EXCLUSIVE: Cronin lifts veil on new draft expropriation law

DreamKing

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
9,302
You're not getting it.

The space my desk takes up that I'm sitting at right now is the space a family of 4 lives in in HK
Too many people, not enough housing, there is no room or housing available, and whats there is too farking expensive. So, an apartment built for 1 is divided and 10 now live in it. They need to develop the land to accomodate the people. The developers want it, the people NEED it, gov wont give it to em. The reason, there is little to no tax in hk. Gov makes money by leasing land. By holding land and not making it available for dev, the little that is available is more valuable than the buildings weight in gold, in turn, leasing price skyrockets

This is how people live in hk, who wins you ask? the gov won, the people lost, its farking terrible for the people. There is NOTHING GOOD ABOUT IT
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2017/jun/07/boxed-life-inside-hong-kong-coffin-cubicles-cage-homes-in-pictures


As said, will have to agree to disagree, I will never agree with you that HK is all rainbows and sunshine and some sort of shining example we should all be looking to to emulate. It is 'harmful' to its population

Edit: And your whole post is pointless, you're talking about people getting land, buying land, rich buying it all, selling back to gov etc. As said multiple times now. HK leases land. Thats it. There is no private ownership. Its all gov owned. And thats the problem. They hold it. They don't lease enough out. They hold it back to increase the prices of the leasing bids. They need to make more available for development. EG. if they have 10000 acres availble to lease, they only lease out 100 acres to keep prices of bidding high. Instead of saying, we have 10 10 acre pieces of land for auction, they need to say we have 1000 10 acre pieces of land for auction. But they won't, cos the fighting for the 10 plots gets higher prices than no fighting for 1000 plots. I'm just repeating myself here, multiple posts of the same thing. If you don't understand it yet, nothing else I say will clear it up for you. Its a shocking failure of a system and prime example of what a gov that owns all the land is capable of doing by not caring for its people.
I can tell you, you have no idea how the system work in hk. that is really pointless if you don't understand the facts.

1) low tax != no tax, they are not poor, they don't have to "lease" the land for income. btw, the people don't need to pay "rate and tax" for the properties they have..
2) no lease income for hk government. you renew the lease with no extra cost. guarantee private ownership.
3) no one will interference the market to drive the prices to go down.
4) explained to you already, land is limited resource, you can't create it.

that is not the same as SA's (anc /eff) EWC.

PS: the reason of why the land is "lease", not "own":
1) due to the history.
2) change the purpose of using the land, the price will be changed also. then you will have to pay the difference
eg: farming ==> $x , development ==> $1000x
 
Last edited:

maumau

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
13,566
Municipalities would still expect rates and taxes from whomever the land belongs to at any particular time I suppose?
Well that's good then. If people take over the land and split rates and taxes between them the money can be used to provide infrastructure.
 

Temujin

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
6,414
I can tell you, you have no idea how the system work in hk. that is really pointless if you don't understand the facts.

1) low tax != no tax, they are not poor, they don't have to "lease" the land.
2) no lease income for hk government. you renew the lease with no extra cost. guarantee private ownership.
3) no one will interference the market to drive the prices to go down.
4) explained to you already, land is limited resource, you can't create it.

that is not the same as SA's (anc /eff) EWC.

PS: the reason of "lease" instead of "own":
1) due to the history.
2) change the purpose of using the land, the price will be changed also. then you will have to pay the difference
eg: farming ==> $x , development ==> $1000x
1) low tax != no tax, they are not poor, they don't have to "lease" the land. - 'little to no' is phrasing, != no
2) no lease income for hk government. you renew the lease with no extra cost. guarantee private ownership. - leased, not owned
3) no one will interference the market to drive the prices to go down. - not bothering
4) explained to you already, land is limited resource, you can't create it. - OMG... you keep saying this like its some kind of revelation you have stumbled upon. I ignored it because well, 'no **** sherlock', but it just dawned on me... Every time I say, 'they need to make more land available for development', you're reading it as 'they need to manufacture land'... I have no response to this level of understanding o_O
 
Last edited:

DreamKing

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
9,302
1) low tax != no tax, they are not poor, they don't have to "lease" the land. - 'little to no' is phrasing, != no
2) no lease income for hk government. you renew the lease with no extra cost. guarantee private ownership. - leased, not owned
3) no one will interference the market to drive the prices to go down. - not bothering
4) explained to you already, land is limited resource, you can't create it. - OMG... you keep saying this like its some kind of revelation you have stumbled upon. I ignored it because well, 'no **** sherlock', but it just dawned on me... Every time I say, 'they need to make more land available for development', you're reading it as 'they need to manufacture land'... I have no response to this level of understanding o_O
you are interesting. you said that many times already, you want the government to release more lands than the price will go down and people can buy it cheaper. did I not understand you correctly?

it is only one factor to drive the price down, that is to decrease the population. if not, then never can achieve that. or otherwise there are a lot of lands available, told you "land" is limited, you can't have many many lands available to the market to drive the price down. so that is why I said "factory can't produce lands."
 

Temujin

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
6,414
you are interesting. you said that many times already, you want the government to release more lands than the price will go down and people can buy it cheaper. did I not understand you correctly?

it is only one factor to drive the price down, that is to decrease the population. if not, then never can achieve that. or otherwise there are a lot of lands available, told you "land" is limited, you can't have many many lands available to the market to drive the price down. so that is why I said "factory can't produce lands."
No you haven't understood.
 

DreamKing

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
9,302
No you haven't understood.
nevermind, I really don't understand what you are arguing about. may be you were arguing other topics I missed.
I actually explained why I am against on "speculative investment" only, nothing else. :)
 

Frequent visitor

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
2,809
it is only one factor to drive the price down, that is to decrease the population. if not, then never can achieve that. or otherwise there are a lot of lands available, told you "land" is limited, you can't have many many lands available to the market to drive the price down. so that is why I said "factory can't produce lands."
 

Frequent visitor

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
2,809
Recent predictions indicate that the population of Africa is likely to soar, particularly in poorer countries. Ex President Zuma said that the propensity of African males to father children was admirable. I myself had seven children. The difference was that I was able to provide for them.
I find that in Africa I am often approached for help, something I never did. It makes me reflect on considerations like irresponsibility when having children.
I suppose to be fair that helping is a Christian duty, but there is also such a thing as Christian prudence. You could argue that there is a balance to be struck. Solomon, where are you?
 

BeerIsNotGood...

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2015
Messages
5,508
Recent predictions indicate that the population of Africa is likely to soar, particularly in poorer countries. Ex President Zuma said that the propensity of African males to father children was admirable. I myself had seven children. The difference was that I was able to provide for them.
I find that in Africa I am often approached for help, something I never did. It makes me reflect on considerations like irresponsibility when having children.
I suppose to be fair that helping is a Christian duty, but there is also such a thing as Christian prudence. You could argue that there is a balance to be struck. Solomon, where are you?
? :unsure:
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
21,106
you are interesting. you said that many times already, you want the government to release more lands than the price will go down and people can buy it cheaper. did I not understand you correctly?

it is only one factor to drive the price down, that is to decrease the population.
if not, then never can achieve that. or otherwise there are a lot of lands available, told you "land" is limited, you can't have many many lands available to the market to drive the price down. so that is why I said "factory can't produce lands."
Slight correction. The price of land is linked to the demand and supply of land that people want, not the total amount of land in the country.
I don't think the people looking to occupy parts of Cape Town care that they could get ahold of a cheap rental unit in Pofadder.


You are correct that for the most part, the total amount of land is limited. But the amount of land that is actually wanted by people is nowhere near that hard limit.
For example, if the government was more focussed on creating economic opportunities by creating economic zones in areas that are not highly populated they would decrease the demand for housing in the areas that are currently developed.
 

DreamKing

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
9,302
You are correct that for the most part, the total amount of land is limited. But the amount of land that is actually wanted by people is nowhere near that hard limit.
so true, you must look at the population vs vacant lands (living space).

if the population growth is not fast enough to reach the limit of the lands available for the next x years (x = any positive integer), then we should not consider that is a problem in the next x years.

btw, I really don't think SA has the land problem for the next 50 years. (at least)
:)
 

SaiyanZ

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
7,713
Why do you think the banks, real estate groups and others are not up in arms? Because they perfectly know that it will affect at minima private parties.
As soon as banks and real estate groups show any concern, people will start defaulting on their loans and they will lose money. They have to show a straight face to their clients to keep everyone paying. So they will not show any concern. They make more money that way.
 

ArtyLoop

Executive Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2017
Messages
6,748
As soon as banks and real estate groups show any concern, people will start defaulting on their loans and they will lose money. They have to show a straight face to their clients to keep everyone paying. So they will not show any concern. They make more money that way.
That is why Nedbank responded the way they did, as to say the bondholder remains liable. Because at least that way people will think twice about defaulting until the actual expropriation takes place.
 

f2wohf

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
15,107
As soon as banks and real estate groups show any concern, people will start defaulting on their loans and they will lose money. They have to show a straight face to their clients to keep everyone paying. So they will not show any concern. They make more money that way.
They don't show concern in private with their best friends either. Was at a braai with several guys in private equity and CIB last week end and none of them has the slightest concern about it.
 

SaiyanZ

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
7,713
They don't show concern in private with their best friends either. Was at a braai with several guys in private equity and CIB last week end and none of them has the slightest concern about it.
Well if there's nothing they can do when the stuff hits the fan, then there's not much to actually talk about. All they would be able to do is pick up the pieces afterwards. They don't have any control over the matter.
 
Top