Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Fraggle

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie
  1. No, the token is a logical one, that it is *recorded* physically is irrelevant. You're confusing form of transmission with the message itself. but they both involve simply asking someone else's opinion, which is the antithesis of objective, no? Maybe what you're saying is that money is itself completely subjective.
  2. Then why must money be a physical token, rather than a logical one? What stops it being numbers on a spreadsheet? neither of which are objective, but hey-ho...
  3. I asked about common physical attributes of all money, ie regardless of issuing authority or local preference. I'd read and assumed you meant there was some objective way to recognise money. My bad.
  4. Marvellous...so what is it? This common physical attribute, I mean. What makes money genuine or not? If someone outside the authority makes a perfect replica of genuine money, is it genuine?
  5. What I mean is, does all money have some physical attribute in common? (other than "it exists", that is)
  6. Okay, I thought you were talking about in a monetary sense. No he doesn't, you've got it the wrong way round. The neighbours are the ones paying for the nice view. You'll never get a meaningful LVT amount out of someone for the priviledge of holding land while being prevented from doing anything useful with it. If the taxing authority places the restriction, it will do so knowing that it is forgoing revenue. Fortunately for it, it will be able to recoup some proportion of it from the neighbours, because their land will now be worth more. That may be true, I'm not sure. I'm not really here defending the position that planning controls are immoral.
  7. This may just be my fertile imagination but I get the impression you'd be surpised just how much location matters. Anyway, you weren't saying what you appeared to be saying, so that's one less thing to worry about.
  8. Is all agricultural land even used as it is?
  9. How does everyone else benefit from planning controls? (I assume that's what you're referring to, it's a little unclear) Also, a site with planning controls in force has a reduced LVT, while the sites that do benefit from the control have increased LVT with literally nothing to show for it. You can argue that if people really want to pay more tax for their 'unspoilt view' then let 'em, at least they are the ones paying for it. What compensation payments are you referring to? LVT and what?
  10. I still don't see why this South Downs site is interesting. Are you implying that if only requirements for planning permission were removed then all land would fall to 5k/acre? The value lies in land that people are competing for, which, by definition, must be land that they are (or expect to soon be) permitted to use. Would removing planning cause competition for individual plots to reduce? Absolutely, but there is no way to remove competition completely (physics says so), and it is the competition that is the root of speculation. And that is totally true, I am not disputing that, *if* the utility of compared lands are equal. That assumption is crucial. But this thread seems to be making the claim that the South Downs shows the value of 'land', as if it's a commodity. Planning restrictions create artifical shortage, yes, but planning restrictions are not sufficient to explain current land values. Necessary, yes. Sufficient, no.
  11. Wow - someone took their angry pills today! My point is that the value of the building permit depends on the land for which the permit applies. To say that it's not the land that's important, but yet it is the permit that's important is meaningless. If the number of permits that you consider to be required were granted but they were all in middle of nowhere places like this, the problem would not be solved. Or are you saying that the priced out generation are really really hoping for a house in the South Downs? I'd be much more interested in a house near where I work. I'm old-fashioned like that. Don't get me wrong, I agree with your point that building restrictions inflate prices of land without said restrictions. I'm not saying that planning permission is somehow irrelevant. I'm just saying that your example does not demonstrate what you are claiming it does. I'm not sure what you think I'm trying. My last sentence in that post mentioned this very point. I am not saying planning is irrelevant. I'm saying land is *not* irrelevant.
  12. That is an incoherent statement. You cannot talk about building permits separately from the land for which they are granted. Building restrictions depress land values to the extent that that site is desirable to build upon. The permit (which is actually the removal of the restriction - a subtle but key difference), restores the land's real value which was suppressed by the lack of planning permission. In fact, I would hazard a guess that giving the south downs site a permit probably wouldn't add nearly as much to the land value as it would to a site near a town. The way to determine the real value of land is not to look at a site that has restricitions, but to look at sites that have none, and even that may be insufficient, because nearby sites that do have restrictions can inflate the value of sites that do not.
  • 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.