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

  • Erstellt am 2020-10-05 06:43:19

Wickie

2020-10-11 06:59:20
  • #1
This has even happened several times here in different "blocks". Our plot and another one were up for bidding. The municipal council already criticized that young families were deliberately excluded because of the resulting prices from the bidding process. The next plots were then only available by "application": young families, children, married... After that, the church decided who was allowed to buy.

I have learned it is rather the diocese... the standard land value must be paid to the diocese. Only the amount that is "earned" above that remains in the municipality.
 

hampshire

2020-10-11 10:25:02
  • #2

Of course I am willing to pay more taxes if I see that it benefits society. I tend to think more "Scandinavian" in this respect. It is true that the biggest beneficiaries of infrastructure, legal security, and social peace also contribute the most. This does not entitle them to special rights in deciding the direction things should go. We often forget that.

That’s how the situation can currently be stated. No reason to change that and move in the right direction, right? "Welcome to the world" sounds like the cynical excuse "I can’t do anything and just remain inactive with the winners."

And here are two examples of currently modern destructive rhetoric:

1. A "dissenter" is discredited because they do not obviously embody a perfect role model character in everyone. The topic is simply switched. This form of rebuttal is creeping more and more into discussions without being questioned even by the one applying it. A positive discourse is thus prevented.

2. A "dissenter" is accused that their statement must be taken exclusively. Of course, this leads to absurd consequences, which are then highlighted. With a snide remark, the dissenter is stuck with an unsympathetic label. Here the factual exchange with arguments is over, the discourse is dead. It’s only about who is "right" or who "prevails."
 

Joedreck

2020-10-11 11:05:01
  • #3
Without wanting to become too political, it is currently really difficult as a voter to change anything. For example, the first lockdown this year could have been understood as a sign to massively expand digitalization including infrastructure. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. The question is also what happens when current "low earners" earn more? Demand increases, prices probably too. Nothing will be gained there.

I am quite open to a factual discussion. Personal discrediting, "whataboutism," and the famous: that’s how it is, PERIOD! are the death of any reasonable compromise solution.

However, I really believe that everyone largely has their own happiness in life in their own hands. Even if socially disadvantaged people have it much harder, these people can also achieve a lot through second and third chances in education.

It will get too long here to illuminate all the backgrounds. Health insurance, tax waste, top tax rate are just a few points. This also does not belong here. The fact is that very few people get anything for free. And that will probably remain the case.
 

hampshire

2020-10-11 11:15:09
  • #4
No, it isn’t. In every place there are groups and topics you can get involved with. It’s really easy. You are not only a voter, but also a citizen. I believe you 100%. I share your view to a large extent – especially the observation that socially disadvantaged people have it much harder. From that I derive the task of changing this "harder situation." And here there are many concrete starting points and fields of action in the small and in the immediate surroundings. It is really easy as a citizen and voter to do something. What argues against it is mostly the argument "no time for that," and here you can replace the word "time" 1:1 with "priority."
 

pagoni2020

2020-10-11 14:30:45
  • #5

The great "rich" save the lazy "poor"? We live in an interconnected network, and without the "poor," there would be not a single rich person. It is not at all the case that the "rich" actually pay for the safety net for the "poor," even if some "rich" like to feel that way. I have read such approaches here quite often, and they always give me goosebumps immediately. I find the use of the term "top-up recipients" alone to be discriminatory. You top-up recipient - I, the hero, pay your top-up, so kneel down... sorry.

Everyone experiences their own situation of poverty directly and 100%. No outsider can even remotely assess it: "If you haven’t walked 1000 miles in another person’s moccasins, you have no right to judge them" (quote). Someone in Germany who feels socially discriminated against might even feel worse than someone in Nigeria who is - financially poor - happily surrounded by family. Of course, I can tell him that things would be even worse for him in Nigeria, and in turn tell the Nigerian that things are worse in Chad, and so on.

...which world?
Of course, we have only one globe (world), but billions of different living and experiential worlds, each different for everyone. These worlds change. Just as we all eagerly absorb technical changes like heat pumps, photovoltaics, and other stuff here, we resist necessary social change or innovation in the societal realm, simply because it threatens our own luxury that has guaranteed us a more or less comfortable life so far (I include myself here!).

Yes, of course, that is exactly how our system is designed and built, and that is a good thing.

I lived in Scandinavia for a while and support this way of thinking. Despite all the problems that also exist there, there is less of this divisive status thinking... in Ireland, by the way, there is also less of it, often a more forgivable and less rigid approach in some areas.

yep

...it is by no means more difficult; the electoral system has not changed. We - and I explicitly count MYSELF among them! - are often too comfortable and defend our pleasant situation.

That’s true, and I still really like that in Germany, despite all the room for improvement. A terrible problem that I know, for example, from South America is that the so-called lower class sees no meaning in education or self-development at all due to lack of education. I also see this problem coming toward us.

Exactly, that is why the gap between rich and poor is so harmful and should basically be changed by the "rich."
In the short term, the financial elite is more successful (more capital), but in the long run, it completely loses the existing qualifications of the "poorer" social class, which in turn means that the new "elite" is recruited only from the previous "elite" and no longer excludes the weaker/dumber ones from their golf club circles. It will be a pure financial elite and no longer an educational elite... I dread that. I don’t need to be a mathematician to see that in the end stupidity will prevail.
I never could have imagined this, but living in South America has shown me exactly that - terrible when you set aside the beaches, mountains, volcanoes, or don’t just vacation there. Nowhere have I ever experienced so much socially accepted decadence and arrogance of a financial elite; that is also why I feel closer to Scandinavian thinking.
 

MM1506zzzz

2020-10-11 18:21:27
  • #6

I agree with you, the problem is: by what means can this gap be changed?

In my opinion, it only works if work is worthwhile, i.e. everyone who works instead of receiving Hartz IV must experience added value. But that only applies to those who are able to work, meaning physically and mentally healthy, and if there are corresponding jobs available. However, that is not always the case, or the jobs are so poorly paid that working simply isn’t worth it. So, do you want to lower the Hartz IV rate? Hardly; what about those who really cannot (any longer) work?
Raise the minimum wage so even more companies relocate production?
I have no patent solution for this either, but it should be a fact that capital is taxed too little, and labor too much.
Already the lack of educational permeability in Germany is criticized (children from disadvantaged social backgrounds hardly manage to reach a high level of education) or the lack of permeability to achieve high salaries; it is even more difficult to go from employee to private investor, and to accumulate so much capital that subsequent generations benefit from it as well.
Those who have surpassed the break-even point (or inherited wealth) are, on the other hand, getting richer and richer.
The gap is widening...
And how many rich people want to change that?
 

Similar topics
25.02.2015Terrace with corner slabs (L-shape). Implementation of slope12
31.08.2016What slope is still comfortable?12
21.11.2016Misplanning Bavaria - slope towards house and garage - instead of away23
27.04.2017Deep curbs for terrace construction - the slope is incorrect12
23.06.2017Change the slope of the garage roof10
09.08.2017Creating a terrace - problems with the slope18
10.10.2018Is the slope from the street to the house normal? Please provide feedback!13
07.01.2019House with slab foundation on a slope52
12.06.2019New construction - What slope/incline must be accepted?22
24.09.2020Insufficient slope of the sewage pipe29
29.11.2020How to construct a sloped concrete terrace?11
20.04.2021Shower slope in the wrong direction36
15.07.2021Balcony slope and waterproofing costs12
28.07.2021House purchase - Experiences with open bidding process?88
30.09.2021Slope of the garage - Which design?21
20.01.2022Length / Slope Entrance Garage / Carport10
02.05.2022What slope is suitable for a terrace facing west?14
08.05.2022Bidding procedure (real estate)28
07.12.2022Terrace planning with a circular path and slight slope18
08.08.2023Ground-level terrace, any experiences in planning the slope?35

Oben