I think I may have posted this a while back, but I think it's worth repeating.
About 7 or 8 years ago a block of 8 flats were being built near where one of my mates lives. ( Maidstone area ). When he enquired about the cost of the flats he was told that all 8 had been bought by a Chinese man off plan. He was told that this is common practice and that a good % of new builds are being sold to foreign businessmen. I also keep seeing on the news about how many places in London are now owned by people from abroad that purely buy as an investment.
Now I have no idea what % of properties in and around London are being bought up like this but to me it's wrong. All this achieves is driving up the price of property over here and putting money in the hands of rich overseas buyers.
I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit.
Should that last point be extended to everyone, regardless of nationality?
Definitely a limit as to how many properties you can own.yes.
Yeah... I think that is your key point - not the targeting of foreign ownership. Blaming the mess on Johnny Foreigner is a distraction.
Not putting the blame on johny Foreigner at all. They are just taking advantage of a situation that allows them to buy up properties in the UK.
I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of British politicians that allows for this to happen.
Sure...and your key point is that nobody (foreign or local) should be allowed to own property that they won't/don't live in, right?
Stop talking rubbish I'm not saying that at all. There should be a limit to how many homes a person can own. I think you understand what I'm saying but for some reason you want to misconscew my meaning
Hi. I was being genuine. Maybe I have misunderstood you. Will try to unpick.
You said:
"I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit. "
I asked if that was just for foreigners and you said it wasn't. So I sought to clarify (on your behalf, lol) that you weren't just blaming Johnny Foreigner and that your core point was about people- in general, regardless of nationality - owning property that they don't live in I.e. that this was wrong and should be legislated against.
Now it seems I have upset you, so must have got this wrong. Although, you have just said pretty much that, no?
Maybe you are saying thay foreigners must live in properties they buy (as per first point you said re: Starmer), but Brits just need a limit (as per you last post)?
I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing, btw. Just trying to figure out what you are saying.
Fair enough. I'll try and clarify what I meant.
Firstly I would like to see the government put in some legislation to stop overseas millionaire/ Bullionaire from buying up thousands of properties in the UK . As things stand they can buy as many properties as they like, including buying off plan. This does not sit right with me when we have such a housing shortage in the UK.
Secondly I would limit how many properties any one person can own. A perfect example of this is the ex Liverpool and England striker who owns well in excess of 100 properties. As the law stands he is doing nothing wrong but again I'm not comfortable with this.
People buying up this amount of properties creates a shortage for people looking to buy and drives up the price.
I have nothing against someone who wants to own a second property, possibly as a holiday home or something, but with supposedly 200k people in the UK without a permanent home I would rather people not be allowed to buy up as many properties as they like.
I think I may have posted this a while back, but I think it's worth repeating.
About 7 or 8 years ago a block of 8 flats were being built near where one of my mates lives. ( Maidstone area ). When he enquired about the cost of the flats he was told that all 8 had been bought by a Chinese man off plan. He was told that this is common practice and that a good % of new builds are being sold to foreign businessmen. I also keep seeing on the news about how many places in London are now owned by people from abroad that purely buy as an investment.
Now I have no idea what % of properties in and around London are being bought up like this but to me it's wrong. All this achieves is driving up the price of property over here and putting money in the hands of rich overseas buyers.
I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit.
Should that last point be extended to everyone, regardless of nationality?
Definitely a limit as to how many properties you can own.yes.
Yeah... I think that is your key point - not the targeting of foreign ownership. Blaming the mess on Johnny Foreigner is a distraction.
Not putting the blame on johny Foreigner at all. They are just taking advantage of a situation that allows them to buy up properties in the UK.
I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of British politicians that allows for this to happen.
Sure...and your key point is that nobody (foreign or local) should be allowed to own property that they won't/don't live in, right?
Stop talking rubbish I'm not saying that at all. There should be a limit to how many homes a person can own. I think you understand what I'm saying but for some reason you want to misconscew my meaning
Hi. I was being genuine. Maybe I have misunderstood you. Will try to unpick.
You said:
"I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit. "
I asked if that was just for foreigners and you said it wasn't. So I sought to clarify (on your behalf, lol) that you weren't just blaming Johnny Foreigner and that your core point was about people- in general, regardless of nationality - owning property that they don't live in I.e. that this was wrong and should be legislated against.
Now it seems I have upset you, so must have got this wrong. Although, you have just said pretty much that, no?
Maybe you are saying thay foreigners must live in properties they buy (as per first point you said re: Starmer), but Brits just need a limit (as per you last post)?
I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing, btw. Just trying to figure out what you are saying.
Fair enough. I'll try and clarify what I meant.
Firstly I would like to see the government put in some legislation to stop overseas millionaire/ Bullionaire from buying up thousands of properties in the UK . As things stand they can buy as many properties as they like, including buying off plan. This does not sit right with me when we have such a housing shortage in the UK.
Secondly I would limit how many properties any one person can own. A perfect example of this is the ex Liverpool and England striker who owns well in excess of 100 properties. As the law stands he is doing nothing wrong but again I'm not comfortable with this.
People buying up this amount of properties creates a shortage for people looking to buy and drives up the price.
I have nothing against someone who wants to own a second property, possibly as a holiday home or something, but with supposedly 200k people in the UK without a permanent home I would rather people not be allowed to buy up as many properties as they like.
I think I may have posted this a while back, but I think it's worth repeating.
About 7 or 8 years ago a block of 8 flats were being built near where one of my mates lives. ( Maidstone area ). When he enquired about the cost of the flats he was told that all 8 had been bought by a Chinese man off plan. He was told that this is common practice and that a good % of new builds are being sold to foreign businessmen. I also keep seeing on the news about how many places in London are now owned by people from abroad that purely buy as an investment.
Now I have no idea what % of properties in and around London are being bought up like this but to me it's wrong. All this achieves is driving up the price of property over here and putting money in the hands of rich overseas buyers.
I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit.
Should that last point be extended to everyone, regardless of nationality?
Definitely a limit as to how many properties you can own.yes.
Yeah... I think that is your key point - not the targeting of foreign ownership. Blaming the mess on Johnny Foreigner is a distraction.
Not putting the blame on johny Foreigner at all. They are just taking advantage of a situation that allows them to buy up properties in the UK.
I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of British politicians that allows for this to happen.
Sure...and your key point is that nobody (foreign or local) should be allowed to own property that they won't/don't live in, right?
Stop talking rubbish I'm not saying that at all. There should be a limit to how many homes a person can own. I think you understand what I'm saying but for some reason you want to misconscew my meaning
Hi. I was being genuine. Maybe I have misunderstood you. Will try to unpick.
You said:
"I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit. "
I asked if that was just for foreigners and you said it wasn't. So I sought to clarify (on your behalf, lol) that you weren't just blaming Johnny Foreigner and that your core point was about people- in general, regardless of nationality - owning property that they don't live in I.e. that this was wrong and should be legislated against.
Now it seems I have upset you, so must have got this wrong. Although, you have just said pretty much that, no?
Maybe you are saying thay foreigners must live in properties they buy (as per first point you said re: Starmer), but Brits just need a limit (as per you last post)?
I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing, btw. Just trying to figure out what you are saying.
Fair enough. I'll try and clarify what I meant.
Firstly I would like to see the government put in some legislation to stop overseas millionaire/ Bullionaire from buying up thousands of properties in the UK . As things stand they can buy as many properties as they like, including buying off plan. This does not sit right with me when we have such a housing shortage in the UK.
Secondly I would limit how many properties any one person can own. A perfect example of this is the ex Liverpool and England striker who owns well in excess of 100 properties. As the law stands he is doing nothing wrong but again I'm not comfortable with this.
People buying up this amount of properties creates a shortage for people looking to buy and drives up the price.
I have nothing against someone who wants to own a second property, possibly as a holiday home or something, but with supposedly 200k people in the UK without a permanent home I would rather people not be allowed to buy up as many properties as they like.
Don’t agree with this, I get that investors buying and leaving properties empty is morally wrong, people like Robbie Fowler who bought up streets of unwanted terraced houses in undesirable areas, spent his money to make them liveable and then housed people has done nothing immoral, yes he stands to make money but he has improved the areas where he grew up which is a good thing. not everyone wants or has the means to buy their own home so private landlords are needed as our councils and HA are incapable of providing enough quality homes. so there’s an argument on both sides to be had
I think I may have posted this a while back, but I think it's worth repeating.
About 7 or 8 years ago a block of 8 flats were being built near where one of my mates lives. ( Maidstone area ). When he enquired about the cost of the flats he was told that all 8 had been bought by a Chinese man off plan. He was told that this is common practice and that a good % of new builds are being sold to foreign businessmen. I also keep seeing on the news about how many places in London are now owned by people from abroad that purely buy as an investment.
Now I have no idea what % of properties in and around London are being bought up like this but to me it's wrong. All this achieves is driving up the price of property over here and putting money in the hands of rich overseas buyers.
I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit.
Should that last point be extended to everyone, regardless of nationality?
Definitely a limit as to how many properties you can own.yes.
Yeah... I think that is your key point - not the targeting of foreign ownership. Blaming the mess on Johnny Foreigner is a distraction.
Not putting the blame on johny Foreigner at all. They are just taking advantage of a situation that allows them to buy up properties in the UK.
I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of British politicians that allows for this to happen.
Sure...and your key point is that nobody (foreign or local) should be allowed to own property that they won't/don't live in, right?
Stop talking rubbish I'm not saying that at all. There should be a limit to how many homes a person can own. I think you understand what I'm saying but for some reason you want to misconscew my meaning
Hi. I was being genuine. Maybe I have misunderstood you. Will try to unpick.
You said:
"I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit. "
I asked if that was just for foreigners and you said it wasn't. So I sought to clarify (on your behalf, lol) that you weren't just blaming Johnny Foreigner and that your core point was about people- in general, regardless of nationality - owning property that they don't live in I.e. that this was wrong and should be legislated against.
Now it seems I have upset you, so must have got this wrong. Although, you have just said pretty much that, no?
Maybe you are saying thay foreigners must live in properties they buy (as per first point you said re: Starmer), but Brits just need a limit (as per you last post)?
I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing, btw. Just trying to figure out what you are saying.
Fair enough. I'll try and clarify what I meant.
Firstly I would like to see the government put in some legislation to stop overseas millionaire/ Bullionaire from buying up thousands of properties in the UK . As things stand they can buy as many properties as they like, including buying off plan. This does not sit right with me when we have such a housing shortage in the UK.
Secondly I would limit how many properties any one person can own. A perfect example of this is the ex Liverpool and England striker who owns well in excess of 100 properties. As the law stands he is doing nothing wrong but again I'm not comfortable with this.
People buying up this amount of properties creates a shortage for people looking to buy and drives up the price.
I have nothing against someone who wants to own a second property, possibly as a holiday home or something, but with supposedly 200k people in the UK without a permanent home I would rather people not be allowed to buy up as many properties as they like.
I think I may have posted this a while back, but I think it's worth repeating.
About 7 or 8 years ago a block of 8 flats were being built near where one of my mates lives. ( Maidstone area ). When he enquired about the cost of the flats he was told that all 8 had been bought by a Chinese man off plan. He was told that this is common practice and that a good % of new builds are being sold to foreign businessmen. I also keep seeing on the news about how many places in London are now owned by people from abroad that purely buy as an investment.
Now I have no idea what % of properties in and around London are being bought up like this but to me it's wrong. All this achieves is driving up the price of property over here and putting money in the hands of rich overseas buyers.
I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit.
Should that last point be extended to everyone, regardless of nationality?
Definitely a limit as to how many properties you can own.yes.
Yeah... I think that is your key point - not the targeting of foreign ownership. Blaming the mess on Johnny Foreigner is a distraction.
Not putting the blame on johny Foreigner at all. They are just taking advantage of a situation that allows them to buy up properties in the UK.
I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of British politicians that allows for this to happen.
Sure...and your key point is that nobody (foreign or local) should be allowed to own property that they won't/don't live in, right?
Stop talking rubbish I'm not saying that at all. There should be a limit to how many homes a person can own. I think you understand what I'm saying but for some reason you want to misconscew my meaning
Hi. I was being genuine. Maybe I have misunderstood you. Will try to unpick.
You said:
"I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit. "
I asked if that was just for foreigners and you said it wasn't. So I sought to clarify (on your behalf, lol) that you weren't just blaming Johnny Foreigner and that your core point was about people- in general, regardless of nationality - owning property that they don't live in I.e. that this was wrong and should be legislated against.
Now it seems I have upset you, so must have got this wrong. Although, you have just said pretty much that, no?
Maybe you are saying thay foreigners must live in properties they buy (as per first point you said re: Starmer), but Brits just need a limit (as per you last post)?
I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing, btw. Just trying to figure out what you are saying.
Fair enough. I'll try and clarify what I meant.
Firstly I would like to see the government put in some legislation to stop overseas millionaire/ Bullionaire from buying up thousands of properties in the UK . As things stand they can buy as many properties as they like, including buying off plan. This does not sit right with me when we have such a housing shortage in the UK.
Secondly I would limit how many properties any one person can own. A perfect example of this is the ex Liverpool and England striker who owns well in excess of 100 properties. As the law stands he is doing nothing wrong but again I'm not comfortable with this.
People buying up this amount of properties creates a shortage for people looking to buy and drives up the price.
I have nothing against someone who wants to own a second property, possibly as a holiday home or something, but with supposedly 200k people in the UK without a permanent home I would rather people not be allowed to buy up as many properties as they like.
Don’t agree with this, I get that investors buying and leaving properties empty is morally wrong, people like Robbie Fowler who bought up streets of unwanted terraced houses in undesirable areas, spent his money to make them liveable and then housed people has done nothing immoral, yes he stands to make money but he has improved the areas where he grew up which is a good thing. not everyone wants or has the means to buy their own home so private landlords are needed as our councils and HA are incapable of providing enough quality homes. so there’s an argument on both sides to be had
I’d be quite happy with blackpools legislation coming into force, assuming the government was willing to buy up all those properties and rent them out at an affordable price.
The national minimum wage is £10.42 per hour. 40x £10.42 is £416.80 per week. £1,667.20 per month. How much of that income ought to be used to pay for a decent place to live?
The national minimum wage is £10.42 per hour. 40x £10.42 is £416.80 per week. £1,667.20 per month. How much of that income ought to be used to pay for a decent place to live?
£500 a month. As you've said before If working full time you should be able to put a roof over your head, pay the bills and be able to eat.
The national minimum wage is £10.42 per hour. 40x £10.42 is £416.80 per week. £1,667.20 per month. How much of that income ought to be used to pay for a decent place to live?
£500 a month. As you've said before If working full time you should be able to put a roof over your head, pay the bills and be able to eat.
£500 a month for housing costs for a single individual working full time sounds reasonable to me. If not, then what?
The national minimum wage is £10.42 per hour. 40x £10.42 is £416.80 per week. £1,667.20 per month. How much of that income ought to be used to pay for a decent place to live?
£500 a month. As you've said before If working full time you should be able to put a roof over your head, pay the bills and be able to eat.
Seems fairly reasonable, 1/3 of income is a good starting point for a ‘roof over your head’
I think I may have posted this a while back, but I think it's worth repeating.
About 7 or 8 years ago a block of 8 flats were being built near where one of my mates lives. ( Maidstone area ). When he enquired about the cost of the flats he was told that all 8 had been bought by a Chinese man off plan. He was told that this is common practice and that a good % of new builds are being sold to foreign businessmen. I also keep seeing on the news about how many places in London are now owned by people from abroad that purely buy as an investment.
Now I have no idea what % of properties in and around London are being bought up like this but to me it's wrong. All this achieves is driving up the price of property over here and putting money in the hands of rich overseas buyers.
I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit.
Should that last point be extended to everyone, regardless of nationality?
Definitely a limit as to how many properties you can own.yes.
Yeah... I think that is your key point - not the targeting of foreign ownership. Blaming the mess on Johnny Foreigner is a distraction.
Not putting the blame on johny Foreigner at all. They are just taking advantage of a situation that allows them to buy up properties in the UK.
I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of British politicians that allows for this to happen.
Sure...and your key point is that nobody (foreign or local) should be allowed to own property that they won't/don't live in, right?
Stop talking rubbish I'm not saying that at all. There should be a limit to how many homes a person can own. I think you understand what I'm saying but for some reason you want to misconscew my meaning
Hi. I was being genuine. Maybe I have misunderstood you. Will try to unpick.
You said:
"I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit. "
I asked if that was just for foreigners and you said it wasn't. So I sought to clarify (on your behalf, lol) that you weren't just blaming Johnny Foreigner and that your core point was about people- in general, regardless of nationality - owning property that they don't live in I.e. that this was wrong and should be legislated against.
Now it seems I have upset you, so must have got this wrong. Although, you have just said pretty much that, no?
Maybe you are saying thay foreigners must live in properties they buy (as per first point you said re: Starmer), but Brits just need a limit (as per you last post)?
I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing, btw. Just trying to figure out what you are saying.
Fair enough. I'll try and clarify what I meant.
Firstly I would like to see the government put in some legislation to stop overseas millionaire/ Bullionaire from buying up thousands of properties in the UK . As things stand they can buy as many properties as they like, including buying off plan. This does not sit right with me when we have such a housing shortage in the UK.
Secondly I would limit how many properties any one person can own. A perfect example of this is the ex Liverpool and England striker who owns well in excess of 100 properties. As the law stands he is doing nothing wrong but again I'm not comfortable with this.
People buying up this amount of properties creates a shortage for people looking to buy and drives up the price.
I have nothing against someone who wants to own a second property, possibly as a holiday home or something, but with supposedly 200k people in the UK without a permanent home I would rather people not be allowed to buy up as many properties as they like.
I think I may have posted this a while back, but I think it's worth repeating.
About 7 or 8 years ago a block of 8 flats were being built near where one of my mates lives. ( Maidstone area ). When he enquired about the cost of the flats he was told that all 8 had been bought by a Chinese man off plan. He was told that this is common practice and that a good % of new builds are being sold to foreign businessmen. I also keep seeing on the news about how many places in London are now owned by people from abroad that purely buy as an investment.
Now I have no idea what % of properties in and around London are being bought up like this but to me it's wrong. All this achieves is driving up the price of property over here and putting money in the hands of rich overseas buyers.
I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit.
Should that last point be extended to everyone, regardless of nationality?
Definitely a limit as to how many properties you can own.yes.
Yeah... I think that is your key point - not the targeting of foreign ownership. Blaming the mess on Johnny Foreigner is a distraction.
Not putting the blame on johny Foreigner at all. They are just taking advantage of a situation that allows them to buy up properties in the UK.
I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of British politicians that allows for this to happen.
Sure...and your key point is that nobody (foreign or local) should be allowed to own property that they won't/don't live in, right?
Stop talking rubbish I'm not saying that at all. There should be a limit to how many homes a person can own. I think you understand what I'm saying but for some reason you want to misconscew my meaning
Hi. I was being genuine. Maybe I have misunderstood you. Will try to unpick.
You said:
"I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit. "
I asked if that was just for foreigners and you said it wasn't. So I sought to clarify (on your behalf, lol) that you weren't just blaming Johnny Foreigner and that your core point was about people- in general, regardless of nationality - owning property that they don't live in I.e. that this was wrong and should be legislated against.
Now it seems I have upset you, so must have got this wrong. Although, you have just said pretty much that, no?
Maybe you are saying thay foreigners must live in properties they buy (as per first point you said re: Starmer), but Brits just need a limit (as per you last post)?
I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing, btw. Just trying to figure out what you are saying.
Fair enough. I'll try and clarify what I meant.
Firstly I would like to see the government put in some legislation to stop overseas millionaire/ Bullionaire from buying up thousands of properties in the UK . As things stand they can buy as many properties as they like, including buying off plan. This does not sit right with me when we have such a housing shortage in the UK.
Secondly I would limit how many properties any one person can own. A perfect example of this is the ex Liverpool and England striker who owns well in excess of 100 properties. As the law stands he is doing nothing wrong but again I'm not comfortable with this.
People buying up this amount of properties creates a shortage for people looking to buy and drives up the price.
I have nothing against someone who wants to own a second property, possibly as a holiday home or something, but with supposedly 200k people in the UK without a permanent home I would rather people not be allowed to buy up as many properties as they like.
Don’t agree with this, I get that investors buying and leaving properties empty is morally wrong, people like Robbie Fowler who bought up streets of unwanted terraced houses in undesirable areas, spent his money to make them liveable and then housed people has done nothing immoral, yes he stands to make money but he has improved the areas where he grew up which is a good thing. not everyone wants or has the means to buy their own home so private landlords are needed as our councils and HA are incapable of providing enough quality homes. so there’s an argument on both sides to be had
There's often an assumption that renters would buy if property was cheaper. Whilst that'll be true for some, it's not for everyone and this country will always need a decent amount of rental stock. There's still a relatively high proportion of renters who receive Housing benefit (or UC equivalent).
As you say Robbie fowler is probably the wrong investor to pick on as a lot of what he bought was boarded up terraced houses so he brought back into use existing property, in my view that's a good thing to have done.
I think I may have posted this a while back, but I think it's worth repeating.
About 7 or 8 years ago a block of 8 flats were being built near where one of my mates lives. ( Maidstone area ). When he enquired about the cost of the flats he was told that all 8 had been bought by a Chinese man off plan. He was told that this is common practice and that a good % of new builds are being sold to foreign businessmen. I also keep seeing on the news about how many places in London are now owned by people from abroad that purely buy as an investment.
Now I have no idea what % of properties in and around London are being bought up like this but to me it's wrong. All this achieves is driving up the price of property over here and putting money in the hands of rich overseas buyers.
I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit.
Should that last point be extended to everyone, regardless of nationality?
Definitely a limit as to how many properties you can own.yes.
Yeah... I think that is your key point - not the targeting of foreign ownership. Blaming the mess on Johnny Foreigner is a distraction.
Not putting the blame on johny Foreigner at all. They are just taking advantage of a situation that allows them to buy up properties in the UK.
I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of British politicians that allows for this to happen.
Sure...and your key point is that nobody (foreign or local) should be allowed to own property that they won't/don't live in, right?
Stop talking rubbish I'm not saying that at all. There should be a limit to how many homes a person can own. I think you understand what I'm saying but for some reason you want to misconscew my meaning
Hi. I was being genuine. Maybe I have misunderstood you. Will try to unpick.
You said:
"I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit. "
I asked if that was just for foreigners and you said it wasn't. So I sought to clarify (on your behalf, lol) that you weren't just blaming Johnny Foreigner and that your core point was about people- in general, regardless of nationality - owning property that they don't live in I.e. that this was wrong and should be legislated against.
Now it seems I have upset you, so must have got this wrong. Although, you have just said pretty much that, no?
Maybe you are saying thay foreigners must live in properties they buy (as per first point you said re: Starmer), but Brits just need a limit (as per you last post)?
I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing, btw. Just trying to figure out what you are saying.
Fair enough. I'll try and clarify what I meant.
Firstly I would like to see the government put in some legislation to stop overseas millionaire/ Bullionaire from buying up thousands of properties in the UK . As things stand they can buy as many properties as they like, including buying off plan. This does not sit right with me when we have such a housing shortage in the UK.
Secondly I would limit how many properties any one person can own. A perfect example of this is the ex Liverpool and England striker who owns well in excess of 100 properties. As the law stands he is doing nothing wrong but again I'm not comfortable with this.
People buying up this amount of properties creates a shortage for people looking to buy and drives up the price.
I have nothing against someone who wants to own a second property, possibly as a holiday home or something, but with supposedly 200k people in the UK without a permanent home I would rather people not be allowed to buy up as many properties as they like.
I think I may have posted this a while back, but I think it's worth repeating.
About 7 or 8 years ago a block of 8 flats were being built near where one of my mates lives. ( Maidstone area ). When he enquired about the cost of the flats he was told that all 8 had been bought by a Chinese man off plan. He was told that this is common practice and that a good % of new builds are being sold to foreign businessmen. I also keep seeing on the news about how many places in London are now owned by people from abroad that purely buy as an investment.
Now I have no idea what % of properties in and around London are being bought up like this but to me it's wrong. All this achieves is driving up the price of property over here and putting money in the hands of rich overseas buyers.
I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit.
Should that last point be extended to everyone, regardless of nationality?
Definitely a limit as to how many properties you can own.yes.
Yeah... I think that is your key point - not the targeting of foreign ownership. Blaming the mess on Johnny Foreigner is a distraction.
Not putting the blame on johny Foreigner at all. They are just taking advantage of a situation that allows them to buy up properties in the UK.
I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of British politicians that allows for this to happen.
Sure...and your key point is that nobody (foreign or local) should be allowed to own property that they won't/don't live in, right?
Stop talking rubbish I'm not saying that at all. There should be a limit to how many homes a person can own. I think you understand what I'm saying but for some reason you want to misconscew my meaning
Hi. I was being genuine. Maybe I have misunderstood you. Will try to unpick.
You said:
"I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit. "
I asked if that was just for foreigners and you said it wasn't. So I sought to clarify (on your behalf, lol) that you weren't just blaming Johnny Foreigner and that your core point was about people- in general, regardless of nationality - owning property that they don't live in I.e. that this was wrong and should be legislated against.
Now it seems I have upset you, so must have got this wrong. Although, you have just said pretty much that, no?
Maybe you are saying thay foreigners must live in properties they buy (as per first point you said re: Starmer), but Brits just need a limit (as per you last post)?
I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing, btw. Just trying to figure out what you are saying.
Fair enough. I'll try and clarify what I meant.
Firstly I would like to see the government put in some legislation to stop overseas millionaire/ Bullionaire from buying up thousands of properties in the UK . As things stand they can buy as many properties as they like, including buying off plan. This does not sit right with me when we have such a housing shortage in the UK.
Secondly I would limit how many properties any one person can own. A perfect example of this is the ex Liverpool and England striker who owns well in excess of 100 properties. As the law stands he is doing nothing wrong but again I'm not comfortable with this.
People buying up this amount of properties creates a shortage for people looking to buy and drives up the price.
I have nothing against someone who wants to own a second property, possibly as a holiday home or something, but with supposedly 200k people in the UK without a permanent home I would rather people not be allowed to buy up as many properties as they like.
Don’t agree with this, I get that investors buying and leaving properties empty is morally wrong, people like Robbie Fowler who bought up streets of unwanted terraced houses in undesirable areas, spent his money to make them liveable and then housed people has done nothing immoral, yes he stands to make money but he has improved the areas where he grew up which is a good thing. not everyone wants or has the means to buy their own home so private landlords are needed as our councils and HA are incapable of providing enough quality homes. so there’s an argument on both sides to be had
There's often an assumption that renters would buy if property was cheaper. Whilst that'll be true for some, it's not for everyone and this country will always need a decent amount of rental stock. There's still a relatively high proportion of renters who receive Housing benefit (or UC equivalent).
As you say Robbie fowler is probably the wrong investor to pick on as a lot of what he bought was boarded up terraced houses so he brought back into use existing property, in my view that's a good thing to have done.
The national minimum wage is £10.42 per hour. 40x £10.42 is £416.80 per week. £1,667.20 per month. How much of that income ought to be used to pay for a decent place to live?
£500 a month. As you've said before If working full time you should be able to put a roof over your head, pay the bills and be able to eat.
£500 a month for housing costs for a single individual working full time sounds reasonable to me. If not, then what?
Sadly the minimum wage is not achieving what it should. Big businesses should be embarrassed by only paying it or close to it especially for near full time staff.
But raising it significantly is unaffordable to some and so the gap needs to be bridged by benefits I guess.
I’m not cause enough to universal credit etc. to know at what level and circumstances it can help but the main point is the minimum is currently too little.
I think I may have posted this a while back, but I think it's worth repeating.
About 7 or 8 years ago a block of 8 flats were being built near where one of my mates lives. ( Maidstone area ). When he enquired about the cost of the flats he was told that all 8 had been bought by a Chinese man off plan. He was told that this is common practice and that a good % of new builds are being sold to foreign businessmen. I also keep seeing on the news about how many places in London are now owned by people from abroad that purely buy as an investment.
Now I have no idea what % of properties in and around London are being bought up like this but to me it's wrong. All this achieves is driving up the price of property over here and putting money in the hands of rich overseas buyers.
I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit.
Should that last point be extended to everyone, regardless of nationality?
Definitely a limit as to how many properties you can own.yes.
Yeah... I think that is your key point - not the targeting of foreign ownership. Blaming the mess on Johnny Foreigner is a distraction.
Not putting the blame on johny Foreigner at all. They are just taking advantage of a situation that allows them to buy up properties in the UK.
I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of British politicians that allows for this to happen.
Sure...and your key point is that nobody (foreign or local) should be allowed to own property that they won't/don't live in, right?
Stop talking rubbish I'm not saying that at all. There should be a limit to how many homes a person can own. I think you understand what I'm saying but for some reason you want to misconscew my meaning
Hi. I was being genuine. Maybe I have misunderstood you. Will try to unpick.
You said:
"I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit. "
I asked if that was just for foreigners and you said it wasn't. So I sought to clarify (on your behalf, lol) that you weren't just blaming Johnny Foreigner and that your core point was about people- in general, regardless of nationality - owning property that they don't live in I.e. that this was wrong and should be legislated against.
Now it seems I have upset you, so must have got this wrong. Although, you have just said pretty much that, no?
Maybe you are saying thay foreigners must live in properties they buy (as per first point you said re: Starmer), but Brits just need a limit (as per you last post)?
I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing, btw. Just trying to figure out what you are saying.
Fair enough. I'll try and clarify what I meant.
Firstly I would like to see the government put in some legislation to stop overseas millionaire/ Bullionaire from buying up thousands of properties in the UK . As things stand they can buy as many properties as they like, including buying off plan. This does not sit right with me when we have such a housing shortage in the UK.
Secondly I would limit how many properties any one person can own. A perfect example of this is the ex Liverpool and England striker who owns well in excess of 100 properties. As the law stands he is doing nothing wrong but again I'm not comfortable with this.
People buying up this amount of properties creates a shortage for people looking to buy and drives up the price.
I have nothing against someone who wants to own a second property, possibly as a holiday home or something, but with supposedly 200k people in the UK without a permanent home I would rather people not be allowed to buy up as many properties as they like.
I think I may have posted this a while back, but I think it's worth repeating.
About 7 or 8 years ago a block of 8 flats were being built near where one of my mates lives. ( Maidstone area ). When he enquired about the cost of the flats he was told that all 8 had been bought by a Chinese man off plan. He was told that this is common practice and that a good % of new builds are being sold to foreign businessmen. I also keep seeing on the news about how many places in London are now owned by people from abroad that purely buy as an investment.
Now I have no idea what % of properties in and around London are being bought up like this but to me it's wrong. All this achieves is driving up the price of property over here and putting money in the hands of rich overseas buyers.
I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit.
Should that last point be extended to everyone, regardless of nationality?
Definitely a limit as to how many properties you can own.yes.
Yeah... I think that is your key point - not the targeting of foreign ownership. Blaming the mess on Johnny Foreigner is a distraction.
Not putting the blame on johny Foreigner at all. They are just taking advantage of a situation that allows them to buy up properties in the UK.
I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of British politicians that allows for this to happen.
Sure...and your key point is that nobody (foreign or local) should be allowed to own property that they won't/don't live in, right?
Stop talking rubbish I'm not saying that at all. There should be a limit to how many homes a person can own. I think you understand what I'm saying but for some reason you want to misconscew my meaning
Hi. I was being genuine. Maybe I have misunderstood you. Will try to unpick.
You said:
"I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit. "
I asked if that was just for foreigners and you said it wasn't. So I sought to clarify (on your behalf, lol) that you weren't just blaming Johnny Foreigner and that your core point was about people- in general, regardless of nationality - owning property that they don't live in I.e. that this was wrong and should be legislated against.
Now it seems I have upset you, so must have got this wrong. Although, you have just said pretty much that, no?
Maybe you are saying thay foreigners must live in properties they buy (as per first point you said re: Starmer), but Brits just need a limit (as per you last post)?
I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing, btw. Just trying to figure out what you are saying.
Fair enough. I'll try and clarify what I meant.
Firstly I would like to see the government put in some legislation to stop overseas millionaire/ Bullionaire from buying up thousands of properties in the UK . As things stand they can buy as many properties as they like, including buying off plan. This does not sit right with me when we have such a housing shortage in the UK.
Secondly I would limit how many properties any one person can own. A perfect example of this is the ex Liverpool and England striker who owns well in excess of 100 properties. As the law stands he is doing nothing wrong but again I'm not comfortable with this.
People buying up this amount of properties creates a shortage for people looking to buy and drives up the price.
I have nothing against someone who wants to own a second property, possibly as a holiday home or something, but with supposedly 200k people in the UK without a permanent home I would rather people not be allowed to buy up as many properties as they like.
Don’t agree with this, I get that investors buying and leaving properties empty is morally wrong, people like Robbie Fowler who bought up streets of unwanted terraced houses in undesirable areas, spent his money to make them liveable and then housed people has done nothing immoral, yes he stands to make money but he has improved the areas where he grew up which is a good thing. not everyone wants or has the means to buy their own home so private landlords are needed as our councils and HA are incapable of providing enough quality homes. so there’s an argument on both sides to be had
Rather than Robbie Fowler buying up hundreds of houses I would prefer if the government done them up and used them as council houses at affordable rent.
I think I may have posted this a while back, but I think it's worth repeating.
About 7 or 8 years ago a block of 8 flats were being built near where one of my mates lives. ( Maidstone area ). When he enquired about the cost of the flats he was told that all 8 had been bought by a Chinese man off plan. He was told that this is common practice and that a good % of new builds are being sold to foreign businessmen. I also keep seeing on the news about how many places in London are now owned by people from abroad that purely buy as an investment.
Now I have no idea what % of properties in and around London are being bought up like this but to me it's wrong. All this achieves is driving up the price of property over here and putting money in the hands of rich overseas buyers.
I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit.
Should that last point be extended to everyone, regardless of nationality?
Definitely a limit as to how many properties you can own.yes.
Yeah... I think that is your key point - not the targeting of foreign ownership. Blaming the mess on Johnny Foreigner is a distraction.
Not putting the blame on johny Foreigner at all. They are just taking advantage of a situation that allows them to buy up properties in the UK.
I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of British politicians that allows for this to happen.
Sure...and your key point is that nobody (foreign or local) should be allowed to own property that they won't/don't live in, right?
Stop talking rubbish I'm not saying that at all. There should be a limit to how many homes a person can own. I think you understand what I'm saying but for some reason you want to misconscew my meaning
Hi. I was being genuine. Maybe I have misunderstood you. Will try to unpick.
You said:
"I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit. "
I asked if that was just for foreigners and you said it wasn't. So I sought to clarify (on your behalf, lol) that you weren't just blaming Johnny Foreigner and that your core point was about people- in general, regardless of nationality - owning property that they don't live in I.e. that this was wrong and should be legislated against.
Now it seems I have upset you, so must have got this wrong. Although, you have just said pretty much that, no?
Maybe you are saying thay foreigners must live in properties they buy (as per first point you said re: Starmer), but Brits just need a limit (as per you last post)?
I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing, btw. Just trying to figure out what you are saying.
Fair enough. I'll try and clarify what I meant.
Firstly I would like to see the government put in some legislation to stop overseas millionaire/ Bullionaire from buying up thousands of properties in the UK . As things stand they can buy as many properties as they like, including buying off plan. This does not sit right with me when we have such a housing shortage in the UK.
Secondly I would limit how many properties any one person can own. A perfect example of this is the ex Liverpool and England striker who owns well in excess of 100 properties. As the law stands he is doing nothing wrong but again I'm not comfortable with this.
People buying up this amount of properties creates a shortage for people looking to buy and drives up the price.
I have nothing against someone who wants to own a second property, possibly as a holiday home or something, but with supposedly 200k people in the UK without a permanent home I would rather people not be allowed to buy up as many properties as they like.
I think I may have posted this a while back, but I think it's worth repeating.
About 7 or 8 years ago a block of 8 flats were being built near where one of my mates lives. ( Maidstone area ). When he enquired about the cost of the flats he was told that all 8 had been bought by a Chinese man off plan. He was told that this is common practice and that a good % of new builds are being sold to foreign businessmen. I also keep seeing on the news about how many places in London are now owned by people from abroad that purely buy as an investment.
Now I have no idea what % of properties in and around London are being bought up like this but to me it's wrong. All this achieves is driving up the price of property over here and putting money in the hands of rich overseas buyers.
I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit.
Should that last point be extended to everyone, regardless of nationality?
Definitely a limit as to how many properties you can own.yes.
Yeah... I think that is your key point - not the targeting of foreign ownership. Blaming the mess on Johnny Foreigner is a distraction.
Not putting the blame on johny Foreigner at all. They are just taking advantage of a situation that allows them to buy up properties in the UK.
I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of British politicians that allows for this to happen.
Sure...and your key point is that nobody (foreign or local) should be allowed to own property that they won't/don't live in, right?
Stop talking rubbish I'm not saying that at all. There should be a limit to how many homes a person can own. I think you understand what I'm saying but for some reason you want to misconscew my meaning
Hi. I was being genuine. Maybe I have misunderstood you. Will try to unpick.
You said:
"I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit. "
I asked if that was just for foreigners and you said it wasn't. So I sought to clarify (on your behalf, lol) that you weren't just blaming Johnny Foreigner and that your core point was about people- in general, regardless of nationality - owning property that they don't live in I.e. that this was wrong and should be legislated against.
Now it seems I have upset you, so must have got this wrong. Although, you have just said pretty much that, no?
Maybe you are saying thay foreigners must live in properties they buy (as per first point you said re: Starmer), but Brits just need a limit (as per you last post)?
I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing, btw. Just trying to figure out what you are saying.
Fair enough. I'll try and clarify what I meant.
Firstly I would like to see the government put in some legislation to stop overseas millionaire/ Bullionaire from buying up thousands of properties in the UK . As things stand they can buy as many properties as they like, including buying off plan. This does not sit right with me when we have such a housing shortage in the UK.
Secondly I would limit how many properties any one person can own. A perfect example of this is the ex Liverpool and England striker who owns well in excess of 100 properties. As the law stands he is doing nothing wrong but again I'm not comfortable with this.
People buying up this amount of properties creates a shortage for people looking to buy and drives up the price.
I have nothing against someone who wants to own a second property, possibly as a holiday home or something, but with supposedly 200k people in the UK without a permanent home I would rather people not be allowed to buy up as many properties as they like.
Don’t agree with this, I get that investors buying and leaving properties empty is morally wrong, people like Robbie Fowler who bought up streets of unwanted terraced houses in undesirable areas, spent his money to make them liveable and then housed people has done nothing immoral, yes he stands to make money but he has improved the areas where he grew up which is a good thing. not everyone wants or has the means to buy their own home so private landlords are needed as our councils and HA are incapable of providing enough quality homes. so there’s an argument on both sides to be had
Rather than Robbie Fowler buying up hundreds of houses I would prefer if the government done them up and used them as council houses at affordable rent.
The national minimum wage is £10.42 per hour. 40x £10.42 is £416.80 per week. £1,667.20 per month. How much of that income ought to be used to pay for a decent place to live?
£500 a month. As you've said before If working full time you should be able to put a roof over your head, pay the bills and be able to eat.
Seems fairly reasonable, 1/3 of income is a good starting point for a ‘roof over your head’
Just over £600 would be a third based on 40 hour week, minimum wage of £10.42, possibly some benefits would be payable on top. FWIW as an example, we only have the one, one bed flat in Dartford and that is £670 a month.
I think I may have posted this a while back, but I think it's worth repeating.
About 7 or 8 years ago a block of 8 flats were being built near where one of my mates lives. ( Maidstone area ). When he enquired about the cost of the flats he was told that all 8 had been bought by a Chinese man off plan. He was told that this is common practice and that a good % of new builds are being sold to foreign businessmen. I also keep seeing on the news about how many places in London are now owned by people from abroad that purely buy as an investment.
Now I have no idea what % of properties in and around London are being bought up like this but to me it's wrong. All this achieves is driving up the price of property over here and putting money in the hands of rich overseas buyers.
I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit.
Should that last point be extended to everyone, regardless of nationality?
Definitely a limit as to how many properties you can own.yes.
Yeah... I think that is your key point - not the targeting of foreign ownership. Blaming the mess on Johnny Foreigner is a distraction.
Not putting the blame on johny Foreigner at all. They are just taking advantage of a situation that allows them to buy up properties in the UK.
I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of British politicians that allows for this to happen.
Sure...and your key point is that nobody (foreign or local) should be allowed to own property that they won't/don't live in, right?
Stop talking rubbish I'm not saying that at all. There should be a limit to how many homes a person can own. I think you understand what I'm saying but for some reason you want to misconscew my meaning
Hi. I was being genuine. Maybe I have misunderstood you. Will try to unpick.
You said:
"I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit. "
I asked if that was just for foreigners and you said it wasn't. So I sought to clarify (on your behalf, lol) that you weren't just blaming Johnny Foreigner and that your core point was about people- in general, regardless of nationality - owning property that they don't live in I.e. that this was wrong and should be legislated against.
Now it seems I have upset you, so must have got this wrong. Although, you have just said pretty much that, no?
Maybe you are saying thay foreigners must live in properties they buy (as per first point you said re: Starmer), but Brits just need a limit (as per you last post)?
I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing, btw. Just trying to figure out what you are saying.
Fair enough. I'll try and clarify what I meant.
Firstly I would like to see the government put in some legislation to stop overseas millionaire/ Bullionaire from buying up thousands of properties in the UK . As things stand they can buy as many properties as they like, including buying off plan. This does not sit right with me when we have such a housing shortage in the UK.
Secondly I would limit how many properties any one person can own. A perfect example of this is the ex Liverpool and England striker who owns well in excess of 100 properties. As the law stands he is doing nothing wrong but again I'm not comfortable with this.
People buying up this amount of properties creates a shortage for people looking to buy and drives up the price.
I have nothing against someone who wants to own a second property, possibly as a holiday home or something, but with supposedly 200k people in the UK without a permanent home I would rather people not be allowed to buy up as many properties as they like.
I think I may have posted this a while back, but I think it's worth repeating.
About 7 or 8 years ago a block of 8 flats were being built near where one of my mates lives. ( Maidstone area ). When he enquired about the cost of the flats he was told that all 8 had been bought by a Chinese man off plan. He was told that this is common practice and that a good % of new builds are being sold to foreign businessmen. I also keep seeing on the news about how many places in London are now owned by people from abroad that purely buy as an investment.
Now I have no idea what % of properties in and around London are being bought up like this but to me it's wrong. All this achieves is driving up the price of property over here and putting money in the hands of rich overseas buyers.
I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit.
Should that last point be extended to everyone, regardless of nationality?
Definitely a limit as to how many properties you can own.yes.
Yeah... I think that is your key point - not the targeting of foreign ownership. Blaming the mess on Johnny Foreigner is a distraction.
Not putting the blame on johny Foreigner at all. They are just taking advantage of a situation that allows them to buy up properties in the UK.
I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of British politicians that allows for this to happen.
Sure...and your key point is that nobody (foreign or local) should be allowed to own property that they won't/don't live in, right?
Stop talking rubbish I'm not saying that at all. There should be a limit to how many homes a person can own. I think you understand what I'm saying but for some reason you want to misconscew my meaning
Hi. I was being genuine. Maybe I have misunderstood you. Will try to unpick.
You said:
"I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit. "
I asked if that was just for foreigners and you said it wasn't. So I sought to clarify (on your behalf, lol) that you weren't just blaming Johnny Foreigner and that your core point was about people- in general, regardless of nationality - owning property that they don't live in I.e. that this was wrong and should be legislated against.
Now it seems I have upset you, so must have got this wrong. Although, you have just said pretty much that, no?
Maybe you are saying thay foreigners must live in properties they buy (as per first point you said re: Starmer), but Brits just need a limit (as per you last post)?
I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing, btw. Just trying to figure out what you are saying.
Fair enough. I'll try and clarify what I meant.
Firstly I would like to see the government put in some legislation to stop overseas millionaire/ Bullionaire from buying up thousands of properties in the UK . As things stand they can buy as many properties as they like, including buying off plan. This does not sit right with me when we have such a housing shortage in the UK.
Secondly I would limit how many properties any one person can own. A perfect example of this is the ex Liverpool and England striker who owns well in excess of 100 properties. As the law stands he is doing nothing wrong but again I'm not comfortable with this.
People buying up this amount of properties creates a shortage for people looking to buy and drives up the price.
I have nothing against someone who wants to own a second property, possibly as a holiday home or something, but with supposedly 200k people in the UK without a permanent home I would rather people not be allowed to buy up as many properties as they like.
Don’t agree with this, I get that investors buying and leaving properties empty is morally wrong, people like Robbie Fowler who bought up streets of unwanted terraced houses in undesirable areas, spent his money to make them liveable and then housed people has done nothing immoral, yes he stands to make money but he has improved the areas where he grew up which is a good thing. not everyone wants or has the means to buy their own home so private landlords are needed as our councils and HA are incapable of providing enough quality homes. so there’s an argument on both sides to be had
Rather than Robbie Fowler buying up hundreds of houses I would prefer if the government done them up and used them as council houses at affordable rent.
But they didn't, so good job Robbie did, otherwise more people would be homeless no? Where I do agree is Government/councils etc should be doing more to build, bring back housing etc, but until they do if private enterprise doesn't we'd be even more fooked.
The national minimum wage is £10.42 per hour. 40x £10.42 is £416.80 per week. £1,667.20 per month. How much of that income ought to be used to pay for a decent place to live?
£500 a month. As you've said before If working full time you should be able to put a roof over your head, pay the bills and be able to eat.
Seems fairly reasonable, 1/3 of income is a good starting point for a ‘roof over your head’
Cue every landlord only wanting to rent their property to people with very high incomes…
The national minimum wage is £10.42 per hour. 40x £10.42 is £416.80 per week. £1,667.20 per month. How much of that income ought to be used to pay for a decent place to live?
£500 a month. As you've said before If working full time you should be able to put a roof over your head, pay the bills and be able to eat.
Seems fairly reasonable, 1/3 of income is a good starting point for a ‘roof over your head’
Cue every landlord only wanting to rent their property to people with very high incomes…
Which is why I said it should be government run, private landlords will always seek the highest income possible, governments shouldn’t.
The national minimum wage is £10.42 per hour. 40x £10.42 is £416.80 per week. £1,667.20 per month. How much of that income ought to be used to pay for a decent place to live?
£500 a month. As you've said before If working full time you should be able to put a roof over your head, pay the bills and be able to eat.
Seems fairly reasonable, 1/3 of income is a good starting point for a ‘roof over your head’
Cue every landlord only wanting to rent their property to people with very high incomes…
Which is why I said it should be government run, private landlords will always seek the highest income possible, governments shouldn’t.
The heart of that aligns with my thinking on so many things....
Let the government run it in a fair way for the good of the people, rather than private companies seeking to maximise profits for the few
- housing - trains - buses - education - health care
The idea that only private enterprises can be efficient and effective is BS
Indeed 3 of my tenants receive housing benefit and universal credit, I rent out via local authority on the LHA rates which are considerably less than I could receive on the open market, however the rent is guaranteed and they have secure housing
Indeed 3 of my tenants receive housing benefit and universal credit, I rent out via local authority on the LHA rates which are considerably less than I could receive on the open market, however the rent is guaranteed and they have secure housing
Those schemes used to be quite popular but a lot of councils ceased doing them preferring to simply act as a lettings agent/introducer. The last time I had a BTL myself I did the same with Lewisham but that ceased at least 15-20 years ago (unless they've started doing again in more recent times). I was looking at it with Portsmouth a few years back but they then pulled the scheme.
It's good to hear of real evidence of non greedy landlords who are actually providing a really really important service rather than this notion that every landlord is greedy and simply stopping people being able to buy. There's still a large percentage of those renting that wouldn't buy as even if house prices dropped 25-50% would still be way beyond their reach.
Hats off to you.
I've not looked lately but about a third of our rentals used to be to people on HB/UC. Most of ours are slightly above the LHA, but we're taking the credit risk rather than the authority. Thankfully bar one lady who did a midnight flip around 15 years ago we don't have any other arrears.
Just to balance out all the older posters and their tales of struggle getting on the housing ladder. My wife bought her first property in 1999. It was a two bedroom flat in a mansion block in Forest Hill and cost less than £60k. She told me she even managed to put the 5% deposit on a credit card. This was all done on an assistant picture framers salary. When you compare the situation then and now I don't blame those in their 20's and 30's being very, very angry with the hand that they've been dealt.
Agreed, but could you do similar today? Buy a 1 bed flat for £200K & put the 5% deposit ( £10K) on a credit card.
The chances of you getting a mortgage with a 5% deposit on a credit card...
you'd be surprised, 1999 would have been around the time of Egg Money, still was the only credit card you could transfer a credit balance into cash. So take out a 0% balance transfer card with say Barclays, balance transfer to egg and cash into your bank. Of course the mortgage lender would know you had £x on credit card, but people used to do it all the time (granted I didn't know anyone who did it for a mortgage deposit, was mostly used for savings, but was certainly do-able).
My mate bought his first flat in about 1999. Him and fiance took a 110% mortgage and put all their credit card debt on the mortgage essentially. The flat was £80K in Beckenham. A fair chunk of the £8K (10%) extra was my mates credit card as he had just proposed and paid for the ring on his credit card. They are now married and his wife earns more than him so has paid for most of the engagement ring herself I imagine... I don't think she realises.
Just to balance out all the older posters and their tales of struggle getting on the housing ladder. My wife bought her first property in 1999. It was a two bedroom flat in a mansion block in Forest Hill and cost less than £60k. She told me she even managed to put the 5% deposit on a credit card. This was all done on an assistant picture framers salary. When you compare the situation then and now I don't blame those in their 20's and 30's being very, very angry with the hand that they've been dealt.
Agreed, but could you do similar today? Buy a 1 bed flat for £200K & put the 5% deposit ( £10K) on a credit card.
The chances of you getting a mortgage with a 5% deposit on a credit card...
you'd be surprised, 1999 would have been around the time of Egg Money, still was the only credit card you could transfer a credit balance into cash. So take out a 0% balance transfer card with say Barclays, balance transfer to egg and cash into your bank. Of course the mortgage lender would know you had £x on credit card, but people used to do it all the time (granted I didn't know anyone who did it for a mortgage deposit, was mostly used for savings, but was certainly do-able).
My mate bought his first flat in about 1999. Him and fiance took a 110% mortgage and put all their credit card debt on the mortgage essentially. The flat was £80K in Beckenham. A fair chunk of the £8K (10%) extra was my mates credit card as he had just proposed and paid for the ring on his credit card. They are now married and his wife earns more than him so has paid for most of the engagement ring herself I imagine... I don't think she realises.
Mans a genius!
I bet she also doesn't realise that £8k will end up costing £20k+ either.
I thought I'd have a look at what 200K as I was curious from a post above. There are indeed places around that mark but there are a lot of horror shows, auctions and a good deal of strings attached. Its actually soul destroying looking at what so much money buys so little but that's the world we all live in.
I think I have seen the future of social/BTL. (I'm not being serious BTW)
I thought I'd have a look at what 200K as I was curious from a post above. There are indeed places around that mark but there are a lot of horror shows, auctions and a good deal of strings attached. Its actually soul destroying looking at what so much money buys so little but that's the world we all live in.
I think I have seen the future of social/BTL. (I'm not being serious BTW)
Who knew you could buy detached in London for 24K.
To get anything decent on/under £200k you'll need to move out a bit (from Bromley) or be prepared for modernisation work and lease extensions or auctions. You might scrape something in a cheaper postcode like Grove Park for around £200k.
Lots of purpose built one bed flats in places like Dartford for sub £150k, good commuter line.
Those £24k boxes are truly taking the pee, my summer house is bigger and didn't cost that!
I thought I'd have a look at what 200K as I was curious from a post above. There are indeed places around that mark but there are a lot of horror shows, auctions and a good deal of strings attached. Its actually soul destroying looking at what so much money buys so little but that's the world we all live in.
I think I have seen the future of social/BTL. (I'm not being serious BTW)
Who knew you could buy detached in London for 24K.
To get anything decent on/under £200k you'll need to move out a bit (from Bromley) or be prepared for modernisation work and lease extensions or auctions. You might scrape something in a cheaper postcode like Grove Park for around £200k.
Lots of purpose built one bed flats in places like Dartford for sub £150k, good commuter line.
Those £24k boxes are truly taking the pee, my summer house is bigger and didn't cost that!
Dartford's commuter line is shite now.
We all either go to Abbey Wood or Ebbsfleet.
Fuck sitting on the train for over an hour to sit outside London Bridge waiting to get in.
The Lizzie line's the future mate. Or Ebbsfleet to Kings Cross in 15 minutes if you're feeling flush
I thought I'd have a look at what 200K as I was curious from a post above. There are indeed places around that mark but there are a lot of horror shows, auctions and a good deal of strings attached. Its actually soul destroying looking at what so much money buys so little but that's the world we all live in.
I think I have seen the future of social/BTL. (I'm not being serious BTW)
Who knew you could buy detached in London for 24K.
To get anything decent on/under £200k you'll need to move out a bit (from Bromley) or be prepared for modernisation work and lease extensions or auctions. You might scrape something in a cheaper postcode like Grove Park for around £200k.
Lots of purpose built one bed flats in places like Dartford for sub £150k, good commuter line.
Those £24k boxes are truly taking the pee, my summer house is bigger and didn't cost that!
look at Rob with his big summer house and no doubt also got a garden pond filled by the tears of his tenants.
I thought I'd have a look at what 200K as I was curious from a post above. There are indeed places around that mark but there are a lot of horror shows, auctions and a good deal of strings attached. Its actually soul destroying looking at what so much money buys so little but that's the world we all live in.
I think I have seen the future of social/BTL. (I'm not being serious BTW)
Who knew you could buy detached in London for 24K.
To get anything decent on/under £200k you'll need to move out a bit (from Bromley) or be prepared for modernisation work and lease extensions or auctions. You might scrape something in a cheaper postcode like Grove Park for around £200k.
Lots of purpose built one bed flats in places like Dartford for sub £150k, good commuter line.
Those £24k boxes are truly taking the pee, my summer house is bigger and didn't cost that!
I agree with you Rob,if you want to get on the housing ladder move out to Kent,best thing I ever did
I thought I'd have a look at what 200K as I was curious from a post above. There are indeed places around that mark but there are a lot of horror shows, auctions and a good deal of strings attached. Its actually soul destroying looking at what so much money buys so little but that's the world we all live in.
I think I have seen the future of social/BTL. (I'm not being serious BTW)
Who knew you could buy detached in London for 24K.
To get anything decent on/under £200k you'll need to move out a bit (from Bromley) or be prepared for modernisation work and lease extensions or auctions. You might scrape something in a cheaper postcode like Grove Park for around £200k.
Lots of purpose built one bed flats in places like Dartford for sub £150k, good commuter line.
Those £24k boxes are truly taking the pee, my summer house is bigger and didn't cost that!
I agree with you Rob,if you want to get on the housing ladder move out to Kent,best thing I ever did
It is a well-trodden path - Medway for example is full of south Londoners.
It is but as a youngster who wants to move out out when the bright lights of London are there to be enjoyed and to be lived in. It's so depressing that young people have to move away from friends and family to do this... and don't get me started on having to spend your 20's living with your parents. What a nightmare. The thought of that makes me shudder but that's more my problem I think. I know the younger generation don't want my sympathy but they sure have it. It is just unfair.
It is but as a youngster who wants to move out out when the bright lights of London are there to be enjoyed and to be lived in. It's so depressing that young people have to move away from friends and family to do this... and don't get me started on having to spend your 20's living with your parents. What a nightmare. The thought of that makes me shudder but that's more my problem I think. I know the younger generation don't want my sympathy but they sure have it. It is just unfair.
You're joking. The thought of having some of these 20 year olds living at home. We was working on a job The woman had 3 daughters, eldest one had moved out and the mum had the grandson most days. The other 2 aged between 25-30 lived at home and they don't pay a bean in rent. One day the mum had asked them if they could help with the housework. The reply from the daughters was " can't you do the housework during the day"
I thought I'd have a look at what 200K as I was curious from a post above. There are indeed places around that mark but there are a lot of horror shows, auctions and a good deal of strings attached. Its actually soul destroying looking at what so much money buys so little but that's the world we all live in.
I think I have seen the future of social/BTL. (I'm not being serious BTW)
Comments
I'll try and clarify what I meant.
Firstly I would like to see the government put in some legislation to stop overseas millionaire/ Bullionaire from buying up thousands of properties in the UK .
As things stand they can buy as many properties as they like, including buying off plan.
This does not sit right with me when we have such a housing shortage in the UK.
Secondly I would limit how many properties any one person can own.
A perfect example of this is the ex Liverpool and England striker who owns well in excess of 100 properties.
As the law stands he is doing nothing wrong but again I'm not comfortable with this.
People buying up this amount of properties creates a shortage for people looking to buy and drives up the price.
I have nothing against someone who wants to own a second property, possibly as a holiday home or something, but with supposedly 200k people in the UK without a permanent home I would rather people not be allowed to buy up as many properties as they like.
not everyone wants or has the means to buy their own home so private landlords are needed as our councils and HA are incapable of providing enough quality homes.
so there’s an argument on both sides to be had
40x £10.42 is £416.80 per week.
£1,667.20 per month.
How much of that income ought to be used to pay for a decent place to live?
As you've said before
If working full time you should be able to put a roof over your head, pay the bills and be able to eat.
If not, then what?
As you say Robbie fowler is probably the wrong investor to pick on as a lot of what he bought was boarded up terraced houses so he brought back into use existing property, in my view that's a good thing to have done.
But they didn't, so good job Robbie did, otherwise more people would be homeless no? Where I do agree is Government/councils etc should be doing more to build, bring back housing etc, but until they do if private enterprise doesn't we'd be even more fooked.
Let the government run it in a fair way for the good of the people, rather than private companies seeking to maximise profits for the few
- housing
- trains
- buses
- education
- health care
The idea that only private enterprises can be efficient and effective is BS
Don't want to send the thread off on a tangent...
It's good to hear of real evidence of non greedy landlords who are actually providing a really really important service rather than this notion that every landlord is greedy and simply stopping people being able to buy. There's still a large percentage of those renting that wouldn't buy as even if house prices dropped 25-50% would still be way beyond their reach.
Hats off to you.
I've not looked lately but about a third of our rentals used to be to people on HB/UC. Most of ours are slightly above the LHA, but we're taking the credit risk rather than the authority. Thankfully bar one lady who did a midnight flip around 15 years ago we don't have any other arrears.
My mate bought his first flat in about 1999. Him and fiance took a 110% mortgage and put all their credit card debt on the mortgage essentially. The flat was £80K in Beckenham. A fair chunk of the £8K (10%) extra was my mates credit card as he had just proposed and paid for the ring on his credit card. They are now married and his wife earns more than him so has paid for most of the engagement ring herself I imagine... I don't think she realises.
I bet she also doesn't realise that £8k will end up costing £20k+ either.
I think I have seen the future of social/BTL. (I'm not being serious BTW)
Found this on Rightmove, https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/86309940#/?channel=RES_NEW .
Who knew you could buy detached in London for 24K.
Lots of purpose built one bed flats in places like Dartford for sub £150k, good commuter line.
Those £24k boxes are truly taking the pee, my summer house is bigger and didn't cost that!
We all either go to Abbey Wood or Ebbsfleet.
Fuck sitting on the train for over an hour to sit outside London Bridge waiting to get in.
The Lizzie line's the future mate. Or Ebbsfleet to Kings Cross in 15 minutes if you're feeling flush
Very commutable to London should you be able to afford the season ticket.
The thought of having some of these 20 year olds living at home.
We was working on a job
The woman had 3 daughters, eldest one had moved out and the mum had the grandson most days.
The other 2 aged between 25-30 lived at home and they don't pay a bean in rent.
One day the mum had asked them if they could help with the housework.
The reply from the daughters was " can't you do the housework during the day"
Right next to the Abba Voyage venue.
You could make a lot of money from that venue with a bit of planning.