Why are we building flats for foreigners?

chucky

ILW wrote: »

Think that be be the point. This type of investment is not available to the vast majority. But the vast majority end up paying increased rents.

If only everyone could afford everything they wanted, things would be great then wouldn't they. There would be no inflation... No wait.

For someone who complains about inflation you really have double standards.

System

Don't worry about it. Ed Milliband will be on the case soon, and will announce a price freeze on all housing.
Then the housing crisis will be solved.

CLAPTON

These sites that are being developed by foreigners... were there lots of UK companies wanting to build there?

One would think that building more properties in the London area was basically a good thing as they add to the overall housing stock and will overall tend to stabilise prices.

Better that some properties are built rather than none?

wotsthat

ILW wrote: »

Think that be be the point. This type of investment is not available to the vast majority. But the vast majority end up paying increased rents.

Won't increased accommodation for rental introduce more competition?

Google have just got permission for a £650m office building in Kings Cross. Skype, Amazon and Oracle are all apparently looking for new office space in London. Bloody foreigners!

2000 new homes are about to be released for sale in Kings Cross if anyone thinks they've out on the Olympic Park flats and are looking for a 'quick buck'.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I fear you have missed the point...

There is a housing crisis already in this country. Selling the houses that are built "in a big way" like you suggested is only going to make the crisis worse and therefore increase the price of existing proprties even further.

That in turn increases the housing benefit bill as more and more people require it.

Once a builder has built a load of properties, he must sell them. If to owner occupiers, then HB is not involved. If to a landlord, then I don't care much where the landlord lives. Asians are buying up this country left right & centre, and who are we to deny the Malaysians a slice of the action. Just their way of getting payback for all the plundering when a British colony.

What rule is it that pays more HB to people with a Malaysian landlord, rather than with a 'British' landlord [probably with an Indian passport]?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Proof? It's happening right now and has been for a while. The amount of people on housing benefit has near doubled since 2009 alone.

Since 2003, the amount actually spent on housing benefit has more than doubled.

This is a national crisis, and HB should have been frozen the day after the 2010 election.

Rules are far too soft. You can build more social housing until the cows come home, and never satisfy the 'demand'. It's a sort of 'parkinsons law'. Housing Benefit claimants expand to meet the number of houses available. It's a disease!

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The more that's built and sold off to foreigners, the higher the benefit claimant number will be and higher the bill will be. It's certainly not a land to riches as you make out. It's just a race to the bottom.

I've already said that the nationality of the landlord is of no consequence whatsoever. If you assume the Malaysians are now flooding the country to live in the house, then provided they meet immigration rules, isn't that a bit racist? Foreigners who can immigrate here and buy their own house are surely economically better than 'benefit tourists'?

What we have here is a marvellous export initiative that will bring much needed wealth into the UK, and all you can do is fallaciously invent reasons why this is hitting the poor.

Graham_Devon

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Once a builder has built a load of properties, he must sell them. If to owner occupiers, then HB is not involved. If to a landlord, then I don't care much where the landlord lives. Asians are buying up this country left right & centre, and who are we to deny the Malaysians a slice of the action. Just their way of getting payback for all the plundering when a British colony.

What rule is it that pays more HB to people with a Malaysian landlord, rather than with a 'British' landlord [probably with an Indian passport]?



This is a national crisis, and HB should have been frozen the day after the 2010 election.

Rules are far too soft. You can build more social housing until the cows come home, and never satisfy the 'demand'. It's a sort of 'parkinsons law'. Housing Benefit claimants expand to meet the number of houses available. It's a disease!



I've already said that the nationality of the landlord is of no consequence whatsoever. If you assume the Malaysians are now flooding the country to live in the house, then provided they meet immigration rules, isn't that a bit racist? Foreigners who can immigrate here and buy their own house are surely economically better than 'benefit tourists'?

What we have here is a marvellous export initiative that will bring much needed wealth into the UK, and all you can do is fallaciously invent reasons why this is hitting the poor.

Yes - you completely missed the point.

There was absolutely nothing racist in my posts. Though it's rather unsurprising that we are back to the racist slurs almost immediately. Indeed, the only person to mention nationalities is yourself.

I was simply making the point that if we sell what we do build to other countries, as was your suggestion, then we are left with a bigger crisis for our population and therefore increased costs and increased housing benefit payments.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes - you completely missed the point.

There was absolutely nothing racist in my posts. I was simply making the point that if we sell what we do build to other countries, as was yur suggestion, then we are left with a bigger crisis for our population and therefore increased costs and increased housing benefit payments.

You do realise that although it's called an export business the houses won't be sent to Malaysia?

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

You do realise that although it's called an export business the houses won't be sent to Malaysia?

Hmm, seems were back to the usual dumbing down and point scoring tactics with an accusation of racism thrown in for good measure.

What I stated about housing benefits is true. If you sell to foreigners because they are an easier sell due to having the funds (which is why they are doing this), then that leaves our own population with higher living costs and less supply.

Simple really and no need for all this nonsense to avoid the point.

ILW

Bit of a shame that the rental incomes will just go abroad.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What I stated about housing benefits is true. If you sell to foreigners because they are an easier sell due to having the funds (which is why they are doing this), then that leaves our own population with higher living costs and less supply.

Well we could try selling to people who don't have the funds to see how much new rental gets added to supply.

We need more homes and this has been married up to people willing to pay to build them. The assets are fixed (literally) so if it goes t**s up the loss can be exported and the housing remains. I really don't see housing benefits being of relevance - the investors are interested in the young, dynamic professionals that are drawn to London rather than benefit claimants.

Honestly, if you see this being a risk-free way to make a return you ought to get together a consortium to buy in and charge a lower rent. Buying a flat 6000 miles away as an investment looks to be quite risky to me.