To be irritated by the Londoner exodus to my town?

[thesecondnamegame]

I've been priced out of my Greater Manchester town by the London diaspora. Anybody who knows the area will know which town I mean. My tatty council town centre terrace is worth 300k. A load of Londoners came up after the BBC moved to Manchester. Half the kids in my kid's school's parents are from London and they love to make sure you know that. House prices have become ridiculous and are in a different world to the rest of Greater Manchester. It's ridiculous as it used to be a very unremarkable market town (albiet with not much to it) and now it's gone all 'naice' and I'm having to move 10 miles away because it's reaching the surrounding towns and I simply cannot afford to live here and I want to buy a property. It annoys me, I keep imagining somebody who had a London salary and bought a house in London, sold it, and came up here and bought a house 3 times bigger for the same price as their smaller London home. It just seems like they cheated. There are no school places either, because a lot of the Londoner's chose this particular town for the schools. The catchments are bloody tiny, I know somebody who lives in a village about 4 miles away. The schools in this town are the closest schools. No school would take her child and she ended up having to home educate for months.

All my relatives who bought properties or private rented have had to leave, even those who went to uni and got great jobs.

So, in short, anybody who has gained over a certain amount in equity in a high yield area such as London who is intending to use the majority of that equity to buy a much bigger house in an area with a much lower equity yield would be taxed.

First time buyers would be exempt, obviously. Somebody who owns in London but is moving somewhere else who doesn't reach the equity threshold (so likely somebody selling a 1 bed flat in London to buy a 2 bed house elsewhere) would be exempt.

[quote thesecondnamegame]@NanaNorasNaughtyKnickers I suggested taxation, it would be calculated through somehow comparing the equity rates in the 2 areas. It would of course only apply in the case of equity. Somebody moving out of London for their first home would be irrelevant as they have no equity in the first place. Another potential exemption would be somebody who owns and is moving for work but doesn't have hundred's of thousands in equity through their previously owned house. The tax rate would keep more people in London and there would hopefully be a shift to not seeing housing as an investment or a case of getting lucky by being in the right place at the right time. Keeping people in London would prevent offshore investors snapping up the properties. It wouldn't just apply to London, somebody moving from a high cost area of Manchester to the North East with hundreds of thousands in equity would face the same tax.[/quote]
It wouldn't work. You'd just end up with places with labour shortages and businesses crippled by commercial property prices and an inability to move elsewhere.

Many of the companies moving out of London have done so to reduce overheads and keep on as many staff as possible.

Its not JUST households that have been affected by the rise in land/property prices. Its also business.

One of the reasonings behind the BBC move was the buildings they had in London were in need of renovation and no longer fit for purpose in todays media era. This would have been perhaps more expensive than new purpose built facilities outside London.

@korawick12345

And yet, you don't contribute anything to the discussion yourself except a few emojis and a shit joke.

[quote thesecondnamegame]@RickiTarr

Ergh, yes, But if you look back at my post, you will see that I wasn't talking about people getting onto the housing ladder to be able to live and work in a certain place but instead expressing that I don't believe equity earned in an extortionate area by specific household should then be able to be used to buy said household luxurious house in a completely different area with a vastly different property market.

HTH.[/quote]
That wasn’t the context in which other posters mentioned “nurse” though. They were talking about the broader housing economics landscape you are so steadfastly ignoring.

So if you’re ignoring intelligent input, that’s one thing, but to ignore all of it except the one word “nurse” and pick that out and say really daft things like ” The nurse guilt tripping is pointless. Both went to uni and did degrees which they chose, didn't they? The nurse could have become a solicitor if they had done a law degree”, people will find that hilarious and strange and mildly pathetic.

If you don’t want to engage intelligently with posts, ignore them. Don’t cherry pick single words in that foolish way. You’re making yourself look sillier than necessary.

So is it just Londoners who have to stay where they are (even if they're one of the 165,000 homeless)?

How about if it's someone using their York or Harrogate or Richmond (North Yorkshire) equity?

Are they allowed in Manchester?

If you don’t want to engage intelligently with posts, ignore them. Don’t cherry pick single words in that foolish way. You’re making yourself look sillier than necessary.

True dat!

@Tealightsandd

I literally said in the comment that it would apply to anybody moving from any high yield area to any low yield area.

@thesecondnamegame

So, in short, anybody who has gained over a certain amount in equity in a high yield area such as London who is intending to use the majority of that equity to buy a much bigger house in an area with a much lower equity yield would be taxed.

First time buyers would be exempt, obviously. Somebody who owns in London but is moving somewhere else who doesn't reach the equity threshold (so likely somebody selling a 1 bed flat in London to buy a 2 bed house elsewhere) would be exempt.

So heavy heavy taxation for the teacher who bought 25 years ago and has now paid off her mortgage and wants to move closer to family in Manchester but no additional taxation for the remote worker earning 150000 who has a small equity pot but can raise a massive mortgage. Sounds super fair! I can’t see any flaws at all in your plan

@Tealightsandd

So is it just Londoners who have to stay where they are (even if they're one of the 165,000 homeless)?

How about if it's someone using their York or Harrogate or Richmond (North Yorkshire) equity?

Are they allowed in Manchester?

Or equity from buying in Didsbury at the right time and then moving out to leafy Cheshire (yes happening because property prices closer to Manchester City Centre are now increasing faster than in leafy Cheshire which is a change in trend).

Londoners have been ignored for several decades.

Somebody who bought a modest London house 20 years ago

I am very, very lucky to have got on the housing ladder 22 years ago, but even then we were buying a one bed flat in zone 6.

You wouldn’t be meeting me at the school gates because my children have almost finished school, and I wouldn’t be moving at the end of their secondary education.

Even 20 years ago, house buyers in London were either very well paid (banking etc), benefitting from inherited money, or would now be approaching retirement.

If you are meeting people who have made lots of money after entering the London property market in the last 10 years, it’s likely that they have benefitted from inheritance as much as anything.

The magnitude - the sheer numbers - is breathtaking. So huge. So shocking.
Yet people brush it away because it's 'just Londoners'. Who are all rich. So rich that they are homeless...

165,000 homeless in London. That's not unable to buy. They are without a home full stop.

London has a housing emergency. And it's not ok to keep ignoring it. It needs to be tackled. People are in urgent need of help.

A friend from the BBC moved from a not particularly nice place on the London/Surrey border to a not particularly nice Manchester suburb... did extra training and got a promotion to do it because they were worried about job security in London. Zero pay rise and not particularly happy (I wonder why, when the locals are so welcoming )...

[quote thesecondnamegame]@Tealightsandd

I literally said in the comment that it would apply to anybody moving from any high yield area to any low yield area.[/quote]
How do you propose to put this in a manifesto and persuade people to vote for it?

Previous attempts at inheritance taxation have generally sunk like a lead balloon at party level and/or public level.

Why do you think this will pan out differently? There's a lot of vested financial interest in there.

@Flaxmeadow

Londoners have been ignored for several decades.

There's nothing funny about being homeless.

@RickiTarr

The nurse comment was said in a direct reply to a comment of mine in which I said somebody shouldn't be able to use hundred's of thousands in equity to buy a much larger house somewhere else. Whether it be a solicitor or a nurse doing it, it shouldn't be a thing. I get that the point was that a nurse can't live in London on their wage, that is not what I was talking about.

@RedToothBrush

Well, that's always been a thing. Everybody is for higher taxation for the greater good until it affects them.

[quote thesecondnamegame]@RickiTarr

The nurse comment was said in a direct reply to a comment of mine in which I said somebody shouldn't be able to use hundred's of thousands in equity to buy a much larger house somewhere else. Whether it be a solicitor or a nurse doing it, it shouldn't be a thing. I get that the point was that a nurse can't live in London on their wage, that is not what I was talking about.[/quote]
I can’t follow the twists and turns in your argument. It’s like counter surveillance procedures. You’re walking in loops.

Just how is a house owner with a great job, " forced to leave their home " by Londoners?

If you'd started off with the tax idea instead of slagging off Londoners and claiming you don't believe anyone here is a good neighbour despite asking people to believe all the Londoners in your town stride round in their Hunter wellies telling you to be grateful for their presence this thread would've gone a lot better for you OP. As it is you've created a thread full of people being shit about eache other and pissed me off enough that I'm not interested in whatever you have to say. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

There's nothing funny about being homeless.

I know, I've been homeless, but I wasn't replying to a post about that, but thanks for the judgment anyway

To continue to persist with the false narrative that London has it good, when 165,000 Londoners are homeless is beyond offensive.

London is the only region that pays in more tax than it gets back. Particularly considering the attitudes towards Londoners displayed by some, but also simply because it's a housing emergency, I'd say it's about time some of that tax was spent on housing London's homeless.

[quote thesecondnamegame]@RedToothBrush

Well, that's always been a thing. Everybody is for higher taxation for the greater good until it affects them.[/quote]
No shit sherlock.

Still doesn't answer how you could implement your nutty suggest either.

So heavy heavy taxation for the teacher who bought 25 years ago and has now paid off her mortgage and wants to move closer to family in Manchester but no additional taxation for the remote worker earning 150000 who has a small equity pot but can raise a massive mortgage. Sounds super fair! I can’t see any flaws at all in your plan

Also makes it difficult for businesses to move outside South East, if key employees face prohibitive taxes.

And with the companies moving out, long suffering Londoners lose again. Still priced out of housing but now unemployed to boot.