Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About housepricecrash

  • Rank
    HPC Poster

Profile Information

  • Location
  1. Contrary to what you say I reply to the central thrust of your objection that a LL is not entitled to charge for the "land component" of the accommodation service because he does not provide it or supply it as you say. But he does supply it, as explained to you previously, not in the manufacturing sense or bringing it or holding it in his hands as he would a pinit of milk, because the nature of land is different. When a BTLer spends 250K on buying a house and then lets it for say £1000 a month the T is paying for the use of the house AND land/location, the latter component of course is what yo
  2. Rubbish! Is not food grown on land? It requires extensive and intensive use of land? Are not clothes provided by plants and animals that grow and graze on land? Likewise, how can you have drinking water without having land and mountains on which rain will fall and gathered in lakes and ponds etc, all being land. I told you every single product, every single act and every service requires LAND to come into existence - so your argument that land is exclusive to "accommodation" is false.
  3. 1. Dealing with your last point first - your expectation to receive accommodation for nothing is simply astounding. Your assertion that even without the landlord 'the place' (i.e. the earth and the building upon it) would still be there for the tenant to rest his head is false. The earth (i.e. the plot of earth) naturally existed but the 'first landlord' took possession of it (i.e. took control and ownership) of that plot (whether by force or sweat or by agreement with others) and thereon expended time, effort and resources to build property which know is being let to the tenant. So no, withou
  4. Why is it acceptable to pay for food and water and clothing and medicine etc but not for accommodation to a BTLer? As to whether it is acceptable to be charged for the air you breath will depend on your circumstances - why would you pay without reservation to breath, as I expect you would, if you were stranded on the surface of the moon?
  5. What extra costs? If by extra costs you mean the cost of the land itself, well who else would you say ought to receive payment for it other than the legal owner of the land (i.e. the landlord)? The landlord receives payment for holding title to the land (i.e. each successive landlord owns the land from time to time) enabling the tenant to live thereon; so far from saying the landlord provides nothing, the true position is without the landlord the tenant has nowhere to lawfully rest his head (i.e. on private land) and the landlord must be compensated, unless you think it is correct to receive
  6. Your argument is totally facile - surprising for a prolific poster as yourself - when every single product made or service tendered entails directly or indirectly a costs attributable to what you describe as the 'monopoly component of land'.
  7. What else would you expect if someone is incapable of providing a BTLer with a reference (although my use of the term 'homeless' was not so limited as you seek to base your argument on, and expected someone who claims to have ripened on the vine with tens of thousands of posts credited to their name would pick up on that).
  8. Usual moronic boloney. OP offers accommodation to homeless (i.e. needy) souls; such is the ultimate productivity contribution (and it is rent receiving not rent seeking).
  9. You can pass £10 billion to your spouse/civil partner IHT free = 0%. The £25K threshold doesnt come into it. But when you to pass it to your children/grandchildren you pay 40% for the hair-cut. As to what is petty vs large is totally subjective. But principles of taxation must be objective, whether you like them or not.
  10. No, that is not the point at all. It is not how much tax a person pays in total during his lifetime that determines the correctness of a particular tax (Mr Frugal may be paying CGT on his gains and IT on his income that would total a lot more than Extravagence's VAT contributions) but the issue is the principle on which a tax is based should be morally correct (and no rants from nutters telling me that "tax is theft"). The principles are: IT taxes income and profits. CT taxes profits. CGT taxes gains. VAT taxes the value of goods and services consumed. SDLT taxes land and shares tr
  11. Quite true, but IHT rewards the wasteful at the expense of the frugal. Mr Frugal saves all his life, gifts it all to his children, and is penalised 40% IHT on death. Mr Extravagent quaffs Dom Perignon, smokes £800 cigars, blings the ladies and dies a pauper, contributing nothing to gov coffers. Apart from each knowing that one chooses to pay 40% for drinks and cigars that he does not have (since he shall pay 40% on death) and conversely the other knowing that the cost is 60% of the price (since 40% would be taxed on death had he abstained from smoking the cigar and drinking the wine) the pr
  12. Let me take it from the start: Your statement was, in summary, that a person who holds/buys properties A, B, C & D prevents you (the aspiring home owner) from buying property A, B, C & D. Of itself that is the equivalent of saying "it is day, so it is not night" (unless you are a complete and utter moron). What you are actually saying to us is once a person has bought property A, that same person should not buy property B, C & D, so you can buy it at a price that is more affordable than it otherwise would have been (owing to competition from investors). In other words you
  13. You leap like superman from one point to another in a single bound and I am unable to follow your flight of fancy. If I can extract from your mumbo jumbo the premiss, however, that every individual is as guilty as the next fellow (of what I am not sure??) then equal harm was suffered by all. That means we are at an equilibrium and no-one has cause for complaint.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.