This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
jamiemartin721  Reading 17 Nov 16 9.32am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
And removal of a significant number of those already here. Could be problematic, given they came here legally. They'd need to be in default of immigration rules before you could deport them (i.e. out of work for a set period of time for non-EU and probably commission of a crime or leaving the country by choice. For non-eu it could be easier, as their working permits and visas would expire, but then there is the question of whether they can be replaced from the available work force. If you were to say, immediately pursue a policy of deporting say the 300,000 or so EU migrants in a year, its likely the economy would tank. The desire to 'be free of non-British' and the practicality of doing so, need to be considered. Just because people may have a Nationalist agenda, pursuing something like that ideologically will f**k the country.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 17 Nov 16 9.33am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
Anyone who doesn't have four English born grandparents should be deported forthwith. See ya!
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 17 Nov 16 9.42am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle
Indeed, which is the crux of my point. I can get a mortgage and, despite the fortunate position I now find myself in, property ownership in the SE is inaccesible (perhaps a better semantic choice than "unaffordable" ). What does that mean for other income groups? Anyway, enough finger pointing. My view is that blaming this situation on EU freedom of movement conveniently moves the focus away from years of government's economic policies which have entrenched multiple property ownership as the one guaranteed way to generate decent returns on wealth. Apologies for earlier outbursts of sarcasm. Edited by Mr_Gristle (16 Nov 2016 8.35pm) Edited by Mr_Gristle (16 Nov 2016 8.40pm) It was a problem before the introduction of freedom of movement - house prices were ridiculous - its just that banking practices around mortgages were just as crazy - and we saw where that ended up. Whilst I suspect that if you lower your expectations then many people could, with some financial struggle, buy a house. It says something about our society that we feel that's a good thing, that the biggest purchase of your life, will be for something that is not as bad as the other options. You can spend 250k to live in a crime riddled area of town, in a house that the council used to provide for very reasonable rent.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 DanH SW2 17 Nov 16 9.59am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by We are goin up!
True. Mortgage advisor here, almost all the first time buyers I see end up paying less on their first mortgage than they did on rent, whilst upgrading the quality of property. Yep, that's the depressing thing. Chucking away money on rent that could otherwise be going towards a deposit and caught in the perpetual cycle.
|
|
 Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 17 Nov 16 10.10am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Could be problematic, given they came here legally. They'd need to be in default of immigration rules before you could deport them (i.e. out of work for a set period of time for non-EU and probably commission of a crime or leaving the country by choice. For non-eu it could be easier, as their working permits and visas would expire, but then there is the question of whether they can be replaced from the available work force. If you were to say, immediately pursue a policy of deporting say the 300,000 or so EU migrants in a year, its likely the economy would tank. The desire to 'be free of non-British' and the practicality of doing so, need to be considered. Just because people may have a Nationalist agenda, pursuing something like that ideologically will f**k the country. But think of what fun it'd be.
|
|
L.E.Eagle  17 Nov 16 10.25am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
Anyone who doesn't have four English born grandparents should be deported forthwith. 2 questions: 1.Is U.K okay or do you really mean England? 2.Are we talking 'birth certificate' grandparents or 'what everybody thinks is probably more like the truth and would explain a lot' grandparents?
|
|
| Part Time James 17 Nov 16 10.27am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by L.E.Eagle
2 questions: 1.Is U.K okay or do you really mean England? 2.Are we talking 'birth certificate' grandparents or 'what everybody thinks is probably more like the truth and would explain a lot' grandparents? These are good questions, but I don't think this law is going to be brought in. No disrespect to Kermit, but he has to get this bill through parliament first, he can't just post his ideas on the HOL forum and make them so.
|
|
| We are goin up! Coulsdon 17 Nov 16 10.58am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by chris123
I think the market will adjust before long.
Will be watching the Autumn Statement very closely, if the new government have any sense they'll reverse some of the changes that the previous administration made.
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. |
|
| paperhat croydon 17 Nov 16 11.06am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
Anyone who doesn't have four English born grandparents should be deported forthwith. using that analogy, where would that put me? Father adopted but born in India, of English parentage, further lineage unknown. He moved back here when 5 years old, lived in T heath ever since. If I get to leave, where do I go? Where do I 'go back to'? Edited by paperhat (17 Nov 2016 11.06am)
Clinton is Clinton. I have known him for a long time, I know his mother... Simon Jordan |
|
| chris123 hove actually 17 Nov 16 11.14am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by We are goin up!
Will be watching the Autumn Statement very closely, if the new government have any sense they'll reverse some of the changes that the previous administration made. There will be several forces at work - landlords exiting the market, lack of affordability in both rental and purchase property, reluctance to lend and a general realistion that the London market in particular, is due an adjustment after a period of very low interest rates.
|
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 17 Nov 16 11.19am |
|
|---|---|
|
I think that ultimately the further right, would ultimately like to filter the population of the UK down to an ideological perfection. Which is them, and those people they know and like, Nigel Farage, Jeremy Clarkson and the Queen.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 17 Nov 16 11.26am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by We are goin up!
Will be watching the Autumn Statement very closely, if the new government have any sense they'll reverse some of the changes that the previous administration made. Landlords in the UK have been taking the piss for decades and are one of the most loosely regulated groups of tax avoiding groups in the country. Its astonishing how many landlords don't end up paying capital gains tax when they sell previously rented property, VAT or corporation tax on income from renting as well as not operating under the auspice of a business. We should have stopped mortgages for Landlords decades ago. In any other business its called an asset and you either get investors, bank loans or buy outright. The number of private landlords with a few properties that have effectively skirted paying their share of the property boom (which could have been used to soften the impact on others) is staggering. Virtually anyone can become a landlord, without any real regulation, audit or requirements (such as a governing body).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| We are goin up! Coulsdon 17 Nov 16 11.35am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Landlords in the UK have been taking the piss for decades and are one of the most loosely regulated groups of tax avoiding groups in the country. Its astonishing how many landlords don't end up paying capital gains tax when they sell previously rented property, VAT or corporation tax on income from renting as well as not operating under the auspice of a business. We should have stopped mortgages for Landlords decades ago. In any other business its called an asset and you either get investors, bank loans or buy outright. The number of private landlords with a few properties that have effectively skirted paying their share of the property boom (which could have been used to soften the impact on others) is staggering. Virtually anyone can become a landlord, without any real regulation, audit or requirements (such as a governing body).
The problem is your second paragraph that basically suggests there's no space for landlords in the market. This is exactly the mindset that Osborne was tapping into for a headline, but the end result of hammering landlords is that they put rents up. Direct taxation that increases the monthly costs on landlords will inevitably do this. This makes it harder for renters to save for their own properties and causes a shortage of house ownership. You say landlords should have to get a bank loan to secure finance for a purchase, isn't that exactly what a mortgage is? A loan secured against a property? There's loads of regulations around those now, believe me. The problem isn't too many landlords, less landlords means even higher rents, the problem is hammering their monthly costs and (obviously) a lack of affordable housing that's exclusively for First Time Buyers. Edited by We are goin up! (17 Nov 2016 11.51am)
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 17 Nov 16 12.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by We are goin up!
The problem is your second paragraph that basically suggests there's no space for landlords in the market. This is exactly the mindset that Osborne was tapping into for a headline, but the end result of hammering landlords is that they put rents up. Direct taxation that increases the monthly costs on landlords will inevitably do this. This makes it harder for renters to save for their own properties and causes a shortage of house ownership. You say landlords should have to get a bank loan to secure finance for a purchase, isn't that exactly what a mortgage is? A loan secured against a property? There's loads of regulations around those now, believe me. The problem isn't too many landlords, less landlords means even higher rents, the problem is hammering their monthly costs and (obviously) a lack of affordable housing that's exclusively for First Time Buyers. Edited by We are goin up! (17 Nov 2016 11.51am) Only registered companies should really be allowed to become landlords, rather than individuals - with their assets, property, belonging to the company rather than the individual. But the failure is governments, to properly regulate this notoriously iffy market properly, and effectively, when they were making ridiculous profits hand over fist outside of business regulations. Actually less landlords, would mean lower house prices - as a large amount of the UK housing stock is tied up as rental property. Once again the UK government(s) have failed to represent consumers over the interests of the profitieering.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| OknotOK Cockfosters, London 17 Nov 16 12.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by We are goin up!
The problem isn't too many landlords, less landlords means even higher rents, the problem is hammering their monthly costs and (obviously) a lack of affordable housing that's exclusively for First Time Buyers. Edited by We are goin up! (17 Nov 2016 11.51am) Isn't it a bit of a catch-22? Reduce costs to landlords - potentially might reduce the rent they charge. But would encourage more people to become landlords. Which would increase comeptition/demand for housing stock, which would drive up prices?
"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 17 Nov 16 12.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
I think that ultimately the further right, would ultimately like to filter the population of the UK down to an ideological perfection. Which is them, and those people they know and like, Nigel Farage, Jeremy Clarkson and the Queen. Lol. The Queen is German and Farage is from outer space. Not very English. I actually think that any concerns about culture are now being heavily outweighed by the question of numbers.
|
|
| Stuk Top half 17 Nov 16 1.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Only registered companies should really be allowed to become landlords, rather than individuals - with their assets, property, belonging to the company rather than the individual. But the failure is governments, to properly regulate this notoriously iffy market properly, and effectively, when they were making ridiculous profits hand over fist outside of business regulations. Actually less landlords, would mean lower house prices - as a large amount of the UK housing stock is tied up as rental property. Once again the UK government(s) have failed to represent consumers over the interests of the profitieering. I don't agree. It's like saying no one should be self employed. Most private landlords pay their taxes on the income, where almost no one does is the short term lets - like Airbnb.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| We are goin up! Coulsdon 17 Nov 16 2.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Only registered companies should really be allowed to become landlords, rather than individuals - with their assets, property, belonging to the company rather than the individual. Actually less landlords, would mean lower house prices - as a large amount of the UK housing stock is tied up as rental property. Once again the UK government(s) have failed to represent consumers over the interests of the profitieering.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on the last paragraph, evidence and research has showed this isn't the case but, to be honest, I can't be arsed to go through it on a football forum.
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 17 Nov 16 2.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by OknotOK
Isn't it a bit of a catch-22? Reduce costs to landlords - potentially might reduce the rent they charge. But would encourage more people to become landlords. Which would increase comeptition/demand for housing stock, which would drive up prices? Would they f**k. They'd pocket the difference. When it comes to putting rent up, then market rates dominate - When market rates drop, the rent never gets adjusted accordingly. There are far too many private landlords in the UK who have effectively massively profited from the failure of the state to provide a reasonable basis of housing for the UK population. If you buy a house, then governments care, because that market is 'precious' to elections. If you rent, the state hasn't given a f**k about you in the last 30 years unless your in Council housing. Your left at the tender mercy of the 'free market'. The good thing about Brexit, it'll f**k the rental market, and consequently the housing market, if the UK reduces its EU Migrant population in line with what the Exiters wanted - that'll take around 300-400,000 people out of the rental market. Basically they've been propping up the housing market for a decade.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 17 Nov 16 2.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by We are goin up!
This is what they're trying to encourage. There's punitive taxes for landlords coming up over the next few years, unless they put the properties into a Limited company. 30 years too late, and even then its legislation about ensuring the government get their cut, not tenants. Originally posted by We are goin up!
We'll just have to agree to disagree on the last paragraph, evidence and research has showed this isn't the case but, to be honest, I can't be arsed to go through it on a football forum. Provided the landlords were dumping the property onto the market, it would create a glut, which would probably hit housing prices (more supply against demand) and less people in the rental market. There are good landlords, I'm not going to say their all c**ts. Just some. Agencies often are the problem - their fees really take the p*ss.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.