what is wrong vlad, problem with the rent payment again ?

Time for a whip round for Vlad.

krisduncs wrote:Time for a whip round for Vlad.

You could have the decency to include sweet potato in that process

logos, my rent has never been late. Ever.

Btw, you never got back to me on the feasabilty of my proposed voluntourism scam...I know a few guys who make good coin from this and a few even use proceeds to live overseas. Can u do some research and let me know? Kisses and hugs, Bilbo.

Don't agree with the idea within the current framework or at all.
You pays yer money have some kind of paperwork and then state and/or government subsequently have Title ?
Can't think of any worse organisation than state/gov to be involved or have some kind of responsibly to oversee this.

I think the issue is the requirement for appropriate classification of land which would lead to structure of towns and cities, services etc.
For example, in the UK there are both classifications and conditions as to the use of various sites but these are well known and documented before a prospective purchaser completes a deal.
With some kind of classification of land as housing for example this then triggers a steady fair market value.
['trigger' - see youtube clip below]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesi ... rev5.shtml

CJM555 wrote:Can't think of any worse organisation than state/gov to be involved or have some kind of responsibly to oversee this.

With some kind of classification of land as housing for example this then triggers a steady fair market value.

Virtually every single real estate system in every single developed country contradicts what you say.

How many young married couples, in the UK, or US for example, can afford to buy a house? They could do it in the 50s, but not now.

And I don't know about the US, but I've heard the same about Australia, NZ, SA and most of Europe.

Supply and demand is (jn this case) a myth to justify exorbitant pricing by greedy developers.

So 'the steady fair market value' you talk of has in fact gone through the roof and out of control.

The determining question is whether most people can ever reasonably expect to own their own house. The answer is no in most countries, I think.

vladimir wrote:

CJM555 wrote:Can't think of any worse organisation than state/gov to be involved or have some kind of responsibly to oversee this.

With some kind of classification of land as housing for example this then triggers a steady fair market value.

Virtually every single real estate system in every single developed country contradicts what you say.

How many young married couples, in the UK, or US for example, can afford to buy a house? They could do it in the 50s, but not now.

And I don't know about the US, but I've heard the same about Australia, NZ, SA and most of Europe.

Supply and demand is (jn this case) a myth to justify exorbitant pricing by greedy developers.

So 'the steady fair market value' you talk of has in fact gone through the roof and out of control.

The determining question is whether most people can ever reasonably expect to own their own house. The answer is no in most countries, I think.

I think you have taken the first sentence quoted out of context to what it was actually related to and that was state/gov taking land titles from folks who have paid monies in good faith.
I have no issue with conditions of sale or use but reaffirm without this, state/gov grab is unfair and unreasonable.

Supply and demand;
There is no great myth about this subject or developers.

Read back the comments I made about the appropriate classification, use and conditions of land.
Without these 3 measures working in harmony, this creates concentrated pricing bubbles specifically with regard to housing which then follow to outlandish property values including high rental costs.
One of the measures to reduce this problem is the reclassification of the surrounding land, hence, allow the bubble to burst and folks can rent or buy affordable housing in the surrounding areas and create a community and live happily ever after.
Just like the 50's.

For/against private land ownership ?
Problem with your land reverting to the state when you die; means your family will be homeless.
If you have a farm, it means that the family will lose it's livelihood. Dad (or the owner of the land) dies, and the family are out on the street.

But, with the scarcity of land and housing in some countries, the idea of taxing unproductive land or empty houses could discourage "hoarding" for speculation. Except that for the very rich, this will just be some sort of tax write-off.

The other thing is that laws are usually nation-wide, but the problem of inflated housing/land prices is generally restricted to a few specific areas. So, if you have extremely restrictive property laws to deal with places like London for example, this is also going to discourage people from investing in lower income areas, where there could be a need for investment.
Distribution of land and property is a big question; has led to civil wars and revolutions, so I doubt that we will fix the problem right now. But carry on.

CJM555 wrote:and live happily ever after.
Just like the 50's.

LOL. That's cute.

I have heard of land being taken if not developed a few times before. The first time was in Zanzibar 2009. Anyone ( poor farmers) who had land near the beach had been ordered by the government to develop it within 6 months or else risk losing it. Of course poor farmers don't have enough to develop their land and no one was going to give them a reasonable loan.
Whatever you do, they will always twist it back. Just look at France.

Communism doesn't work, as proven with every communist country there ever was. Theoretically sounds great, rubbish in practise. Why? Because if you don't own it you don't give a shit about it. Collectivised farming and the famines it caused in Russia in the 30s should adequately demonstrate this - once people were able to own their own land, after Stalin's disastrous policies, the farms became massively more productive. When collectivised they starved. Why? because why work your nuts off if you are not directly rewarded and you can't pass your legacy on.
In this country, however, if you have land that is left fallow for a long time it will be re-appropriated by the state. The land that's empty round SHV is all government or, more truthfully, members of the government, owned. If a farmer owned it, you could be damned sure there would be cows and rice growing on it.