40% In London

Bantex_2

mayonnaise wrote: »

Had a quick look and it seems like the Australian system is more focused on residence than citizenship?
So we agree that the issue is absent investors and that whether they are foreigner or not is - although a huge issue for you - actually quite irrelevant?

I would suggest that an overseas person who takes up residency is no longer a foreigner. (Not to my way of thinking)

I also believe that someone that invests where they live is more likely to care about the area than someone 3000 miles away who will look no further than a financial return.

mayonnaise

Bantex wrote: »

I would suggest that an overseas person who takes up residency is no longer a foreigner. (Not to my way of thinking)

I also believe that someone that invests where they live is more likely to care about the area than someone 3000 miles away who will look no further than a financial return.

Yes ok, we already established the issue is absent investors and not so much the fact whether they are foreign or not.

Bantex_2

mayonnaise wrote: »

I'm sure Bantex knows all this as he stated it's getting out of hand.

Bantex, over to you.

Did you actually read the opening post?

mayonnaise

Bantex wrote: »

Did you actually read the opening post?

Sure.
But the opening post doesn't tell us anything about occupancy, does it?
Let's assume 40% was sold to overseas buyers and they would all be living in it, there wouldn't be a problem for you surely?
But still you stated something is 'getting out of hand.'

Seabee42

mayonnaise wrote: »

Which countries?

Denmark and Singapore are two I know of.

mayonnaise

Seabee42 wrote: »

Denmark and Singapore are two I know of.

Non natives are not barred from buying properties in those countries. Where did you get that from?

TickersPlaysPop

I have stopped threads in their track in the past, so I hope somebody will respond to this post?!

It is my view, that the residential housing market should not be as much of a free market as it is now, it needs more laws and rules to be introduced. In the future we will look back and accuse the historical governments of being negligent and morally wrong.

I'm one of the lucky ones and own a house that will hopefully see me and my young family through to my retirement. But, I am too aware of what is happening and feel a responsibility to bring about change to improve things for the residents of this country.

This smells to me like social control and keeping the poor in their place to support the current social economic system. We are heading into an unstable housing market, and if it proves to be stable.... even worse where residents will only be able to buy using very long term mortgages... even inter generational mortgages like Japan. As some have posted, this will end in civil unrest and I am surprised the younger generation have not already used social media to bring about a "western spring". Government claims it wants more participation of the young in the political process and more of them to vote.... the current housing mess will prove a big motivator going forward.

Who really benefits from HPI at the moment?
The banks, they own a lot of the housing stock in reality....
Investors, foreign or domestic....
Government from taxes...
Also... resident owners.... who really just want HPI inline with inflation plus a bit more to cover the upkeep costs ideally.

My view....
Residential Housing should not be a tradable investment commodity, it should be for residents only to buy. The rental market needs to exist, and should be part of long term investment portfolios of pension funds, not for one man band property investors, this should be brought into law and phased in over 5-10years.

This may seem a little black and white, which is not my style as I can see many shades of grey, but .... I think people should buy a house and live in it, or rent a house and that is it, simples.

Generali

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

It is my view, that the residential housing market should not be as much of a free market as it is now, it needs more laws and rules to be introduced. In the future we will look back and accuse the historical governments of being negligent and morally wrong.

Free markets have consistently been shown to be the best way of allocating scarce resources.

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

This smells to me like social control and keeping the poor in their place to support the current social economic system. We are heading into an unstable housing market, and if it proves to be stable.... even worse where residents will only be able to buy using very long term mortgages... even inter generational mortgages like Japan. As some have posted, this will end in civil unrest and I am surprised the younger generation have not already used social media to bring about a "western spring". Government claims it wants more participation of the young in the political process and more of them to vote.... the current housing mess will prove a big motivator going forward.

Who really benefits from HPI at the moment?
The banks, they own a lot of the housing stock in reality....
Investors, foreign or domestic....
Government from taxes...
Also... resident owners.... who really just want HPI inline with inflation plus a bit more to cover the upkeep costs ideally.

Who benefits from HPI? Mostly people who own more than one house and want to sell one. In the same way, people that plan to sell shares benefit from rising share prices.

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

My view....
Residential Housing should not be a tradable investment commodity, it should be for residents only to buy. The rental market needs to exist, and should be part of long term investment portfolios of pension funds, not for one man band property investors, this should be brought into law and phased in over 5-10years.

This may seem a little black and white, which is not my style as I can see many shades of grey, but .... I think people should buy a house and live in it, or rent a house and that is it, simples.

I don't see why this would solve any problems and it would create a whole host more.

Fundamentally, who the [STRIKE]fu[/STRIKE] heck are you to tell me what to do with my property? The biggest problem the UK faces today is far too much Government. Having the Government decide who I can and can't sell my property to is going down the road to the Gulag.

Anyway, how do you think big companies get going? Generally they start as one man bands and grow from there. For all the insults chucked their way, many deserved from what I can see, the Wilsons are effectively a successful property company built up from a couple owning a single house.

TickersPlaysPop

Hi Generali

Maximum respect to you, I can see you post a lot on this forum. I'm here to debate ideas, and I'm sorry if I upset you.

Re free markets and allocation of scare resources.... I agree with you, only for relatively lower cost consumable resources.... have you got an example of a successful resource allocation that has similar attributes to housing in terms of how much they cost etc. .... I think housing is pretty unique resource in terms of cost, how the resource fits into our lives etc...?

Your comment about who benefits from HPI restates what I already wrote? Please read my post again.

You think my proposal would create a host more problems, please can you mention 2 or 3?

I agree with you that the government regulates too much, but on this topic of such a socially devisive resource/commodity/investment or what ever we want to call it, i think we owe it to our children and fellow citizens to prevent unnecessary profiteering at the expense of the average to less average person. We cannot allow housing to inflate to truly crazy levels.

When I started working at my current company I was a one man band plus 1, and my efforts have lead to a successful company of 14 people 5 yrs on. So I understand how investment and pure creativity can create jobs and create wealth. I have nothing against one man bands. I do have a problem with relatively small section of our society plus non resident people and maybe companies profiteering out of a scarce resource and suppressing a large section of our society. This act of housing profiteering is not creative, doesn't take much skill or effort and doesn't create sustainable jobs?

Like I said, for a resource so socially devisive, yes I believe it is moral and justified and responsible to construct a set of simple laws to make it illegal to own and profit from owning multiple dwellings We have many other laws for socially devisive aspects of our lives.... And the way things are going with housing, in my mind, is almost criminal and far from morally correct.

I seriously think you need to face up to the realities of your point of view, maybe you are making money out of this situation more than the average person? Do you have multiple properties? There is nothing wrong with this, because it is allowed by the current system. But, going forward, any new purchases could abide by the new laws.... So I am not proposing to make a criminal out of the lucky few that own many dwellings!

The money currently put into housing profiteering would more likely then move toward more constructive and sustainable projects and activities and investments that would strengthen our economy making it more robust?

TickersPlaysPop

Some ideas don't fit into sound bites

I'm wondering if forum posting has an unspoken maximum number of words in these Twitter times?....

Attention spans and spare time in people lives doesn't leave room to communicate more complex ideas.... maybe that is why we end up in these situations?!

Peace