Thank Goodness Brexit will not halt immigration

MisterMotivated

phillw wrote: »

Grown by corbyn on his allotment no doubt

I guess your mummy and daddy never taught you about the birds and the bees.

phillw

MisterMotivated wrote: »

I guess your mummy and daddy never taught you about the birds and the bees.

I was just going along with your joke, I didn't realise you were serious. What kind of freaky stuff did they teach you that you could have organic/non organic people? Exactly where are you putting the fertilizer?

MisterMotivated

phillw wrote: »

The foreign landlord doesn't qualify for the group people in this country, if he's not in the country & so his money isn't included in the total.

Well done! For extra marks, you could've expanded your answer to mention that the phrase "less money" is comparative against a situation where the foreign landlord's influence is removed from the situation, resulting in the UK population having "more money".

Only because you keep implying that english landlords spend money in the UK while foreign landlords don't.

Erm....

MisterMotivated wrote: »

Of course the house will still exist and will require upkeep, insurance, etc, regardless who owns it

Empty housing is more of an issue as that does reduce spending in an area.

Such as in the case of holiday homes bought by wealthy foreign investors, for example?

Landlords tend to be rich, at least relatively. Most poor people don't rent a property out or move money internationally.

Jeff Bezos rich? Euro-Millions rollover winner rich? Stephen Fry rich? Has a holiday home in Cornwall rich? Can afford a Ferrari rich? Higher rate tax band rich? Can afford a new Audi A3 on finance rich? Relatively speaking, someone on benefits in a 2-bed flat is rich compared to someone sleeping under a bridge in Birmingham. Anyway, I digress. Many landlords these days are also the result of a couple of individual homeowners shacking up together, living in one house/flat and renting out the other.

You were singling them out as a problem.

Erm....

phillw wrote: »

The biggest problem appears to be that foreign buyers have money

I have never referred to foreign landlords as a "problem". I made an observation that they generally remove more money from the UK during the life of their investment than they put in. How many times must I repeat that?

Maybe the foreign landlord is in the same position.

Are you suggesting they're supplementing their income by taking profits from their investments in the UK?

You're saying only english people can be anti foreigner? Isn't that discriminatory?

No, I just find it strange that you keep countering what you see as complaints about foreign landlords by saying English people could do exactly the same. If my comments are seen as anti-foreigner and therefore negative, one might be inclined to think your comments are anti-English.

I don't think the government or tourism industry should make people come here, they should want to come here of their own volition.

No, they should be rounded up in Magaluf, Taipei, Soeul, San Francisco, Canberra and Rio de Janeiro, herded onto buses/boats/planes and brought here against their wills to buy milk.

We export a lot of it. Why are you talking it down?

Last time I checked, I typed a question, not a derogatory statement.

More money for the people in this country? That seems to be something you care about.

I'd rather foreign visitors bought more expensive things than milk during their visits. Besides, the tiny increase in income would be offset somewhat by the environmental impact of the increased bovine population.

What kind of freaky stuff did they teach you that you could have organic/non organic people?

Haven't you ever heard of gene editing? I'm sure we'll eventually have organic babies and genetically modified babies just as we do with fruit & veg

phillw

MisterMotivated wrote: »

Well done! For extra marks, you could've expanded your answer to mention that the phrase "less money" is comparative against a situation where the foreign landlord's influence is removed from the situation, resulting in the UK population having "more money".

I could have said that, if I understood what it meant.

MisterMotivated wrote: »

Such as in the case of holiday homes bought by wealthy foreign investors, for example?

That is one example, it's rather telling that you immediately thought of foreign investors. The biggest problem seems to be natives buying in places like Devon and Cornwall.

MisterMotivated wrote: »

I have never referred to foreign landlords as a "problem". I made an observation that they generally remove more money from the UK during the life of their investment than they put in. How many times must I repeat that?

My observation is that it matters little where the landlord or the money is located at any particular time.

MisterMotivated wrote: »

Are you suggesting they're supplementing their income by taking profits from their investments in the UK?

They could be. I don't hold discriminatory viewpoints against people just because of where they are located.

MisterMotivated wrote: »

No, I just find it strange that you keep countering what you see as complaints about foreign landlords by saying English people could do exactly the same.

Because you're trying to single foreign landlords out as something different from native landlords, I'm reframing it so that you can see they are just landlords and their geographical position is less important than you think.

MisterMotivated wrote: »

Last time I checked, I typed a question, not a derogatory statement.

Your questions always seem to be loaded with intent.

MisterMotivated wrote: »

I'd rather foreign visitors bought more expensive things than milk during their visits.

Why? They'll claim the VAT back.

MisterMotivated wrote: »

Haven't you ever heard of gene editing? I'm sure we'll eventually have organic babies and genetically modified babies just as we do with fruit & veg

I have, but my parents didn't teach it to me. What a weird talk you must have had.

MisterMotivated

TL; DR

I think this thread has run its course.

phillw

MisterMotivated wrote: »

TL; DR

I think this thread has run its course.

Substituting a flippant "tl;dr" for reasoned response and cordiality stoops to ridicule and amounts to thought-terminating clich!. Just as one cannot prove through verbosity, neither can one prove by wielding a four letter initialism. When illumination, patience, and wisdom are called for, answer with them.

MisterMotivated

someone_else_then_copied_and_pasted_by_phillw wrote: »

Substituting a flippant "tl;dr" for reasoned response and cordiality stoops to ridicule and amounts to thought-terminating clich!. Just as one cannot prove through verbosity, neither can one prove by wielding a four letter initialism. When illumination, patience, and wisdom are called for, answer with them.

:rotfl:I hope you Googled tl;dr because you didn't know what it meant, not because you couldn't think of a suitable riposte all by yourself. But, if you're going to copy and paste from other sources, at least take the time to reinstate letters that have been replaced with punctuation. An 'e' without an accent is still preferable to an exclamation mark.

Anyway, have it your way.

I could have said that, if I understood what it meant.

It means you acknowledge that people in the UK have less money because some of it has been paid to a foreign landlord, whose money, in your words, does not count towards the money of people in this country. This was the initial and enduring point of my posts.

It's rather telling that you immediately thought of foreign investors.

It tells me that I can identify a key topic of the majority of the thread.

My observation is that it matters little where the landlord or the money is located at any particular time.

It can matter as much or as little to you as you see fit. It matters little to me too. That doesn't make my initial and enduring point invalid.

They could be. I don't hold discriminatory viewpoints against people just because of where they are located.

That's not discriminatory; it's recognition of a a valid motive for one or more people act in a manner that would result in the situation outlined in my initial and enduring point.

Because you're trying to single foreign landlords out as something different from native landlords, I'm reframing it so that you can see they are just landlords and their geographical position is less important than you think.

If I see a blue car in a car park full of red cars, and say "there's a blue car", it doesn't mean I'm launching a personal attack on that car, but making an observation. In the same way, if I suggest that foreign landlords extract more money from the UK than they put in during their ownership of the property in question, I'm making an observation, not insinuating that they are a scourge on our society as you seem to have convinced yourself.

Your questions always seem to be loaded with intent.

And with what intent was the question around supermarkets selling milk loaded? Actually, don't bother to answer that, I don't plan to read your response.

Why? They'll claim the VAT back.

VAT is only a fraction of the total cost of an item. It would probably bring more wealth to people in the UK if a foreign visitor bought an £89 bottle of scotch rather than an 89p bottle of milk.

Now, as I indicated previously, I believe this thread has run its course, so don't expect any further responses from me, though I have little doubt you'll reply to claim I've simply succumbed to your superior intellect (but if deluding yourself helps ease your wounded ego, then have at it).

TripleH

I'm too lazy to read all this thread (read about 12 posts). But what about UK landlords living overseas, where does that fit into MisterMotivated's argument ?
Foreign investors buying property as an investment looks a bit iffy. Who do they sell to? Other foreign investors wanting a new and 'unused' apartment like the one they are trying to sell?

If Labour came in with the promise of unlimited council tax bills to unused absent owners, or force the rent out of these properties (mainly in London) at a 'fair rate am sure it would generate a lot of support or even take them over as social housing paying the rent to the absent owner. There maybe an adjustment in property prices in the short medium term but would we not all be happier?

Thrugelmir

TripleH wrote: »

Foreign investors buying property as an investment looks a bit iffy. Who do they sell to? Other foreign investors wanting a new and 'unused' apartment like the one they are trying to sell?

They don't sell. Property in London is a secure place to store ones wealth. Particularly if you are Russian for example.

phillw

Thrugelmir wrote: »

They don't sell. Property in London is a secure place to store ones wealth. Particularly if you are Russian for example.

Not so much now that they are investigating proceeds of crime.