Tax Relief On Buy To Let Mortgage Interest.

[Bland Unsight]

Jonah is actually a serial fatty. He has put on weight again I think you'll find, e.g. http://hollywoodlife.com/2015/05/08/jonah-hill-weight-gain-body-transformation-new-pictures/

I love the fact that the hpc hive mind has real time information on Jonah Hill's weight. Too cool. (And more of the casting nailed down as well.)

[FreeTrader]

Presumably why Osborne is readying to give Carney the powers to make them stop.

What's interesting about that article is the framing.

BTL is now 'controversial' and the RBS guy is defending the bank's lending position. I don't recall the Mail taking that position before the budget.

[FreeTrader]

Meanwhile in the Telegraph...

Why the new tax on buy-to-let is deeply unfair

The danger now is that this new tax burden will land in a few years’ time when the market, having cooled, is already claiming victims among amateur landlords who cannot cover increased mortgage payments.

Ahead of the Summer Budget many commentators had called for a reduction in landlords’ tax perks, playing to a simplistic idea that buy-to-let is somehow to blame for Britain’s housing crisis. The Chancellor’s decision to increase landlord taxation was therefore an easy, even popular one. It needs to be rethought.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/11778574/Why-the-new-tax-on-buy-to-let-is-deeply-unfair.html

[South Lorne]

The Wail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-3182433/RBS-boss-WON-T-cut-buy-let-mortgages-customers-want-them.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

...yes customers may want them ..and he relishes the business from a turnover point of view ..."turnover is vanity... profits (and avoidance of losses) is sense"....has he reconsidered the credit risk in view of the budget and the new powers the Chancellor will give the BofE Governor...'short term gains for long term losses' have to be avoided ...remember the egos of 2007.........

Edited August 1, 2015 by South Lorne

[FreeTrader]

The problem with this issue - and I couldn't help feeling this when I watched the various 'independent' witnesses in front of the Treasury Select Committee - is that we just don't how many of those commenting on the budget proposals are leveraged BTL landlords themselves.

[Venger]

Meanwhile in the Telegraph...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/11778574/Why-the-new-tax-on-buy-to-let-is-deeply-unfair.html

Come on FreeTrader... is this thread the appropriate one for soft-hearty journies with deep BTL sympathies, or basic assumptions?

Just before the Budget, when some had a vibe something was in the works... we have the same journo.. and his own assumptions such as 'rents will be pushed up'. I'll take my chances with these prices.

You can gouge me for a load of my savings.. it won't hurt me - vs - these prices and too many over-leveraged speculator landlords who have extended claims onto assets to an extreme. Unfair? Unfair has nothing to do with it.

The single reason why buy-to-let investors must keep their £5bn-a-year tax break

There are calls to scrap tax relief on landlords' mortgage interest. Whether you love or loathe buy-to-let, this is a dangerous idea says Richard Dyson

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/11697865/The-single-reason-why-buy-to-let-investors-must-keep-their-5bn-a-year-tax-break.html

[Neverwhere]

Meanwhile in the Telegraph...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/11778574/Why-the-new-tax-on-buy-to-let-is-deeply-unfair.html

There should be some kind of rule where they have to clearly flag flagrant lobbying from vested interest groups:

Mark Alexander 30/07/2015 at 15:25

emailed our contacts at The Telegraph.

[Venger]

Customers may want BTL for now.. there are two sides of the lending equation, and many would-be BTLers are still ignorant to tax-relief changes, and other tightening such as licensing... not to mention not put off by bubble prices because they've only known hpi.

There are two sides to the lending equation. If I were a banker I'd want to offer solvent borrowers huge-debt too, if it placed the bank in a good position going forwards, with excellent security to call on.

[Venger]

Why the new tax on buy-to-let is deeply unfair

By Richard Dyson, Personal Finance Editor

I knew he was going to follow up his pre-Budget article, when he was off-on-one about possible changes to relief.

Unfair? Unfair has nothing to do with it.

BTW - that's with my Clint Eastwood voice from Unforgiven. (Deserves got nothing to do with it.) - Bang.

[FreeTrader]

Come on FreeTrader... is this thread the appropriate one for soft-hearty journies with deep BTL sympathies, or basic assumptions?

I'm sure you were joking with that comment, Venger.

I'll add though that I'm not happy with the way this site has been leaning recently. The McCarthyesque tactic of labelling anyone who happens to voice an opinion against certain high profile posters a troll is a bad development in my view.

HPC was never about cliques who corner the forum and shout down those that don't take the 'correct' view. Whilst we obviously take a particular stance on house prices (or we wouldn't be here) I'd like to think that we present the facts, the arguments for and against, the reaction and propaganda from interested parties, and monitor trends.

Furthermore, in my view we should welcome members who express contrary arguments providing that they don't disrupt the site. The moderators on HPC are up there with the best I've ever come across and we should trust THEM to judge when individuals have ulterior motives.

How many people have been dissuaded from voicing an opinion recently due to fear of being attacked for being off-message? I want to read the views of those people. I want to be able to combat their arguments, and if I can't then I will change my opinion as has happened in the past when I have been persuaded that I am wrong.

I don't like self-appointed policemen dictating who gets to post messages and hounding others off the site.

[South Lorne]

I'm sure you were joking with that comment, Venger.

I'll add though that I'm not happy with the way this site has been leaning recently. The McCarthyesque tactic of labelling anyone who happens to voice an opinion against certain high profile posters a troll is a bad development in my view.

HPC was never about cliques who corner the forum and shout down those that don't take the 'correct' view. Whilst we obviously take a particular stance on house prices (or we wouldn't be here) I'd like to think that we present the facts, the arguments for and against, the reaction and propaganda from interested parties, and monitor trends.

Furthermore, in my view we should welcome members who express contrary arguments providing that they don't disrupt the site. The moderators on HPC are up there with the best I've ever come across and we should trust THEM to judge when individuals have ulterior motives.

How many people have been dissuaded from voicing an opinion recently due to fear of being attacked for being off-message? I want to read the views of those people. I want to be able to combat their arguments, and if I can't then I will change my opinion as has happened in the past when I have been persuaded that I am wrong.

I don't like self-appointed policemen dictating who gets to post messages and hounding others off the site.

...valid points ...this is a place for debate ...

[Exiled Canadian]

Meanwhile in the Telegraph...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/11778574/Why-the-new-tax-on-buy-to-let-is-deeply-unfair.html

I don't think the journalist makes his case.

The writer acknowledges that BTL landlords have been given a significant grace period to prepare for the new tax rules, or exit the market. Hence the only possible charge that in my mind might stick, that "the rules have been changed overnight" does not apply.

There also seem to be a couple of unacknowledged assumptions in the article that are worthy of being challenged:

1. To suggest that the changes are "deeply unfair" implies that the current status quo is "fair" or at least more "fair" than the new regime. He certainly hasn't made an explicit case for that as far as I can see.

2. The implication in his article seems to be that the Government will have failed if BTL landlords find themselves in financial difficulty. I'm not convinced this is right - if BTL landlords want to operate as a "business" then they have to face the risk of failure just like every private enterprise. He does not make the case that the government is responsible for ensuring the success of a particular class of businessperson/investor.

[Bland Unsight]

When I'm not writing strongly worded emails to George Osborne I like to read intellectual websites like BlindGossip .

Your intrinsic and defining involvement in the hive mind smoking a certain misogynistic interest-only ersatz mortgage financed interest only property investor, titularly surprised by his lactation, also deserves to be mentioned in despatches.

I hope your strongly worded letters to Osborne were apropos of HTB, strongly negative, and apropos of the Summer Budget akin to mine which was, and I am paraphrasing here, "Dear George, , Blandy XXX"

(Been posting long enough to know that the forum software is not cool with excessive emoticon use, hence I stop there.)

BTW - Milkshock, if you're still reading, "You're not singing any more", . Political risk. We've been talking about it here since I started lurking, in 2011.

[Venger]

I'm sure you were joking with that comment, Venger.

It's a weak piece from the journalist, imo - following on from his pre-Budget piece. It's fine to go on this thread, of course. It's on topic. Was not suggesting anything about where or where you can't post.

Point I was making is it could just as well go on something like the Housing Market Propaganda thread as well.

It's a poor article in my opinion.

In my early 40s, having experienced bubble 1.0, then QE/0.5% and reflated bubble... I've just about had it with articles, with house prices as they are, which play it up to "Landlord Victims". Amateur landlords, etc. He might as well go sign 118's petition. Many of his other points are very questionable too. We've already covered this time after time. E.C makes the case again.

Meanwhile in the Telegraph...

Why the new tax on buy-to-let is deeply unfair

The danger now is that this new tax burden will land in a few years’ time when the market, having cooled, is already claiming victims among amateur landlords who cannot cover increased mortgage payments.

Ahead of the Summer Budget many commentators had called for a reduction in landlords’ tax perks, playing to a simplistic idea that buy-to-let is somehow to blame for Britain’s housing crisis. The Chancellor’s decision to increase landlord taxation was therefore an easy, even popular one. It needs to be rethought.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/11778574/Why-the-new-tax-on-buy-to-let-is-deeply-unfair.html

Yes the Mods do excellent work.

It's fine to express intelligent contrary arguments. The last two posters davidg, who was knocking Miles in the comments on Moneyweek. It was fine for a hpcer to ask why he held that view, and motivations for posting it on the hpc thread. Turns out davidg appears to be a landlord.

And Confusion. He had a run of posts on other threads, going back to his first house bought in 1982, and the £800,000 house he just bought. Was fine to bring those facts to the attention of the forum, and then for others to seek he expanded upon his reasoning, including why he held the view that HPC bad for Osborne/voters of Conservatives - and well, you can read his explanation.

First couple of comments were ok but he soon became a frothing at the mouth loon like his nemisis Pierre.

I am not sure the changes will have as much impact as most people on here think, as they will only impact a small minority of BTL investors. I don't have the numbers but suspect that most BTLers fall into two groups

- basic rate taxpayers: if you or your husband/wife is a basic rate taxpayer (and the higher rate threshold will be £50k by the time the changes have been fully implemented) you won't be affected

- cannot sell as no money to pay CGT: profits long since MEWed away and no provision made for paying CGT ( the two BTLers I know both fall into this category and plan to keep them until the die)

I also think Osborne is trying to limit the growth of BTL rather than reduce it, as I don't think setting off a HPC would do his leadership ambitions any good at all.

Perhaps some of us do react on occasion, to the same old hackneyed statements about NO HPC, bluntly. I snapped a bit at Confusion.. it does get testing when oldies tell you they bought in 1982, just bought again for £800,000 - and that you have a renting future with No HPC. You can combat these positions all you like. In the end it will have to be proven by the markets. So far it has gone the way of thinkers such as Confusion.

In truth almost no one sees those massive returns, you invest your profits in the next house ....repeat until you die.

I am not sure there ever will be HPC at least not anywhere people actually want to live. The future I see is you rent (or spend everthing you have to buy a hovel) until your parents die then you invest their "massive return" in your own house.

Of course if your parents don't have anything to leave you, live to be a 100 or end up frittering all the money away on care home fees - that's just tough.

[Bland Unsight]

What's interesting about that article is the framing.

BTL is now 'controversial' and the RBS guy is defending the bank's lending position. I don't recall the Mail taking that position before the budget.

I noted all that, but had to go out to have delicious beer, and lots of it.

I have some thoughts here.

RBS is still a state backed dead man walking really, and this herbert is trying to brief against the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England. Did he miss a f**king memo? I understand that if he is trying to protect against reputational risk in relation to the people he lent to six months ago he might want to make it clear that he was made to stop by first saying that he didn't want to stop but it seems like really shit darts to me. There are three books which are pertinent here, the Darling autobiography, Back from the brink, Martin's Making it happen and Perman's Hubris, (in addition there is all the scholarship of the crisis in the US in 2008). In every case a simple observation obtains, the board are ignorant w@nkers chasing numbers they don't understand, numbers driven my structures that the board does not understand).

Hence from a functional perspective this RBS clown is a man paid a great deal of money to talk shit about a big machine that he doesn't understand. For a little while now, essentially post MMR, given that the banks have bet the full extent of their inadequate capital bases on shit houses at ridiculous prices, they have been chasing anything with a pulse that shares the same stupid incentives. Hence buy-to-let investment off the charts.

F**k it. I'm done here.

Osborne is taking it down. If this RBS cretin had the good sense to keep his mouth shut he might have found himself with a seat in the House of Lords at some point in the future. I guess that ship sailed...

[Guest_northshore_*]

...I don't like self-appointed policemen dictating who gets to post messages and hounding others off the site.

Agreed Freetrader, and I'm not sure everyone's really aware of the impact of such cliques on discussion and poster vetting (in my opinion; I respect the moderators' judgements and right to make them but don't always share their rationale as it relates to debate). An echo-chamber frankly makes for dull engagement even beyond any rights/wrongs and valid frustrations.

[Venger]

I don't think the journalist makes his case.

The writer acknowledges that BTL landlords have been given a significant grace period to prepare for the new tax rules, or exit the market. Hence the only possible charge that in my mind might stick, that "the rules have been changed overnight" does not apply.

There also seem to be a couple of unacknowledged assumptions in the article that are worthy of being challenged:

1. To suggest that the changes are "deeply unfair" implies that the current status quo is "fair" or at least more "fair" than the new regime. He certainly hasn't made an explicit case for that as far as I can see.

2. The implication in his article seems to be that the Government will have failed if BTL landlords find themselves in financial difficulty. I'm not convinced this is right - if BTL landlords want to operate as a "business" then they have to face the risk of failure just like every private enterprise. He does not make the case that the government is responsible for ensuring the success of a particular class of businessperson/investor.

Excellent. And let's review the position of one Landlord group.

Our advice to all of our members is to ensure you have sufficient liquidity to endure periods of difficulty, that you should only leverage if your liquidity position allows it (and you should work on the basis that the long term base rate is 5%, so anything below that is a short term bonus) and your business model should be flexible enough to be able to accommodate changes in the regulatory and taxation situation pertaining to landlords.

http://www.pdpla.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=146:property-118-petition-against-the-budget-changes&Itemid=285

And BTL as investments. Prices can go up and down. What's the shocker? I'm positioned for HPC. Not for bailout of over-extended landlords and amateur landlords. I want lower house prices for family and friends, to finally buy homes of our own.

Why the new tax on buy-to-let is deeply unfair

The danger now is that this new tax burden will land in a few years’ time when the market, having cooled, is already claiming victims among amateur landlords who cannot cover increased mortgage payments.

Ahead of the Summer Budget many commentators had called for a reduction in landlords’ tax perks, playing to a simplistic idea that buy-to-let is somehow to blame for Britain’s housing crisis. The Chancellor’s decision to increase landlord taxation was therefore an easy, even popular one. It needs to be rethought.

I'm maintaining a strong hpc position (not a clique.. wanting HPC is fine enough on a forum called housepricecrash, so there are likely to be others who want that outcome). It's not an echo-chamber northshore. The system is also a market northshore, and a market in which I'm positioned for hpc (with house prices extremely high in my area) - with contempt for weak 'landlord victim' newspaper articles.

Well we're as biased as they are (hopefully for better reason) but information is what is it. They should use it.

I've been a landlord in the past because I'm more honourable in theory than in practice, and I'm not anti every individual but anti the system. People do what they think is best for themselves, which is ok until skew makes it ruinously zero sum. I'm now fairly clueless as to the Government's real housing agenda, but today is the best we have to go on. Uncertainty and progress are what opportunity is meant to be about.

[Bland Unsight]

I don't like self-appointed policemen dictating who gets to post messages and hounding others off the site.

From my perspective, it would be essentially the definition of insane to get into it with you FreeTrader, based on the extent of my regard.

That said, I think there is a temperate discussion to be had, in the open, between friends, on this matter.

I feel very strongly that we need to argue forcefully and without kid gloves against idiocy and ignorance. There is some irony here. I mock myself for being a Witchfinder, but it is knowing mockery. People tip up here and spout ignorant prejudice, and when you ask them to explain it, not defend it, explain it, then it is soon open season from them for ad hominem attacks and plain as the nose on your face bile. I've not been here long enough to know if you've ever played this particular hand - I've never seen you do it.

As I've stated plainly before, for me, this is the place where destructive idiocy "you can't go wrong with bricks and mortar", "it's always the right time to buy" is called out as nonsense. I am just past forty, the generation coming up behind me are getting crucified by this nonsense and out in the world nobody is calling it nonsense. On these boards, I get to call it nonsense and fight like an animal, armed with evidence and reason, to demonstrate it is nonsense.

I respect your role on the boards - but who would you be talking to if nobody was ensuring that there was a big enough dog in the yard to ensure that the tenor of the conversation was predicated on evidence and reason?

Essentially, we disagree.

Firstly, to my mind, if it is worth posting about, it is worth arguing about, and if it is worth arguing about, then people who post ought to have argument to support their posting. If they don't and they find me wanting to tip into them, why did they post? I read the boards for a solid year before I posted, out of respect for the people who were already posting.

Secondly, cliques is pejorative. What about friendship? What about shared perspectives? Common values? Common purpose? Am I to maintain an existence in splendid isolation, the poster as atom, when working the hard yards in the trenches speaks to a different perspective. Is it a conversation or is it a box collecting submissions?

Thirdly, you make two errors. Firstly, no Witchfinder can stop people posting. Only the Moderators can do that. Secondly, nobody can be chased off the boards. People may find the locals unbearable, but there must always be locals. Do we propose a social space where all voices are honoured equally, in defiance of their mastery of reason and evidence?

You are a scholar of the data. Are you willing to entertain the possibility that others are scholars of the social aspects of the boards?

In my opinion, these boards are a battleground, and there will be fighting. You can elect to remain aloof. As nobody can chase you off and you are unlikely to be banned, that is your prerogative. But for those of us deprived of homes by the voice of reason tw@ts expecting us to rent from them forever, this is the f**king front line, and I fight, and I give it my best shot.

Edited August 2, 2015 by bland unsight

[Bland Unsight]

Agreed Freetrader, and I'm not sure everyone's really aware of the impact of such cliques on discussion and poster vetting (in my opinion; I respect the moderators' judgements and right to make them but don't always share their rationale as it relates to debate). An echo-chamber frankly makes for dull engagement even beyond any rights/wrongs and valid frustrations.

Yes, but when I was a jejune poster and I asked you a question about being "made whole" you ignored it. What could more properly constitute dull engagement than no engagement? (Coincidentally, shortly afterwards you absented yourself from the board altogether for a stretch and deleted your account, so you know - you're smart and decent, but you've not picked the best house to throw stones from...)

I'm going to call this, because I am drunk. The pair of you, FreeTrader and northshore, are jumpy like a pair of maiden aunts around a handsome young curate, because you know that the most amazing crash is right around the corner and after a decade and change of being wrong about the only game in town you can't deal with the fact that you are about to be finally proved right, and that it was political risk wot won it.

Neither of you bitched when I tipped into Milkshock with his "stupid cow" shout at Fru-gal, and neither did you show up. You didn't step up when sleeps was suggesting that the pupils I teach might engender no pleasure from looking up my skirt because I was "geeky". These cretins don't have opinions, they have prejudices.

The only reason you see cliques is because the number of skirmishes has gone to zero. They've all gone home. It's over. housepricecrash.

Cheer the f**k up. It's on.

[Venger]

As for 'what HPC has never been' - well prices are 20%-35% up on 2007 prices in my area (in the £200K-£500K house range).

So another thing that has never been is any HPC in any of the areas I would like to buy in.... prices rising strongly since 2001, and gazumped in 2002/03.

I will admit something. I joined 118 forum some months ago, to see if membership would unlock other forums for reading- (West Brom).

I made one post about risk on that first day (something and nothing - think it was in reply to something thinking about CTL for the first time, and I said it was their own risk).

I made my second post yesterday evening, and it was removed very quickly, and it appear my 118 account no longer has posting-priviledges.

Hmm; do you see anything wrong with this posting? It was in reply to Ros.

Ros . says: Read about me on my member profile
01/08/2015 at 18:10

Reply to the comment left by “Martin Silman” at “01/08/2015 – 17:45“:

If my houses in the South Wales valleys are repossessed, do you honestly think the banks will becoming letting agents? If they evict the tenants, where are the buyers going to come from? There is not a big pool of potential first time buyers on standby with deposits and good enough jobs to satisfy the mortgage companies. I think houses like that will be empty for a long time and fall into disuse. They are not easy to sell, especially in some less than salubrious areas.

http://www.property118.com/budget-2015-landlords-reactions/76164/comment-page-186/#comment-60715

Me (as M.Ward) - my post removed very quickly by someone on the 118 side. (Just to be clear - I have zero interest in property investment.. I was outlining principles in general).

Ros, in answer to your question, In a capitalist market when values can change, fall as well as rise, another investor can buy such HMOs at lower prices from distressed landlords. They can do the job you are doing. Also they will have money to maintain building, and make repairs. Whereas too many other overindebted landlords with have been removed from the market, with crippling tax liabilities and/or CGT bills. In a market there are winners and losers. Other investors, sitting on big cash piles, are waiting for opportunity to take positions of distressed landlords.

I venture over there and post something reasonable.. and get suspended.

Yet some can tilt up on HPC, with 'No HPC - Get used to renting forever' (hahaha) - ignorant prejudice. I think it's occasionally fair to reply in kind. What discussion is to be had there? Or a HPCer knocking someone HPC minded on Moneyweek comments.. and then we find out he's a landlord.

If they put forward points worthy of discussion, that is very different.

And now we have the beginnings of articles from MSM - very much sympathetic to a special interest group (BTL/landlords) in my opinion. 'Danger' 'Victims'.

'Why the new tax on buy-to-let is deeply unfair' - The danger now is that this new tax burden will land in a few years’ time when the market, having cooled, is already claiming victims among amateur landlords who cannot cover increased mortgage payments.

It's a market. Maybe the journalists should donate directly to CTL upsizer landlords, 118 landlords, and everyone else in the market. Portsmouth statement showed some landlords have positioned for possible regulatory change/tax change. No one has dragged anyone into BTL/buying.

Bland Unsight and I had some heated differences of opinion in the past. On one occasion I had reacted unfairly to him, and I had to apologise, and admit my failings to him, via PM, which he accepted. I put it down to the stresses of the market.. just forever HPI with no hope, and big smilers on the owner/BTL side... 8YI will tell you how many houses in regional forum we've looked at on RM which have gone on to sell to BTLers (£250K-£500K houses), and appear on the rental market soon after, since 2011.

It's 2015. I can't do anything about that journo's BTL/Landlord victims. I have to consider my family's own position, which is needing lower house prices. It's not victim free on the renter side either!

I respect you fully FreeTrader. However my viewpoint is very much with Bland Unsight. I should add that I recognise Bland Unsight as a poster of very high intelligence + many other HPCers too of course, including yourself !

Not a clique though. I gain from much of this forums (HPC) shared insight and knowledge. Although I am positioned for HPC, so 'victims' (MSM Telegraph article) - well I have the stomach for HPC.

Essentially, we disagree.

Firstly, to my mind, if it is worth posting about, it is worth arguing about, and if it is worth arguing about, then people who post ought to have argument to support their posting. If they don't and they find me wanting to tip into them, why did they post? I read the boards for a solid year before I posted, out of respect for the people who were already posting.

Secondly, cliques is pejorative. What about friendship? What about shared perspectives? Common values? Common purpose? Am I to maintain an existence in splendid isolation, the poster as atom, when working the hard yards in the trenches speaks to a different perspective. Is it a conversation or is it a box collecting submissions?

Thirdly, you make two errors. Firstly, no Witchfinder can stop people posting. Only the Moderators can do that. Secondly, nobody can be chased off the boards. People may find the locals unbearable, but there must always be locals. Do we propose a social space where all voices are honoured equally, in defiance of their mastery of reason and evidence?

You are a scholar of the data. Are you willing to entertain the possibility that others are scholars of the social aspects of the boards?

In my opinion, these boards are a battleground, and there will be fighting. You can elect to remain aloof. As nobody can chase you off and you are unlikely to be banned, that is your prerogative. But for those of us deprived of homes by the voice of reason tw@ts expecting us to rent from them forever, this is the f**king front line, and I fight, and I give it my best shot.

Edited August 2, 2015 by Venger

[FreeTrader]

From my perspective, it would be essentially the definition of insane to get into it with you FreeTrader, based on the extent of my regard.

That said, I think there is a temperate discussion to be had, in the open, between friends, on this matter.

I feel very strongly that we need to argue forcefully and without kid gloves against idiocy and ignorance. There is some irony here. I mock myself for being a Witchfinder, but it is knowing mockery. People tip up here and spout ignorant prejudice, and when you ask them to explain it, not defend it, explain it, then it is soon open season from them for ad hominem attacks and plain as the nose on your face bile. I've not been here long enough to know if you've ever played this particular hand - I've never seen you do it.

As I've stated plainly before, for me, this is the place where destructive idiocy "you can't go wrong with bricks and mortar", "it's always the right time to buy" is called out as nonsense. I am just past forty, the generation coming up behind me are getting crucified by this nonsense and out in the world nobody is calling it nonsense. On these boards, I get to call it nonsense and fight like an animal, armed with evidence and reason, to demonstrate it is nonsense.

I respect your role on the boards - but who would you be talking to if nobody was ensuring that there was a big enough dog in the yard to ensure that the tenor of the conversation was predicated on evidence and reason?

Essentially, we disagree.

Firstly, to my mind, if it is worth posting about, it is worth arguing about, and if it is worth arguing about, then people who post ought to have argument to support their posting. If they don't and they find me wanting to tip into them, why did they post? I read the boards for a solid year before I posted, out of respect for the people who were already posting.

Secondly, cliques is pejorative. What about friendship? What about shared perspectives? Common values? Common purpose? Am I to maintain an existence in splendid isolation, the poster as atom, when working the hard yards in the trenches speaks to a different perspective. Is it a conversation or is it a box collecting submissions?

Thirdly, you make two errors. Firstly, no Witchfinder can stop people posting. Only the Moderators can do that. Secondly, nobody can be chased off the boards. People may find the locals unbearable, but there must always be locals. Do we propose a social space where all voices are honoured equally, in defiance of their mastery of reason and evidence?

You are a scholar of the data. Are you willing to entertain the possibility that others are scholars of the social aspects of the boards?

In my opinion, these boards are a battleground, and there will be fighting. You can elect to remain aloof. As nobody can chase you off and you are unlikely to be banned, that is your prerogative. But for those of us deprived of homes by the voice of reason tw@ts expecting us to rent from them forever, this is the f**king front line, and I fight, and I give it my best shot.

As you know, my respect for you is very much reciprocated as I have indicated in PMs we have exchanged.

However a couple of days ago bearishonhouses, who joined this site in 2008, said:

"You know, just because someone (Confusion of VIs) posts something other than 'HPC is happening next week' does not make them a troll or BTL'er. The attitude of overly-aggressively jumping on other commenters is what has already changed what were once valuable internet forums to desolate waste grounds. (e.g. many on Redditt - especially re SERIAL, Yahoo in general). I find much discussion on this site civili and informed, but the comments which appear to be driven by resentment, jealousy, anger offer very little to the community."

Your response, made 13 minutes after this post was:

"You go straight to the top of my troll list, (it is in alphabetical order).

Please do not feed the trolls."

I can only assume that you have some specific insight into bearishonhouses which prompted you to make your response so quickly. To me it seemed a perfectly reasonable comment to make that didn't imply any particular vested interest. And even if bearishonhouses has a vested interest, I actually support the sentiment.

Please explain your reasoning for making that particular remark to the poster. Many would see it as bullying, and you can include me in that group.

[Venger]

As you know, my respect for you is very much reciprocated as I have indicated in PMs we have exchanged.

However a couple of days ago bearishonhouses, who joined this site in 2008, said:

2008... with 80 posts in total.

It is a bit unfair, in my opinion, to describe BU's response as bullying - harsh.

I had issues with bearishonhouses for giving Confusion of VI's the big 'original thinker' label, who should be engaged with - although I knew it was coming!

The very reasonable view of; this is a place for debate ...

Yet.. "all statements are valuable" - but do not look for flaws / test and probe....challenge even against pure VI statements?".

Look at the post again. Confusion of VIs was posting some personal-feelings why HPC will not occur and why tax relief changes will not make much difference going forwards. What we do know; he's just bought an £800,000 house. He bought his first in 1982. On that thread he outlined how HPC so very unlikely, with a strong VI perspective.

bearishonhouses (80 posts, since 2008.. suddenly active again) gives his speech about how internet forums have declined, including this one following on from Confusion of VIs. See the bolded part.

You know, just because someone (Confusion of VIs) posts something other than 'HPC is happening next week' does not make them a troll or BTL'er. The attitude of overly-aggressively jumping on other commenters is what has already changed what were once valuable internet forums to desolate waste grounds. (e.g. many on Redditt - especially re SERIAL, Yahoo in general).

I find much discussion on this site civili and informed, but the comments which appear to be driven by resentment, jealousy, anger offer very little to the community.

Who has resentment and jealousy? Not me. Why did he have to make that claim from nowhere?

FreeTrader, if you want to look for flaws, then read Bearishonhouses post again. The accusation in there.

Some of us have anger, yes - against some ludicrous chancers in the market, those who outbid me, victim excuse stories (Telegraph.)

Yet... 'comments which appear to be driven by resentment, jealousy' !!!!

That's quite an accusation and claim from Bearishonhouses, imo. Totally out of order. What's his evidence for that?

BU responded this way.

You go straight to the top of my troll list, (it is in alphabetical order).

Please do not feed the trolls.

I'm insulted by bearishonhouses claim our posts are driven by resentment and jealousy. Some might see that as a bullying claim/ accusation. Perhaps Bland Unsight felt the same ? BU is surely entitled to his own view, and his response is not nasty in anyway, except perhaps for very sensitive souls who maybe have slightly misread the context/situation?

The 118ers must be laughing on at this.

Rubbing their hands from when the Telegraph article here describing them as 'victims' / 'danger' / 'unfair'.

Edited August 2, 2015 by Venger

[Bland Unsight]

2008... with 80 posts in total.

It is a bit unfair, in my opinion, to describe BU's response as bullying - harsh.

Yes to every word of that, I couldn't have put it better myself.

One more thing. I think that if you read the stock of my posting FT, you'll see that I have some serious chops when it comes to arguing on the internet, (admittedly a claim akin to being the world's tallest dwarf). Believe me, if I ever decide to take up bullying, only the most diligent readers of the social aspects of the board will be able to work out what I am up to.

The following clip is made up of two entirely separate incidents that occur at completely different times. In the first Mal is talking to someone who comes with clean hands, what they are talking about is serious. In the second Mal is talking to a sophisticated psychopath who trades in deceit. You pull on all the threads, and sometimes you make a call. Sometimes I may get it wrong, but I don't pull the trigger lightly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHQGqxOyMFk

(There is sub-text in the second section of the clip, which revolves around the fact that though the range is close enough for a head-shot, he favours a shot to the chest.)

If this discussion needs to continue, we should continue it elsewhere, as it is off-topic here. I'm still cleaning my gun.

Edited August 2, 2015 by bland unsight

[Bland Unsight]

The 118ers must be laughing on at this.

Rubbing their hands from when the Telegraph article here describing them as 'victims' / 'danger' / 'unfair'.

Not likely. Given their predicament they'd need to be anaesthetised before they could be amused, and to be effective a general anaesthetic would be called for, somewhat defeating the purpose of readying them for hand-rubbing and glee.

Paraphrasing the wonderful David Chappelle, I may go too far sometimes, but the only way to find out where the line is, is to cross it.

[giesahoose]

One of the big arguments against this tax change is that it has dropped in and is catching people out.

When you realise that it's still several years from being brought in you can see that this isn't the case. If it happens to damage a bunch of folk several years down the line as they are basically trading insolvent from now until then, then so be it.