C4 Dispatches - The British Property Boom

TickersPlaysPop

thequant wrote: »

Ignore the racists on this thread, it's common for a minority of people in this country to blame immigrants for stealing jobs and homes.

The vast majority of these racists have low IQ's, which is the primary reason for their failure in life to secure a decent paying job and a nice home.

The problem with thick people, is that they are to thick to realise they are just thick.

Apolgy to all those who read my post, about UK passport holders....

Yes I agree, anybody living in the UK should be allowed to buy the property they live in... I didn't make it clear what I had in mind.

TickersPlaysPop

Linton wrote: »

Indeed.

And its not just moral......

Assuming that the foreign owned homes are rented out, if foreign ownership was banned there would still be the same number of people chasing the same number of homes. So there would still be the same number of people who couldnt afford the home they wanted.

Actually things may be worse: it is reasonable to believe that reneted property has a higher population density than owner occupied. So allowing owner occupiers to buy the currently foreign owned rented property would reduce the number of available homes.

It is nothing to do with who owns the property that is let out.

The point is.... supply and demand as many on here repeatedly mention. If demand is reduced by preventing overseas investors buying properties to let out, there would be less competition between buyers when properties are put on the market. This puts less pressure on the market to increase.

Homes are NOT commodities, and should never be traded as such. Homes are such a huge part of people's lives they should not be open to a global commodity market.

PasturesNew

thequant wrote: »

The problem with thick people, is that they are to thick to realise they are just thick.

As demonstrated

CLAPTON

The Battersea power station development is being funded by Malaysian developers.
It has been essentially derelict for 30 years:


Presumably there are some here who would prefer it was left derelict rather than fall into foreign ownership.

CLAPTON

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

It is nothing to do with who owns the property that is let out.

The point is.... supply and demand as many on here repeatedly mention. If demand is reduced by preventing overseas investors buying properties to let out, there would be less competition between buyers when properties are put on the market. This puts less pressure on the market in increase.

Homes are NOT commodities, and should never be traded as such. Homes are such a huge part of people's lives they should not be open to a global commodity market.

You are correct, there will be less competition between buyers: however there will be more competition between people who need to rent
you seem to hold renters is total contempt and totally fail to understand supply and demand for housing includes both owner occupiers and people who rent

TickersPlaysPop

jjlandlord wrote: »

Shave your head and wear an orange bed-sheet NOW

True. Bankers should be kept safe while pensioners (present and future) should bear all the risks!

Indeed, and there is quite some human trafficking to satisfy the demand for genuine 'persons of the UK' worldwide.

Using local government pension pots on an institutional basis to invest in housing projects is an idea put forward by Shelter, it is not my idea. This doesn't affect pensioners, but the current government system of allowing pensioners to use their own pension money in lump sums to purchase buy to let properties is a terrible policy, and one that does in fact put them at risk and one that accelerates the current trend for more and more rental properties that is clearly socially corrosive.

It is my feeling that Bankers have been withholding money from property builds since 2008. Some believe it is soley due to local planning permission system, but I have my doubts. After the bankers abuse of the system of creating money from nothing to pump the housing market up, they could not jump into the same tricks again soon after 2008?

TickersPlaysPop

CLAPTON wrote: »

You are correct, there will be less competition between buyers: however there will be more competition between people who need to rent
you seem to hold renters is total contempt and totally fail to understand supply and demand for housing includes both owner occupiers and people who rent

You have taken my point out of context. I want to reduce the pressure for housing market price increase, hence the need for stopping non UK residents from purchasing homes in the UK.

Please don't try to turn the renters against me, and also do not accuse me of not understanding the supply and demand for housing without substainciating your negative comments. I have renters concerns in mind and want a better deal for the less fortunate, as demonstrated in many many posts on this forum, search my historical posts and see for yourself. Clapton, you know this as we have discussed many times over the past 6 months, maybe you have forgotten?

I would encourage you to explain your comment above.... why would preventing non UK residents from purchasing homes to let them out as an investment create more competition between renters?

TickersPlaysPop

CLAPTON wrote: »

The Battersea power station development is being funded by Malaysian developers.
It has been essentially derelict for 30 years:

Presumably there are some here who would prefer it was left derelict rather than fall into foreign ownership.

I love Battersea power station it is a awesome building. Also, I am very happy to see it renovated and put to use.

However, since finding out about how it has been financed have it has been sitting uncomfortably with me.

Why do you repeatedly use the strawman argument? I.e. You keep taking people's comments and push them to the extreme beyond the original posters point.

You say, derelict or foreign ownership.... Black or white.... Cold or hot... good or bad. That is too simplistic... There are shades of grey, temperate climates and moral middle ground.

Why do you ignore the possibility that a UK company could purchase and develop it? If non UK based investors were prevented for investing in the London market over the past 15 years, or whenever it was decided that there was a housing shortage, maybe a UK company could afford it now due to the fact it would be significantly lower now.

It is morally bankrupt to allow a scarce resource that has such a social effect to be profiteered upon. Allowing the subsequent house prices increases is socially corrosive and does nothing to help strengthen the economy and it doesn't create jobs.

CLAPTON

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

You have taken my point out of context. I want to reduce the pressure for housing market price increase, hence the need for stopping non UK residents from purchasing homes in the UK.

Please don't try to turn the renters against me, and also do not accuse me of not understanding the supply and demand for housing without substainciating your negative comments.

I would encourage you to explain your comment above.... why would preventing non UK residents from purchasing homes to let them out as an investment create more competition between renters?

The homes are occupied by either owner occupiers or by renters.


The demand for occupying the homes isn't affected by whether the rented house is owned by an Englishman or a foreigner.

If the system increases the proportion forceably allocated to OOs, that means less is available for renters. At best, this would be supply/demand neutral; in practice its likely that OO to have a lower occupancy than rentered and so would add more competition between renters.


As I've already posted, the funding for Battersea Power station development is being supplied by a foreigner company.
After 30 years of decay surely you welcome this increase in jobs and housing even if funded by the foreign devils.
Would it make any difference if it was funded by a pension fund?
Would it make any difference if funded by a foreign pension fund or a UK one?


More supply is the solution to lack of supply.
If you are hungry you need food and not platitudes about food for people and not for profit.

CLAPTON

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

I love Battersea power station it is a awesome building. Also, I am very happy to see it renovated and put to use.

However, since finding out about how that has been financed have been sitting uncomfortably.

Why do you repeatedly use the strawman argument? I.e. You keep taking people's comments and push them to the extreme beyond the original posters point.

You say, derelict or foreign ownership.... Black or white.... Cold or hot... good or bad. That is too simplistic... There are shades of grey, temperate climates and moral middle ground.

Why do you ignore the possibility that a UK company could purchase and develop it? If non UK based investors were prevented for investing in the London market over the past 15 years, or whenever it was decided that there was a housing shortage, maybe a UK company could afford it now due to the fact it would be significantly lower now.

UK companies have had 30 years to buy and develop it.
How much longer do you want to wait 100 years, 200 years?