as I can remember i.e. global carbal of elites who really run the world, MSM never tell the whole truth & "speakers of truth" get shut down....
I think the popularity is down to similar reason why Trump got elected (remember he appealed to lots of blue collar life long Democrat voters many who work in unionised jobs with similar stickt).
Can part of the loathing on the left for people like Trump be explained by their resentment at being usurped in that role?
"people like Trump"
You mean sexist misogynist racist narcissist law breaking pro Putin fascists
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
How would you manage the spare bedroom thing? Count everyone’s rooms? What’s a spare bedroom vs an office?
Would you reduce taxes by combining 2 small bedrooms into one larger one?
The window tax was more sensible!
Just tax land and leave it at that.
A block of flats, or 2 detached homes, or four semis all on the same land would attract the same land tax if they use the same land.
That’s a take or pay contract.
Why should the government effectively force someone to use land if they don’t want to? I will fight for the right to do nothing.
You don't have to do anything with land if you don't want to, but you need to pay the tax either way.
Taxes on land are more suitable than taxes on earnings. If you work for a living and someone else doesn't then why should you be taxed for the fact you're working?
Land is in limited supply in this country and we can't (beyond Dutch extremes) create any more of it. Land also relies upon the services and security the state supplies, which is why it should be taxed accordingly. What you do with the land, once you've paid your ongoing taxes, should be entirely up to you - but being productive makes your tax burden proportionately lower - which is entirely reasonable.
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
How would you manage the spare bedroom thing? Count everyone’s rooms? What’s a spare bedroom vs an office?
Would you reduce taxes by combining 2 small bedrooms into one larger one?
The window tax was more sensible!
Just tax land and leave it at that.
A block of flats, or 2 detached homes, or four semis all on the same land would attract the same land tax if they use the same land.
That’s a take or pay contract.
Why should the government effectively force someone to use land if they don’t want to? I will fight for the right to do nothing.
You don't have to do anything with land if you don't want to, but you need to pay the tax either way.
Taxes on land are more suitable than taxes on earnings. If you work for a living and someone else doesn't then why should you be taxed for the fact you're working?
Land is in limited supply in this country and we can't (beyond Dutch extremes) create any more of it. Land also relies upon the services and security the state supplies, which is why it should be taxed accordingly. What you do with the land, once you've paid your ongoing taxes, should be entirely up to you - but being productive makes your tax burden proportionately lower - which is entirely reasonable.
Your stated intention previously has been to make non-development of land economically non-viable
You are no liberal. You are no better than a NIMBY. Tax him, Sir! Him, Sir! Not me, Sir! Him!
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
How would you manage the spare bedroom thing? Count everyone’s rooms? What’s a spare bedroom vs an office?
Would you reduce taxes by combining 2 small bedrooms into one larger one?
The window tax was more sensible!
Just tax land and leave it at that.
A block of flats, or 2 detached homes, or four semis all on the same land would attract the same land tax if they use the same land.
That’s a take or pay contract.
Why should the government effectively force someone to use land if they don’t want to? I will fight for the right to do nothing.
You don't have to do anything with land if you don't want to, but you need to pay the tax either way.
Taxes on land are more suitable than taxes on earnings. If you work for a living and someone else doesn't then why should you be taxed for the fact you're working?
Land is in limited supply in this country and we can't (beyond Dutch extremes) create any more of it. Land also relies upon the services and security the state supplies, which is why it should be taxed accordingly. What you do with the land, once you've paid your ongoing taxes, should be entirely up to you - but being productive makes your tax burden proportionately lower - which is entirely reasonable.
Your stated intention previously has been to make non-development of land economically non-viable
You are no liberal. You are no better than a NIMBY. Tax him, Sir! Him, Sir! Not me, Sir! Him!
Sorry but that's absolute crap, I never stated non-development of land should be economically non-viable. Try reading what I actually wrote, not what you wish I wrote. If you wish to have land that you solely use as a garden, or kept wild, or whatever, that's up to you.
There are very good liberal reasons to tax land. Society needs taxes, so why not land, why should work be taxed more so that land gets taxed less?
Liberal economic philosophers throughout history have consistently endorsed land taxes as the least worst of all taxes.
Adam Smith: Though a part of this revenue should be taken from him in order to defray the expences of the state, no discouragement will thereby be given to any sort of industry. The annual produce of the land and labour of the society, the real wealth and revenue of the great body of the people, might be the same after such a tax as before.
Henry George: Most taxes, noted George, stifle productive behavior. A tax on income reduces people’s incentive to earn income, a tax on wheat would reduce wheat production, and so on. But a tax on the unimproved value of land is different
Even Milton Friedman, who generally didn't like taxes at all, called the land-value tax "the least bad tax."
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
How would you manage the spare bedroom thing? Count everyone’s rooms? What’s a spare bedroom vs an office?
Would you reduce taxes by combining 2 small bedrooms into one larger one?
The window tax was more sensible!
Just tax land and leave it at that.
A block of flats, or 2 detached homes, or four semis all on the same land would attract the same land tax if they use the same land.
That’s a take or pay contract.
Why should the government effectively force someone to use land if they don’t want to? I will fight for the right to do nothing.
You don't have to do anything with land if you don't want to, but you need to pay the tax either way.
Taxes on land are more suitable than taxes on earnings. If you work for a living and someone else doesn't then why should you be taxed for the fact you're working?
Land is in limited supply in this country and we can't (beyond Dutch extremes) create any more of it. Land also relies upon the services and security the state supplies, which is why it should be taxed accordingly. What you do with the land, once you've paid your ongoing taxes, should be entirely up to you - but being productive makes your tax burden proportionately lower - which is entirely reasonable.
Your stated intention previously has been to make non-development of land economically non-viable
You are no liberal. You are no better than a NIMBY. Tax him, Sir! Him, Sir! Not me, Sir! Him!
Sorry but that's absolute crap, I never stated non-development of land should be economically non-viable. Try reading what I actually wrote, not what you wish I wrote. If you wish to have land that you solely use as a garden, or kept wild, or whatever, that's up to you.
There are very good liberal reasons to tax land. Society needs taxes, so why not land, why should work be taxed more so that land gets taxed less?
Liberal economic philosophers throughout history have consistently endorsed land taxes as the least worst of all taxes.
Adam Smith: Though a part of this revenue should be taken from him in order to defray the expences of the state, no discouragement will thereby be given to any sort of industry. The annual produce of the land and labour of the society, the real wealth and revenue of the great body of the people, might be the same after such a tax as before.
Henry George: Most taxes, noted George, stifle productive behavior. A tax on income reduces people’s incentive to earn income, a tax on wheat would reduce wheat production, and so on. But a tax on the unimproved value of land is different
Even Milton Friedman, who generally didn't like taxes at all, called the land-value tax "the least bad tax."
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
How would you manage the spare bedroom thing? Count everyone’s rooms? What’s a spare bedroom vs an office?
Would you reduce taxes by combining 2 small bedrooms into one larger one?
The window tax was more sensible!
Just tax land and leave it at that.
A block of flats, or 2 detached homes, or four semis all on the same land would attract the same land tax if they use the same land.
That’s a take or pay contract.
Why should the government effectively force someone to use land if they don’t want to? I will fight for the right to do nothing.
You don't have to do anything with land if you don't want to, but you need to pay the tax either way.
Taxes on land are more suitable than taxes on earnings. If you work for a living and someone else doesn't then why should you be taxed for the fact you're working?
Land is in limited supply in this country and we can't (beyond Dutch extremes) create any more of it. Land also relies upon the services and security the state supplies, which is why it should be taxed accordingly. What you do with the land, once you've paid your ongoing taxes, should be entirely up to you - but being productive makes your tax burden proportionately lower - which is entirely reasonable.
Your stated intention previously has been to make non-development of land economically non-viable
You are no liberal. You are no better than a NIMBY. Tax him, Sir! Him, Sir! Not me, Sir! Him!
Sorry but that's absolute crap, I never stated non-development of land should be economically non-viable. Try reading what I actually wrote, not what you wish I wrote. If you wish to have land that you solely use as a garden, or kept wild, or whatever, that's up to you.
There are very good liberal reasons to tax land. Society needs taxes, so why not land, why should work be taxed more so that land gets taxed less?
Liberal economic philosophers throughout history have consistently endorsed land taxes as the least worst of all taxes.
Adam Smith: Though a part of this revenue should be taken from him in order to defray the expences of the state, no discouragement will thereby be given to any sort of industry. The annual produce of the land and labour of the society, the real wealth and revenue of the great body of the people, might be the same after such a tax as before.
Henry George: Most taxes, noted George, stifle productive behavior. A tax on income reduces people’s incentive to earn income, a tax on wheat would reduce wheat production, and so on. But a tax on the unimproved value of land is different
Even Milton Friedman, who generally didn't like taxes at all, called the land-value tax "the least bad tax."
You have in the past, not in this post. You believe more development is critical and want a free for all.
Philosophically government is created by the people to manage those aspects of communal life that need coordination.
To allow governments to tax inaction would be to create a lever that allows the government to confiscate all private property.
I have NEVER said that in the past. In fact I've said the complete polar opposite.
I have said that I want planning reformed so people can build whatever they choose (within building code restrictions) on their own land and that their neighbours should not get a say on what others build.
I've said that if someone wants to "protect their view" from development and see it left undeveloped then telling the owner not to develop it is not reasonable. If they want to "protect their view" and see it undeveloped then they should buy their view and leave it undeveloped.
Taxing inaction isn't what's being proposed, taxing land is what is being proposed. Whether the land is developed, undeveloped or partially developed should not affect the tax rate.
How is that any different to taxing people whether they're active or inactive, ie via Council Tax or other taxes? Which FYI I'd see abolished in my proposal.
Comments
I think the popularity is down to similar reason why Trump got elected (remember he appealed to lots of blue collar life long Democrat voters many who work in unionised jobs with similar stickt).
One of the few downsides of right to buy is that the local authorities can't move people out and densify these areas.
https://unherd.com/thepost/a-glimpse-of-better-housing-in-south-tottenham/
The family would huddle together in the lean-to, and build a fire in front of it, if the weather turned cold.
You can see a replica of the fancy places they moved to, later, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_Birthplace_National_Historical_Park
(I assume I missed the better pictures of this replica, posted when a travel writer visited Kentucky. Along with pictures of the auto plants, that produce no fewer than 1.3 million cars per year, according to their state government.)
The article is carefully illustrated with the nicest examples, incidentally.
That’s a seductive combination
Ultimately they are all pushing at open doors of people unhappiness / resentment, the difference is now they can reach millions.
Though considering how little flat land they have, that's not entirely surprising.
The concern seems to be more about the state of their construction than the conceit itself.
https://koreaexpose.com/korean-apartments-shoddy-quality-finally-get-attention/
And I would -- mostly -- agree with them, but I would add this caveat: All three of them increase our risks from pandemics. Diversity, because different peoples have different sets of diseases. Density, for obvious reasons. Globalization, for equally obvious reasons.
(I would add that I am beginning to wonder whether the higher density in some of our largest cities may be bad, psychologically, for many people. Haven't seen any data on that question, but would like to.)
You mean sexist misogynist racist narcissist law breaking pro Putin fascists
Oh and there's a new thread
Taxes on land are more suitable than taxes on earnings. If you work for a living and someone else doesn't then why should you be taxed for the fact you're working?
Land is in limited supply in this country and we can't (beyond Dutch extremes) create any more of it. Land also relies upon the services and security the state supplies, which is why it should be taxed accordingly. What you do with the land, once you've paid your ongoing taxes, should be entirely up to you - but being productive makes your tax burden proportionately lower - which is entirely reasonable.
You are no liberal. You are no better than a NIMBY. Tax him, Sir! Him, Sir! Not me, Sir! Him!
There are very good liberal reasons to tax land. Society needs taxes, so why not land, why should work be taxed more so that land gets taxed less?
Liberal economic philosophers throughout history have consistently endorsed land taxes as the least worst of all taxes.
Adam Smith: Though a part of this revenue should be taken from him in order to defray the expences of the state, no discouragement will thereby be given to any sort of industry. The annual produce of the land and labour of the society, the real wealth and revenue of the great body of the people, might be the same after such a tax as before.
Henry George: Most taxes, noted George, stifle productive behavior. A tax on income reduces people’s incentive to earn income, a tax on wheat would reduce wheat production, and so on. But a tax on the unimproved value of land is different
Even Milton Friedman, who generally didn't like taxes at all, called the land-value tax "the least bad tax."
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-28/why-economists-love-property-taxes-and-you-don-t
Philosophically government is created by the people to manage those aspects of communal life that need coordination.
To allow governments to tax inaction would be to create a lever that allows the government to confiscate all private property.
I have said that I want planning reformed so people can build whatever they choose (within building code restrictions) on their own land and that their neighbours should not get a say on what others build.
I've said that if someone wants to "protect their view" from development and see it left undeveloped then telling the owner not to develop it is not reasonable. If they want to "protect their view" and see it undeveloped then they should buy their view and leave it undeveloped.
Taxing inaction isn't what's being proposed, taxing land is what is being proposed. Whether the land is developed, undeveloped or partially developed should not affect the tax rate.
How is that any different to taxing people whether they're active or inactive, ie via Council Tax or other taxes? Which FYI I'd see abolished in my proposal.