London fire: Corbyn calls for empty flats to be requisitioned - Polidicks

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52377829]Also I don't think I really elucidated this, but the point of my tax is that we can use that to help the homeless by promoting education, building govt. housing (e.g. singapore,) etc..[/QUOTE] that doesn't and will never happen in the UK under the current system though, we have seen. also [quote]building govt. housing (e.g. singapore,) etc..[/quote] this is literally what i'm proposing, and what i think Corbyn is proposing, the requistion of existing flats is a stopgap.

[QUOTE=Pissfuck;52377834]that doesn't and will never happen in the UK under the current system though, we have seen. also this is literally what i'm proposing, and what i think Corbyn is proposing, the requistion of existing flats is a stopgap.[/QUOTE] Well if so then that's good.

Yeah Corbyn is pretty big on building more social housing. The Tories have been refusing to build council houses in any area that's either a safe or marginal seat in elections because "It just attracts labour voters" so fuck knows we need more council housing.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52377782]modus tollens =/ slippery slope my dude [/QUOTE] i'm not seeing how modus tollens applies here at all. care to explain?

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52377829]Also I don't think I really elucidated this, but the point of my tax is that we can use that to help the homeless by promoting education, building govt. housing (e.g. singapore,) etc.. I'm not saying just kick them to the dirt and say lol sorry you arent rich The logical form of the slippery slope is not invalid. It can fail and be fallacious in 2 ways, either the chains are ridiculous, or the end result isn't undesirable. What I was getting at is that if we expand the idea of seizure of property to help those in need, why only that? Vacant homes is one thing, but poor usage of resources is far far more disastrous (people have too large houses, too many vehicles, etc..) I don't see the difference; vacant homes are inefficiently used resources in the face of scarcity just like many other things.[/QUOTE] Because the idea here is very specifically seizing resources that are actively not being used. Don't know if you read those parts of the thread or just skipped over those pages but we've gone over this before. It's perhaps not a common thing in the US, but in the UK and some other places there is a practice of buying up lots of property without having any intention of using it or renting it out.

[QUOTE=PsiSoldier;52378042]i'm not seeing how modus tollens applies here at all. care to explain?[/QUOTE] more technically an argument from the consequences instead of denying the consequences now that you mention it and I'm at home so sorry about that. [QUOTE=elowin;52378094]Because the idea here is very specifically seizing resources that are actively not being used. Don't know if you read those parts of the thread or just skipped over those pages but we've gone over this before. It's perhaps not a common thing in the US, but in the UK and some other places there is a practice of buying up lots of property without having any intention of using it or renting it out.[/QUOTE]They aren't not being used. they're purchased as investments much like when crackpots buy gold. Either to be sold or utilized/built on at a later date, it's a strategy called landbanking. It happens in the US too.

Well, that's a nice idea for a more fortunate and prosperous time (hint: that time will probably not come in our lifetimes), but right now mankind can't afford to let this "landbanking" malarkey run rampant, especially when those vacant homes are needed for more immediate applications like, oh I don't know, giving humans a roof to live under, or acting as offices, studios, storage areas, workshops, what have you. I still think that use-it-or-lose-it should be enforced to ensure that, if these houses aren't being used in a REAL and TANGIBLE fashion, the owners run the risk of losing the unused houses they're sitting on. If you're going to own multiple houses, you had better make damn sure that you're making proper use of your properties. Because if not, there are a lot of other things that they could be used for. Like meth labs! Or, more seriously, labs for making that cool polariton superfluid solution that a team of scientists invented recently. Which probably has a lot more uses than being a mere bargaining chip. After all, you don't live inside a bar of gold-pressed latinum, so why would you treat a house like one?

This fortunate and prosperous time we're in is DUE to that idea Hell. One of the funny things about this is that it actually might wind up costing more money than taxing them and buying up/building housing, as the houses would simply be seized and the bill would pass onto the government without the extra revenue.

Actually that is a good point. But that would require our government being in the right mind to tax them. And sadly, it would be very hard to make every money-grubbing politician fear for their lives, to the point where they would approve an exorbitant tax on landbanking just to survive. And that's not even considering people whinging about the morality of making crooked politicians fear for their lives when the alternative means that they continue to rape and pillage both our planet and our culture. We need to find the right way to make them serve the greater good of humanity, and if all other options don't work, then what remains is still better than doing nothing. Still, it would probably be beneficial. If a home is left unused and vacant for long enough, THEN slap the owner with a hefty vacancy tax. The length of the "grace period" would be up for negotiation. but future extensions on it would be small, like a few extra days or a week to find a new owner or put development plans into action, so that laurel-sitting landbankers would have a strong impetus to do something with their properties because it would be cheaper to make use of them than to let them sit around like bars of latinum. On one side of the coin, it would mean that home vacancy would be a short-term issue, since vacancy would be a brief interlude between occupation. And on the reverse, those who insist on sitting on their properties would end up paying the price in the long run. In the end, it'd probably be a win-win situation.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52378552]This fortunate and prosperous time we're in is DUE to that idea Hell. One of the funny things about this is that it actually might wind up costing more money than taxing them and buying up/building housing, as the houses would simply be seized and the bill would pass onto the government without the extra revenue.[/QUOTE] Honestly at this point I don't know what to say. Taxation is bad. Can't do that, it'll take money from the rich. Okay. Can't inconvenience the owners of empty homes. Can't inconvenience the owners of hotels. We can just tell the poor sods who lost their homes "best of luck" and be done with it though. Anything else we can do to help allieviate the terrible burden of the rich? [editline]19th June 2017[/editline] To what extent should our world be up for sale to the highest bidder? It seems that we've really just reached a point where the economic value of one or two extremely wealthy people is vastly more important than the wellbeing of hundreds. If that's how it's going to be, I don't know how some of you are so complacent

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52378572] [B]Taxation is bad. Can't do that, it'll take money from the rich. Okay.[/B] Can't inconvenience the owners of empty homes. Can't inconvenience the owners of hotels. We can just tell the poor sods who lost their homes "best of luck" and be done with it though. Anything else we can do to help allieviate the terrible burden of the rich?[/QUOTE] I didn't say that we can't use taxation as a tool 🤔 It's more than an inconvenience. Deprivation of property without a good reason is literally a human rights violation. Now, an emergency such as an apartment burning down is a pretty good justification to temporarily do so. [QUOTE=ironman17;52378570]By all means, do try to explain how landbanking is a good idea.[/QUOTE] Not landbanking but property rights in general are something that have been a pre-requisite for every developed society in the world. Empirically landbaking probably results in negative externalities side effects on society so in that case I'm p. happy discouraging that sort of behaviour. And as I said earlier, a few places are trying this so we'll see how it works out.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52378623] Now, an emergency such as an apartment burning down is a pretty good justification to temporarily do so. [/QUOTE] this is literally why Corbyn said this. [b]PAY ATTENTION.[/b]

If this happened I could see a bunch of rich assholes deciding to come over and stay in their houses just to troll.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;52378757]If this happened I could see a bunch of rich assholes deciding to come over and stay in their houses just to troll.[/QUOTE] The funny thing is, They probably couldn't. we aren't really just talking about someone who is pretty well off with second and third homes, but landlords that buy-to-let or landbank entire streets. Even the fattest of cats couldn't fill 100 houses all by themselves.

snip

Just heard on local radio news, according to a few of the people who live in the area, some of the victims who lost their homes in the fire are roughing it on the street, sleeping in parks or in a car of a night because they heve no where else to go. This is unconfirmed however, it's just what a few local residents have said live on local radio today, tried to find a source but does not seem like anyone is reporting it yet. So take with a pinch of salt.

[QUOTE=Pissfuck;52378717]this is literally why Corbyn said this. [B]PAY ATTENTION.[/B][/QUOTE] I did boo. I was responding to what humanabyss said to me don't hurt me pls

Luxury Block acquired for Grenfell fire survivors - [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40357280[/url]