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.

All I know is that your thread has hugely put me off moving anywhere OP, if that is the dislike outsiders engender.

The number of times the word “Londoners” has been used with disdain is also making me feel a bit sea sick.

@korawick12345 Yes. She's paid off her mortgage so is in a good position, for her to be eligible for this tax then she has to have earned a very considerable amount in equity. 100's of thousands. Even just the price she paid for the house without equity would buy her somewhere great in Manchester. Not all of the equity would be taxed either, so she'd still have some.

I see your point about the remote worker, but that does not negate my belief about how equity should be used. Something would have to change with mortgages as well.

[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]
Sorry I didn't see your post. Fair enough.

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

This has been happening in the north for decades

@Flaxmeadow

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

This has been happening in the north for decades

Can we just get to the point where we all agree that their are losers in expensive areas and losers in the cheaper areas, and the problems of housing economics inevitably spill from one area to another one way or another?

And could we then sympathise with each other? This tribal ‘north v south, this city v the other city...’ stuff is really old hat and it doesn’t help.

I have huge sympathy for anyone, anywhere struggle to buy or rent adequate housing in a convenient area.

There not their^

Given the money given to emergency housing (such as hotels and b&bs) wouldn't it be cost effective in many parts of the country (including Manchester which also has a particularly bad and growing homeless problem) to invest this into social housing rather than going down the taxation root?

When people have secure homes they tend to look after their area better and have a community which works better as a whole reducing antisocial behaviour and crime.

Wouldn't it be more cost effective to improve public transport to areas of higher deprivation in order to help employment rates and opportunities?

I think these routes are much more likely to both get traction / be effective than an equity regional freedom of movement ban. And would harm business less.

@Flaxmeadow

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

This has been happening in the north for decades

Well no. As per the article I linked upthread, London is the capital of homelessness.

And has been for years.

Have you thought that Londoners have been priced out of London as people move there from all over the world!

[quote thesecondnamegame]@korawick12345 Yes. She's paid off her mortgage so is in a good position, for her to be eligible for this tax then she has to have earned a very considerable amount in equity. 100's of thousands. Even just the price she paid for the house without equity would buy her somewhere great in Manchester. Not all of the equity would be taxed either, so she'd still have some.

I see your point about the remote worker, but that does not negate my belief about how equity should be used. Something would have to change with mortgages as well.[/quote]
All that would happen is she would likely choose to remain in London and prices there would rise further as no one will ever move out leading to more pressure, higher prices and potentially more homelessness. And believe me once they start taxing equity for the ‘rich Londoners’ it will trickle down quick enough and soon everyone will be paying an equity tax. It’s pretty much what happened with SDLT. Meanwhile your remote worker can still come to Manchester and push up your prices.

@RedToothBrush

I've said, in brief terms, what it would entail. Not sure how you expect me to detail how I'd implement in when I'm not a politician and obviously haven't written a 500 page manifesto on it where I've gone over the details with a fine toothed comb

The basic concept is, somebody using large amounts equity earned in a high yield area to buy in a low yield area would face taxation to even out the playing field. Obviously if pigs flew, I somehow ended up in parliament and this was considered, the issue of whether it would apply businesses and their employees trying to move would be addressed properly, But alas, this is a Mumsnet thread.

Can we just get to the point where we all agree that their are losers in expensive areas and losers in the cheaper areas, and the problems of housing economics inevitably spill from one area to another one way or another?

Steady now. If we did this we might actually start to get to the point of understanding the multi faceted nature of the problem which would then be more likely to lead to an effective / meaningful solution.

Worth reposting.

www.mylondon.news/news/east-london-news/map-shows-london-boroughs-most-20641932.amp

London faces the most severe homelessness crisis in the country.

London Councils estimates there are currently 165,000 homeless Londoners living in borough-provided temporary accommodation, accounting for two-thirds of England’s homeless.

@RedToothBrush

Can we just get to the point where we all agree that their are losers in expensive areas and losers in the cheaper areas, and the problems of housing economics inevitably spill from one area to another one way or another?

Steady now. If we did this we might actually start to get to the point of understanding the multi faceted nature of the problem which would then be more likely to lead to an effective / meaningful solution.

Yeah, sorry. I don’t know what came over me.

And it's nothing new. Some on here must be old enough to remember the cardboard boxes under the Westway, under Tottenham Court Road Station, on the Strand.

[quote thesecondnamegame]@RedToothBrush

I've said, in brief terms, what it would entail. Not sure how you expect me to detail how I'd implement in when I'm not a politician and obviously haven't written a 500 page manifesto on it where I've gone over the details with a fine toothed comb

The basic concept is, somebody using large amounts equity earned in a high yield area to buy in a low yield area would face taxation to even out the playing field. Obviously if pigs flew, I somehow ended up in parliament and this was considered, the issue of whether it would apply businesses and their employees trying to move would be addressed properly, But alas, this is a Mumsnet thread.[/quote]
Its very clear you don't have much of idea about the problem nor politics. And Im pretty greatful you aren't in any position to deal with the issue.

'Its the fault of Londoners and we should tax them more' isnt even a coherent argument never mind solution.

@RedToothBrush

Given the money given to emergency housing (such as hotels and b&bs) wouldn't it be cost effective in many parts of the country (including Manchester which also has a particularly bad and growing homeless problem) to invest this into social housing rather than going down the taxation root?

When people have secure homes they tend to look after their area better and have a community which works better as a whole reducing antisocial behaviour and crime.

Wouldn't it be more cost effective to improve public transport to areas of higher deprivation in order to help employment rates and opportunities?

I think these routes are much more likely to both get traction / be effective than an equity regional freedom of movement ban. And would harm business less.

Yes you're completely right.

And could we then sympathise with each other? This tribal ‘north v south, this city v the other city...’ stuff is really old hat and it doesn’t help.

This is one reason why Andy (burning through taxpayer expenses) Burnham would be so harmful as Labour leader. He's basing his campaign on stoking division.

It's what so many politicians do. To divert from shit policies. Whether regional, race, age, class. Divide and rule.

I don't have the energy to read through 27 pages of this thread, but people from all over the UK have been coming to London for years, putting pressure on our housing and pricing us out. And now you're annoyed that you're getting a taste of your own medicine. You don't have the monopoly on not wanting to be priced out of your home town. It's been happening to Londoners for years, and now they're doing it back to you.

@KingAlex

Just because you live in London it doesn't mean you are stuck their and can never leave Lots of Londoners can't afford to buy in their hometowns either.

Exactly this. I couldn't afford to buy in London where I was born and bred.

I wouldn't move up North, definitely not.

From what i understand the money spent on emergency accommodation over 10 years far exceeds what it would cost government to invest in sufficient social housing. I think the MEN published some figures on this a while back because I remember seeing them somewhere but i forget exactly where.

The question we should be asking is who benefits from restricting the building of housing and providing emergency accommodation?

Spoiler: The answer is not Londoners Moving Up North to Altrincham.

Oh and by the way, this has been happening to Londoners for years and years. You should consider yourself damn lucky that it's only started happening to you recently, and you only have to move ten miles rather than hundreds of miles. No sympathy from me.

@RedToothBrush

From what i understand the money spent on emergency accommodation over 10 years far exceeds what it would cost government to invest in sufficient social housing. I think the MEN published some figures on this a while back because I remember seeing them somewhere but i forget exactly where.

The question we should be asking is who benefits from restricting the building of housing and providing emergency accommodation?

Spoiler: The answer is not Londoners Moving Up North to Altrincham.

Yes this.

Not dealing with the housing crisis is a false economy.

I agree social housing is needed on a much bigger scale.

If the equity I suggested tax was used purely for social housing, that would be a way of helping to redistribute the wealth of this country.

Somebody who managed to buy in the right place at the right time and then made hundreds of thousands from a property boom didn't earn that equity really, did they? Why should they have a right then go and buy somewhere else using it when it is created by the housing market in a certain area? The house is theirs and the money they paid downright for it is their's, but I really don't see why the rest of the equity should be. A decent percentage should be taxed, not all, of course. If somebody had 300k purely in gained equity, taking about 50% would leave them with an extra 150k on top of the value of the house when they bought it, and if they were moving to an area with lower houses prices (putting them in the bracket for the tax) would still be in a good position.

Property should never have been seen as an investment. For this to be sorted, we'd have to find a way to stop people buying houses purely for the equity value. So, why not tax?

@RedToothBrush

It is not a case of wanting to tax Londoners, bloody hell. I may have started the thread on a bit of an immature whinge because I'm admittedly upset by the state of this country and was a bit riled up. I put my hands up and admit to it but I still stand behind the points I have made. The conversation has moved on since.

I'm trying to suggest how we stop people seeing property as an investment. That is absolutely a major issue. So, tax on moving from an area with a high equity yield to a low equity yield if you have over a certain amount in equity. If you're moving with work, I don't see why you wouldn't still do so. You won't be losing money, the equity wasn't earned by you. You'll just be getting to use the money you paid for your house along with the percentage of the equity to go and live in a different area and would likely still get a nicer house without even considering the equity. Obviously it would only apply in the case of moving from high yield to low yield, otherwise how would anybody move up the housing ladder?