Another Reason You Will Never Retire.....

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.

**Polonius**

Ketara wrote:
Polonius wrote:
Being a small time landlord won't make you rich, but it is probably the most reliable, high return investment you can make.

I just wanted to say actually Pol, since I didn't comment earlier; that your post a little ways back was a pretty good one. Nobody else has mentioned it, and good forum contributions deserve acknowledgement.

thanks! All of those business and tax classes come in handy at times.

**Adeptus Doritos**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Also, a strawman is apparently one of the concepts that people struggle with...

Apparently you missed the part of this discussion where there are people who literally stated that it's too hard to make their own food.

That's not a straw man. That's pointing out obvious incompetence. This is why I don't believe these 'people' deserve my help. If you're too incompetent to manage your finances, get something that isn't fast food and learn to make food, etc.- perhaps you should be locked in a care facility. With orderlies that strike you.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:
If that were true, the landlords would be begging to offload the properties to their tenants at cut-price rates. You know, to absolve themselves of the massive financial burden of owning the house.

If you'd have ever owned property in your life, you'd know that you either offload it or you lease it, or rent it ASAP- otherwise, the taxes will bury you and you'll be in financial ruin.

Nice try.

**Ketara**

Adeptus Doritos wrote:

If you'd have ever owned property in your life, you'd know that you either offload it or you lease it, or rent it ASAP- otherwise, the taxes will bury you and you'll be in financial ruin.
Nice try.

Someone should tell all these property owners that.

https://metro.co.uk/2017/05/11/map-reveals-shocking-number-of-empty-homes-across-london-6630121/
https://www.propertyinvestortoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2019/11/should-investors-be-considering-londons-empty-properties
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/housing-crisis-london-high-rise-luxury-developments-property-local-councils-austerity-a8618171.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2019/02/13/123-billion-property-barely-used-britain-experts-call-empty/

**Adeptus Doritos**

Ketara wrote:
Adeptus Doritos wrote:

If you'd have ever owned property in your life, you'd know that you either offload it or you lease it, or rent it ASAP- otherwise, the taxes will bury you and you'll be in financial ruin.
Nice try.

Someone should tell all these property owners that.

https://metro.co.uk/2017/05/11/map-reveals-shocking-number-of-empty-homes-across-london-6630121/
https://www.propertyinvestortoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2019/11/should-investors-be-considering-londons-empty-properties
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/housing-crisis-london-high-rise-luxury-developments-property-local-councils-austerity-a8618171.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2019/02/13/123-billion-property-barely-used-britain-experts-call-empty/

Seems like a UK thing. I don't worry about the laws in countries that we defeated (MURICA!

)

Also, "Land". Not buildings. Land is where you come into the problems.

**queen_annes_revenge**

Ketara wrote:
queen_annes_revenge wrote:

I never said woe is me, so kindly don't put words in my mouth. I' m pretty happy that I'm a property owner. I want to make sure my families future is safe.

I apologise if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here; but it really sounds to me like you're trying to make being a landlord sound like this massively onerous task and risky investment for poor return.

When in reality, assuming you're not a mug charging well below market rent, have tenants from hell, or buy an absolute dump? It's easy money. The whole point of being a landlord, the whole reason that you and absolutely everyone else do it, is for the explicit purpose of leeching a large chunk of someone else's income away for little effort whilst building up a high value long term investment portfolio (aka property).

I mean, heck, you don't even have to rent. Property value goes up so fast here in London that people buy it as an investment choice on the assumption that just the net value of the property will increase faster than the equivalent value in investment fund interest. Hence all the empty 'luxury' flats. Which means that rental income in places like London is literally just the small cherry on the icing.

I'm just saying that it's not a money pot or income for me at all. I have to work hard to keep it functioning correctly.

Did you hear me saying how my girlfriend's parents did zero work bar a new carpet on a flat for the last twenty something years? Yet they were raking in over ten grand a year for that flat. Given they bought it for £25,000 back in '96, they've not only paid it off several times over, they now have an asset worth in the region of £400,000 for virtually no effort.

You may well be a more conscientous landlord than them, but the truth is, you work as hard as you want to as a landlord (assuming the basics are covered - heating, double glazing, etc), If you don't want to do any work at all, you just give it to an estate agent. You get less money, but then you really don't have to do any work for it!

So let's say you've taken my property, and all the others previously rented out, then what? Who's going to own them? You've said yourself the people who are renting most likely have poor credit and or not enough income to get mortgages, so how are they going to afford the houses? They're not suddenly going to be affordable to the unqualified school leaver working in JD sports.

Hey, I never claimed to have a solution. I'm just contesting the idea you seem to be pushing that it's hard work from the sweat on your brow for well-earned small potatoes. When in reality, you've decided to leverage your good financial standing to leech off people in less good financial positions to make your position even better still.

I know it sounds pretty morally loaded and offensive like that, but I'm honestly promise I'm not judging negatively you for it. Everyone does it, and you're just trying to (quite fairly) provide a reliable income stream for you and yours. It's just the system we all live in, unfortunately. It's the government's job to create new housing stock and thus make sure that the people at the bottom aren't too disadvantaged; not yours.

Not at all. I'm just making the point that landlords/property managers aren't all these leeches sucking up money from poor people, who deserve to be punished with higher taxes, purely for possessing wealth to own property.

I agree that something needs to be done about housing, it should be easier for folks to own homes, but that should come more from an increase in income, rather than forcing property prices down by attempting to penalise property owners.

**Ketara**

Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Seems like a UK thing. I don't worry about the laws in countries that we defeated (MURICA! )

Also, "Land". Not buildings. Land is where you come into the problems.

You'll observe similar trends in places like Hong Kong. Not to mention that the above reports have freehold as frequently as leasehold (which incorporates the land).

I think we can broadly agree however that your blanket statement about 'people who own property know to offload it, lease it, or rent it' is inaccurate. Perhaps in your neck of the woods that's the case, but not so much here in the UK or anywhere else with an overheated property market.

**Adeptus Doritos**

Ketara wrote:
I think we can broadly agree however that your blanket statement about 'people who own property know to offload it, lease it, or rent it' is inaccurate. Perhaps in your neck of the woods that's the case, but not so much here in the UK or anywhere else with an overheated property market.

Inheritance tax, land tax... if you're not generating revenue with your properties in the US... they ruin you. That's just the way it is. A whopping 40% inheritance tax from my grandfather's land, and property taxes each year were barely covered by leasing the land to grow wheat and corn.

REMOVED

**Ketara**

queen_annes_revenge wrote:

Not at all. I'm just making the point that landlords/property managers aren't all these leeches sucking up money from poor people, who deserve to be punished with higher taxes, purely for possessing wealth to own property.

By all means, and I'm sorry if I sound like I'm going on the attack against you. I'm really not. I know that words like 'leeching' and 'parasitic' sound really morally loaded and awful, but I'm honestly not trying to deploy them in a judgemental/nasty context. It's just my describing the way the market forces at play interact.

I agree that something needs to be done about housing, it should be easier for folks to own homes, but that should come more from an increase in income, rather than forcing property prices down by attempting to penalise property owners.

I think that something like that could be tried, but the cat is well out of the bag. The bigger operators will just work on economy of scale, soak up all the properties dropped by smaller freeholders like yourself, and the rents will remain high.

Plus, to be honest, small-time landlords with a few properties aren't really the problem. You've worked hard to get where you are. The problem is what happens when it jumps a few generations down and really concretes the wealth into 'haves' and 'have nots'.

To hammer it home to me, I come from poor mining stock, whilst my girlfriend is upper middle class and her parents have a stock and property portfolio. She'll inherit everything you've worked so hard for with little effort one day. I'm quite fiscally prudent, as is she. If we ever have kids, they'll probably inherit a portfolio from us three times the size. They'll never have to work a day if they don't want to. Jump it another generation or two like that and my descendants will be rolling in it; whilst my brothers kids will probably still be just as poor as the rest of my family is now.

That's the real issue with the property market being how it is. It's really, really, really locking in generational inequality.

**queen_annes_revenge**

nfe wrote:
[

It's not feasible as I've already said. Redistribution of wealth does not work, without massive government intervention.

You've claimed it's not feasible, with fallacious anecdotes as evidence.

I never claimed a connection between my examples and the ineffectiveness of redistribution of wealth, but I don't think we can really discuss that without delving completely into the P word, which we've flirted dangerously close to already under a sheen of economics.

**Adeptus Doritos**

Land is, quite literally, a finite resource. And there are many more things that can be done with land now than even 3 decades ago. Much more demand for that property.

With a higher demand for a finite resource, there's a higher price tag attached to it.

It's not going to get any easier to own a home or plot of land.

**queen_annes_revenge**

Ketara wrote:

To hammer it home to me, I come from poor mining stock, whilst my girlfriend is upper middle class and her parents have a stock and property portfolio. She'll inherit everything you've worked so hard for with little effort one day. I'm quite fiscally prudent, as is she. If we ever have kids, they'll probably inherit a portfolio from us three times the size. They'll never have to work a day if they don't want to. Jump it another generation or two like that and my descendants will be rolling in it; whilst my brothers kids will probably still be just as poor as the rest of my family is now.

That's the real issue with the property market being how it is. It's really, really, really locking in generational inequality.

It's cool, I'm all about civil dialogue, particularly with those of differing viewpoints!

But then you could argue that why shouldn't people gift things to their children in inheritence? Whats the alternative? Give them back? Throw them in a pot for redistribution? If someone has paid for something then its theirs to do as they will.

**Adeptus Doritos**

queen_annes_revenge wrote:
But then you could argue that why shouldn't people gift things to their children in inheritence? Whats the alternative? Give them back? Throw them in a pot for redistribution? If someone has paid for something then its theirs to do as they will.

The concept of "working hard to acquire things for my descendants" is often lost on some people.

Many of them also fail to realize that if you don't utilize things you inherit (which is work itself), you quickly lose your inheritance.

**Ketara**

queen_annes_revenge wrote:

But then you could argue that why shouldn't people gift things to their children in inheritence? Whats the alternative? Give them back? Throw them in a pot for redistribution? If someone has paid for something then its theirs to do as they will.

Well, 'throwing them into the pot for redistribution' is quite literally the basic concept behind inheritance tax. Laws are only really just starting to catch up with modern developments though. They've unbent enough to raise the cap and make sure kids don't need to sell the family home. But at the same time, the real upper end of the market is untouched. It's no mistake the same noble families still own vast chunks of our country. Everything just gets thrown into offshore companies and trusts once you reach a certain point, and inheritance ceases to apply. That's what really needs to be locked down.

The day the likes of Duke Richard Scott don't get to hand the keys to 217,000 acres to the next generation will be the day inheritance taxation actually works.

**Not Online!!!**

Ketara wrote:
queen_annes_revenge wrote:

But then you could argue that why shouldn't people gift things to their children in inheritence? Whats the alternative? Give them back? Throw them in a pot for redistribution? If someone has paid for something then its theirs to do as they will.

Well, 'throwing them into the pot for redistribution' is quite literally the basic concept behind inheritance tax. Laws are only really just starting to catch up with modern developments though. They've unbent enough to raise the cap and make sure kids don't need to sell the family home. But at the same time, the real upper end of the market is untouched. It's no mistake the same noble families still own vast chunks of our country. Everything just gets thrown into offshore companies and trusts once you reach a certain point, and inheritance ceases to apply. That's what really needs to be locked down.

The day the likes of Duke Richard Scott don't get to hand the keys to 217,000 acres to the next generation will be the day inheritance taxation actually works.

Seems like you should have dodoed the nobles a long time ago.
Has worked for us

**Easy E**

Polonius wrote:
I don't know the specifics in the UK, but owning rental properties is one of the great ways in the US to build generational wealth. Not tons, and the margins get thinner the less of the work you can do yourself, but the tax code is so favorable to landlords its damn near a subsidy.

So, the way to do it is find a property in an area where people want to rent. This could be near a university, in a densely populated area, near a mass transit hub, or anywhere you have a short term population. buy the house, taking on debt to better leverage your down payment.

so, going into this, you have a loan, with interest, to repay, along with property taxes, insurance, and repairs/maintenance. You also need to find tenants, and occasionally evict tenants. You have expenses, in other words.

Now, unless you are incredibly bad at business, you will be making money. Even if you use a rental company to actually manage the property, gross rents will exceed gross costs by a pretty healthy margin. (For fun, look at monthly rents vs. property costs in any neighborhood. Do the math and you'll see that there's meat on that bone.)

Now, where does the magic come in? Depreciation! So, lets say you end up earning some money after paying all of your expenses. Now you have to pay taxes... except you also get to "write off" a percentage of the purchase price of the property each year to account for the loss of useful life. It gets complicated (buildings can be depreciated, but not land), but essentially you can deduct 3.8% of the purchase price of the property every year as an expense, which helps shield you from paying taxes.

The downside of depereciated a long term asset like a building is that when you sell it, you subtract all depreciation from what you paid to determine any profit. so if you hold a building for 15 years (half the usual depreceation life) after paying $200,000, then when you sell it, your taxable profit is based on you spending $100k, not $200k. So if you sell after 15 years for $250k, you have a taxable profit of $150k.

But wait! There is one more great trick in the tax code. If you inherit property, you no longer look to the purchase price to calculate profit, but rather the fair market value at the time of inheritance. So if you father bought a rental property for $100k, took 30 years of depreciation against his income, and hten dies, leaving it to you, you can either 1) sell it with no taxable profit, or 2) lease it out again, with the ability to depreciate it for 30 more years!

At it's most extreme, a family can buy a rental property, pay minimal taxes on the income, and leave a much more expensive property to their children, all without ever paying income taxes on the increase in that property.

In addition, if your location remains un-rented, you can deduct money off your taxes as lost income to a certain amount that varies by jurisdiction. Therefore, by using the right balance of rented and unrented property you can really game the tax system on any other income you make!

I have seen it in action so many times where a out of the area landlord, keeps a vacant building in a struggling, small town downtown, and asks ridiculous rent for a beat up old property. There is no one stupid enough to rent it, so they then right off a significant loss and eliminate tax burden elsewhere. Small towns have a real hard time with this, and they try to make up the losses this crap hole causes to the city by pressuring all the actual owners of buildings that live in the area. Thereby, allowing the local actual business owners to subsidize the tax write-off of some investor from god knows where instead!

Main street vs. Wall Street at its most fundamental. Main street is losing.

**nfe**

queen_annes_revenge wrote:
nfe wrote:
[

It's not feasible as I've already said. Redistribution of wealth does not work, without massive government intervention.

You've claimed it's not feasible, with fallacious anecdotes as evidence.

I never claimed a connection between my examples and the ineffectiveness of redistribution of wealth, but I don't think we can really discuss that without delving completely into the P word, which we've flirted dangerously close to already under a sheen of economics.

Fair enough. Can you clarify why a £1-200 tax-deductible fee once a year, if that, would put you and thousands of other landlords out of business and force you to sell up?

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Adeptus Doritos wrote:

If you'd have ever owned property in your life, you'd know that you either offload it or you lease it, or rent it ASAP- otherwise, the taxes will bury you and you'll be in financial ruin.
Nice try.

Someone should tell all these property owners that.

https://metro.co.uk/2017/05/11/map-reveals-shocking-number-of-empty-homes-across-london-6630121/
https://www.propertyinvestortoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2019/11/should-investors-be-considering-londons-empty-properties
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/housing-crisis-london-high-rise-luxury-developments-property-local-councils-austerity-a8618171.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2019/02/13/123-billion-property-barely-used-britain-experts-call-empty/

Seems like a UK thing. I don't worry about the laws in countries that we defeated (MURICA! )

You're not much keen on evidence from your own country either. Did you find many examples of 1960s $20k homes that now cost 144k or are we ready to concede that housing costs have massively outstripped wages?

**skyth**

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Ketara wrote:
I think we can broadly agree however that your blanket statement about 'people who own property know to offload it, lease it, or rent it' is inaccurate. Perhaps in your neck of the woods that's the case, but not so much here in the UK or anywhere else with an overheated property market.

Inheritance tax, land tax... if you're not generating revenue with your properties in the US... they ruin you. That's just the way it is. A whopping 40% inheritance tax from my grandfather's land, and property taxes each year were barely covered by leasing the land to grow wheat and corn.

I don't really know what to say about some European or Asian slumlord's buildings, or how he generates revenue, or what additional revenues they're pulling in to cover it.

Inheritance tax is for the vast majority of people 0. You have to have an estate worth in the millions of dollars to pay any inheritance taxes and only the amount over the multi-million dollar threshhold is taxed.

**Albino Squirrel**

Polonius wrote:
Being a small time landlord won't make you rich, but it is probably the most reliable, high return investment you can make.

It is a good investment but it is also work. You are providing upkeep and repairs on that property, and also finding/vetting tenants. And if you get a bad tenant, it can be a huge pain. Really hard to get someone evicted even if they aren't paying you. The law is very much on the side of protecting the renter. So you can end up with people not paying for a long time before you can get them kicked out, and you'll never get that money back, or money for any damages they might have done. Especially if they managed to lie about their identity. So it is work, and it has risks, and it provides a valuable thing for someone who wants to live in a house but doesn't want to do the upkeep or have the long term commitment. So I can't bring myself to be mad at people who go that route.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Albino Squirrel wrote:
Yeah, I mean, you've got almost everything way better. To complain that house prices have gone up in places that have grown tremendously in the last 50 years just sounds like whining.

And our life expectancy isn't much different than Germany's, even though we have a much higher obesity rate. Maybe that is somewhat an issue with the healthcare system. Doctors should probably more often be telling people to eat better an exercise more instead of prescribing them more medication and doing more procedures. But is that because they are trying to get more money out of people, or are they giving people what they want? Ultimately your health, like most things, is always going to be your own responsibility.

I think part of it is the fear or hurting people's feelings these days. If someone gets told to exercise more or eat better by their doctor, they post a video complaining about how they were 'shamed' and that the doc didn't take them seriously.

It could possibly be a financial issue too, but we have the same here, and we have a socialised healthcare system.

I believe that the government should incentivise things that promote better physical activity. Theres a dire lack of education on the importance of strength, which I believe is a huge cause, not just of workplace injury, but a lot of medical problems in the general population.

Well, I don't want to get into politics, but I personally don't think it's the government's place to incentivise healthy lifestyle, though I guess if I lived in the UK and healthcare was government funded, I may think differently because you're spending everyone's money on to treat people who aren't taking care of themselves. That alone seems to me like a good argument against a socialized healthcare system which then gives the government an excuse to make further decisions about what you do with your life. But you shouldn't have to incentivise people to be healthy, being healthy is the incentive. Though I'm fine with government providing education on what healthy eating is and encouraging exercise and that sort of thing. But even then, they often mess it up. When I was a kid they were all about the food pyramid, which informed what we all ate in school. And that said we should mostly be eating lots of bread. And telling us that eggs were unhealthy.

**queen_annes_revenge**

nfe wrote:

Fair enough. Can you clarify why a £1-200 tax-deductible fee once a year, if that, would put you and thousands of other landlords out of business and force you to sell up?

Not sure where you're getting that from. My property currently generates 1200 pa in council tax, which I would have to pay under those plans.

Plus the absurd notion that I couldn't evict people for 3 years.. I'll pass thanks.

**nfe**

queen_annes_revenge wrote:
nfe wrote:

Fair enough. Can you clarify why a £1-200 tax-deductible fee once a year, if that, would put you and thousands of other landlords out of business and force you to sell up?

Not sure where you're getting that from.

You repeatedly saying that the Labour plan would force vast numbers of landlords to sell up (and then force the state to buy all the properties, for some reason?). That's the only cost. The renters charter was only protection from unfair eviction, rent rises capped at inflation, and the property MOT. If that extra small costs means you no longer get to have someone else pay several hundred pounds a month into your savings account, well hard lines, but it's not likely. Absolute worse case scenario (if your property is as well kept as you claim) you only make £1000 profit a year in addition to having a mortgage paid for you.

My property currently generates 1200 pa in council tax, which I would have to pay under those plans.

The landlord council tax was in a policy proposal document (from Monbiot et al 2019) and was not in the Labour manifesto.

Plus the absurd notion that I couldn't evict people for 3 years.. I'll pass thanks.

Yet you're one of the good landlords.

**queen_annes_revenge**

Yes, if I want to remove tenants from my property why shouldn't I be allowed to? What happens if my situation changes and I need to sell? Maybe someone in my family or friends has an emergency and needs housing. They're going to get prioritised over the general public.

I hate to keep beating this drum, but I don't make 1k a year in profit. After insurance, income tax and repairs I'm lucky to strike even.

Read land for the many. It proposes a 'progressive property' tax, which would replace council tax and be footed by the owner, not the tenant.

**nfe**

queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Yes, if I want to remove tenants from my property why shouldn't I be allowed to? What happens if my situation changes and I need to sell? Maybe someone in my family or friends has an emergency and needs housing. They're going to get prioritised over the general public.

Because the price you pay for getting a massive interest free savings account should be not being an donkey-cave to the people paying into it for you. And you know what? Even if it stopped you breaking even. Tough. You might effectively have to pay a mortgage of a few pounds a month? For a property that's just sitting gaining value? What a disaster!

I hate to keep beating this drum, but I don't make 1k a year in profit. After insurance, income tax and repairs I'm lucky to strike even.

You literally stated earlier in the thread that you make about £100 a month after outgoings.

EDIT: you said after fees but not repairs, my error.

Read land for the many. It proposes a 'progressive property' tax, which would replace council tax and be footed by the owner, not the tenant.

Land for the many is Monbiot et al 2019. It is a policy proposal document containing recommendations made to Labour. It is not a Labour manifesto.

**Adeptus Doritos**

skyth wrote:
Inheritance tax is for the vast majority of people 0. You have to have an estate worth in the millions of dollars to pay any inheritance taxes and only the amount over the multi-million dollar threshhold is taxed.

You aren't well aware of the value of land, especially farmable land close to both a river and with lakefront areas...

Sounds like a great thing to inherit in your 30's, then you realize it's like a second job to just have the damned thing leased properly.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:
Because the price you pay for getting a massive interest free savings account should be not being an donkey-cave to the people paying into it for you. And you know what? Even if it stopped you breaking even. Tough. You might effectively have to pay a mortgage of a few pounds a month? For a property that's just sitting gaining value? What a disaster!

No one is entitled to your property, whether squatting on it or using it.

In most sane places, you can give someone 30 days to evict the premises. After that, they are trespassing. And in most places, a trespasser can be removed by authorities- and if need be, the threat of force... and if they present a threat- can be dealt with using force- as long as it is proportional to the threat.

This is perfectly fine, as no one has any right to your property. If they don't like it, tough.

**nfe**

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
[

nfe wrote:
Because the price you pay for getting a massive interest free savings account should be not being an donkey-cave to the people paying into it for you. And you know what? Even if it stopped you breaking even. Tough. You might effectively have to pay a mortgage of a few pounds a month? For a property that's just sitting gaining value? What a disaster!

No one is entitled to your property,

I fully agree. Once you ask someone to pay you to live in it and make it their home in exchange for giving you a free property in the future, however, you have obligations to them.

How's that list of homes that have appreciated only in line with wages going?

**Adeptus Doritos**

nfe wrote:
I fully agree. Once you ask someone to pay you to live in it and make it their home in exchange for giving you a free property in the future, however, you have obligations to them.

And this is why we have contracts. Have you ever seen one of those?

"Free". You must not know what this is, either.

nfe wrote:
How's that list of homes that have appreciated only in line with wages going?

I'm sorry, was I tasked with something? I must have missed your request.

EDIT: It's also entirely possible I didn't care enough to indulge you. If you're determined to win an argument, then how about you do your own work and bring the data?

Because population, requirements and demand for property/land, etc. have been the exact same since the 1950's.

That's not a complicated concept. Try harder.

**nfe**

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
nfe wrote:
I fully agree. Once you ask someone to pay you to live in it and make it their home in exchange for giving you a free property in the future, however, you have obligations to them.

And this is why we have contracts. Have you ever seen one of those?

"Free". You must not know what this is, either.

Err yes. You'll be aware I'm sure that contracts in most territories are subject to regulations. The premise was to add further regulation to protect already exploited people. I've no doubt that you find protecting exploited people to be contemptuous state interference, though, so you can probably withdraw from that conversation. I don't get the feeling that queen_anne's_revenge thinks regulation is fundamentally problematic so there's actually a viable dialogue there.

nfe wrote:
How's that list of homes that have appreciated only in line with wages going?

I'm sorry, was I tasked with something? I must have missed your request. I tend to skim over irrelevant whinging.

I asked you to demonstrate the baseless assertions you kept making when presented with evidence, yes. Obviously you can't and know yourself to be wrong, but I'm well aware no retraction is ever coming. Don't fret.

**Adeptus Doritos**

nfe wrote:
Err yes. You'll be aware I'm sure that contracts in most territories are subject to regulations. The premise was to add further regulation to protect already exploited people. I've no doubt that you find protecting exploited people to be contemptuous state interference, though, so you can probably withdraw from that conversation. I don't get the feeling that queen_anne's_revenge thinks regulation is fundamentally problematic so there's actually a viable dialogue there.

I'm not sure who you think is being exploited or how I would enjoy it, but if someone violates a rental contract- then 30 days is plenty of time. If they can't manage that, then there are holding cells.

I'm sure nothing would please you more than having me withdraw from a conversation. You don't strike me as someone who's very open to anything other than your own ideas, so this seems like it is causing you discomfort.

Therefore, I will continue as I please.

I'm just waiting to mis-spell something so you can hoist that up, since you're scrambling for a win here.

nfe wrote:
I asked you to demonstrate the baseless assertions you kept making when presented with evidence, yes. Obviously you can't and know yourself to be wrong, but I'm well aware no retraction is ever coming. Don't fret.

Oh, I didn't really care too much. Like I said, if you're so desperate to be right- then by all means, show me.

And show me how the demand for property hasn't changed at all since the 1950's with more urban/business development.

"Baseless" indeed.

**nfe**

Adeptus Doritos wrote:

EDIT: It's also entirely possible I didn't care enough to indulge you. If you're determined to win an argument, then how about you do your own work and bring the data?

I have you considerable data across several posts. Primarily drawn from US gov documents from the 1950s/60s and last couple years and your last response was 'I assume you must be talking about the UK'.

Prior to that you demonstrably weren't reading anything you were responding too.

Bring the data

**nfe**

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
nfe wrote:
Err yes. You'll be aware I'm sure that contracts in most territories are subject to regulations. The premise was to add further regulation to protect already exploited people. I've no doubt that you find protecting exploited people to be contemptuous state interference, though, so you can probably withdraw from that conversation. I don't get the feeling that queen_anne's_revenge thinks regulation is fundamentally problematic so there's actually a viable dialogue there.

I'm not sure who you think is being exploited or how I would enjoy it, but if someone violates a rental contract- then 30 days is plenty of time. If they can't manage that, then there are holding cells.

Read what you are replying too. QAR was specifically objecting to an end to NO FAULT evictions. I have no issue with evictions for broken contracts and in fact think the state should be significantly more supportive in cases of long term non-payment or refusal to leave after eviction notices.

I'm sure nothing would please you more than having me withdraw from a conversation. You don't strike me as someone who's very open to anything other than your own ideas, so this seems like it is causing you discomfort.

Mute it is.

**Adeptus Doritos**

nfe wrote:
Read what you are replying too. QAR was specifically objecting to an end to NO FAULT evictions. I have no issue with evictions for broken contracts and in fact think the state should be significantly more supportive in cases of long term non-payment or refusal to leave after eviction notices.

Then you might wanna note a specific middle-America state. One that requires 30 days eviction notice, 30 days after the date of the notice- and if they refuse, they can get an additional 30 days for the state to investigate (or more)- with no repercussions if the state finds nothing. Also, if the State can't investigate within 30 days, they get another 30 days.

Scumbags have used this to get about 6 months of rent free living.