Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Is it even possible to redistribute 'wealth'?

Announcements Posted on
    • 34 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    Interesting, what about green belt land?

    I think if you just removed all planning restrictions, other than tripling the rate of neighbour-on-neighbour murders, we would just end up with an entire country of suburbs and strip-malls. The inner cities would become deserted and turn into crime ridden no-go-zones, and the countryside would disappear altogether.

    basically, the UK would turn into New Jersey. I don't think that would be in anyone's best interest, except perhaps a few lucky land owners who flogged off their fields to developers.
    A lot green belt land is an absolute nonsense. I am all for protecting places people really like to go on holiday and walk their dogs. But in practice most green belt land is not at all like that.

    For example Worcester is on one side bounded by the M5. For absolutely no good reason other than there is a motorway there, on the other side from Worcester there is a great expanse of greenbelt. The land is not that pretty and is not being used for anything. It is just an arbitrary control. The only genuine explanation is that the people who developed Warden villages (one of the recently developed housing areas) and incumbent property owners wanted to make sure there would be no competition in the future.

    This idea that the whole of countryside would tarmacked over is quite preposterous. I mean seriously? Who is going to be doing all that building?
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    A lot green belt land is an absolute nonsense. I am all for protecting places people really like to go on holiday and walk their dogs. But in practice most green belt land is not at all like that.

    For example Worcester is on one side bounded by the M5. For absolutely no good reason other than there is a motorway there, on the other side from Worcester there is a great expanse of greenbelt. The land is not that pretty and is not being used for anything. It is just an arbitrary control. The only genuine explanation is that the people who developed Warden villages (one of the recently developed housing areas) and incumbent property owners wanted to make sure there would be no competition in the future.

    This idea that the whole of countryside would tarmacked over is quite preposterous. I mean seriously? Who is going to be doing all that building?
    Have you not seen what the country looks like from the air compared to 100 years ago? If it wasn't for planning regulations brought in after the war, the entire of Southern England would already look like one big car park. Its frankly a miracle that 30 million people are crammed into such a small area of land and its not already just a chain of suburbs.


    I can only presume that you have never visited much of the USA. On parts of the east coast you can drive for hundreds of miles without ever really being in a city OR in the countryside. Its just endless strip malls and housing estates - this is what happens if you just let landowners build whatever is most profitable.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    We don't redistribute 'wealth' much at all. But we could. Higher inheritance tax, and higher capital gains would do it.
    • 34 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    Have you not seen what the country looks like from the air compared to 100 years ago? If it wasn't for planning regulations brought in after the war, the entire of Southern England would already look like one big car park. Its frankly a miracle that 30 million people are crammed into such a small area of land and its not already just a chain of suburbs.
    Maybe the house prices in the South of England would not be so high....

    Maybe we would have avoided the housing price boom?

    I can only presume that you have never visited much of the USA. On parts of the east coast you can drive for hundreds of miles without ever really being in a city OR in the countryside. Its just endless strip malls and housing estates - this is what happens if you just let landowners build whatever is most profitable.
    I don't see why it is better to cram people into, frankly ugly, cities whilst leaving open spaces that nobody sees or hardly even uses. Ofcourse it is fine to protect green open spaces that the public use and I would have no intention of getting rid of their protection. What I want to get rid of is the arbitrary controls that can only, in my opinion, be serving the interests of incumbent property owners.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    Maybe the house prices in the South of England would not be so high....



    I don't see why it is better to cram people into, frankly ugly, cities whilst leaving open spaces that nobody sees or hardly even uses.
    Because some people - a lot of young people particularly - like living in cities. Some people also like living in the suburbs, and some people like living in the countryside. Say what you like, but at least at the moment there's a reasonable choice between the three options.

    Allow the entire countryside to be turned into suburbs willy-nilly, and there will only be one option left. So 2/3rds of the country's lives are left worse off, just for the sake of a few extra million for some lucky landowners and housing developers.

    The government should be worrying about incentivising schemes to renovate brownfield sites and doing up the rundown areas in our big cities, not allowing landowners a licence to print money.

    Personally I think as many students should be taken out of the private housing stock as possible. Too many potentially beautiful big 4 bedroom family rooms are being wasted, and the student areas of cities are always crappy. Student accommodation may make the landlords a big stinking pile of cash, but they do absolutely nothing for the poor bastards living next door. Universities and private companies should be encouraged to provide accommodation for as many of their students as possible, and the government should invest in the local area and encourage real families to move back in.
    • 34 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    Because some people - a lot of young people particularly - like living in cities. Some people also like living in the suburbs, and some people like living in the countryside. Say what you like, but at least at the moment there's a reasonable choice between the three options.

    Allow the entire countryside to be turned into suburbs willy-nilly, and there will only be one option left. So 2/3rds of the country's lives are left worse off, just for the sake of a few extra million for some lucky landowners and housing developers.
    I seriously cannot forsee from London to Birmingham to Bristol to Portsmouth being covered in housing. And if such a thing did start to happen, guess what you can do?

    The government should be worrying about incentivising schemes to renovate brownfield sites and doing up the rundown areas in our big cities, not allowing landowners a licence to print money.
    People always talk big about these Brownfield site schemes. People always say it will work.

    Personally I think as many students should be taken out of the private housing stock as possible. Too many potentially beautiful big 4 bedroom family rooms are being wasted, and the student areas of cities are always crappy. Student accommodation may make the landlords a big stinking pile of cash, but they do absolutely nothing for the poor bastards living next door. Universities and private companies should be encouraged to provide accommodation for as many of their students as possible, and the government should invest in the local area and encourage real families to move back in.
    Do you fancy the tax payer having to fork out for such projects? Or perhaps tuition fees should be raised.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    I seriously cannot forsee from London to Birmingham to Bristol to Portsmouth being covered in housing. And if such a thing did start to happen, guess what you can do?

    People always talk big about these Brownfield site schemes. People always say it will work.

    Do you fancy the tax payer having to fork out for such projects? Or perhaps tuition fees should be raised.
    Its already started to happen. Go look at a satellite view.

    Pay for what? The money would be made back on rent many times over.
    • 34 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    Pay for what? The money would be made back on rent many times over.
    Why are they not doing it then?
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    Why are they not doing it then?
    stupidity, of course
    • 34 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    stupidity, of course
    How arrogant of you to call all of those academics stupid. Who do you think you are? These people are well trained intelligent folk who don't get things wrong.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    How arrogant of you to call all of those academics stupid. Who do you think you are? These people are well trained intelligent folk who don't get things wrong.
    its not really academics who are in charge, its a myriad of government agencies all serving a diverse range of often conflicting constituency and special interests. If you had one guy in charge (ie me) things would be a lot better.
    • 34 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    its not really academics who are in charge, its a myriad of government agencies all serving a diverse range of often conflicting constituency and special interests. If you had one guy in charge (ie me) things would be a lot better.
    Now where has that idea been tried before????
    • 11 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    Assuming it were possible to calculate who gets what and who loses what, the backlash would be so severe that any western country that seriously considered trying it would probably be plunged into civil war. As a student I am "poor" but I wouldn't want to be given stolen money to make me equal to every other tom, dick and harry in the country. I might be poor, but I get by. Sure, an extra £20 or £30 a week would be very nice, but I don't need it.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The rich who have not inherited wealth do not deserve to have their wealth distributed to the poor. Why should their money be taken from them when they are the members of society who have made the most of their lives by working the hardest and succeeding? If any wealth is to redistributed it should not be given to the people who have been on benefits for many a year and don't want to make anything of their lives.
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Yes, it is possible to redistribute wealth.
    We're more familiar with income tax rather than wealth tax - if you have £100k in the bank just sitting their, next year you will still have £100k. Whereas the Zakat tax in Islamic countries is not a tax on income, it's a tax on wealth. If you have £100k (above a certain threshold) sitting in your bank, next year you will have something like 2.5% less than that, which is redistributed to people with less money than a certain threshold. We also have inheritance tax, which can be considered as a wealth tax in some ways.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    inheritance tax, duhhhh?
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TGH1)
    The CAP should be abolished. That the poor subsidise some of the wealthiest people in the country at the expense of impoverished African farmers is a travesty.
    This.

    According to Panorama some of the richest people in the country get around £1m a year on farming subsidies. While livelihood farmers get close to nothing. It's disgraceful.

    <3 x

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: March 6, 2012
New on TSR

Exclusive Nick Clegg interview

Your questions answered by the deputy prime minister

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.