|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 8, 2024 15:39:24 GMT
Companies are owned by individuals...
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 8, 2024 15:41:54 GMT
Companies are owned by individuals... mainly 'consortium's' with a purpose.
especially offshore ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Jul 8, 2024 15:45:57 GMT
It was Michael Gove who abandoned House Building Targets, which immediately led to local councils revising house building targets down.
Yet we have a severe housing shortage, therefore the market is not reflecting or responding to need.
Not all Greenbelt land will be made available for housing targets, but what is described as "The Grey Belt", meaning the less desirable parts of TheGreen Belt will be made available, with new green belt boundries to be announced before Parliament goes into Summer recess.
The plans have been welcomed by Britains house builders, who say that this will halp to alleviate the housing shortage, and it will also help to fuel growth.
My own criticism is : Where are the homes needed to rent ?, social housing ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 8, 2024 15:55:40 GMT
Companies are owned by individuals... mainly 'consortium's' with a purpose.
especially offshore ones.
It doesn't matter if it it offshore or onshore - at some point the owners are individuals. People use companies for purchases for a variety of reasons, saying that those purchases have a less legal protections than purchases directly by individuals is a very slippery slope. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 8, 2024 15:57:56 GMT
It was Michael Gove who abandoned House Building Targets, which immediately led to local councils revising house building targets down. Yet we have a severe housing shortage, therefore the market is not reflecting or responding to need. Not all Greenbelt land will be made available for housing targets, but what is described as "The Grey Belt", meaning the less desirable parts of TheGreen Belt will be made available, with new green belt boundries to be announced before Parliament goes into Summer recess.
The plans have been welcomed by Britains house builders, who say that this will halp to alleviate the housing shortage, and it will also help to fuel growth. My own criticism is : Where are the homes needed to rent ?, social housing ? It's a funny old world though - we have a new government saying they are going to tear up planning laws to force development which is headed by a Housing Minister who objected to a development on a brownfield site in his own constituency.. Rather like the new Womens Minister who is unable to articulate what a woman is..  Oh - and it not only Labour. The Leader of the Greens is against decarbonising of the electricity grid because the new pylons will go through his own constituency |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 8, 2024 16:02:58 GMT
mainly 'consortium's' with a purpose.
especially offshore ones.
It doesn't matter if it it offshore or onshore - at some point the owners are individuals. People use companies for purchases for a variety of reasons, saying that those purchases have a less legal protections than purchases directly by individuals is a very slippery slope. My point being ...
Putin's bloody invasion of Ukraine has turned once-welcome oligarchs into sanctioned pariahs, and the number of frozen properties in and around the UK capital has exploded: Their combined value is more than £2 billion ($2.1 billion), according to a Bloomberg News analysis. The true figure's almost certainly far higher.
That is indisputable Fact.^^
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 8, 2024 16:10:16 GMT
It doesn't matter if it it offshore or onshore - at some point the owners are individuals. People use companies for purchases for a variety of reasons, saying that those purchases have a less legal protections than purchases directly by individuals is a very slippery slope. My point being ...
Putin's bloody invasion of Ukraine has turned once-welcome oligarchs into sanctioned pariahs, and the number of frozen properties in and around the UK capital has exploded: Their combined value is more than £2 billion ($2.1 billion), according to a Bloomberg News analysis. The true figure's almost certainly far higher.
That is indisputable Fact.^^
Oligarchs are going to buy very expensive houses costing tens of millions - so £2 Billion is not going to account for many houses and certainly will not be enough to make a dent in any housing crisis. London would be better off looking at finding some way to convert empty commercial office space if it really wanted to have a major effect on housing supply. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 8, 2024 16:13:54 GMT
Anyway - looks like its just a builders charter...
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 8, 2024 16:14:40 GMT
My point being ...
Putin's bloody invasion of Ukraine has turned once-welcome oligarchs into sanctioned pariahs, and the number of frozen properties in and around the UK capital has exploded: Their combined value is more than £2 billion ($2.1 billion), according to a Bloomberg News analysis. The true figure's almost certainly far higher.
That is indisputable Fact.^^
Oligarchs are going to buy very expensive houses costing tens of millions - so £2 Billion is not going to account for many houses and certainly will not be enough to make a dent in any housing crisis. London would be better off looking at finding some way to convert empty commercial office space if it really wanted to have a major effect on housing supply. Those properties will be empty, what's the point of them being empty when London is in a housing crisis, I'd say £2 billion in the UK capital in property would house a fair few key workers in London. I'm all for relieving oligarchs of their UK properties and assets, because I'm that kind of guy ... |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jul 8, 2024 16:17:50 GMT
Anyway - looks like its just a builders charter... I am crying with laughter . Labour the party that built less council homes than thatcher last time around , now promising to build none in England . Can starmers honeymoon last the week? |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jul 8, 2024 16:32:16 GMT
How? Taking the ''all property is theft'' Marxist line so the state is going to take it over for its own use - or what? No not take it off them, but make the owners use them, convert them into affordable homes, this is a example ..
The firm said that equates to non-UK buyers accounting for 2.76% of London's total existing housing stock (valued at just over £2 trillion). In the City of Westminster, foreigners own nearly 13% of all homes. In Kensington and Chelsea it is more than 10%
That's just Westminster ^^ some of these empty properties are like mansions, yet there are homeless people nearby sleeping in cardboard boxes, let's hope Rayner levels things up.
Convert to affordable homes? Why? It's same difference as taking them over - ridiculous. Some people ( not me) may have a house in London (or elsewhere) that they use a couple of times a year and live overseas the rest of the time To be resident abroad for tax purposes I believe that you are only allowed to spend a maximum of 90 days a year in the UK - that means that their occasional house is vacant for 9 months because of the tax laws - so what? They can't rent it out for that period because of the rental laws which make trying to evict a tenant who is overstaying the period of their agreement very difficult , very lengthy and very expensive . |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jul 8, 2024 16:35:54 GMT
That was the purpose of the long term empty premium in council tax. Of course it only applies to homes that are empty and unfurnished. If it's furnished it counts as a second home and no premium applies (although the discount is abolished for most councils). Take London for a example, we have key public sector workers who cannot afford to buy or rent in London, there is the hospitality industry, and then we have the NHS most working in one of the London hospitals have to make long commutes because they live well outside London, it would solve a lot of these problems if these empty properties were made affordable and available for rent to key public sector/civil servants, doctors, nurses, and other key industries.
It seems pointless foreign investors sitting on billions of pounds worth of investment properties doing nothing while these properties could be put to good use.
There is no land to build on in London, and if there is it comes at a massive premium, meaning developers want maximum returns for their builds, yet again making them only affordable to wealthy investors, who too will want maximum returns.
Taking London as an example over a million people commute INTO London every day without issues ( was higher pre covid) , a significant proportion of these would not want to live in London you want them too . Freedom of choice anyone? |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 8, 2024 16:41:51 GMT
No not take it off them, but make the owners use them, convert them into affordable homes, this is a example ..
The firm said that equates to non-UK buyers accounting for 2.76% of London's total existing housing stock (valued at just over £2 trillion). In the City of Westminster, foreigners own nearly 13% of all homes. In Kensington and Chelsea it is more than 10%
That's just Westminster ^^ some of these empty properties are like mansions, yet there are homeless people nearby sleeping in cardboard boxes, let's hope Rayner levels things up.
Convert to affordable homes? Why? It's same difference as taking them over - ridiculous. Some people ( not me) may have a house in London (or elsewhere) that they use a couple of times a year and live overseas the rest of the time To be resident abroad for tax purposes I believe that you are only allowed to spend a maximum of 90 days a year in the UK - that means that their occasional house is vacant for 9 months because of the tax laws - so what? They can't rent it out for that period because of the rental laws which make trying to evict a tenant who is overstaying the period of their agreement very lengthy and very expensive . It doesn't sit well with me or many others that the likes of Russian oligarchs and wealthy middle east 'investors' not 'individuals' are using the UK as a tax safe haven and a means of laundering money through properties and other assets.
I have nothing against 'private' genuine honest property investors and have no desire to using Marxism as a means of stripping the wealthy of their properties and assets, however I do have a desire to strip criminals and terrorist funders of their properties and assets. but that's just me.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jul 8, 2024 16:48:07 GMT
Convert to affordable homes? Why? It's same difference as taking them over - ridiculous. Some people ( not me) may have a house in London (or elsewhere) that they use a couple of times a year and live overseas the rest of the time To be resident abroad for tax purposes I believe that you are only allowed to spend a maximum of 90 days a year in the UK - that means that their occasional house is vacant for 9 months because of the tax laws - so what? They can't rent it out for that period because of the rental laws which make trying to evict a tenant who is overstaying the period of their agreement very lengthy and very expensive . It doesn't sit well with me or many others that the likes of Russian oligarchs and wealthy middle east 'investors' not 'individuals' are using the UK as a tax safe haven and a means of laundering money through properties and other assets.
I have nothing against 'private' genuine honest property investors and have no desire to using Marxism as a means of stripping the wealthy of their properties and assets, however I do have a desire to strip criminals and terrorist funders of their properties and assets. but that's just me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 8, 2024 16:57:11 GMT
It doesn't sit well with me or many others that the likes of Russian oligarchs and wealthy middle east 'investors' not 'individuals' are using the UK as a tax safe haven and a means of laundering money through properties and other assets.
I have nothing against 'private' genuine honest property investors and have no desire to using Marxism as a means of stripping the wealthy of their properties and assets, however I do have a desire to strip criminals and terrorist funders of their properties and assets. but that's just me.
Oligarchs are not 'Investors' and neither are middle east investors who fund Hamas terrorists, that's the difference, they are criminals using 'Legal loopholes' to portray themselves as genuine investors, while using offshore status to guise who they really are. |
|
