Thank Goodness Brexit will not halt immigration

triathlon

lisyloo wrote: »

Others should have to if they don’t make sufficient arrangements for themselves.
Those relying on the taxpayer should not expect luxury. Why should they?

If you want better then work for it, get a second job or move or improve your skills.

I have seen no end of TOWIE aspiring young 19 year old girls with two kids making demands for top quality housing having not bothered at school and hardly every worked or likely to, the mind boggles. If these type of people are going to make lifestyle choices like this then they really should be placed in the worst of the worst housing, it is called tough love and their aspiration will soon elevate.

lisyloo

LHW99 wrote: »

I don't expect everyone to deserve luxury. I have lived in HMO's for quite a number of years. They aren't necessarily either great or awful although they can be either.
I don't however think it is reasonable however to expect people to share bedrooms with complete strangers no matter whether they are relying on the taxpayer or limited resources of their own. My opinion, others may not agree.

I don’t think they should be expected to either.
I think they should be expected to work and do better than that for themselves.

The exception is if people choose to make a compromise for longer term gain e.g. live in London as an intern in the fashion industry.
If people want to make such choices then they should be completely free to make them but should not expect sympathy for a compromise of their choosing.

kabayiri

lisyloo wrote: »

I don’t think they should be expected to either.
I think they should be expected to work and do better than that for themselves.

The exception is if people choose to make a compromise for longer term gain e.g. live in London as an intern in the fashion industry.
If people want to make such choices then they should be completely free to make them but should not expect sympathy for a compromise of their choosing.

It's not about individuals.

If the ONS projections are to be believed, there will be 2 million more people in London by the mid 2020s, many of them migrant workers.

That's more than the needs of a few dozen fashion interns.

You can either expand London in a radical yet planned way, or just let developers cram housing wherever they find room.

If it's the unplanned method, then don't moan if the associated schooling and transport needs are not there.

MisterMotivated

triathlon wrote: »

Thank goodness they are investing in our country, I welcome the extra wealth

What extra wealth? By buying up UK property, the investors clearly expect to get more out of the country than they put into it.

lisyloo

kabayiri wrote: »

It's not about individuals.

If the ONS projections are to be believed, there will be 2 million more people in London by the mid 2020s, many of them migrant workers.

That's more than the needs of a few dozen fashion interns.

You can either expand London in a radical yet planned way, or just let developers cram housing wherever they find room.

If it's the unplanned method, then don't moan if the associated schooling and transport needs are not there.

Oh I definitely think it should be planned.
There is loads of building going on in London and it’s almost always offices or luxury appartments which start at a minimum of £400k for a studio in the worst location and I’m not just talking about prime central London. For example Even less nice areas like hangar lane have luxury appartments being built.

I would like to see incentives for business to move to different locations and better planning for building.

We are too London centric.

That’s a separate issue to very well off people (on a global scale) having entitlement expectations that exceed their work ethic.

Btw - if you were poor and/or lazy then why would you want to live in the most expensive city in the country and then moan about it? Isn’t the obvious solution to move somewhere much cheaper?

MobileSaver

MisterMotivated wrote: »

What extra wealth? By buying up UK property, the investors clearly expect to get more out of the country than they put into it.

And?

It's not a zero sum game; by investing in the UK both the investor and the country benefit from the investment.

LHW99 wrote: »

I personally do not see a problem with sharing bedrooms

Been there, done that, don't want to try it again and don't see why others should have to.

So the single 19 year old with two kids from two different fathers, never worked a day in her life and no intention of ever doing so should be given a three bed semi-detached by the State and we taxpayers should pay for it?!?!

You may be happy paying for that but I don't see why others should have to and I'm certainly not.

MisterMotivated

MobileSaver wrote: »

by investing in the UK both the investor and the country benefit from the investment.

In what way does the country benefit? There may be a short term injection of cash into the country from the foreign buyer, but then rent flowing back out and eventually much more money leaving the UK when the investor sells at a higher price. Even if the foreign investor sells to another foreign investor, it's just going to perpetuate the outflow of rent money. And with regard to foreign-owned properties that aren't rented, they just sit there taking up valuable space in an already overcrowded city.

prowla

Ah, housing bubbles - all the perpetators do is want to huff more air into them.

MobileSaver

MisterMotivated wrote: »

In what way does the country benefit? There may be a short term injection of cash

A house isn't just a pile of bricks that you buy and can leave alone for the next x years.

A house needs insurance, almost certainly bought from a British broker
A house needs electricity, probably bought from a British supplier
A house needs heating fuel, probably bought from a British supplier
A house needs maintenance, probably provided by British tradespeople
A house requires Council Tax to be paid by the occupier, all of which goes to the UK coffers

Etc.

So regardless of who buys a house there will be an additional consumption of resources and services and some if not most of those will be supplied by the UK which therefore benefits the entire country.

Herzlos

MobileSaver wrote: »

So the single 19 year old with two kids from two different fathers, never worked a day in her life and no intention of ever doing so should be given a three bed semi-detached by the State and we taxpayers should pay for it?!?!

Because it's vanishingly unlikely said mother would be given a 3-bed semi. Kids are only given a sepearate room from about 10, so unless said mother gave birth at 9, the most she'll be getting is a grotty 2-bed flat somewhere that's essentially unfurnished. Once the kids are at school age, and assuming she's fit to work, she'll be forced back into work.


Professional benefit scroungers are also a tiny, tiny minority (though a nice bogeyman), so I'd quite happily pay for their upkeep if it means we're looking after everyone else that actually needs it.



How would you feel about providing a ground floor flat to the same girl, who has no kids but some kind of degenerative disease that prevents her from working?