London SE1 community website

Is Southwark Council moving out Londoners with new luxury housing developments?

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Current: 5 of 10
Monday 31 March 2014 12.04am
marcusm - You are completely missing the point by insisting on perceived xenophobia. Apart from anything else, how do you know whether any of the people you are accusing aren't of foreign extraction themselves, recent or not? Presumptions are dangerous. Also, accusing people of xenophobia is very serious - if you feel you have a case maybe you should take it further. In the meantime, it'd probably be more constructive if you stuck to the topic in hand, which, ironically, is whether LONDONERS are being moved out by SC's luxury housing developments. Hmmm....
Monday 31 March 2014 6.19am
Precisely. Honestly Marcusm you are being ridiculoous. I am not in the LEAST zenophobic, and the only point I'm trying to make is that the new developments for the last years have been heavily marketed OVERSEAS and LONDONERS are finding it hard to compete with investors who are pushing up prices by buying into London property as a safe haven for money which may or may not be taxable in their home countries. The salient point here is that if London is to create communities it needs to be housing Londoners, and if every flat is sold off the drawing board to an investor who either leaves the place empty or rents it to ever rotating tenants - ie. people who are passing through and therefore care little about the area or the future of the community - this is, in the end, detremental. And I agree with Edward Woodward that you should possibly temper your language which is both shrill and inappropriate.
Monday 31 March 2014 6.58am
I have never met any of the other posters and so can only comment based on the posts; advocating discrimination based solely on national origin (framing laws to exclude foreign investors etc) or needlessly identifying the national origin of property owners is casual xenophobia. It does not mean that the person is inherently dislikeable or even that they are not themselves foreign, it simply indicates a tendancy to include stereotypical national attributes or atypical attributes in an analysis of facts.

Irrespective, the predominant part of my posts has not been to focus on such matters (albeit that the responses to them have).

The fact that neither of you wish to address is that pre sales of property are an important source of finance for new developments. Additionally, the maintenance of a good stock of rented accommodation is important to maintain the flexibility and vibrancy of a city and its economy.

As regards excluding locals from early stage pre build purchases, my suggestion is that each of you seek mortgage finance for a property which will not be ready for 2 years. You won't get it as it is not commonly available. This is why pre sales are rarely launched into the UK market. Londoners desirous to enter into such contracts will be effectively precluded as they will be advised against it by their solicitors as their mortgage offer (6-12 months) will lapse significantly before the property is available to occupy.

The recent examples of this have been Pan Peninsula and Strata both of which had issues with completing pre sales as they were effectively launched pre financial crisis but finished at the height of it.

Rather than promoting foreign pre sales, developers could source more expensive funding and then launch properties when complete at higher prices. That would not help Londoners any more.

I will repeat, the issue is empty and unused properties and the scramble to purchase a property in a rising market together with cheap finance available to home owners (low interest rates, funding for lending, help to buy) which is fuelling a boom which should have ended with the financial crisis. There has not been a significant property crash in the UK for 25 years, when the next one comes it will be much deeper and those who are scrambling to buy now will be the ones worst affected.
Monday 31 March 2014 9.12am
marcusm wrote:
... advocating discrimination based solely on national origin (framing laws to exclude foreign investors etc) or needlessly identifying the national origin of property owners is casual xenophobia.

While generally against xenophobia, it isn't always needless to identify the national origin of property owners.

Many of the countries in which the developers market London properties (eg Singapore and Qatar) themselves have restrictions on foreign investors buying local property.

They recognise the value of not exposing their local housing needs to the international market, while their citizens are (out-)competing us in a rigged market.
Monday 31 March 2014 12.09pm
My son came home from school upset recently as a fellow student had called him racist, because he and his friends wouldn't let them play football with them. Apart from anything else, my son's friends, whom he as playing football with, include portuguese, black and asian kids. Some people scream xenophobia and racism far too hysterically these days and it actually diminishes REAL xenophobia and racism, which in my experience, most people on SE1 find just as appalling as I do. So, the sooner that laughable accusation is dropped and people can get back to the topic in hand, the better.
Monday 31 March 2014 12.25pm
eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:
My son came home from school upset recently as a fellow student had called him racist, because he and his friends wouldn't let them play football with them. Apart from anything else, my son's friends, whom he as playing football with, include portuguese, black and asian kids. Some people scream xenophobia and racism far too hysterically these days and it actually diminishes REAL xenophobia and racism, which in my experience, most people on SE1 find just as appalling as I do. So, the sooner that laughable accusation is dropped and people can get back to the topic in hand, the better.

I really couldn't agree more, I was listening to the radio last night and this fella is talking about traffic regulations in the UK compared to elsewhere, he used the word "foreign" and then apologised straight away for using the word!
Monday 31 March 2014 12.44pm
I'm sure your son did not suggest making up the rules of football to exclude particular classes of person. Nor do I have any real belief that JR is negatively disposed towards any particular nationality. However, the unnecessary juxtaposition of nationality in the criticism of non owner occupiers is an unattractive trait.

Irrespective, I've focused more on the point of this thread which now seems to be going off topic.
Monday 31 March 2014 12.48pm
Rambling Phil wrote:
marcusm wrote:
... advocating discrimination based solely on national origin (framing laws to exclude foreign investors etc) or needlessly identifying the national origin of property owners is casual xenophobia.

While generally against xenophobia, it isn't always needless to identify the national origin of property owners.

Many of the countries in which the developers market London properties (eg Singapore and Qatar) themselves have restrictions on foreign investors buying local property.

They recognise the value of not exposing their local housing needs to the international market, while their citizens are (out-)competing us in a rigged market.

I would agree with you here, free trade should mean equal trade. However, in the circumstances, the UK is much more open to foreign direct investment as a means to achieve progress. Personally, I don't think UK people have lost out through limitations on property investment in the Gulf states although in reality there are always ways to invest despite restrictive local laws. The general problem is liquidating the investment or maintaining its value.
Monday 31 March 2014 2.39pm
The amount of foreign ownership that we see in London is also largely down to taxes. Singapore is a great example of how backwards our tax system in the UK has become.

If you are live in the UK earning £100k per year (and are therefore "rich" according some) you take home £65k after tax (so 35% goes to taxes). If you rent a decent 2-bed at market rates (£2500 pcm) that brings your net income down to £35k. If you don't live extravagantly, you may be able to save around £20k a year, meaning that in only 50 years you'll be a millionaire... That said, if you own a property, you don't pay any tax at all once you've paid your initial Stamp Duty.

In Singapore, the top income tax bracket is 20%, and the marginal rate at the same £100k p.a. equivalent salary would be 11.5% (you'd pay less than £10k tax at that pay level). But they have a sizeable property tax based on the annual rental value of the property, topping out at a 20% marginal rate for the most valuable non-owner occupied properties.

What we're seeing is foreign buyers from low-tax jurisdictions like Singapore, Hong Kong, and Russia, using their higher after-tax income to buy property in London where they don't pay property tax. Of course, it doesn't work the other was around, since it makes no sense for someone in a high-tax country like the UK to buy a property in a country with higher property taxes like Singapore, as we'd just be hit with taxes in both places.

The statement below is from the Singapore Government site (http://www.gov.sg/government/web/content/govsg/classic/factually/factually_20130712_property+tax+on+residential+properties):

Why do we only have property tax as a wealth tax?

Each country has its own type of wealth taxes such as property tax, estate tax, inheritance tax and capital gains tax. The challenge is to design a wealth tax regime that is equitable, cannot be easily avoided, and does not impede economic activities.

We eliminated estate duties in 2008 as its greatest impact was not on the wealthiest individuals, who tended to manage their financial assets globally. In doing so, the Government explained that property tax would be retained as the only wealth tax as it could be structured more equitably, with the owners of more valuable properties paying more. We also do not levy wealth taxes on any other forms of wealth such as cash or equity for practical reasons - monies can easily be shifted to similar assets in other financial centres, and such taxes will impact Singapore’s competitiveness as a financial centre.

Property tax cannot be avoided or tax-planned away. It does not affect our middle and upper-middle-income group disproportionately compared to wealthier ones. It also does not impede economic activities or our competitiveness.

We have thus kept property tax as our wealth tax based on property ownership.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Current: 5 of 10

To post a message, please log in or register..
We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions