London Letting Agents Refuse Black Tenants

[Squeeky]

Brick-layers. Roofers. It's not really difficult to understand this stuff.

Without landlords the same houses would exist in the same places, so what exactly do you think you are paying for?

Well obviously someone just rocked up and claimed exclusive usage, and you fell for it.

We generally live in a society where ownership of things is pretty much accepted. If you see a car or bicycle that is not being used, you can't just drive/ride off on it as you would be able to make better use of it at a given time. You can of course choose to buy or rent one if someone is willing to part with it permanently or rent one if someone offers that service. As with all things if you find something abandoned you can lay claim to it, this includes property. However, there is a big difference between unused and no body claiming ownership.

While I can understand that paying rent or buying property may not be ideal especially at the current prices, are you suggesting that exclusive usage of property shouldn't be allowed?

Edited October 16, 2013 by Squeeky

[Squeeky]

The bricks didn't lay themselves, but the majority of the property price is the land value, not the building value - and the landlords as sure as hell did not create the land. In fact HPI is down to increases in the site location values, as a result of social activity and public spending, and this is not created by the landlords either. The land is a common natural resource that didn't belong to anyone to begin with but that has been commandeered by the few.

Well, they didn't create the land, however they did buy the rights to use the land (freehold/leasehold) based on the current laws of the land.

While the land wasn't created, it doesn't necessarily mean it is free to use by all, just because you happen to be here. Unless a piece of land has always been unused and abandoned I imagine it has been fought over or traded for many time historically.

As we live in a Monarchy, I guess it is all owned or has been gifted/sold by the crown over the years. The Monarchy took the lot by force some time ago and enacted laws (not always freely) etc.. to give us our present system.

Loosing or gaining land and the resources associated with it is probably the no.1 reason behind any war you can think of. It is certainly not a free for all natural resource.

[debtlessmanc]

Sadly quite a common occurrence. I know of two couples where the parents of the Asian chap refuse to even acknowledge the white female partner - even once kids have arrived. Damn shame, but ultimately it's the grandparents who lose out due to their bigoted ignorant intolerance.

An improvement on 20 years ago then? when my asian girlfriend suggested that if we were to walk hand in hand around certain areas of west yorkshire my life might be at risk...

[NorthamptonBear]

Well, they didn't create the land, however they did buy the rights to use the land (freehold/leasehold) based on the current laws of the land.

While the land wasn't created, it doesn't necessarily mean it is free to use by all, just because you happen to be here. Unless a piece of land has always been unused and abandoned I imagine it has been fought over or traded for many time historically.

As we live in a Monarchy, I guess it is all owned or has been gifted/sold by the crown over the years. The Monarchy took the lot by force some time ago and enacted laws (not always freely) etc.. to give us our present system.

Loosing or gaining land and the resources associated with it is probably the no.1 reason behind any war you can think of. It is certainly not a free for all natural resource.

Lots of land was common land.

Lots of bribes, force etc used to enclose it.

That was unjust.

I daresay similar crimes still happen today via councils, dodgy deals, estate agents giving better access to mates, keeping it away from others.

The way to sort it all out now is a Citizen's Income paid for by Land Value Tax.

Landlords pay virtually nothing for all the benefits productive people and their taxes provide for them.

They are speculators and parasites.

[pjw]

Squeaky (note the spelling of this word!) - you can't just take someone's bike. But a bike is something built by a human being; land isn't. A bike is not in any sense a common social resource.

It's true that landlords have bought the land under existing laws. You can't trace such land purchases all the way back, because there was no original seller, as you yourself admitted with your comment on the Monarchy. But anyhow, the landlords have bought the land. But - and this is the important point (and therefore the point you will try not to comment on) - land ownership by its very nature cannot be absolute.

English common law does not allow for absolute land ownership. Technically, "allodial title" remains with the Crown and the freeholder is a tenant too, the owner of a "tenancy in fee simple held of the Crown". This means that, whereas income tax is an affront to English Common Law as there never was such a right to levy a tax on incomes (see the Peasants' Revolt, etc), land ownership has never been absolute, and there always were levies and duties associated with ownership of land.

In feudal days, land owners had to provide services to the king, or a certain number of soldiers to the army, and this was eventually commuted into money. So in English Common Law ownership of common social resources like land came with the duty to pay taxes - to share the rents with the public, in other words. So ownership of land is not at all like the ownership of a bike.

Landlords would greatly prefer that taxes be piled high on income and capital, thus allowing them their rents scot-free, but rents are, by their nature, something that is the product of a common social resource and that therefore should be taxes - unlike labour and capital.