Land purchase through a bidding process - What is the final price?

  • Erstellt am 2020-10-05 06:43:19

Tarnari

2020-10-11 18:47:40
  • #1
Nice summary.
 

Joedreck

2020-10-11 19:29:07
  • #2
Nobody here has spoken about rich people being great and poor people being lazy. That is just a rhetorical trick to discredit my opinion by painting everything in black and white. You can save yourself that. This almost ends up in a debate about envy. Almost every rich person, except heirs, has built their fortune through hard work, smart investments, and a bit of luck. The income from it has been fairly taxed, as well as the capital gains. So I would like to know why the "rich" should pay again. By the way, inheritances have also already been taxed. What I could understand would be a higher top tax rate, but structured differently. I do not doubt that the lower-income group in Germany works less hard. I also believe that work must be rewarded. However, a better pay for these people will not lead to them being able to afford homeownership. I do not have a solution, though. But I also think that it must continue to be worthwhile to keep educating oneself, work hard in addition, and take risks with investments.
 

pagoni2020

2020-10-11 19:50:16
  • #3
If you mean me: Of course I do NOT want to discredit you! Nevertheless, I often hear and read that Hartz4 recipients have to be carried along or co-financed, etc., and that is also why I didn't find the stigmatizing label for people as "top-up recipients" particularly successful; that much can be said. Do you really believe that I am looking for tricks to convince you or anyone else of something? I would not dare to make that assessment, neither one way nor the other. It is certain that there are scoundrels as well as honorable people, and that does not necessarily have anything to do with money. Whether they acquired their capital that way is also irrelevant to me. I do not exclude "heirs" either, because that is nothing disgraceful. ...I wouldn't know where I wrote that. Nevertheless, it would at least be possible for them, and the truly "rich" in this world partly do so or see their wealth as a social obligation to help the weaker. Correct.....FOR EVERYONE! You can be sure that I certainly could not have meant you with the "rich"; I rather mean someone who is not active in the house-building forum and fortunately there are those who do not see profit maximization as their only goal but also recognize their social obligation. And... for me it's like you, that I have no solution. I just observe an ever deeper splitting off of parts of society, which I have known from elsewhere. I do not exclude myself from that, which is why such discussions may be useful so that everyone, including myself, thinks about it and does not just stick to their own opinion.
 

Joedreck

2020-10-11 20:42:24
  • #4

I didn’t want to accuse you of anything, but here and there I’ve had very bad experiences. I am sensitive about that and obviously treated you unfairly. Sorry for that.
It is also far from me to negatively classify Aufstocker, etc. I simply assume that the majority works hard and is reluctant to depend on the social system. I also do not want to abolish or restrict the social system. Maybe make it more efficient. How, I don’t know either.

Few here are rich. But most are still in the upper half of society. If redistribution has to happen, then it inevitably has to come from us as well.
If other people have to financially contribute more to the social system, it is always easy to demand it. When you are affected yourself, you find it unfair. For social justice, indeed everyone can do something here. Quite realistically and with restrictions on oneself.
For example, giving up your own house, using the saved capital to buy 3-4 apartments in low-income areas and renting them out to socially weak people at cost price. This creates living space, does not result in financial loss, and supports families in need. Those who are not willing to do this are welcome to ask themselves why not.

I don’t mean all of your points. I am just on my phone and quoting is too inconvenient for me there.
 

hampshire

2020-10-11 22:14:00
  • #5

There are alternatives for the redistribution of what exists. For example, if not more work is taxed but productivity instead. No one has to give anything up, and the vicious circle of society's dependence on growth and the resulting consequences can be broken. Tax a producing robot on its productivity and not a nurse who does important work that is not productive.
Further thinking, taxing productivity can lead to machines earning money for humans. A basic income can also be financed in this way.
Somehow, this is leading quite far away from the topic.
 
Oben