AHPP

Current system: Government taxes consumer 10p for carrot subsidy and 5p to administrate the collection of tax and distribution of subsidy. Government gives the 10p subsidy to a farmer. Farmer sells a carrot to consumer for 10p. Consumer gets a carrot for 25p. Farmer gets 20p for a carrot. Government gets 5p. Free market: Tax a consumer nothing. Farmer sells a carrot to a consumer for 20p. Farmer gets the same 20p. Consumer has the same carrot for 5p less. Government not necessary.

So not a 1 or 1.5 tonne payload then...

That yellow one with crane and hook can’t possibly be under 3000kg with a chip bin on?

That is absolutely not what he said and you know it. You've done similar talking to me on this thread too.

I'd be delighted.

That sounds excellent. Keep us posted.

IF that happened, without people paying the extremely high taxes that pay the subsidies (and the cost of administering collecting the taxes and divvying them out), people could easily pay double.

See for yourself with this helpful website Kevin Johnson of this parish recently posted. Explore European Common Agricultural Policy farm subsidy payments | FarmSubsidy.org FARMSUBSIDY.ORG FarmSubsidy shows who gets subsidies under the European Common Agricultural Policy

You're being obtuse. The law allows for, encourages and goes as far as mandating many things that are abhorrent. You know exactly what I mean by doing wrong. Taking money stolen from other people is wrong. As for who is the greater drain, have you got any figures to hand to back up what you say? I don't either but I strongly suspect the dolescum are a drop in the ocean compared to the landscum.

The thought process of your new suburbanite: "I want to live on the edge of a town to be close to work, transport and other facilities." <looks on rightmove> "Bugger. Everything's a fortune around here. I'll move out a bit. It's cheaper." <time passes> "That house I was looking at on the town edge still hasn't sold. Perhaps the seller will accept a lower offer." Compared with the situation now: "I want to live on the edge of a town to be close to work, transport and other facilities." <looks on rightmove> "Bugger. Everything's a fortune around here. Let's look at alternatives." ,a very small amount of time passes> "Bugger. There's no alternative. I'll get a mortgage I can't afford and contribute to crashing the economy in a few years."

You steadfastly miss the point. Just because someone has worked hard to get into a position where they are able to do wrong, doing wrong isn't any less wrong.

It's legal though, like lobotomising gays was.

If a tick is born on a bullock's bollock, it's still a parasite. I wouldn't try to appeal to it on a moral level though. Humans I will. Lots of people are born into circumstances where they can claim for stuff. Many don't because they don't think they should have something that was stolen from someone else and/or they don't want to support systems that would steal from them to give to other people again.

But the lovely landowning scroungers will bolster the economy by trickling the money down to contractors etc, who will then pay tax which will pay their own wages. That could work indefinitely. I also have a design for a personal mobile elevated work platform. You stand in a bucket and lift yourself up by the handle.

I'll be honest. You're losing me. Suffice to say that if you seriously believe flooding the UK developable land market with fifty-four million acres (compared to the six million acres currently built on)* is going to increase land prices, I'm probably incapable of reasoning with you. *figures from the top of google P.S. I said 'exclusive land value tax' and not 'land tax.' There are big differences.

I thought that was a rock at first!

I'm afraid they're not lovely. They're parasites.

Yeah. Everybody will move out of the cities. This and the next housebuying generation are noteworthily keen on rural self-sufficiency. No. Wait. Hang on. They like Nandos. And whilst demand will go up a bit because people can buy to build (and some will want to), supply will go up WAY more. Then there are plenty of places nobody wants to build etc. Don't blame non-interference for crashing a market. Blame who built the house of cards. Then ask yourself if that crash would be so bad. Exclusive land value tax probably deals with most of the other problems you envisage, for a while anyway.

Assuming the rules of supply and demand suddenly reverse from how they've been forever.

Banks lend to people who won’t pay it back. It doesn’t matter how much it is. They just want the right to later take the houses. People don’t pay and the banks take the houses. Banks go bust with loads of houses because nobody’s paying any mortgages. Banks get bailed out by the taxpayer. Banks sell the houses and have loads of money again. Cycle repeats. The back and forth of money is irrelevant really. What it boils down to is people working and the banks getting the rewards. As to where the cash comes from, it’s literally out of thin air. Since we don’t have a gold or other real standard that money has to be tied to, banks can lend money that doesn’t exist. But when you pay it back to the bank, it does exist. The bank makes money out of thin air. Clever isn’t it. Watch the film, The Big Short. Once you get it, you’ll get how the 2008 crash worked. I had to watch it about ten times before I understood what happened and the nuances but I now understand a lot more about money etc.

We’ve discussed this before and I’m aware you mention it in another post in this thread but it’s worth pointing out again that the bigger issue is planning. People are prima facie forbidden to do what they want on their land. Morally repugnant to start with but also the main cause of absurd property prices. If you do get planning paperwork (through grovelling and bribery usually), you make money. If you don’t, you lose money to those who can. “Oh but if anybody could build what they wanted where they wanted there’d be hotels and cinemas in every field.” Bollocks there would be. Why go to the cost of building so speculatively when anyone else can do it and compete with you. The right amount of stuff would get built. What people want, what people can afford and what people are constrained to by fair competition. The government needs to get the get the fuck out of the way and let people live.

That’s hugely inconsiderate to motorists. Set fire to it in the truck bed and it’ll be burnt to nothing by the time you’re home.

A thought on blade design: Splitting axes and mauls are quite steeply angled (wedgy), presumably to promote early splitting when you’re getting the most force of out the blade (when it hits). Once you’ve hit the wood, you’re relying on momentum and can’t really apply any more force. With a hydraulic ram splitter you’ve got sustained force. Wouldn’t a thinner and less steeply angled blade (more knifey) be better? Less of a block to push through the wood, less violent splits.

OK. Best of luck.

Start more businesses? You'll have years of accounts (and maybe some bricks or whatever) when you get round to your house building venture properly. Do things like lend/lease/sell money/things between them and yourself. Those things could be things like intellectual property. Be creative. Consult an accountant who thinks creatively.