Why British suburban housing has to look like shit???

[larven]

You are not addressing the issue of how second homes have an inflationary effect on house prices or how too many of them can devastate communities.

How is LVT going to resolve just the kind of issue I highlighted earlier about one of my former employees being unable to afford a tiny home in the village of his birth? Don't say by allowing the village to expand with the creation of thousands of new homes either because that would totally destroy the character of a rather lovely village in a National Park.

[Jonesy55]

To completely replace income tax and national insurance, you'd have to raise an average of around £10,000 per hectare.

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

That sounds like wishful thinking more than anything else, transport links are not the sole reason that people want to leave the inner-cities.

A rapid-transit metro will keep them in. I don't think you understand inner-city problems and how they came about.

A large proportion would not be leaving at all.

The rural re-population would be more leisure based.

[larven]

Originally Posted by Bert Coombes

Leisure and second homes is the future.

I don't think you properly understand the concept of sustainability. Perhaps you had better let your girlfriend who preaches it to her clients explain it to you a bit better.

Just building eco-homes and providing better transport links won't on their own make the UK more sustainable.

[Jonesy55]

Originally Posted by Bert Coombes

A rapid-transit metro will keep them in. I don't think you understand inner-city problems and how they came about.

A large proportion would be leaving at all.

The rural boom would be more leisure based.

You state all this as if it were fact, but it seems more like supposition.

You said before that 80% of city dwellers want to move to the country yet give them a tram stop down the road and they will all change their minds!

Having the London underground doesn't stop mass outmigration from the capital even with the existing planning laws making it difficult. If you could build a house anywhere in the home counties without restriction, this would exacerbate this trend not reverse it

[larven]

Originally Posted by Bert Coombes

If people want second homes in an empty countryside then let them have them.

It's a wholley irresponsible concept. If we build new homes it should be to satisfy the needs of those who struggle to find homes in the first place, not extend the property holdings of those who already have their own home.

Most of us don't want our countryside to be given over purely to the leisure pursuits and whims of those fancy a bolt hole in the country. Or for large swathes of it to be covered with ugly belts of American style sprawl. What about the production of food or the conservation and protection of natural resources and assets such as woods or lakes?

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

To completely replace income tax and national insurance, you'd have to raise an average of around £10,000 per hectare.

Where did you get the figure? LVT (no income) tax creates economic growth, to the point the welfare state is pushed into the background. It was used in Denmark to great success with unprecedented growth. Read on.


Geoism (LVT) Proven To Work

Denmark prospered under the Geoist system for 3 years until right-wing vested interest of landowners scupperred it. A system like this will pull the likes of Liverpool up by its bootstraps.

The Danes, by old tradition, have been accustomed to the concept that the land belongs to the people. The rapid industrialisation and land enclosures of the 18th and 19th centuries, begun in England and made impact in Denmark challenging this tradition. More land was seized as industrialisation grew in Denmark.

Liberals Adopt LVT

Farmers were pressed in the later half of the 19th century; many of them found support in the ideas contained in a newly released book "Progress and Poverty", by Henry George. As the economic situation became even tougher for small farmers, a so called "Georgist" movement began and the Danish Henry George Union was founded in 1902. Some of its more active members wanted a better platform for their political ambitions, and these members cooperated with other philosophic groups and public leaders in forming the Radical Left Wing Party (Liberals), declaring that:

1. Land value taxation, LVT, (site revenue) should collect all the publicly created rent of land for government expenses,
2. Income Tax to be abolished accelerating the free market

Around this time of course, Karl Marx was advocating that the workers unite to fight the desperate conditions of the working man. The Danes took the line of Henry George. Social Democrats were inspired by George advocating in its political program the taxation of land value, know as site revenue.

Parties join to create the Economic Justice Party

Over the next fifty years, not only in Denmark but around the world, there was long and intense debate about liberty and freedom; amongst free traders, pacifists, humanists, philosophers and religious institutions alike. Many of these people went to each other's meetings and contributed articles to each other's publications. Finally, they knew each other so well, that many of them decided to establish a union with the object of appealing to voters for seats in Parliament. The Justice Party was formed.

The economic policy of the Justice Party was simple; to collect tax only from the value of land and abolish all taxes on labour and capital. For a new political party, their effect was astonishing. Progress was quick and in 1952, they won 12 seats of a possible 179. They effected the appointment of a Government commission for ground rent in Denmark, who wrote its report clearly advocating the benefits of site revenue. In 1957 the Justice Party, together with the Social Democrats (Labour) and the Radical Left Wing Party (Liberals) formed what was to become the most prosperous ever Danish Government - later termed the Ground Rent Government.

Three political parties made an agreement based upon the following:

• Collection taxes from the values of land only (LVT)
• Liberalisation of trade
• A tax freeze

It was therefore generally expected that after formation of the government, some kind of LVT would be introduced. Land speculation ceased immediately in anticipation of LVT. Legislation on taxation of increased land value was prepared, presented to parliament and passed.

The economic effects of the cessation of land speculation were astounding and aroused much attention. On the 2nd October, 1960, the New York Times headlined, "Big Lesson from a Small Nation."

Prior to the election of 1957, Denmark had a sizable deficit on her balance of payments, was considerably in debt abroad, and burdened with a relatively high interest rate, big unemployment figures and an annual rate of inflation of approximately 5%.

From 1957 to 1960, the following improvements took place:

• The big deficit on her balance of payments was turned into a surplus.
• Denmark's total debts abroad amounting to 1,600 million kr. were reduced to one quarter of this, about 400 million kr.
• The rate of interest, and hence mortgage levels dropped.
• Unemployment was soon replaced by almost full employment, together with considerable increases in production and wages.
• Inflation was brought to a standstill. All wage increases were real wage increases, the highest ever in Denmark.
• No other taxes were levied during this period. (except one, referred to later.)
• The time was free of strikes. Industrial production went up 32%,
• investment rose 135%
• Savings increased immensely, as once again it became profitable to accumulate savings.

After three years in power, Denmark had no foreign debt, no inflation and an unemployment level of 1%, considered full employment. So why is this not continuing?

• Until 1960, the Social Democrats were advocating the LVT for the purposes of government social responsibilities, the Radicals and Justice Party advocated LVT for the purposes of income tax reduction. Minor conflict developed.
  
• Prior to 1960, "Georgist" beliefs dictated that when a heavy "tax" is levied upon land value, land price will decrease. The consequences of full employment, no inflation, no foreign debt, increasing production and rising real wages however, brought about a prodigious demand for homes, enterprises and of course land. Land prices did not initially fall, as was predicted. In fact land prices rose. The Justice Party was unprepared for this.
  
• In the late fifties, the Danish foreign debt was seen to be at crisis level. To assist with this, the Ground Rent Government did levy one new income tax. In addition to this of course, rising real incomes were eroded in part with the progressive nature of income tax on higher incomes. The self interested wealthy land owners had a field day confusing the fact that overall, taxes did go down by 10%. The general public found little reason to doubt the anti-Georgist literature stating that LVT was simply another tax on top of all the other taxes. The land owners had no problem in fanning the now growing belief that the "socialists", (read communists, given the Cold War era), wanted to get hold of your property.

At the general election of 1960, the opposition used, for the time, the largest sum ever in any Danish election campaign, financed by the Conservatives and Landowner associations. Such is the power of self-interested groups. With its limited financial resources and lacking support from the daily press, the Justice Party was unable to withstand the attacks. Agitation against the LVT legislation continued after the election and the new, weakened government gave in. Further strong pressure from
land-owner associations had the LVT laws repealed in 1964.

After 1964:

• The currency surplus became a currency deficit.
• The annual deficit on the balance of payments in 1972 was 3 billion kr.
• Debts abroad amount today to 20,000 million kr.
• The effective rate of interest has been doubled.
• Land prices jumped sky-high. Denmark's overall land value rose from 17 billion kr. at the assessment of 1960 to 67 billion in 1969, and reached 100 billion at the next assessment in 1973.
• Rents in new housing are six fold those of 1964.
• The rate of inflation rose from barely 1 per cent to 5-7 per cent and was 8.6 per cent in 1965, the year after repeal of the land tax law in 1964.
• Taxes have risen again and again and are today five times higher.

A comparison between the three periods, before, during and after the so-called "Ground Rent Government," gives a clear picture of the importance of eliminating land speculation. LVT can do that painlessly.

The failure of the Justice Party was a naïve underestimation of the facts that

1. Population were not educated to what LVT was - Only few Danes knew what LVT was all about, most people did not know the good effects they already enjoyed because of LVT and that the possibilities of citizens in general would improve further when more LVT would be levied; people in general did not understand that the revenue of LVT belonged to them all in common.
2. Landowners & Self-Interest Groups Oppose - The extremely powerful opposing powers dominating the public media - electronic and printed, which imposed on people in general the understanding that LVT was a tax like all other taxes, that it would be unjust if only landowners should pay all taxes, etc. Further they emphasized that poor citizens having no income or only small income would not take advantage of reduction of income taxes, which was crucial because many LVT proponents promised reduced income tax when LVT was publicly collected.

[Jonesy55]

yes, even with some of the most intensive and productive agriculture in the world and one of the highest ratios of agricultural land to total land we only produce around 60% of the food we need.

Take away huge chunks of that land from productive use and increase the population even more and that figure will drop even further to dangerously low levels.

[Jonesy55]

£235bn / 24m hectares

Obviously prime Mayfair land would raise more than a Welsh mountain but that is the average needed to raise the same amount as IT and NI.

Originally Posted by larven

It's a wholley irresponsible concept. If we build new homes it should be to satisfy the needs of those who struggle to find homes in the first place, not extend the property holdings of those who already have their own home.

You are still locked into the mindset of the present system. LVT and a proper planning system will make homes for all cheap. You are thinking of restricted supply.

Most of us don't want our countryside to be given over purely to the leisure pursuits and whims of those fancy a bolt hole in the country. Or for large swathes of it to be covered with ugly belts of American style sprawl. What about the production of food or the conservation and protection of natural resources and assets such as woods or lakes?

No one said 100% leisure. That would be a prime industry. Please get the points and not make things up. No one said American style sprawl. Sprawl is one of these derogatory words large landowers use top keep their wealth. Although I see nothing wrong with that, as long as proper centres and open spaces are incorporated and trains not cars are used as the prime transport

conservation and protection of natural resources and assets such as woods or lakes? Who said get rid of them? Stop making things up. I said build more forests. These would assist in the leisure industry.

Agriculture - A Poor Performing Industry

Far too much land is given over to agriculture, about 78%, which only accounts for about 2.5% of the UK economy. This poor performing over subsidised industry is absorbing land that could be better used economically in commerce and for much needed spacious higher quality homes for the population. Much of the land is paid to remain idle out of our taxes. The UK could actually abandon most of agriculture and import most of its food, as food is obtainable cheaper elsewhere.

50% of the EU budget is allocated to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). CAP is supporting a lifestyle of a very small minority of country dwellers in a poor performing industry. In effect that is its prime function.

The city of Sheffield, a one industry city of steel, was virtually killed by allowing imports of cheaper steel from abroad. This created great misery and distress to its large population. Yet agriculture is subsidised to the hilt having land allocated to it which clearly can be better utilised for the greater good of British society.

The justification for subsidising agriculture is that we need to eat. We also need steel and cars in our modern society, yet the auto and steel industries were allowed to fall away to cheaper competition from abroad, and especially the Far East. Should taxpayers money be propping up an economically small industry that consumes vast tracts of land that certainly could be better used? What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The overall agricultural subsidy is over £5 billion per year. This is £5 billion to an industry whose total turnover is only £15 billion per annum. Unbelievable. This implies huge inefficiency in the agricultural industry, about 40% on the £15 billion figure. Applied to the acres agriculture absorbs, and approximately 16 million acres are uneconomic. Apply real economics to farming and you theoretically free up 16 million acres, which is near 27% of the total UK land mass.

This is land that certainly could be put to better use for the population of the UK. Allowing the population to spread out and live amongst nature is highly desirable and simultaneously lowering land prices. This means lower house prices which the UK desperately needs. Second country homes could be within reach of much of the population, as in Scandinavia, creating large recreation and construction industries, and keeping the population in touch with the nature of their own country. In Germany the population have access to a large forests which are heavily used at weekends. Forests and woods are ideal for recreation and absorb CO2 cleaning up the atmosphere. Much land could be turned over to public forests.

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

You state all this as if it were fact, but it seems more like supposition.

You are confused, don't get points and have no idea how cities work.

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

yes, even with some of the most intensive and productive agriculture in the world and one of the highest ratios of agricultural land to total land we only produce around 60% of the food we need.

Take away huge chunks of that land from productive use and increase the population even more and that figure will drop even further to dangerously low levels.

Look at post 190. That will clear that up for you.

Once again where did you get your figures?

[larven]

Originally Posted by Bert Coombes

You are still locked into the mindset of the present system. LVT and a proper planning system will make homes for all cheap. You are thinking of restricted supply.

No I don't want people building over huge swathes of the countryside. Put whatever planning system into effect you like and I would still feel the same way.

Originally Posted by Bert Coombes

No one said 100% leisure. That would be a prime industry. Please get the points and not make things up. No one said American style sprawl. Sprawl is one of these derogatory words large landowers use top keep their wealth. Although I see nothing wrong with that, as long as proper centres and open spaces are incorporated and trains not cars are used as the prime transport

conservation and protection of natural resources and assets such as woods or lakes? Who said get rid of them? Stop making things up. I said build more forests. These would assist in the leisure industry.

Your the one who is blind to the points others are making. We can go around in circles all you like but it is probably just easier for me to say I disagree with you for all the reasons I have already pointed out in previous posts on this thread.

Originally Posted by Bert Coombes

Far too much land is given over to agriculture, about 78%, which only accounts for about 2.5% of the UK economy.

It may account for only 2.5% of the economy but 100% of the population need to eat. We are currently meeting 60% of that need. Again, do you understand the concept of sustainability?

[Jonesy55]

Originally Posted by Bert Coombes

You are confused, don't get points and have no idea how cities work.

you are the guy who claimed that 80% of city dwellers wanted to live in the countryside, and were being prevented from doing so by the planning system. Now you turn round and say that if they were given the opportunity to do so they wouldn't take it up and they would in fact stay put.

Who is confused here?

Originally Posted by larven

No I don't want people building over huge swathes of the countryside. Put whatever planning system into effect you like and I would still feel the same way.

Once gain, as only 7.5% is settled we can build over huge swathes of it. I would welcome quality rural building.

A farmer can build a 40 foot ugly concrete barn structure without planning permission. The agricultural industry in some areas has blotted the landscape as far as the eye can see with polythene tunnels to grow fruits of which some are not native to the UK. If a good looking house was built to the local vernacular visually enhancing the countryside, without planning permission, it would be pulled down by the authorities. Houses are deemed to blot the countryside and undesirable, yet raw concrete and polythene is not, and is accepted.

We should be living amongst nature, not having to drive out to see it. Walking on land is another matter, as most of it is fenced off.

"The vast majority of the British people have no right whatsoever to their native land save to walk the streets or trudge the roads”
– Henry George.

Your the one who is blind to the points others are making.

I see the points they are making, most are NIMBY points like you have just made. Many are because the writer has no vision whatever. Others because of overt prejudice towards urban people.

It may account for only 2.5% of the economy but 100% of the population need to eat. We are currently meeting 60% of that need. Again, do you understand the concept of sustainability?

We can get food cheaper elsewhere. Why should taxpayers money support and underperforming industry? Note this...Apply real economics to farming and you theoretically free up 16 million acres, which is near 27% of the total UK land mass.

50% of the EU budget is allocated to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). CAP is supporting a lifestyle of a very small minority of country dwellers in a poor performing industry. In effect that is its prime function.

Enough is enough!! Stop the gravy train of the rich landowning few, who have manged to brainwash their followers.

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

you are the guy who claimed that 80% of city dwellers wanted to live in the countryside, and were being prevented from doing so by the planning system. Now you turn round and say that if they were given the opportunity to do so they wouldn't take it up and they would in fact stay put.

Who is confused here?

That was survey I reported. The point is a lot of people want to live there and their freedoms curtailed.

[Chorlton Bloke]

Originally Posted by Bert Coombes

Don't have large supermarkets with car parks - planning again.

They can turn up on a newly recommissioned train station and line and walk to to their second home in car free village type streets.

The countryside has to think of ways of reinventing itself like cities have had to. Leisure and second homes is the future. All affordable by introducing LVT and a new open planning system.

But many people want large supermarkets with car parks. The days of walking down to the local shops everyday are behind us.

And if all your new rural villages of second homes are car free how will people reach them? By your new network of railways? More big brother dictating to people!
Where is the money going to come from? Remember the network of rural railways was destroyed because they were not financially viable even at the height of railway travel. The result of that would be many people who don't or can't have a second home in the country having to subsidise those who do.

You know Bert, you do have some sound suggestions but you spoil them by your fixed beliefs and your refusal to accept that not everybody wants what you want. Some people do want to live in cities including many already living in rural areas. Some people love living in Victorian terraces. Some people hate living in rural areas, ever wondered why pressure on housing and building land is so much in demand in cities that houses are built on flood plains, old mills and factories are converted into housing? It isn't because of the planning regs or lack of rural housing. It's because it is what many people want, it isn't out of frustration at not being able to live in a rural area cut off from many amenities.

I like Port Merion too but it would be impossible to live there without a great deal of money or independent income, a ghetto for the wealthy! I thought you were opposed to the privileged rich dominating rural AREAS.

[Jonesy55]

Originally Posted by Bert Coombes

Look at post 190. That will clear that up for you.

Once again where did you get your figures?

It doesn't really clear anything up. The logic seems to be that as we don't produce enough to feed ourselves, agriculture must be unproductive and therefore we should produce even less.

To me, the fact that we can't produce enough to feed ourselves even with highly productive and industrialized agriculture suggests that we have too many people if anything.

As for the figures it isn't anything complicated you just take the amount raised by income tax (£140bn) and the amount raised by national insurance (£95bn) then divide the total by the number of hectares of land in the UK (c24m). Simples.

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

£235bn / 24m hectares

Obviously prime Mayfair land would raise more than a Welsh mountain but that is the average needed to raise the same amount as IT and NI.

If the figures are true, have not said where you got them, Corporation tax would still exist. Look at the example of Denmark. HK has very low income tax.

[Octoman]

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

yes, even with some of the most intensive and productive agriculture in the world and one of the highest ratios of agricultural land to total land we only produce around 60% of the food we need.

Take away huge chunks of that land from productive use and increase the population even more and that figure will drop even further to dangerously low levels.

Or more likely food producers will just have to pass the cost of the land tax onto the cost of the food they produce. Either our monthly shopping bills would go through the roof or we would become wholly reliant on imported food. Bit of both I suspect. Needless to say, the least well off would suffer the most since their food bills are a far higher percentage of their expenditure.