Landlords to blame for Britain's rising house prices

jjlandlord

Cyberman60 wrote: »

No, it's commonsense as I've never had to consult statistics, and stats are after the event.

Oh we had understood that you were not bothered with facts!

tkane

Cyberman60 wrote: »

I'm sure there will be a massive positive effect on the economy by letting the rough sleepers and the big issue sellers from Bulgaria and Romania return to their countries.

What percentage of EU migrants from 2004 onwards have gone on to sleep rough on the streets of the UK or become big issue sellers?

Scrap that, what percentage of migration in the UK's history has come from Bulgaria or Romania?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Cyberman60 wrote: »

commonsense

Common sense is rarely either.

Here's the facts....

· EU Immigrants who arrived since 2000 were 43% less likely than natives to receive state benefits or tax credits. They were also 7% less likely to live in social housing.

· European immigrants who arrived since 2000 are on average better educated than natives (in 2011, 25% of immigrants from A10 countries and 62% of those from EU-15 countries had a university degree, while the comparable share is 24% among UK natives) and have higher employment rates.

EU migration has been enormously positive for the UK, and given our ageing population and decades of birth rate below replacement level, they are badly needed.

Cyberman60

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Meanwhile, back in reality.....


http://www.res.org.uk/details/mediabrief/6909811/POSITIVE-ECONOMIC-IMPACT-OF-UK-IMMIGRATION-FROM-THE-EUROPEAN-UNION-New-evidence.html

Haha,,, so you believe all the propaganda you read.
:rotfl:

Most immigrants are low paid, many will work for cash and evade tax, most will be on WTCs. No way are they a net benefit when you also weigh up access to NHS, GPs, birth-rate etc.

tkane

Cyberman60 wrote: »

We've clearly had some benefits BUT we are now overcrowded with dross.

What are your definitions of 'overcrowding' and 'dross'?

Cyberman60 wrote: »

The disadvantages of overpopulation with low skilled immigrants

Surely this diasdvantage is outweighed by the fact that the UK has been able to withstand huge changes in the global economy where hundreds of millions of cheap workers have been brought to market in Asia.

If the UK did not have this cheap source of labour, the few manufacturers we have left in the UK would have filed for adminstration as UK workers are expensive and unproductive.

EU migration has been a lifeline to the British economy, but not many will ever realise this.

Cyberman60 wrote: »

eastern criminals now though are enormous.

What percentage of Eastern European migrants from 2004 have gone to have criminal convictions in the UK?

What percentage of Eastern European migrants from 2004 had a criminal conviction prior to entering the UK?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Cyberman60 wrote: »

Haha,,, so you believe all the propaganda you read.

Most certainly not.

I don't for one second believe the propaganda UKIP publishes, for example.

Most immigrants are low paid, many will work for cash and evade tax, most will be on WTCs. No way are they a net benefit when you also weigh up access to NHS, GPs, birth-rate etc

And on that, you are just plain wrong.

The body of evidence concerning the positive net fiscal impact of EU migration is overwhelming.

There is simply no case to be made that it is anything other than positive, economically speaking.

tkane

lukeh23 wrote: »

One issue that certainly needs resolving is having BTL'ers competing against first time buyers. BTL'ers typically have the advantage of leverage on existing properties.

No, you don't cure a disease by targetting the symptoms.

You would cure this particular disease by building more houses rather interfering with the free market.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But then how would we replace the missing millions of young people caused by decades of the birth rate being below replacement level?

What is the correct population of the UK?

Why is a low birth rate undesirable : is importing less food and less essential fuel, bad for the living standards of the people of the UK?

Are having fewer traffic queues, fewer overcrowded trains, better housing provision, easier access to health services all undesirable in your opinion?

If there was a shortage of labour we would have a rapidly rising real wages.

tkane

antrobus wrote: »

It's quite straighforward really.

Back in 2000 the ONS produced (as it does) a forward projection of the UK population. It predicted that the UK population would grow by 2m in the years 2001-2001; about 1.4m net migration plus natural growth of 600k. Perfectly reasonable you might say; the population had grown by some 1.7m in the previous decade.

The government of the time therefore set a house building target of 200,000 homes a year. Not quite as ambitious perhaps as previous administrations, but 2m new homes for 2m extra people seems fair enough.

Unfortunately the ONS got its projection very wrong. Firstly because net migration turned out to be a a lot higher; around an extra 1m; and secondly because the birth rate shot up at an exponential rate. Largely, it seems, because all these migrants started sprogging, and that was another 1m extra. Thus the population grew by 4.14m over the years 2001-2011, over twice the projection.

Now, about 2007, the government realised that 200,000 homes a year wasn't enough, and upped the target to 260,000. Which probably still wasn't enough, but it didn't matter anyway, because the wheels then came off the bus, and it became a struggle to get anywhere near 200,000 let alone 260,000.

Anyway, this whole tale is an example of a classic planning failure.

Please don't ever believe the British government or its scapegoat, the ONS, did not know the level of immigration coming into the UK.

What a load of tosh.

They knew exactly what would happen as the UK has always been destination No.1 for immigrants.

Housing building targets will never ever be met, regardless of accurate population projections or not.

This is because restricted planning and housebuilding is a deliberate government policy.

You can vent your anger at immigrants if you like, but you really ought to go after the politicians who deliberately put in place these states of affairs.

Cyberman60

tkane wrote: »

What are your definitions of 'overcrowding' and 'dross'?




Surely this diasdvantage is outweighed by the fact that the UK has been able to withstand huge changes in the global economy where hundreds of millions of cheap workers have been brought to market in Asia.

If the UK did not have this cheap source of labour, the few manufacturers we have left in the UK would have filed for adminstration as UK workers are expensive and unproductive.

EU migration has been a lifeline to the British economy, but not many will ever realise this.



What percentage of Eastern European migrants from 2004 have gone to have criminal convictions in the UK?

What percentage of Eastern European migrants from 2004 had a criminal conviction prior to entering the UK?

The girl murdered on the Brent towpath and dumped in the canal in October was murdered by a convicted murderer from Latvia. We simply should not be allowing these types in. I really don't care about manipulated statistics and percentages. The reality is that we have imported serious crime from Eastern Europe through unfettered immigration. :mad: