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

  • Espiritdescali@futurology.today
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • huf [he/him]
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

        • huf [he/him]
          ·
          5 months ago

          neither of those are gonna happen, so it doesnt matter

      • Espiritdescali@futurology.today
        ·
        5 months ago

        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 [he/him]
          ·
          5 months ago

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

    • frazorth@feddit.uk
      ·
      5 months ago

      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
        ·
        5 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)