4 ms·

Back when you could register the domain you wanted because some dickhead didn't squat it to try get 75k out of your idea for a startup.

ck2 11y ago
If it's not a trademarked word, registering a domain name is like investing in real estate. Or is every property owner who doesn't live on that property a "dickhead" ?
- lcswi 11y ago
  Yes.
- BillinghamJ 11y ago
  Absolutely yes! It's a nightmare in high-density cities like London.
  - ck2 11y ago
    Then why don't they make laws that you have to live on a property to own it?
    - logfromblammo 11y ago
      It would likely be more popular to institute a land-ownership tax that includes leased properties and exempts up to 80 acres, plus 10 additional acres for each additional person if the size of your household exceeds 8, but only for land in the same county/parish as your official domicile, or within a 50 mile radius of it. In theory, that would allow rents extracted from the local economy by (presumably non-voting) absentee landlords to be recovered. A straight ban on absentee ownership would simply lead to workaround legal arrangements, such as strawman purchasers who can then turn around and sign a 99-year "peppercorn" lease to the true buyers. You would be playing whack-a-mole with evasion tactics and corporate shell games. If you just introduce an economic penalty, people would only evade/avoid to the extent that it produces a profitable bottom line. Rich people and foreigners could still buy up all the available local property, but they would at least have to pay to keep it unavailable to the local market.
  - philliphaydon 11y ago
    @ck2 they should. Singapore for example, you cannot own land, and you cannot buy a HDB house, if you're not a citizen. But you can buy a Condo, so those are expensive for foreigners. But locals can afford HDBs. Thailand, foreigners cannot own land, or houses, or villa's, etc. But you can own an apartment, because you own the apartment, but not the building or land. If you want to own a villa, you have to be a lease hold where you pay a huge tax to a Thai company who owns the actual property and grants you the right to live in it. So, houses in Thailand are affordable for Thai people. Yet you take NZ, Aus, UK, America, where you can sit on a computer, press buy on a website, get your lawyer to send some money, and own a house and property without ever stepping foot in the country. Western and now we can't afford to own a house in our own country without getting a 1.2m loan that costs us our life and prevents us from enjoying the money we work so hard for.
- skj 11y ago
  I don't think it compares. Investing in real estate has the bonus that it allows others to divest themselves of real estate.
  - ck2 11y ago
    Could you give me some real world examples of people commonly divesting themselves of their real estate? You don't mean renting out a property do you? Because that isn't divesting, that's highly profitable.
    - skj 11y ago
      For every buyer there is a seller, and the seller is divesting themselves of that real estate. So, every time someone sells a house is a real world example.

ck2 11y ago

If it's not a trademarked word, registering a domain name is like investing in real estate. Or is every property owner who doesn't live on that property a "dickhead" ?

lcswi 11y ago
Yes.
BillinghamJ 11y ago
Absolutely yes! It's a nightmare in high-density cities like London.
- ck2 11y ago
  Then why don't they make laws that you have to live on a property to own it?
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    It would likely be more popular to institute a land-ownership tax that includes leased properties and exempts up to 80 acres, plus 10 additional acres for each additional person if the size of your household exceeds 8, but only for land in the same county/parish as your official domicile, or within a 50 mile radius of it. In theory, that would allow rents extracted from the local economy by (presumably non-voting) absentee landlords to be recovered. A straight ban on absentee ownership would simply lead to workaround legal arrangements, such as strawman purchasers who can then turn around and sign a 99-year "peppercorn" lease to the true buyers. You would be playing whack-a-mole with evasion tactics and corporate shell games. If you just introduce an economic penalty, people would only evade/avoid to the extent that it produces a profitable bottom line. Rich people and foreigners could still buy up all the available local property, but they would at least have to pay to keep it unavailable to the local market.
- philliphaydon 11y ago
  @ck2 they should. Singapore for example, you cannot own land, and you cannot buy a HDB house, if you're not a citizen. But you can buy a Condo, so those are expensive for foreigners. But locals can afford HDBs. Thailand, foreigners cannot own land, or houses, or villa's, etc. But you can own an apartment, because you own the apartment, but not the building or land. If you want to own a villa, you have to be a lease hold where you pay a huge tax to a Thai company who owns the actual property and grants you the right to live in it. So, houses in Thailand are affordable for Thai people. Yet you take NZ, Aus, UK, America, where you can sit on a computer, press buy on a website, get your lawyer to send some money, and own a house and property without ever stepping foot in the country. Western and now we can't afford to own a house in our own country without getting a 1.2m loan that costs us our life and prevents us from enjoying the money we work so hard for.
skj 11y ago
I don't think it compares. Investing in real estate has the bonus that it allows others to divest themselves of real estate.
- ck2 11y ago
  Could you give me some real world examples of people commonly divesting themselves of their real estate? You don't mean renting out a property do you? Because that isn't divesting, that's highly profitable.
  - skj 11y ago
    For every buyer there is a seller, and the seller is divesting themselves of that real estate. So, every time someone sells a house is a real world example.