buying your first house - impossible!

[JohnD]

Fair market price was not in the original deal.
Not relevant anyway.

You have a house which for ten or fifteen years you have kept empty and have not lived in. Neither has anyone else.

Why?

You are free to sell it tomorrow if you wish. No-one will stop you. What makes you think you will be prevented from selling it at a fair market price? What other price would you sell it at?

 

[Brigadier]

You want to sell it when you want. Not when you are told to.

 

[JohnD]

You've heard of Compulsory Purchase, haven't you?

If you had four options, and one of them could lead to a penalty, why would you choose that one?

Fair market price was not in the original deal.

Why are you falsely pretending that selling at a fair market price is not one of the options available to you?

 

[Brigadier]

Why are you persisting with being compelled to sell is something the "vendor" should have no issue with?

 

[JohnD]

I haven't said that.

I have however asked you why you have kept a house empty for ten or fifteen years (no reply)

and I have asked you why you have falsely pretended that selling it at a fair market price is not an option (no reply).

and I have asked why you would choose to have it confiscated rather than taking one of the other options (no reply)

 

[Notch7]

so you meant houses that had been deliberately left empty for years and years (but that's not what you said).

if you had a property that you had deliberately left vacant for, say, ten years, and the law changed to penalise such waste, would you (1) move into it (2) let it (3) sell it (4) deliberately ignore all warnings?

We dont live in a socialist state, so we are lucky to have free choice, that means we can own a house or other building and choose what we do with it. There isnt a need to make 1 of 4 choices.

Most sane people would be miffed to find out that a property they owned had been commandeered by Corbyn and the Communists.

 

[Brigadier]

I haven't said that.

I have however asked you why you have kept a house empty for ten or fifteen years (no reply)

and I have asked you why you have falsely pretended that selling it at a fair market price is not an option (no reply).

and I have asked why you would choose to have it confiscated rather than taking one of the other options (no reply)

Yes I did.
I told you that, if I've paid for it, I should have some choice in what I do with it.

No I didn't. I asked you why being compelled to sell something against your will, regardless of price, was not akin to confiscation. But you altered the question, introducing "fair price", to suit your narrative.


I made no comment, as it is not relevant.

Edited for clarity, as I was brewing up at the time!

 

[JohnD]

...I have asked why you would choose to have it confiscated rather than taking one of the other options (no reply)

this is highly relevant. Apart from pig-headed grumblers like yourself, it seems most unlikely that anyone will ever have anything confiscated, because it is so easy to take one of the other options.

The idea of confiscation serves only to attract the attention of people who have been hoarding a scarce resource for ten or fifteen years without ever using it, or allowing anyone else to use it. It's an alternative to a reformed taxation regime.

The reason you refuse to answer the question is because it exposes the weakness of your argument.

 

[Brigadier]

The reason you refuse to answer the question is because it exposes the weakness of your argument.

The reason you posed the question in the first place, was that the original didn't help your narrative.

But that's your standard m.o.

 

[JohnD]

Not true.

You falsely claimed that people would have their financial assets confiscated. It is clear that this will not actually happen unless the owners are pig-headed idiots who refuse to take one of preferable options.

 

[JohnD]

you can't answer these because it exposes the weakness of your argument.

You have a house which for ten or fifteen years you have kept empty and have not lived in. Neither has anyone else.

Why?

You are free to sell it tomorrow if you wish. No-one will stop you. What makes you think you will be prevented from selling it at a fair market price? What other price would you sell it at?

 

[Notch7]

owners are pig-headed idiots who refuse to take one of preferable options.

Why should the owner have to choose an option? : because thats what a pig headed socialist government wants

An empty property does not absolve the owner from responsibilty, the owner will need to pay council tax (gosh rich people paying tax surely not!)

 

[JohnD]

Why should the owner have to choose an option?

He doesn't have to.

 

[Notch7]

He doesn't have to.

According to your theoretical law change, he does have to:

BTW, if you had a property that you had deliberately left vacant for, say, ten years, and the law changed to penalise such waste, would you (1) move into it (2) let it (3) sell it (4) deliberately ignore all warnings?

At the moment a house owner can leave property empty and pay his council tax. He doesnt have to choose an option.

 

[Brigadier]

Not true.

You falsely claimed that people would have their financial assets confiscated. It is clear that this will not actually happen unless the owners are pig-headed idiots who refuse to take one of preferable options.

No I didn't, but another of your standard operating procedures is to falsely attribute statements, which you can then debunk.

If you care to read back, I asked you to justify why having your property bought from you against your will (for whatever amount)wasn't akin to confiscation.
You just ducked out, and started another approach.