Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And that just sounds like a ludicrously overcomplicated tax scheme XD

nfe wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Or, you abolish private property and just remove the institutional framework that allows the dragons to hoard their piles of coin.

All that does is mean there is only 1 dragon, the government.

Alternative view: it's everyone.

Not in a representative democracy.
With a entrenched political elite.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
And that just sounds like a ludicrously overcomplicated tax scheme XD

It, willfully is so often.
In order for certain super rich to be able to avoid it for buying election victories for certain other people.

And so long the system is representative democracy so long you will see this always.

And that leads to apathy or voting for protest parties.

 LordofHats wrote:
And that just sounds like a ludicrously overcomplicated tax scheme XD

Hardly. It's not any more complicated than income tax with progressive taxation bands.

I think that once you've started tacking on numerous exemptions you've effectively overcomplicated taxation, which only serves to benefit people who can afford lawyers

Not Online!!! wrote:

nfe wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

In total?
It shows that the concept of inheritancetax as is, is terrible and damaging longterm to rural areas of a country and tax income overall.
Therefore i am surprised you still deem it agreeable.

Sorry you've lost me.

How is a chain of pet stores going into administration evidence of inheritance tax being 'terrible and damaging longterm to rural areas of a country and tax income overall'?

I have worked part time on my village / small cities administration.
The effects of buisness, local based producing buisness, or stores regardless, going out due to taxation or beeing forced to sell has a severe impact on money the local branch of government has.

Due to this the area died a slow painfull death, money got tighter, social spending had to be cut to the most baseline.
Infact even the infrastructure has suffered.
Only recently due to higher living costs in the greater Zürich area more income was generated due to workers beeing forced out of the City into the more rural parts ( my Region) which was in no way enough to stem the bleeding of money though.

Your trying really hard to force an example here. The business didn't go down due to tax or having to sell up. Likewise, nothing I've said would do so either. Unless your business is specifically renting property. Then it would, but I don't care.

Heck, to the contrary, the big bad businesses that come in and kill local businesses are usually the folks who're benefitting from generations of inherited property and tax avoidance!

Not Online!!! wrote:

nfe wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Or, you abolish private property and just remove the institutional framework that allows the dragons to hoard their piles of coin.

All that does is mean there is only 1 dragon, the government.

Alternative view: it's everyone.

Not in a representative democracy.
With a entrenched political elite.

I mean it should be pretty obvious given I'm advocated outlawing renting at profit, hammering unoccupied properties, pushing up inheritance tax, and, in an ideal world, simply having no private property, that the entrenched political elite aren't going to stay very entrenched long in my thought experiment world, so that's no argument against anything I've suggested.

 LordofHats wrote:
And that just sounds like a ludicrously overcomplicated tax scheme XD

It isn't as different as you'd think over here. . . As I mentioned earlier, one cannot simply "give" their house to their kids (legally), excepting in certain instances (ie, their Will). One cannot sell their real property to offspring for $1 or some other ridiculous sum, as under ethics laws and other statutes governing real estate it is viewed as an unfair or "predatory" transaction. . . One can however, sell their house to offspring for say, $250,000 when the market value on the home is$4 or 500k, as that is viewed as much more of a "fair offer" that one may accept from a stranger.

In the event of a death, depending on the real property value, the inheritors may pay tax on it as though it were a brand new purchase to them. If the property is below that threshold they pay the much lower "transference" fees (ie, taxes and fees associated purely with the filing of paperwork and are not shaped by property value. . . they are typically mere pennies on the dollar of your loan when you purchase a home yourself so you'll rarely notice them). As noted earlier, one issue with inheritance taxes in the US is the ease at which they are avoided by those who can afford the legal team to do so (often-times this involves use of trusts, charity organizations, or other legal vehicles where the inheritor still "owns" and has use of the property without de facto ownership) Another example of the miniscule transfer fees I'm referring to would be giving an automobile to another person: to transfer the title legally, you pay like 50 bucks (in my state its around 40 bucks, but they add the "sales tax of the value of the vehicle" to that price as well, so my county will be a bit more than others)

Of course, I am talking in sweeping generalities here, and what may apply in one state won't apply in another, or may apply differently.


Quite a bit of it is tied to other industries. . . For instance, I am reminded of a camping group that I grew up in (very similar in vein to the Boy Scouts of America). We had an annual camping trip to the same spot every year. Each "Outpost" of this camping group in the state came to this annual event. As it was a national/international organization, obviously it has liability insurance. . . When we secured the location for this camping event, insurance came in and said, "we cannot insure your event as is, because the property owner cannot lend you the use of land. Under the laws and regulations governing us, you MUST be renting the property". So, the following year, the camping group secured a "rental agreement" with the property's owner. Our rent was $1 per year. . . And as the owner had previously agreed to our use sans payment, we turned the "paying the annual rent" thing into a ceremony wherein we'd "pay" him in ridiculous ways that nominally added up to 1 dollar (one year it was a bag of wooden nickels)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
And that just sounds like a ludicrously overcomplicated tax scheme XD

It isn't as different as you'd think over here. . .

Oh I know it's like that here too.

I just think the exemptions are a whole other kettle of problems in the tax structures I'm familiar with. It's a situation where I question if we really need (all of) them, and if they really serve a useful purpose.

nfe wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

nfe wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

In total?
It shows that the concept of inheritancetax as is, is terrible and damaging longterm to rural areas of a country and tax income overall.
Therefore i am surprised you still deem it agreeable.

Sorry you've lost me.

How is a chain of pet stores going into administration evidence of inheritance tax being 'terrible and damaging longterm to rural areas of a country and tax income overall'?

I have worked part time on my village / small cities administration.
The effects of buisness, local based producing buisness, or stores regardless, going out due to taxation or beeing forced to sell has a severe impact on money the local branch of government has.

Due to this the area died a slow painfull death, money got tighter, social spending had to be cut to the most baseline.
Infact even the infrastructure has suffered.
Only recently due to higher living costs in the greater Zürich area more income was generated due to workers beeing forced out of the City into the more rural parts ( my Region) which was in no way enough to stem the bleeding of money though.

Your trying really hard to force an example here. The business didn't go down due to tax or having to sell up. Likewise, nothing I've said would do so either. Unless your business is specifically renting property. Then it would, but I don't care.

Heck, to the contrary, the big bad businesses that come in and kill local businesses are usually the folks who're benefitting from generations of inherited property and tax avoidance!

Not Online!!! wrote:

nfe wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Or, you abolish private property and just remove the institutional framework that allows the dragons to hoard their piles of coin.

All that does is mean there is only 1 dragon, the government.

Alternative view: it's everyone.

Not in a representative democracy.
With a entrenched political elite.

I mean it should be pretty obvious given I'm advocated outlawing renting at profit, hammering unoccupied properties, pushing up inheritance tax, and, in an ideal world, simply having no private property, that the entrenched political elite aren't going to stay very entrenched long in my thought experiment world, so that's no argument against anything I've suggested.

Sure i am forcing an exemple, because i have an actual one. What have you?

your thought experiment is still representative.
The representatives then have all the power.
That is literally the same issue then as you have now, well sans the big companies.

So long in such a system power is compounded into a representative organ so long your system inherently does not achieve the point of everyone owning everything.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Sure i am forcing an exemple, because i have an actual one. What have you?

You don't have an example. Here's the conversation:

1. You asked if any of our family businesses went bankrupt.
2. I told you that one went into administration due to supermarket competition and a bank lending change.
3. You said that was evidence of inheritance taxation being 'terrible and damaging longterm to rural areas of a country and tax income overall'.
4. I asked you to clarify why, because the end of the business had nothing to do with inheritance tax.
5. You shift a bit, saying that you've worked in local administration and that businesses being forced to sell or dying due to taxation impact the local economy.
6. I point out that you're trying very hard to make the example fit, because this is still nothing to do with why the business died.
7. You claim, again, that you have an example. I think what you mean is the example you've just given about working in local administration - but that is a long way from what you were attempting to use to demonstrate your point earlier.

You can really prove a little difficult to follow.

Not Online!!! wrote:
your thought experiment is still representative.
The representatives then have all the power.
That is literally the same issue then as you have now, well sans the big companies.

So long in such a system power is compounded into a representative organ so long your system inherently does not achieve the point of everyone owning everything.

You're making a lot of assumptions here.

It's probably worth getting back to discussions about property.

LordofHats wrote:I think that once you've started tacking on numerous exemptions you've effectively overcomplicated taxation, which only serves to benefit people who can afford lawyers

So... exactly the situation we have now? I'm guessing that what with being in the U.S. (according to your flag) you haven't read the Income Tax Act, or the Excise Act. I have, unfortunately, and they're both ridiculously convoluted.

As is, I am advised, the U.S. tax code.

----------------------------------------------------

I am in no way under the impression that 'government' - as that word is used in a Capitalistic system - cares for me. I am well aware that I am just another resource to be exploited to them. What you'd need is some sort of local, representative body of governance. Don't know what you'd call them. Soviets, maybe? Anyway, yeah, a whole bunch of them, in some sort of union.

nfe wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Sure i am forcing an exemple, because i have an actual one. What have you?

You don't have an example. Here's the conversation:

1. You asked if any of our family businesses went bankrupt.
2. I told you that one went into administration due to supermarket competition and a bank lending change.
3. You said that was evidence of inheritance taxation being 'terrible and damaging longterm to rural areas of a country and tax income overall'.
4. I asked you to clarify why, because the end of the business had nothing to do with inheritance tax.
5. You shift a bit, saying that you've worked in local administration and that businesses being forced to sell or dying due to taxation impact the local economy.
6. I point out that you're trying very hard to make the example fit, because this is still nothing to do with why the business died.
7. You claim, again, that you have an example. I think what you mean is the example you've just given about working in local administration - but that is a long way from what you were attempting to use to demonstrate your point earlier.

You can really prove a little difficult to follow.

Not Online!!! wrote:
your thought experiment is still representative.
The representatives then have all the power.
That is literally the same issue then as you have now, well sans the big companies.

So long in such a system power is compounded into a representative organ so long your system inherently does not achieve the point of everyone owning everything.

You're making a lot of assumptions here.

It's probably worth getting back to discussions about property.

i meant this exemple but he, again reading what was said and wrongly appointing it either out of malice or lazyness is fine nowaday.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

LordofHats wrote:I think that once you've started tacking on numerous exemptions you've effectively overcomplicated taxation, which only serves to benefit people who can afford lawyers

So... exactly the situation we have now? I'm guessing that what with being in the U.S. (according to your flag) you haven't read the Income Tax Act, or the Excise Act. I have, unfortunately, and they're both ridiculously convoluted.

As is, I am advised, the U.S. tax code.

isn't some of the statelaw especially obstuse to make a tax harbor?
Like i read somewhere that delaware is quite notorious for that.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

So... exactly the situation we have now?

Yes

You'd think with certain people caring oh so much about a certain debt, that maybe they'd try and fix the most obvious problem in the US Tax Code: how easy it is for filthy rich people to pay less than they owe.

Apologies.

Sarcasm is sometimes hard to detect via text.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Or, you abolish private property and just remove the institutional framework that allows the dragons to hoard their piles of coin.

All that does is mean there is only 1 dragon, the government. Which is far worse than what we have now.

For sure, if you think abolishing private property is the only step in the process.

I have yet someone to explain to me why, if i buy a run down property,invest a lot of money to make it livable and then rent it out at market price. (Doing all of the work and taking all of the risk) they think the government should step in take it and sell it on to someone else...

Not Online!!! wrote:

nfe wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Sure i am forcing an exemple, because i have an actual one. What have you?

You don't have an example. Here's the conversation:

1. You asked if any of our family businesses went bankrupt.
2. I told you that one went into administration due to supermarket competition and a bank lending change.
3. You said that was evidence of inheritance taxation being 'terrible and damaging longterm to rural areas of a country and tax income overall'.
4. I asked you to clarify why, because the end of the business had nothing to do with inheritance tax.
5. You shift a bit, saying that you've worked in local administration and that businesses being forced to sell or dying due to taxation impact the local economy.
6. I point out that you're trying very hard to make the example fit, because this is still nothing to do with why the business died.
7. You claim, again, that you have an example. I think what you mean is the example you've just given about working in local administration - but that is a long way from what you were attempting to use to demonstrate your point earlier.

You can really prove a little difficult to follow.

Not Online!!! wrote:
your thought experiment is still representative.
The representatives then have all the power.
That is literally the same issue then as you have now, well sans the big companies.

So long in such a system power is compounded into a representative organ so long your system inherently does not achieve the point of everyone owning everything.

You're making a lot of assumptions here.

It's probably worth getting back to discussions about property.

Spoiler:

If you regard this as impolite then i frankly can't help you.

Secondly the mingvase was an exageration but stuff like memento mories fastly add up.

Thirdly: so then, did they bankrupt? Were they forced to sell to some faceless multi billion company that instantly "optimized" and fired half the people, destroying the local rural industry Basis and vastly diminishing local tax income?

Because that happened to some of my relatives.

i meant this exemple but he, again reading what was said and wrongly appointing it either out of malice or lazyness is fine nowaday.

I see. When you quoted my response to your question, entirely dedicated to answering your question, and said that 'It shows...' you weren't referring to the quoted post but to an earlier thing you said. I'm not sure what the second clause means.

As I say, you can be difficult to follow.

Think I'll call it a day, there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Argive wrote:
I have yet someone to explain to me why, if i buy a run down property,invest a lot of money to make it livable and then rent it out at market price. (Doing all of the work and taking all of the risk) they think the government should step in take it and sell it on to someone else...

Because no one advocated it?

 Argive wrote:
I have yet someone to explain to me why, if i buy a run down property,invest a lot of money to make it livable and then rent it out at market price. (Doing all of the work and taking all of the risk) they think the government should step in take it and sell it on to someone else...

Probably because that's a huge strawman.

Right you have not reached your conclusions by reason so I dont know why im trying to reason.

Currently 25% of people in dwellings are living in privately rented accommodation. That genie is well and truly out of the bottle now.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jun/12/one-in-four-households-in-britain-will-rent-privately-by-end-of-2021-says-report


1. Do you think the government has the capacity to run such an enterprise efficiently?
2. Do you think there is the capacity to run that and make more housing?
3. How do you propose to reverse this without taking properties from people? Even if these stay as they are these will be passed onto people children etc.

Look I get that you are coming at it from a place of compassion and Im with you all the way. We should help people in our society. There needs to be more public affordable housing built I dont disagree. But hinking private landlords are to blame I disagree with...Ive previously given you some examples and points and youve just hit back with ideology.
Your thinking is that its somehow cheaper, I don't understand. In order to ascertain that claim you'd have to work out:

1. How much it costs per unit(say 3 bed) to build - (And if you look at the reality of government enterprise you need to add at least 20% for inefficiency and I think that's being generous)
2. What are the running costs the government would have to sustain
3. How do you price the rent accordingly?

have you actually thought about these numbers?? Please do these before you start saying its cheaper than to keep paying benefits to landlords for ZERO of the risk and having bargaining power for better conditions.
25% of households... Think about the amount of money that would be needed to sustain that! We can't sustain things the way they are now.
It is not sustainable in reality. It is, of course, sustainable in an ideal utopia.

Things are as good as they have ever been.
You fix inequality through education, creating opportunities for private enterprises, less state interferance and higher wages.

Because taking more money from people is how you solve 'inequality' duh!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Apologies.

Sarcasm is sometimes hard to detect via text.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Or, you abolish private property and just remove the institutional framework that allows the dragons to hoard their piles of coin.

All that does is mean there is only 1 dragon, the government. Which is far worse than what we have now.

For sure, if you think abolishing private property is the only step in the process.

Yup, after that all other businesses need to be nationalised, and strictly regulated by government, wealth redistributed, so everyone becomes richer (but actually poorer) quality of life improves (worsens) etc etc. Before you know it you've got enemies of the state doing hard labour in the gulag.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Because taking more money from people is how you solve 'inequality' duh!

Well yes but actually no.

That depends massively on what equality you want.

 Argive wrote:
Right you have not reached your conclusions by reason so I dont know why im trying to reason.

Currently 25% of people in dwellings are living in privately rented accommodation. That genie is well and truly out of the bottle now.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jun/12/one-in-four-households-in-britain-will-rent-privately-by-end-of-2021-says-report

1. Do you think the government has the capacity to run such an enterprise efficiently?
2. Do you think there is the capacity to run that and make more housing?
3. How do you propose to reverse this without taking properties from people? Even if these stay as they are these will be passed onto people children etc.

1. The government. No. A government. Yes.
2. Currently. No. With sufficient funding. Yes.
3. As I've said, hammer people who purposefully keep properties empty to significantly reduce market rates and prevent renting at profit. If someone wants to have dwellings as a way of storing money or because they want two homes, fine, but they'll pay for it. Most landlords would sell their extra properties - and at the drastically reduced market value. The state is well set to purchase them. This requires significant initial investment, but the vast reduction in housing benefit makes up for it swiftly.

Ive previously given you some examples and points and youve just hit back with ideology.

Hmm. You stated there was no shortage of council housing. I gave you the numbers, you immediately disregarded almost all of those waiting on homes by removing the number in receipt of housing benefit* , saying that they're just all on the list because they fancy a cheaper house, and said that because 25% of the population are in private rents** they must be affordable. You also stated that social housing was 'throwing money at hovels'. I responded that social housing is cheaper than housing benefit (because it isn't paid at market rates) and that there are a number of stipulations in most council areas that regulate who can be on the council housing waiting list, so people waiting on it have a demonstrable need, and that most hovels having money thrown at them are private lets that allow DSS residents, because the shortage of social housing means the state is left having to fork out for substandard accommodation at the prices set by the landlords. You did not reply.

I'm not wholly convinced that is 'just hit[ting] back with ideology'.

*methodologically bonkers, because tons of people getting housing benefit are in houses they like and will have to move a long way for a council house - like all those people in big London homes the Daily Mail likes to call benefits scroungers - or are on it temporarily - I've been on it three times, but I've never been on the council housing list - so are not making up the numbers.
**implying that those are distinct from housing benefit claimants, though they constitute a high number of private rents - about 40% of private lets in Wales, about 23% in Scotland, and about 27% in England

Your thinking is that its somehow cheaper, I don't understand. In order to ascertain that claim you'd have to work out:

1. How much it costs per unit(say 3 bed) to build - (And if you look at the reality of government enterprise you need to add at least 20% for inefficiency and I think that's being generous)
2. What are the running costs the government would have to sustain
3. How do you price the rent accordingly?

1. There are already 216,000 empty dwellings in England (as of 11th March 2019), you don't actually need to build swathes of new homes if you can force these back into the market.
2. I don't know, but scaled, cheaper than the average private landlord. No taxes, no mortgages.
3. Ideally, at running cost (nationally, with cheaper regions subsidising more expensive ones so the minimum wage family in the expensive area aren't hammered relative to the minimum wage family in the cheap area).

However, we can look at some current data that show us that social housing is much cheaper for the government than private lets:

Average HB paid to council tenants (May 2018) 90.40
Average HB paid for private tenants (May 2018) 112.16
That's an average difference of £1100 a year.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/housing-benefit-caseload-statistics

Additionally, here is the IFS (hardly a lefty gang) on why housing benefit costs have doubled in housing benefit since the early 2000s https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/13940

'The main drivers of the increase in spending have been the rapid expansion of the private rented sector alongside increased rents in social housing, in part because cheaper council housing has been in decline...Rents in the private sector are much higher than those in the much-diminished local authority sector. So the benefit system has a bigger job to do than it had in the past. A system that looked manageable when it was mostly supporting those facing below market rents in the social sector and a relatively small private sector looks much harder to maintain as it provides support to increasing numbers facing full market rents in a much-expanded private sector. Low levels of owner-occupation are passing on substantial costs to the public purse.'

TL/DR: social housing stock has gone down so more claimants are in private rents and they're much more expensive.

Note, obviously it's also a better deal for tenants. In England, private renters spend 35% of income on rent. 28% for those in social housing. Those with mortgages spend 18%.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/articles/ukprivaterentedsector/2018

Things are as good as they have ever been.
You fix inequality through education, creating opportunities for private enterprises, less state interferance and higher wages.

That's why we have continually increasing inequality, I guess.

I will humor you.. Trying to spin what I say into a "Daily Mail" narrative and not going out and putting some work in and calculating anything and just saying "I dont know but cheaper coz the government would do it" "no but it could be" just shows its a discussion about ideology rather than facts or reality. Do you have any first hand experience working in the NHS or local authority so you can make any claims about efficiency? I have and I do. And that's why I left. Of course I have no evidence to show how inefficient these institutions are.
But would ask you to seriously consider any past experience dealing with any government body you have dealt with, and have an honest think whether your experience screamed efficiency...

The funniest thing is there are already measures that can be put in place to combat Long term non-occupaied properties where local authorities can take over management. Case study islington Originally at 6 months then pushed back to 2 years (because their cronies would not be able to speculative buy). Obviously steps were taken and then immediately back tracked when it hit the very rich. And yet you still think government has the capacity to deal with the housing issue without private landlord. Ok...

https://democracy.islington.gov.uk/documents/s4988/Appendix%201%20-%20Preventing%20Wasted%20Housing%20Supply%20SPD%20July%202015.pdf

Those empty dwellings. Why are they empty?
And how many of those are high rise projects owned by international corporations for speculative buying, and how many by private landlords(who would rent them out to make profit because profit at all costs according to you)
These are not empty to push rent prices up like you seem hellbent on asserting.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34930602


The housing shortage and empty dwellings appear to have very little to do with buy to let ventures of private people whom you want to target, and who already pay 50% more council tax if property unoccupied for 6 months or more. The problems is multinationals, wealthy ex pats etc. Who speculative buy... Landlords at least offer a service. And if they charge 7% more for the risk they take I think that is only fair. You can disagree and we don't need to discuss it further.

I highly recommend you have a honest look at the state of play. Funding is hardly the issue. Mismanagement is and you don't fix that with taking from people to make more funding. MAX the efficiency of the systems in place and then we can talk about some sort of re-distribution of wealth. Until that point lets not eh ?

I mean on some things people will just go around in circles and so on and opinions will vary and thats just being humins..

We have gone waaaaay out in the deep end anyway from the original question haha.
I hope the OP has had his question answered.

I think we can all agree to buy if possible, and always check everything if you are renting to avoid nasty surprises?

 Argive wrote:

I will humor you..

You should probably try harder. Because as a casual reader with no stake in either direction, you're coming off as a bit of an arrogant tosser with remarks like these. It's the sort of thing people who go around boasting about their supposed IQ of 180 say.

Note:- I am not saying you are one. I am saying that is how you read. He's given you a fairly logical, concise response within the confines of a casual forum post, and hasn't been offensive in the slightest. In exchange, you just keep calling him ideologically blinkered and acting like you're talking to an idiot. None of that is polite, or conducive to good discussion.

Try to visualise that you're talking to a stranger a good friend just introduced as an old pal from school in the pub . Nfe's just got the round in from the counter, he's handed you your drink, and your friend has said, 'So what about all this housing malarkey then?'

 Ketara wrote:

 Argive wrote:

I will humor you..

You should probably try harder. Because as a casual reader with no stake in either direction, you're coming off as a bit of an arrogant tosser with remarks like these. It's the sort of thing people who go around boasting about their IQ of 180 say.

Note:- I am not saying you are one. I am saying that is how you read. He's given you a fairly logical, concise response within the confines of a casual forum post, and hasn't been offensive in the slightest. In exchange, you just keep calling him ideologically blinkered and acting like you're talking to an idiot. None of that is polite, or conducive to good discussion.

Try to visualise that you're talking to a stranger a good friend just introduced as a old pal from school in a pub . Nfe's just got the round in from the counter, he's handed you your drink, and your friend has said, 'So what about all this housing malarkey then?'

Ohhh boy.... you know what, you're coming off as a bit of an arrogant tosser with remarks like these. It's the sort of thing people who go around boasting about their IQ of 180 say telling people whats what...

Note:- I am not saying you are one. I am saying that is how you read. As someone has given a fairly logical, concise response within the confines of a casual forum post, and hasn't been offensive in the slightest. In exchange, just call him names veiled as pleasantries and acting like you're talking to an idiot and are massively condescending. None of that is polite, or conducive to good discussion.

Sorry man, had to troll you coz it was easy....

I don't really think you paid attention to both sides and somehow. That's ok though. We are having a fairly good discussion without you trying to stir the pot. Nfe can easily speak up for himself if I have offended him, he is very capable and articulate. If you don't have anything to add other then to be condescending and name calling maybe give it a miss next time?

Asking someone to have a discussion on the same arena I.e. Asking to accept the reality of how things work now and operate within that, as opposed to what could be is not insulting. Sorry if you got offended.

This thread has been dragged wildly off topic and so I am putting it out of its misery. Alas poor thread, we barely knew ye.