Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About housepricecrash

  • Rank

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 you find objectionable, but nevertheless there is no divisiion or distinction in reality. LL have formed and landscaped the land and built roads and pipes and drains and set out town centres and made each part of it accessible and useful, have they not? Would you say the LL is only entitled to receive payment for the building component because the land component was and is always the same? Each piece of land (each location) is not the same which is why a T pays more for property X than Y (assuming the same properties). Because location has value unique to itself. Or where a LL farmer lets his farm (i.e. land) to a T farmer, he is entitled to receive rent because he supplies HIS asset (i.e. the earth) for the T to use, even though there is no other building on it. T grows crops and sell them for a profit (i.e. for a price greater than the cost of water and labour; again there is no objection nor division of price when you buy milk or pasta or meat as to how much is the product component and how mcuh the land component. Nor can you logically unravel land ownership by putting forward your principle that "a party is to be bound only by those agreements and arrangements he entered into freely". If your principle were adopted, it would be open to everyone to say "I do not like this road built here, that school over there, those traffic lights situated at that junction, I do not agree with the age of consent, etc etc etc and therefore I do not abide by any rule, law, arrangment, convention or agreement made without my consent". Each person would be entitled to say "I want society to start again as I was not asked and so I am not bound by anything". What rubbish! Like it or not we are born into existing groups/nations/societies, meaning we benefit by battles fought by previous generations on the one hand (and perhaps fight battles for those who will come after) and, unfortunately in some cases, have to accept the agreements and arragnements made by those previous generations on our behalf on the other. So where certain LLs took land by force back in time (which no doubt some did) that is not grounds any longer for Ts to take land by force now.
  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, without a landlord there would be no "place" for the tenant to rest his head, unless you advocate plundering and pillaging property belonging to others. 2. It flows therefore that your previous point that someone should not receive payment for nothing provided by no-one is nonsense. 3. Needless your hypothetical tenant is free to go into the jungle thousands of miles from civilizations, schools, hospitals, etc and find a plot of land/earth/forest owned by no-one and rest their head on it.
  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 everything for nothing!
  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 transaction values. IHT taxes gifts. Mr Extravagence pays no IHT since he has nothing to gift, while Mr Frugal suffers IHT at 40% because he chose to save with a view of gifting it to his children. So whoever says IHT is correct in principle, says that saving to give to your children is wrong in principle and should be penalised by 40%.
  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 principle is clearly wrong! IHT penalises Mr Frugal for "not wasting" and rewards Mr Bling for being extravagent.
  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 are asking the investor to refrain from buying, so you can buy cheaper. So, I'll ask my question again: where does it say (which law in other words, natural law, human law, cultural law? I was not referring exclusively to Acts of parliament) that you are entitled to expect another person to behave in such a way so as to benefit you by housing you? (whether by refraining from buying "your" house, or why not even to build you a house? Who is to say where your imaginary entitlement ends?) Show me the source of your position, other than your own self-interest of course!
  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.