Billionaires -should wealth be capped

You want to tax the non liquid asset base of companies - that would end a lot of companies.

A lot of people don't get that profit and cash are two VERY different things - let alone free cash flow available to assets.

The one good thing about all this, and I am pretty sure I think you mention, is that it will never happen 👍
 
Costero Poderoso said:
Amazon in 2020 declared i think it was 9 billion or so in earnings in the uk for its investor statements, but only declared 3 billion to the inland revenue.
Apple did something similar, as did Google but i dont have the numbers to hand.
Click to expand...

You've seen the Amazon corporation tax returns?
 
Lost Seasider said:
Do you have a car? How much do you think the manufacturer spent developing that model? How much do you think they spent building the factory that made the car?

How much do you think it costs to develop a new pharmaceutical? Or a new piece of computer equipment, or in fact almost anything modern?
Click to expand...
Yeah, money needs money and slums need the poor - that's obvious and I don't know how to alter that beyond a redistributive economic model that currently, isn't en vogue - the point you are making appears to be that we require vast behomoths to essentially bankroll the future. Perhaps...

But ultimately do you not also question the influence that they have on that future in terms of what is invested in and what isn't and do you reach a point where your company is earning way beyond what anyone can really conceptualise, the idea that it's spending is dictated 'by the market' becomes laughable. These companies can shape the market in a way that doesn't necessarily represent consumer demand/need or social demand/need. The idea of making profit becomes self fulfilling because they are the only companies big enough to reach the market or they become the market and thus put whatever they want on the market.

Once you've reached a point where a company/individual can 'invest' with almost total impunity, it is then effectively no different than say, the Soviet military/industrial complex. The rules of capital no longer apply to it. We reach a kind of feudal situation where every company or individual plying their trade does so only with the blessing of the good lord corporate behemoth and they pay their tithes in service charges/get bought out/etc.

Yes, that can fund innovation, but it can also completely distort markets and destroy innovation and competition. The notion that we need insane levels of personal wealth "because things are expensive to make" seems a little simplistic and perhaps also highlights a basic problem thrown up by capitalism (which I don't have an answer for) - which is that cooperation would lower cost tremendously - yes, to make a new car is expensive but all over the world, car manufacturers are doing the same research in silos and essentially designing the same thing with tiny minor differences. Of course, we can laugh and say 'well, what is the alternative? Trabants?' and that's to some extent a fair point - but equally, it doesn't mean we shouldn't think critically about our own system does it?
 
td53 said:
Once you've reached a point where a company/individual can 'invest' with almost total impunity, it is then effectively no different than say, the Soviet military/industrial complex. The rules of capital no longer apply to it. We reach a kind of feudal situation where every company or individual plying their trade does so only with the blessing of the good lord corporate behemoth and they pay their tithes in service charges/get bought out/etc.
Click to expand...

Can you think of any examples where that's actually happened?
 
In short - I don't know a lot about the economy and I think it's fairly clear where my politics are in general - but I'm not really looking at this moralistically or as left vs right - I'm trying, in crude terms to explain why, the idea of 'capitalism' doesn't really seem to function as it says on the tin. There's doubtless some weight in the idea that a 'left' economy (big state owns stuff etc) may stifle individual enterprise. It would be insane to argue otherwise. We could debate the merits of individual security vs the potential to earn wealth till the cows come home - that's not the debate here.

What I'm trying to say, in a crude and naive way is... When we have huge companies whose reach goes beyond governments and who are able to cleverly siphon taxes and profits to wherever it's cheapest to do so and they shape so much of the economic and employment landscape - and we call that 'market freedom' - it doesn't seem a million miles away from the soviets calling their tractor plants and collective farms 'a socialist triumph'

i.e. we dress up something that isn't great in ideological rhetoric.

At a simple and daily level (i'm a simple person) it feels very much like there's limits to how much I could ever achieve as an entrepreneur without having to engage with one or more of certain companies. It feels like there's a limit to what and how I can consume without doing so (short of living in a tree and making my clothes out of hair and nettles) and it feels increasingly as if, when you look behind brands and names you associate with the UK, the story leads you back to the same giant companies more and more and ultimately, I'm not sure if that's great for a future of opportunity and aspiration because you end up with people simply aspiring to serve a kind of global mega non-state of businesses and I'm not entirely sure that's ideal or what it says in 'why capitalism is good for idiots'

I think a lot of frustration from both left and right comes from a similar place to be honest. I'm getting really bored of people arguing about the same 3 things (gender, statues and brexit) and not really seeing that they actually share a lot of concerns and I think one of them is the disempowerment of the individual and the ceding of power of government and thus democracy to shadowy economic forces. We might see that as 'the evil of the military/industrial complex who dictate our lives' or 'the evil of the brussels project that dictates our lives' or whatever, but ultimately, I think it's all a kind of hopelessness in the face of globalism.

471717106_c6e60a9466_b.jpg
 
Lost Seasider said:
Can you think of any examples where that's actually happened?
Click to expand...
There are billionaires racing to space with their pocket change.

If I want to sell just about anything, I pretty much have to do it via amazon because it has become essentially 'the market' for a huge amount of goods. If I want to run a coffee shop in a high footfall location (i.e. a railway station or suchlike), I'm almost certainly going to have to become a franchise holder for a chain even though my own, home spun coffee shop might be much better. That will, in turn invoke a whole chain of suppliers who I might not otherwise use. If I want to run a public contract - i.e. fix a road or something, it's likely I'm going to be underbid by SERCO or someone who will then hire me to do it anyway and take money for it or again, invoke a supply chain.

Excess profits mean companies can essentially price others out of high streets or win online price wars and thus control price points thereafter and/or control access to markets by saying 'We'll do your 15 year IT contract for... (less than that guy)' and that invokes a whole supply chain again, that might otherwise not have been used. In the field of work I do, I'm constantly seeing very good ideas but thinking 'hmmm' - that'll only really work when Google or Microsoft pick it up - dominance becomes self fulfilling because you have the resources and whether you are using them well or not is a moot point because you can just wait till someone uses the resources they have far better than you and then buy their business and thus reinforce your own market share without even innovating.

The point is broadly, crudely and roughly equivalent to the idea of being allowed to farm the land as long as I pay the lord of the manor. I have a certain degree of autonomy, but ultimately, I must remember my place and not imagine I can ever be the lord of the manor because the way things are is the way things are. We talk about 'the market' and the way it dictates our lives in the same terms I imagine people used to evoke the right of kings and so on to explain the social structures. It might appear unfair, it might appear problematic, but really, there's forces at work that are beyond us and all of this is good.

I'm not arguing for Stalinism or owt. I'm just suggesting we might *think* a bit using our *brains* as people and question stuff. I'm stuck on this idea that 'the market' isn't quite what it seems and that in a society that has argued for the last x number of years that the basic building block of progress is 'aspiration' - we seem to be quite keen on ensuring a few billionaires have their aspirations met and wondering if that has a cost in terms of aspiration for the rest of the world. I'm not arguing that billionaires are immoral or evil (though I could) - I'm arguing that the dominance of X number of mega brands/corporations/investors may well serve as a longer term cap to the prospect of future aspiration.
 
td53 said:
Yeah, money needs money and slums need the poor - that's obvious and I don't know how to alter that beyond a redistributive economic model that currently, isn't en vogue - the point you are making appears to be that we require vast behomoths to essentially bankroll the future. Perhaps...

But ultimately do you not also question the influence that they have on that future in terms of what is invested in and what isn't and do you reach a point where your company is earning way beyond what anyone can really conceptualise, the idea that it's spending is dictated 'by the market' becomes laughable. These companies can shape the market in a way that doesn't necessarily represent consumer demand/need or social demand/need. The idea of making profit becomes self fulfilling because they are the only companies big enough to reach the market or they become the market and thus put whatever they want on the market.

Once you've reached a point where a company/individual can 'invest' with almost total impunity, it is then effectively no different than say, the Soviet military/industrial complex. The rules of capital no longer apply to it. We reach a kind of feudal situation where every company or individual plying their trade does so only with the blessing of the good lord corporate behemoth and they pay their tithes in service charges/get bought out/etc.

Yes, that can fund innovation, but it can also completely distort markets and destroy innovation and competition. The notion that we need insane levels of personal wealth "because things are expensive to make" seems a little simplistic and perhaps also highlights a basic problem thrown up by capitalism (which I don't have an answer for) - which is that cooperation would lower cost tremendously - yes, to make a new car is expensive but all over the world, car manufacturers are doing the same research in silos and essentially designing the same thing with tiny minor differences. Of course, we can laugh and say 'well, what is the alternative? Trabants?' and that's to some extent a fair point - but equally, it doesn't mean we shouldn't think critically about our own system does it?
Click to expand...
more good points. specifically those with insane wealth and the ability to invest ridiculous amounts of money with impunity have the absolute ability to distort the market whichever way they want. when Warren Buffet invests all the investment sheep follow pushing up whatever stock hes put money into.

interesting that you should say fuedal, the US is definitely heading that way, if its not already there. Its certainly arrived at that point politically, but politically biased individuals tend to have a view on what sort of businesses should also be supported.

Also when we are down to three or four major car companies, which is the general prediction, why would they not produce a trabant or at least the future equivalent of it. There is no reason to innovate because there is no competition, the only motivation is how much can you take out of each individual customer.
 
Socialism DOES NOT WORK (or at least traditional conservative clause four Socialism)

But then it is reasonable to ask, does not work for what purpose? I'l try to interpret your post in the context of the wellbeing of society. In that context, by the mid-1970s British society was the least divided in terms of wealth and social integration that it has ever been. The post-war political consensus - ie. a stable understanding between the main Parliamentary parties [Labour, Conservatives and Liberals] that a mixed economy was beneficial in maintaining peace and social mobility - was coming to an end with the dawn of Thatcherism. This does not mean that all was sweetness and light at those times. Industrial practices and relations needed to be massively overhauled, albeit in a far more structured and consensual manner than Thatcher could tolerate.

It is my contention that the economic restructuring, and overhaul of labour relations that were badly needed, also required a comensurate and consensual shift in the structures and functions of democratic political institutions, together with a national conversation about the most effective and supportable focus of public and private ownership. Alas, such a complete overhaul of the economy, society and the body politic could only practically take place in those countries completely oblitterated by war: Germany and Japan. In the UK, change could only ever be piecemeal and - in the process - go down some blind alleys. None of the very big changes required to address societal consensus and mass participation in renewal could hope to get off the ground in Britain without electoral reform, the introduction of proportional representation and the replacement of the House of Lords with an elected second chamber. Without these structural changes we have an electorate that is largely divorced from those in power and consequentially inclined towards apathy and feeble compliance. So, we are where we are.
 
td53 said:
There are billionaires racing to space with their pocket change.
Click to expand...

Costero Poderoso said:
every time Warren Buffet invests in a company, the recent investment by elon musk in twitter.
Click to expand...

In what sense is this "a kind of feudal situation where every company or individual plying their trade does so only with the blessing of the good lord corporate behemoth and they pay their tithes in service charges/get bought out/etc".
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Socialism DOES NOT WORK (or at least traditional conservative clause four Socialism)

But then it is reasonable to ask, does not work for what purpose? I'l try to interpret your post in the context of the wellbeing of society. In that context, by the mid-1970s British society was the least divided in terms of wealth and social integration that it has ever been. The post-war political consensus - ie. a stable understanding between the main Parliamentary parties [Labour, Conservatives and Liberals] that a mixed economy was beneficial in maintaining peace and social mobility - was coming to an end with the dawn of Thatcherism. This does not mean that all was sweetness and light at those times. Industrial practices and relations needed to be massively overhauled, albeit in a far more structured and consensual manner than Thatcher could tolerate.

It is my contention that the economic restructuring, and overhaul of labour relations that were badly needed, also required a comensurate and consensual shift in the structures and functions of democratic political institutions, together with a national conversation about the most effective and supportable focus of public and private ownership. Alas, such a complete overhaul of the economy, society and the body politic could only practically take place in those countries completely oblitterated by war: Germany and Japan. In the UK, change could only ever be piecemeal and - in the process - go down some blind alleys. None of the very big changes required to address societal consensus and mass participation in renewal could hope to get off the ground in Britain without electoral reform, the introduction of proportional representation and the replacement of the House of Lords with an elected second chamber. Without these structural changes we have an electorate that is largely divorced from those in power and consequentially inclined towards apathy and feeble compliance. So, we are where we are.
Click to expand...
I agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly, in order for the ideas that I propose on economic participation there has to be electoral reform. In my opinion the basic ideas of what constitutes democracy is somewhat twisted - it possibly comes down to the ability to vote, in which case North Korea and China are both democracies. The ideas I have on participatory economic models are rooted in democracy that is based on participation and a responsibility to participate at one level or another, its not overly complex but it does take some explaining because it doesnt fit to current ideas around left and right and for the life of me it doesnt seem to fit any particular centrist argument either as much as i try so that i dont get interpreted as either a left leaning or right leaning loon.

To answer your question the purpose for which I want it to work, is societal sustainability and in particular maximal sustainable wellbeing.

The 1970's was interesting in that it was the culmination of an period where economics had a greater purpose, full employment at the very least. There are some interesting millenium long economic analysis where the period from around 1920 ish to the 1970s can be seen as an aberation. The result was inflation and a move away from capital. Even many left leaning economics see the inflationary aspects as bad, and therefore you have to return to the capital biased mode with a bit more regulation. The sum total of economic policy of the ECB is to keep inflation low (around 2%). The fed isnt much different but they also have protection of the dollar to consider as well. prior to this period ecoomics was specifically designed (when addressed as participation) for a small elite, and we have i think returned to that

I personally dont think PR is the answer or the simple replacemnt of the house of lords. The biggest problem for me is that there is a consistent 25 to 40% of the electorate in every western democracy that doesn't vote, for a variety of reasons, and there is almost no way to reflect that proportion of the population. In many cases for local elections and previously for EU elections the turn out was so low that the "no votes" would have had a massive majority and in many cases "no votes" are the biggest group. Even australia where you are legally obliged to vote has no means of registering a dissastifaction with the candidates on offer (dick and ball drawings on the ballot paper is the common one apparently) and having an option that affects current incumbent political parties and the way they operate.

The disconnection in politics to most people is that the very wealthy are gaming the system in their favour and the fuedalism starts to become apparent in that the leaders running to the tune of the economic elite are fighting amongst themselves for support for the particular way that they will screw the populace. Thats somewhat hyperbolic but not that far from the truth.

like i said elsewhere we are beyond the point where we can tinker with peripheral aspects, I have some experience with trying to implement radical change in governments where they need WTO, World bank or various EU or USA financial aid, and the vested interests of supply side economics just puts a massive burden on the potential change so that the changes end up being tinkering at the periphery to meet the various bodies.
 
Lost Seasider said:
In what sense is this "a kind of feudal situation where every company or individual plying their trade does so only with the blessing of the good lord corporate behemoth and they pay their tithes in service charges/get bought out/etc".
Click to expand...
because your ability to ply your trade is restricted by whover owns the space in which you ply your trade. in fuedal times the ability to farm on land owned by a lord who could kick you off for no reason, in modern the amazon, apple and google platforms where you can sell your goods only if you accept their abusive conditions and they in some cases retain rights to the traders work and can be kicked off without reason
 
Lost Seasider said:
Can you think of any examples where that's actually happened?
Click to expand...
A decent example would be the housing companies that buy up vast landbanks for development. They squeeze and control supply to ensure the best yield for themselves, then squeeze and control the supply chain (subcontractors and suppliers) who actually do all the work. They can sit on their land acquisitions for years and do nothing, or launch into development phases knowing that the supply chain has to react to its largest customers. This works to the disadvantage of smaller developers, particularly in times of short or erratic materials and labour availability. On a similar theme, there was a time when Tesco was quoted as the seventh largest landowner in the UK, sitting on land assets until planning authorities caved in to their development demands. Every little helps though 😗
 
If you don't want to live in a capitalist society, feel free to do one to one that isn't 👍

But that's just a dismissive put-down as you very well know. Economic and political models require societies to build them and to manage them. I would love to live in a capitalistic society. One in which the overly robust flavours of libertairianism are tempered by a hefty dose of social democracy in our public domain, complete with public ownership of the nation's key infrastructures - transport; utility generation, storage and distribution; defence, health, education, policing, IT networks, environmental protection and planning, Housing policy & planning and social services, (I may have forgotten some). A society in which business that provide those products & services that are best provided through private capital, can thrive. A society in which public revenues are appropriated progessively from citizens and businesses. A society in which private ownership of property is managed centrally by Government and locally by regional/town councils. Fundamentally, a society in which children, the disabled, sick and elderly are cared for well through a culture of good funding and a high regard for people employed in the caring professions. A society in which teachers and health care professionals are highly respected by a population at ease with itself and in which excess wealth is disparaged. That is what I want from a good capitalist society.
 
I personally dont think PR is the answer or the simple replacement of the house of lords.

Neither do I. They are, however, parts of the answer: an overhaul of industrial relations, an overhaul of economic policy, an overhaul of strategic political thinking and an overhaul of political structures. Why do huge swathes of people not bother voting? Why do many of those who do turn out apply so little thought to their choice? Ultimately, why is there such a massive disconnect between politics in action and the mass of society? proportional representation requires more thought than a simple tick in a box. It also requires politicians to think more deeply about what they want to say to the electorate. When applied to all levels of the franchise - local, regional, mayoral and general elections - there is a massive opportunity for people to become more engaged in the process.

As for the House of Lords, it does a huge amount of good work. However, it exists through patronage. If it were a non-party elected chamber there is the potential for people from business, the arts, education, the Churches, local charities, sports and other walks of life putting themselves forward for election to a chamber that could ensure that Government policy and proposed legislation is considered in detail by non-politicians who are there because they want to apply and we want to put them there.
 
Lost Seasider said:
In what sense is this "a kind of feudal situation where every company or individual plying their trade does so only with the blessing of the good lord corporate behemoth and they pay their tithes in service charges/get bought out/etc".
Click to expand...
I've done a lengthy post explaining why it is sort of analogous.

You will just continue to reply selectively and ask the same question as if that proves a point because it is obviously NOT EXACTLY the same circumstance (therefore you win and everything should stay exactly the same) but there is, with a little bit of imagination, a way of seeing the increasing wealth and power of less people and less businesses as thus.
 
td53 said:
I've done a lengthy post explaining why it is sort of analogous.

You will just continue to reply selectively and ask the same question as if that proves a point because it is obviously NOT EXACTLY the same circumstance (therefore you win and everything should stay exactly the same) but there is, with a little bit of imagination, a way of seeing the increasing wealth and power of less people and less businesses as thus.
Click to expand...
you can take a horse to water but it still might get lost ;)
 
It’s a toss up as to who has posted the most very long posts, between Costero and td53. 66 made an effort, but is nowhere near.
 
Their first billion should be taxed at 90per cent per cent and any further billions shared out among the UK population which I reckon is £15.38p each per billion.
 
td53 said:
I've done a lengthy post explaining why it is sort of analogous.

You will just continue to reply selectively and ask the same question as if that proves a point because it is obviously NOT EXACTLY the same circumstance (therefore you win and everything should stay exactly the same) but there is, with a little bit of imagination, a way of seeing the increasing wealth and power of less people and less businesses as thus.
Click to expand...
That's what he does.
 
Mark_GT said:
A decent example would be the housing companies that buy up vast landbanks for development. They squeeze and control supply to ensure the best yield for themselves, then squeeze and control the supply chain (subcontractors and suppliers) who actually do all the work. They can sit on their land acquisitions for years and do nothing, or launch into development phases knowing that the supply chain has to react to its largest customers. This works to the disadvantage of smaller developers, particularly in times of short or erratic materials and labour availability. On a similar theme, there was a time when Tesco was quoted as the seventh largest landowner in the UK, sitting on land assets until planning authorities caved in to their development demands. Every little helps though 😗
Click to expand...

That's more to do with the planning system than anything else, an example of government regulation rather than free-market capitalism.
 
The point I was trying to make was partly out of frustration. We have people living on earth who are currently dying of starvation, we have people whose children have to go into prostitution to make ends meet and we have a number of individuals who have more money than they ever need. Nobody could possible spend £1 billion in a lifetime yet some of these people have a lot more than that, what is the point? Are they aware that money is now irrelevant to them, it wouldn't matter whether they were taxed at massive rates or had half of their wealth confiscated. I've seen recent programmes about the uber wealthy one showed a Russian family in London spending £56k on Christmas decorations, a Nigerian family had Harrods shut for the day so they could spunk millions on shopping and I recently watched a nauseating show on dubai which showed a woman having a bag collection worth millions and a shoe collection worth millions. It's vile.
 
seasideone said:
You want to tax the non liquid asset base of companies - that would end a lot of companies.

A lot of people don't get that profit and cash are two VERY different things - let alone free cash flow available to assets.

The one good thing about all this, and I am pretty sure I think you mention, is that it will never happen 👍
Click to expand...
i think you are misinterpreting, I'm suggesting that companies that declare very high values are taxed on those values. I'm also suggesting that companies that literally only increase asset value as the basis of their business should be taxed at a higher rate and that it should proportionally increase, and companies doing productive work would be taxed at a lower rate. what you are going to is financial accounting not economics.
 
The ultimate aim of Capitalism is a monopoly, after you have ground your rivals into the dust. Then the poor and dispossessed rely on non existent trickle down. I was interested in the comments about sociopathy, I worked for one who had run several instantly recognised companies at MD level, no understanding at all of the needs of his workforce.

Great thread, guys, and vitally important. the arrogance of our ruling class and the hyper rich will lead to consequences. I hope for a gradual change, but I think we are closer to a revolution than any time since the 70's. Why don't people vote?, because the system is so rigged against the majority that their votes make no difference at all. Rishi thinks an enquiry into the leak of his wife's status is more vital than one into Covid fraud. He and Javid made their fortunes when the banking crisis hit, and both of them became domiciled abroad. How can we trust them to look after our interests when they will just run if things get bad.

Practically, you cannot cap wealth, but you can certainly tax it at a punitive rate.
 
Last edited:
td53 said:
I've done a lengthy post explaining why it is sort of analogous.
Click to expand...

I can't see the analogy, and to be honest I'm not terribly keen on wading through lengthy posts trying to work out what you are trying to say.


td53 said:
If I want to sell just about anything, I pretty much have to do it via amazon because it has become essentially 'the market' for a huge amount of goods. If I want to run a coffee shop in a high footfall location (i.e. a railway station or suchlike), I'm almost certainly going to have to become a franchise holder for a chain even though my own, home spun coffee shop might be much better. That will, in turn invoke a whole chain of suppliers who I might not otherwise use. If I want to run a public contract - i.e. fix a road or something, it's likely I'm going to be underbid by SERCO or someone who will then hire me to do it anyway and take money for it or again, invoke a supply chain.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

There are existing alternatives for Amazon, you can google them if you like, and there's nothing to stop you setting up your own online store, which believe it or not people do.

Likewise, there are plenty of independent coffee houses out there and new chains come and go all the time.


td53 said:
Excess profits mean companies can essentially price others out of high streets or win online price wars and thus control price points thereafter and/or control access to markets by saying 'We'll do your 15 year IT contract for... (less than that guy)' and that invokes a whole supply chain again, that might otherwise not have been used. In the field of work I do, I'm constantly seeing very good ideas but thinking 'hmmm' - that'll only really work when Google or Microsoft pick it up - dominance becomes self fulfilling because you have the resources and whether you are using them well or not is a moot point because you can just wait till someone uses the resources they have far better than you and then buy their business and thus reinforce your own market share without even innovating.
Click to expand...

The reason they can do that is they're more efficient than you are, which in the end means that the prices the consumer pays are lower.


td53 said:
The point is broadly, crudely and roughly equivalent to the idea of being allowed to farm the land as long as I pay the lord of the manor. I have a certain degree of autonomy, but ultimately, I must remember my place and not imagine I can ever be the lord of the manor because the way things are is the way things are. We talk about 'the market' and the way it dictates our lives in the same terms I imagine people used to evoke the right of kings and so on to explain the social structures. It might appear unfair, it might appear problematic, but really, there's forces at work that are beyond us and all of this is good.
Click to expand...

Except your premise is wrong.


td53 said:
I'm not arguing for Stalinism or owt. I'm just suggesting we might *think* a bit using our *brains* as people and question stuff. I'm stuck on this idea that 'the market' isn't quite what it seems and that in a society that has argued for the last x number of years that the basic building block of progress is 'aspiration' - we seem to be quite keen on ensuring a few billionaires have their aspirations met and wondering if that has a cost in terms of aspiration for the rest of the world. I'm not arguing that billionaires are immoral or evil (though I could) - I'm arguing that the dominance of X number of mega brands/corporations/investors may well serve as a longer term cap to the prospect of future aspiration.
Click to expand...

Okay, but all you're doing is demonstrating you don't know anything about the subject.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
it really isnt, but you insist on seeing it that way for some reason.
Click to expand...

It really is.

Without the planning system, if the developers tried to hoard land then others would simply build on different land to meet the demand, which would undermine their hoarding strategy completely, it's the artificial restrictions imposed by government that makes hoarding viable for the developers.
 
Lost Seasider said:
It really is.

Without the planning system, if the developers tried to hoard land then others would simply build on different land to meet the demand, which would undermine their hoarding strategy completely, it's the artificial restrictions imposed by government that makes hoarding viable for the developers.
Click to expand...
How do other developers do that when land is not a finite resource, or we just have an absolute free for all land in regards to building. Can't build in the city or surroundings lets knock down a forest or fill in a lake to build an office block. What you are saying is the typical double speak of libertarians.
 
Shandypants said:
The point I was trying to make was partly out of frustration. We have people living on earth who are currently dying of starvation, we have people whose children have to go into prostitution to make ends meet and we have a number of individuals who have more money than they ever need. Nobody could possible spend £1 billion in a lifetime yet some of these people have a lot more than that, what is the point? Are they aware that money is now irrelevant to them, it wouldn't matter whether they were taxed at massive rates or had half of their wealth confiscated. I've seen recent programmes about the uber wealthy one showed a Russian family in London spending £56k on Christmas decorations, a Nigerian family had Harrods shut for the day so they could spunk millions on shopping and I recently watched a nauseating show on dubai which showed a woman having a bag collection worth millions and a shoe collection worth millions. It's vile.
Click to expand...
It is nauseating, your post went off on a tangent, but if you ask those kinds of questions the answer cant just be "its bad and shouldnt happen" and as we can see from the responses, there are those who dont really see an issue with the disproportionate amount of wealth that some have, the system that permits and in many cases aids it, and refuse to acknowledge the problems that it causes, either for people starving now or the potential for a lot more to be in that position if the economic models that permit this kind of wealth disparity continue.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
we just have an absolute free for all land in regards to building. Can't build in the city or surroundings lets knock down a forest or fill in a lake to build an office block. What you are saying is the typical double speak of libertarians.
Click to expand...

That's what would happen in a free market, whether you think that's desirable or not is a different matter, the fact remains that it's the planning system that allows developers to hoard land.

Farmland in the South East is £8,000 - £10,000 - per acre, with planning permission it's worth £1,000,000+ where else do you think the difference comes from?
 
Lost Seasider said:
That's what would happen in a free market, whether you think that's desirable or not is a different matter, the fact remains that it's the planning system that allows developers to hoard land.

Farmland in the South East is £8,000 - £10,000 - per acre, with planning permission it's worth £1,000,000+ where else do you think the difference comes from?
Click to expand...
You are being deliberately obtuse - in your """"free market"""" model all land can be used for whatever purposes that the owners want to use it for, which frees up all land. So when a pig farm, or an industrial waste business buys the land behind your house and turns it into a toxic waste dump, or a pig farm or just builds a twenty story office block you wouldnt have any objections cos that is just the free market.

The fact that the planning system assigns land and restricts use of land for general societal benefit means some land is more valuable than other, that isnt the ** point. The land that is available or potentially available for development is bought up and hoarded for reasons of gouging the value. If all land was available for whatever owners wanted to do, then all land not just commercially viable land would be bought up by the wealthiest in the same way that fuedal landlords owned ALL the ** land.
 
Lost Seasider said:
I can't see the analogy, and to be honest I'm not terribly keen on wading through lengthy posts trying to work out what you are trying to say.




Nonsense.

There are existing alternatives for Amazon, you can google them if you like, and there's nothing to stop you setting up your own online store, which believe it or not people do.

Likewise, there are plenty of independent coffee houses out there and new chains come and go all the time.




The reason they can do that is they're more efficient than you are, which in the end means that the prices the consumer pays are lower.




Except your premise is wrong.




Okay, but all you're doing is demonstrating you don't know anything about the subject.
Click to expand...
I might know less than fuck all but hey. You were just after the prize for reading all the posts weren't you?
 
Costero Poderoso said:
You are being deliberately obtuse - in your """"free market"""" model all land can be used for whatever purposes that the owners want to use it for, which frees up all land. So when a pig farm, or an industrial waste business buys the land behind your house and turns it into a toxic waste dump, or a pig farm or just builds a twenty story office block you wouldnt have any objections cos that is just the free market.
Click to expand...

Did I say that?

The fact remains that whether you think the outcome is desirable or not, it is government restrictions that allow developers to hoard land.


Costero Poderoso said:
If all land was available for whatever owners wanted to do, then all land not just commercially viable land would be bought up by the wealthiest in the same way that fuedal landlords owned ALL the ** land.
Click to expand...

No.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
i think you are misinterpreting, I'm suggesting that companies that declare very high values are taxed on those values. I'm also suggesting that companies that literally only increase asset value as the basis of their business should be taxed at a higher rate and that it should proportionally increase, and companies doing productive work would be taxed at a lower rate. what you are going to is financial accounting not economics.
Click to expand...
I don't think I am - you want to tax non liquid assets - which is very very bad!
 
Lost Seasider said:
Did I say that?

The fact remains that whether you think the outcome is desirable or not, it is government restrictions that allow developers to hoard land.




No.
Click to expand...
even if i was to acknowledge that the planning system creates value for some land and not other land, it doesnt take away from the fact that developers hoard it to gouge value. i give up
 
Costero Poderoso said:
even if i was to acknowledge that the planning system creates value for some land and not other land, it doesnt take away from the fact that developers hoard it to gouge value. i give up
Click to expand...

That's the point, it's the fact that the planning system creates different values for different land that allows developers to hoard it, because they know that it's value as "development land" can't be easily undermined by the conversion of farmland.
 
seasideone said:
I don't agree with your politics, but I don't think you are daft!!!!
Click to expand...
seriously why is it bad. i genuinely want to understand the perspective, although the ideas ive thrown out are rooted in a political point of view they are based on i think sound principles of economics and human behaviour.
 
Lost Seasider said:
That's the point, it's the fact that the planning system creates different values for different land that allows developers to hoard it, because they know that it's value as "development land" can't be easily undermined by the conversion of farmland.
Click to expand...
so why are the wealthy and many investment funds buying up vast swathes of farmland and not farming it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top