this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
60 points (94.1% liked)

United Kingdom

4110 readers
487 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Pretty depressing reading.

[Edit] I had the archive link as a comment but this has gained enough traction that it's not obvious. Here it is again so you don't have to give FT any clicks https://archive.is/ypkln

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] frazorth 18 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Unsurprising that it all shot out of control after 2010, and just more evidence that we need to build more.

[–] mannycalavera 9 points 4 months ago (4 children)

This is something I'd wish the next government would do. Seriously how hard is it to build? Bust through the bullshit planning restrictions and build houses that people want to live in.

[–] Espiritdescali@futurology.today 18 points 4 months ago (3 children)

The house building companies already have vast amounts of land they own with planning permission in place. They restrict the amount of housing they build to artificially keep the prices high, if they build too many, the prices they could sell their houses for would drop, reducing profit. These are private companies and the government has little control over them. This is why every government for the last few generations has promised more houses and delivered nothing.

[–] frazorth 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

It is unfortunate that the building companies make more money by not building, than by building.

We need a progressive land/council tax. Hording land should cost you.

My favourite suggestion should be that tax levels are based upon a heat map of urban density, but also linked to area owned. It was a suggestion that came out of the US because they have problems with land hording in urban areas, spaces that are just a car park to act as a holding for land.

It would mean that ownership of inner city, undeveloped land and also owning large estates is penalised.

[–] Espiritdescali@futurology.today 9 points 4 months ago

I'm in favour of a Land Value Tax, this means hoarding land becomes expensive. It also means grouse moores and golf courses become expensive (good things in my mind)

[–] huf@hexbear.net 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

These are private companies and the government has little control over them.

lol, they have an army, just send it in and nationalize the shit out of them. the government has as much control as it wants to have.

[–] frazorth 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Tax the crap out of them until they build is usually easier.

[–] huf@hexbear.net 5 points 4 months ago

neither of those are gonna happen, so it doesnt matter

[–] Espiritdescali@futurology.today 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm all for nationalising infrastructure, including houses, but you would still have to compensate shareholders unfortunately. If we didn't (which is an option) the markets would react very badly and make Liz Truss seem like a genius.

[–] huf@hexbear.net 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

only if you let them. why does the government have to allow capital flight in the first place?

[–] Espiritdescali@futurology.today 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Because we are not a dictatorship and have no desire to be one.

[–] Kuori@hexbear.net 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

you are a dictatorship, of capital

the alternative is a government that serves the people instead of the wealthy, but who wants that?

[–] Espiritdescali@futurology.today 2 points 4 months ago

Overthrowing capitalism is unlikely to happen in the near term and the discussion was about homelessness.

[–] huf@hexbear.net 2 points 4 months ago
[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago

The gvernment only makes this situation worse with the town and country planning act too.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It's by design.

The rich want low housing and high population because it makes their assets go up. Traditionally like silent generation, greatest generation and before affordable homes for the working class and the following generations was seen as an ideal that people were willing to die for. This ideal was largely realised with the boomers.

But the boomers then decided it is better if they have houses and no one else does because their wealth can go up and they can then make money like the land owners than their grandparents were kept in poverty by. Now they can do it to their children!

I honestly don't think it will be solved until the boomers die. Even then I wouldn't count on it. Too much effort to keep population increasing no matter the cost.

If I was PM I would end up get voted out by doing something drastic like trying to put through a land value tax and building a new city 1mill+ city maybe between Hull and Leeds. Put a big fucking 200mph train line between Liverpool and Hull. Tell everyone to get fucked and steal some quotes from Churchill and JFK about going through hard time for the better of the country.

[–] sgtlion@hexbear.net 8 points 4 months ago

They simply don't want to. Construction company owners are some of the richest and ones who do the most lobbying to MPs.

[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Why would they? They're all landlords lol. More supply means dropping property values.

[–] mannycalavera 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The next government. They are incentives to help younger generations and renters as these make up a large majority of their voters that helped them into power.

[–] Flyberius@hexbear.net 3 points 4 months ago

Yes, but they are all landlords, and ultimately they don't give two shits about the voters who helped them into power. They are beholden to capital.

[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago

They're all landlords too lol. Even corbynite labour MPs were fucking landleeches. The UK has a very rigid class system between the Landlords and the non-landlords. The economy here is basically just housing because nothing else is worth investing into, and all other sectors, especially construction, industrial manufacturing and tech/R&D are dead.