From comments at The Guardian (they are responding to things which I said, which I have put in speech marks for clarity):
aTao: "My view is yes, all this nature has a huge value, so let's put a tax on those houses which benefit from it and use the proceeds to compensate those who are being excluded."
No one is excluded (1), the benefits are not just for those that go there or live nearby. (2) Without nature and wildlife we would die, all of us, and pretty quickly too. That's why it is considered priceless. (3)
1) Clearly a lot of people are excluded, or else there'd be no £-s-d market value premium on houses which have a nice view etc. As a counter-example: although breathable air is vital for human life and in theory priceless, the supply is unrestricted (because the Tories never worked out how to privatise it), so nobody has to pay for it, so breathable air has no £-s-d market value.
2) Yes they are, see (1).
3) Stating the bleedin' obvious to support a non-point. Why do people do this? It's irrelevant anyway, see counter-example in (1).
Ketts Oak: "It is about NIMBYs, Greenies and Home-Owner-ists generally keeping as much of the value of nature for themselves as possible."
Do you work for a PR company or something? (4) How's this sound - if you are so intent in turning the country into a car park, (5) give those of us who don't want to live in a concrete hell hole a portion of our tax money back, and the opportunity to emigrate. (6) You can then create your own "individual" hell holes and wallow in them." (7)
4) Nope, but I guess that he or she does.
5) Where did I recommend 'turning the country into a car park'? Does this moron have no idea about actual land use statistics in the UK (scroll about half way down here)?
6) What tax money? It's all been spent, hasn't it? People like this are welcome to f- off with their share of the accrued public sector debt if they like.
7) It's the NIMBYs who force other people to live in hell holes, isn't it? In any event, this person is doing the usual Homey DoubleThink - they want to preserve 'their' bit of the countryside, and dressing this up as some sort of Noble Cause, but they want somebody else to pay for it. I'm very keen to look after nature a bit, but let's be honest and accept that this benefits some and burdens others, so how about a bit of Tom Paine-style compensation?
Friday 3 June 2011
NIMBYs Of The Week
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Instead of taxing houses, why don't we just tax readers of the Guardian?
D, go on then, can you sketch out how much tax you think that might raise and which taxes you could this afford to replace?
Adore your tags.
Great post. Strange how often planning consent is granted for 'barn conversions' where an old stone shed becomes a lovely house with beautiful views.
Try building more houses next to that 'barn conversion' though.
Strange how often planning consent is granted for 'barn conversions' where the "barn" is completely demolished and a house that in no way resembles it is built in its place.
JH, ta.
AKH, B, that raises an interesting point. How many 'barn conversions' involve converting something (i.e. a dwelling) into a barn? Not many that I've ever heard of.
It would make for great television though - while the owners are away, you tear out the Gaggenau kitchen, rip up the parquet and replace it all with some straw to lie down on and an aluminium drinking trough.
"AKH, B, that raises an interesting point. How many 'barn conversions' involve converting something (i.e. a dwelling) into a barn?"
I was once involved in a project to convert a barn that was once a house back into a house (well three houses, to be exact). That any good?
B, yes, do you know when the house-to-barn conversion happened? Not in our lifetimes I guess.
Some time in the C17th, I think (it was a very old building).
B, I actually laughed out loud at that :-)
I had the same experience under James Delingpole's blog over at the Telegraph.
Me: Does James believe that the natural world is of no monetary value?
I know he claims not be a scientist, but even he must recognise that an oil field or gold deposits have value that even in their raw form will command a price in a free and fair market.
The question is, who gets to collect payment for access to these economic surpluses?
Then Chuck_in_st_paul responds with this little nugget:
"Answer: the folks who invest the blood, sweat, and gold to gain access to them. duh."
The ol' punch a tree argument.
CD, agreed, CISP is yer usual Faux Lib wanker, but out of interest, is "punch a tree" a defined term?
It's a comment I read on here. A faux libertarian claimed that in order own land you just have to add your labour to it, and then someone asked whether you could annex tree if you punched it enough times.
CD, ta for explanation, as to the oil fields, does CISP accept that 'the state' (i.e. all of us) have already invested blood, sweat etc in getting our hands on the land with the oil etc, so we are perfectly entitled to charge for access to the oil?
Or does CISP prefer the Venezualan model where the government gives the rights to its mates for free?
Post a Comment