Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

The Sorcerer's Apprentice

by rg Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 12:24:33 PM EST


We all know the story....

He grabbed what he shouldn't have (he didn't have the knowledge to use it properly)...

Then he set about using this power...

...to save himself some hard work...

...only to discover...

...that he couldn't control the power...

...CHAOS!

And then the sorcerer came back...

...and [cough cough!] they all lived happily ever after.

...which demonstrates

a) THE POWER OF THE FASCISTS! I mean, it demonstrates that I have never seen the film or even talked of a film. What film? Who said anything about a film? (though I have seen clips)

and as that no longer makes any sense, let's get on with it!

b) I'm trying to find an entertaining way to get all your big brains--and if Chris has the brain of a small bear [...]

(That was a small pause, coz bears like pawses!)

...then I am the bear with a small bear's slightly less brainy mate.

Which makes even less sense than what came before. Well, actually, it makes about as much sense or maybe a bit here or there over on the er...fish's hat.

So...we're talking about a revolutionary new way to deal with owner-occupied property as the occupying owner(s) get older...

Or, in English (soon not to be my native tongue--ongleesh has me in its tentacles!  And oh how smooth, what luvverly mossoiges...yoinks!)

...yes, in English:

Many of us either are or have parents who are growing wiser and (unfortunately for the non-eternal among us) older.

Well, you bunch of taoists you!  Of course you are ONE with the universe.

But, hey, here comes the tax man and he wants to kick yer old mum out of her house for LEGAL reasons that make no sense!  And then you go see a lawyer and she charges mucho denaro (hundred of denaros per hour!) to tell you that it's all VERY COMPLICATED.

And then along comes the man in his magic hat and says the following (hope you don't mind Chris ;):

The reason the "Land Partnership" changes the game entirely is that it enables that bundle of rights and obligations we think of as "property" to be bundled and shared around in entirely new ways.

ie an entirely new form of tenure of indefinite duration - an "evergreen lease" - whereby for as long as you rent the Land and the Capital invested in it you pay an agreed  "Capital Rental".

It also means that "Real Property" need never be bought and sold again, although "Occupiers" and "Managers" of it, and Investors in it, may change over time.

The key is that the "freehold" is put into "Trust" with a "Custodian" Member of the LLP or LLC - exactly in the same way that massive firms like State Street and Northern Trust act as "custodians" of shares while the "beneficial interest" is traded increasingly furiously on the casino's we call Stock Exchanges.

Having done this it is merely a question of who lives in the property, who invests in it, who manages it and what the relationships are between them.

French Law is interesting in respect of inheritance, and it would be interesting to see how this structure would intersect with it, with the property itself in trust.

This wrapper offers a neat IHT mechanism in that it is possible to transfer "Equity Shares" to one's kids and then to pay a "Capital Rental" to them (if you don't the Revenue will tax you on the benefit) and continue to live there.

But hey, that's no problem if you actually pay them not in cash but in more "Equity Shares".

The problem comes when you want to move. You have to convince the new "Occupier" to take on this radical new mechanism.

Well, when you tell him that all he needs to pay is an agreed "Capital Rental" - that if he pays more he starts buying "Equity Shares" in the property and that the outcome is much cheaper in cash terms - BECAUSE HE DOESN'T HAVE TO REPAY LOAN PRINCIPAL - then who knows, you might even get people interested.

If not, just rent it out conventionally and rent somewhere else. The model interfaces perfectly well with the existing mechanisms.

http://www.eurotrib.com/comments/2007/3/26/53923/7625#62

Now, maybe I understand just a leetel beet of that.  I understand that should you want to SELL and RUN AWAY WITH THE MONEY, oh no no no.  Nein is posseebilen.

Or did I get that part wrong, too?

Ya see, it's too late for me.  I'm a hundred and ninety seven, doomed to live forever, and I own nothing but the seventeen pairs of silk knickers a young lady left me in her Will back in the eighteenth century.  And a pipe.  (She was attached to that pipe, we had to...no no.  RULE ONE THOUSAND AND FORTY EIGHT: Never post diaries while under the influence of hallucinogens.)

Cough!  Wheeze!

Okay.  So, ignore all my colourful rococo nonsense and concentrate on THE IDEA.  What looks wrong with it?  Why won't it work.

And...

What does it mean?

Because I have some contacts among the eternity-challenged brigade and some of these people do own property, and in no more than a few brief decades (or so) this situation will be happening to them, and what with my small processor...

Hmmm....he's thinking....tasty bananas.

So, er, throw some intellectual bananas my way.  And remember: I only have a few decades to work this one out!

And finally, a gratuituous picture of a bear.

Display:
You are tempting Great Evil by posting the first 5 (4?) images. I would suggest, to protect Jérôme, that you remove them. Sorry.

Walt and his company are the most arduous persuers of infringements of their so-called copyright - even though they stole the stories from the public domain in the first place. But they did create the pictures.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 12:38:38 PM EST
You know what my views on copyright are. And I would personally ignore any attempt to make me conform to some crazed profiteers idea of the ownership of creativity.

But for the Frenchman's sake - since he will be liable - I would suggest that you don't use the images that you have.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 12:42:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I concur: it seems such a shame....

How did I KNOW rg would do that?

I couldn't resist the Sorcerer analogy....I do find there is something quite magical about the "Open Corporate".

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 12:45:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But you are the Sourcerer - an entirely different genus. ;-)


You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 12:54:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sourcerer.

Oscar Wilde............."I wish I had said that!"

James Whistler ........"You will, Oscar, you will...."

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 01:01:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The piggie and the fish!  Many a chuckle chez rg when I found that one.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 02:07:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A wise choice on the diary changes, I feel. Thanks. Sorry to give you the extra work - but it did keep you out of harm's way for another few minutes...

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 02:23:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It was worth it to see that fish.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 02:30:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And I should, of course, mention the artist.

http://www.outregallery.com/browse.aspx?Category=80

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 02:29:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why is nobody crediting Terry Pratchett with the word sourcery?

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 28th, 2007 at 04:56:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Because no-one googled the word, I guess!

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Mar 28th, 2007 at 05:22:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You mean nobody had read the book?

Heathens!

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 28th, 2007 at 05:23:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Mea maxima culpa

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Mar 28th, 2007 at 06:53:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe replace them with boxes like this:


Though we resent being made to conform to some crazed profiteers idea of the ownership of creativity, in order not to expose the site owners to the idiocy of legal retribution, the image has been replaced with a brief description:

description

by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 01:07:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Heh!

The description that should have followed the pics, which have now changed, making this the most confusing and confused diary in ET history, perhaps is as follows:

Pic 1: Mouse pointing to broom (which is carrying
buckets)

Pic 2: Mouse stealing hat

Pic 3: Mouse getting his housework done by broom

Pic 4: Mouse having a bad trip

Pic 5: The return of the soux chef--no, I mean the saucer rer.  No!  The sauce er er.  No!  The source R 'er.  No!  Chaos!  Madness!

Now.  How about my questions.  If I asked any.

Oh, I have one.  But I must post it in a separate comment.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 02:10:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As Harlan Ellison, the SF writer, famously said, "You don't fuck with the Mouse."

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 01:13:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Okay.  Hmmm.  Let's see...

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 01:58:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There's a lot of places I could go with that one, but in the interests of restricting this comment  to comic material strictly suitable for the mores of the modern nuclear family, from 1.2 child to suitably overtaxed parents, and (unlikely though it may be here) any/all of senior managament living with them, I am not going to go to any of those places even though there's a rather good story about my ex in there somewhere.

Meanwhilst I shall regale you with further gossip about our beloved PM Matti Vanhanen. As I reported a few days ago - way ahead of the Finnish MSM - he has been dallying with a fellow MP of the Green Party, and now the story is out. He was witnessed being snug with her at a Karaoke evening in a countryside pub over the weekend (not 200 metres from where I first introduced Mr Branson to ballooning - but that is just more hot air)

This is how we Finns like our politicians. Human, human, human.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 02:21:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah ha! Was she sequestrating his carbon?

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 02:28:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My initial questions:

  1. This doesn't work unless the property is owned outright.  True?

  2. If a property is valued at, say, £300,000, how much would each share be?  Is it up to the individuals?

I ask 2) because I read the law to be that if the ownership passes to someone else, yet the owner stays in the property, then the owner-turned renter has to pay the "market rate" (however they work that out, an average across the area, I suppose, or somesuch.)  So if the market rate is, say, £500 a month, then....you divide £300,000 by 500 to get...600 shares (?)...which would then be divided between, say, the ex-owners and their children (50-50 split--is that legal?) and then the remaining 300 shares would be passed over, one a month for...well...25 years?  Or they could hand over two shares at a time....so question three:

3) What happens legally once all the shares are in the children's pockets?  Can they give some back?  Or do the parents have to start paying £500 a month?

(And how illegal is it...come on...if the parents dutifully pay £500 a month into their children's bank accounts and then the children...well...maybe they leave a cash card lying around...but they're so well off maybe they never notice the odd £500 wandering off in the form of £50 take-outs from a neutral ATM--or even one large £500 take out?  I mean, is this an area that is ZEALOUSLY controlled, as in: "Show us your bank statement and justify every withdrawl."  "What can I say, guv?  I'm a generous soul and I buy a lot of rounds at the pub."  "Which pub, who is the landlord, we will be asking him or her how many rounds, on average, you buy a week."  "Well, it's lots of pubs, I get very drunk and I can't remember all their names."  etc....)

And there must be a question 4).  Let's see.

Once the children have all the six hundred shares (let's say two children, shares equally divided between them)...then they can legally offer those shares to...other people?  (And get cash back?)  A lending institution?  (Sort of like a re-mortgage, but the lending institution, a building society or a bank let's say, won't get their hands on any title deeds)...?  Or is it all about renting out the property...making it work as a residence, and the renters slowly acquiring their chunk of shares...

That's probably question 4), so onto question 5)...

...which is the same thing continued...so...

If Sven came and rented the place (the ex-owners lived in a lovely factory complex near...hmmm...near Littlehampton)...he breathes in the fresh air, finds someone to teach him polish, and signs on the dotted line for his three year rental lease, but times have moved on and now a monthly rent is £600.  Have the shares gone up as the (nominal) value of the property rises?  What if there is a seaside recession, the factories close and Sven won't pay more than £200 a month?  Is a share still £500?  And if he pays (whatever the value of one share is) a month, does he get one share in return?  So after, let's say five years later (he likes it so much he's signed on for an extra two years), he owns one quarter of the property's shares?  So now when he leaves and the next tennant moves in, he starts collecting....what?

So question 6) (or are we at seven by now): How does the equity vs. rent situation work out?  Is it just an agreement between individuals?

And as this all happens, the taxman or taxwoman is keeping a keen eye on things.  Does the LLP mean: "No joy, matey, this is a business and in fact we are claiming tax BACK because we are putting in a new boiler."  ??  Coz I have a sense that there is a tax break in there somewhere.

Ach, that's enough questions for now.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 07:18:32 PM EST
Seems Migeru and I are trying to bend your brain across two diaries!

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 07:27:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not that I want to bring quantum mechanics into this...

(...The observer sees reactions at both diaries...simultaneously!  Because the observer does not have equipment accurate enough to measure the speed of Chris's fingers...)

...it must be time for bed...

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 07:29:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries

Herd Immunity .. Filling the Gaps

by Oui - Jul 24
7 comments

LQD - Long Term Covid: The Brain

by ATinNM - Jul 13
25 comments

Say No to Racism

by Oui - Jul 12
24 comments

England surrenders to Covid

by IdiotSavant - Jul 9
27 comments