Saturday, Sep 12, 2015

Kent man makes fortune from fleecing economic migrants

Guardian: As migrants fill his properties, Fergus Wilson puts up rents by 33%

inflation = 2% interest rates = 0.5% rent increase = 30% figure that one out

Posted by cyril @ 11:20 PM (4403 views)
Add Comment
Report Article

23 Comments

1. britishblue said...

This is why Jeremy Corbyn's policy of building a million new homes should be a a main stream cross party issue and not decried as left wing extremism. It is a centrist policy . I am looking forward to having an anti establishment opposition where real issues cannot be swept under the carpet by colluding politicians from the major parties and they are forced into the spotlight time and time again. The welfare bill in this country is out of control because of the shortage of housing and ramped up rents, which could have been so easily prevented if the government had spent money on housing projects in the last ten years.

Sunday, September 13, 2015 09:48AM Report Comment
 

2. pete green said...

It's worse than the BB the high cost of housing and land not only causes massive welfare bills but has an order of magnitude greater effect on our competitiveness as these costs are baked in to all the goods and services we exchange. Reducing our sales abroad and at home robbing us of jobs.

Sunday, September 13, 2015 11:30AM Report Comment
 

3. libertas said...

Fleecing? You fools!

When demand is so high, if you do not put prices up, you end up with 100 people viewing each property, and no resources to sift through all the offers. Precisely what would occur if I put s 100k discount on our house. Never going to happen. Land lords did not create the migrant prices, and by putting up prices, this creates a market signal to build, build, build.

You Socialists wanting rent control will end up decimating the building industry by blocking these market signals, resulting in vast swathes of homelessness due to exacerbated housing shortages.

The idiocy sees no end, because the same Internal Socialists like Corbine, want to have their cake and eat it, by calling for rent controls plus open borders along with a free NHS at the point of use. This economic illiteracy led to a Conservative win, with it looking like Ritalin will move to the right until around 2028, with there being no chance in hell of s Labour government until 2030 at the earliest.

Sunday, September 13, 2015 12:35PM Report Comment
 

4. libertas said...

Fleecing? You fools!

When demand is so high, if you do not put prices up, you end up with 100 people viewing each property, and no resources to sift through all the offers. Precisely what would occur if I put s 100k discount on our house. Never going to happen. Land lords did not create the migrant prices, and by putting up prices, this creates a market signal to build, build, build.

You Socialists wanting rent control will end up decimating the building industry by blocking these market signals, resulting in vast swathes of homelessness due to exacerbated housing shortages.

The idiocy sees no end, because the same Internal Socialists like Corbine, want to have their cake and eat it, by calling for rent controls plus open borders along with a free NHS at the point of use. This economic illiteracy led to a Conservative win, with it looking like Ritalin will move to the right until around 2028, with there being no chance in hell of s Labour government until 2030 at the earliest.

Sunday, September 13, 2015 12:35PM Report Comment
 

5. libertas said...

Britain, not Ritalin. Have fun with the auto spell checker.

Sunday, September 13, 2015 12:37PM Report Comment
 

6. britishblue said...

I agree. And it is getting worse. Due to the changes in planning where business premises can be turned into residential, lots of cottage industries across London are being evicted so the properties can be converted. I doubt whether you will get a small carpentry shop launch a business ever again in ithe first three zones of London. The costs would be prohibitive. It is only business that own the premises out right that can afford it.
Housing and the cost of housing should be a cross party issue with MP's from all sides up in arms about it. Is aboslute rubbish to say there is a shortage of land. Only a very small percentage of the UK is developed. It is absolutely rubbish to say Green belt is sacred when vast swathes of it are farmers fields covered in pesticides with minimum wild life and most people wouldnt know what was green belt or not if they had to review a pack of photos. . I am wondering if the like of Corbyn bring this to the table whether we might see some Lib dems and conservatives raising their concerns as well. Any MP in London, from whatever party, who does not have deep concerns about the housing shortage in London and the surrounding areas is turning a blind eye to a large part of their constituency and may be made to pay for it in future years.

Sunday, September 13, 2015 12:41PM Report Comment
 

7. mister ed said...

@3
I think the thread is discussing wider issues, Libby.

I do like the way you spelled Corbine, though. I always admire a man who takes the time to get his facts straight.

By the way, even though I don't agree with much of "Corbine" says, much of what he says wouldn't be out of place in Germany, one of the most successful capitalist economies in the world.

But never let facts get in the way of a nice adolescent foam-at-the-mouth against "socialists". It's the emotion that counts. :-)

Now sit down and have a cup of tea.

Sunday, September 13, 2015 12:56PM Report Comment
 

8. cyril said...

@4 &5 Oh sorry I didn't realise Mr Wilson was doing his civic duty

Sunday, September 13, 2015 01:15PM Report Comment
 

9. icarus said...

@3 - "You Socialists wanting rent control will end up decimating the building industry by blocking these market signals, resulting in vast swathes of homelessness due to exacerbated housing shortages".

Most markets are manipulated, with market signals blocked.

And we already have 'vast swathes of homelessness' and 'exacerbated housing shortages' without socialist rent controls.

bb @6 - 'I agree'. I guess you were typing a response @2 when libertas was posting?

Sunday, September 13, 2015 01:35PM Report Comment
 

10. britishblue said...

Icarus at 9. Yes I was replying to @2. I didnt expect a multi post from Libby. He seems to have missed the point entirely. By Libbys standards we should e going back to Feudal Landlords, where the maximum was extracted from the workers, with the minimum left for food. However, I somehow think they wouldnt stop there and would probably pass laws to take all shoe boxes in Enfield as well into their control.
I thin PG @2 point is very valid. This country is awlays critised for not making anything. Well if our workers have to pay a massive amount more in housing costs and this is fed into the system, we cant be competitive. Sometimes people who shout fool need to take a long long in the mirror or take some basic economic lessons.
I

Sunday, September 13, 2015 01:59PM Report Comment
 

11. pete green said...

A thought experiment: If Mr Corbyn came to power and taxed us more and built council houses thus lowering house prices & rents would that increase or decrease our economic productivity and competitiveness.... The answer is of course improve, as the taxes would be spent on more productive things than rent and mortgage payments given to private individuals/banks.

Mr Corbyn could make this more efficient with compulsory purchase of land at undesignated value and much better still if he take the taxes form land values

But I am sure libby will give us a fascinating counter argument

Sunday, September 13, 2015 02:16PM Report Comment
 

12. icarus said...

@ 10 + 11. I hope you're right about investment/expenditure going into the real economy instead of housing. Unfortunately financialisation has found ways to ensure more goes into assets in general and less into the real economy.

e.g.US research shows profits at an all-time high as a % of GDP but net investment at an all-time low. (Both were around 9% of GDP before financialisation got a grip in the 90s, now profits are 12% and net investment is 4%.) Mainstream economic theory suggests that when profitable opportunities abound (opportunities usually associated with high profits) and the cost of capital is cheap, investment should soar. Despite high returns on capital and the low cost of equity capital there's a mountain of stock buybacks (companies borrowing to buy and inflate their own stock to reward execs and pay high dividends) and little investment. And of course wages (and thus spending power) falling as a % of GDP as corporations focus on cost-cutting, concentrate more on quarterly numbers, more on gaining market share than on growing the market and eschew early-stage technologies that depress short-run P&L numbers.

Sunday, September 13, 2015 04:14PM Report Comment
 

13. britishblue said...

It costs around 60,000 to build the equivalent of a 2 bed council house. On the outskirts of London, the going rent for a rotten, damp one is around 1500 a month, so less than 3.5 years payback for a new one. Land could be compulsory purchased from farmers. Farm values are around 6 to 7k an acre. So there should be pay back in 4 years or give it 5 with additional infrastructure, etc. However, much of this would be offset by an increase in employment, more energy efficient houses, less congestion on the roads, less crime, healthier people etc, etc. Why has this escaped politicians from both sides of the house for so long as there is Capitalist argument for doing this as well as a Socialist argument. In fact there is no reason why the government could not become a major house builder for social housing on the basis that it can be sold off on the basis that each unit that is sold is replaced by a new one. The cost of welfare is often blamed on those that are on welfare. But all governments from Thatcher, Blair through to Cameron have to take some blame, as if the housing stock that was sold of, was replaced on a like for like basis, we wouldn't have this problem, the countries finances would be much better and we wouldn't have the housing crisis we have today. I know very little about Jeremy Corbyn and am just getting to grips with some of his polices. But whether he ever becomes Prime Minister or not, if the one thing he can do is change the agenda on housing in this country, then he will have achieved a major goal that will help future generations

Sunday, September 13, 2015 05:05PM Report Comment
 

14. pete green said...

Spot on BB. But non of the main stream parties offer this. Only the greens come close. But Corby has something similar. Previous Labour Governments have tried in the 70s and before but where thwarted in the courts. A Land Value Tax would achieve similar results but we could have both.

Sunday, September 13, 2015 05:28PM Report Comment
 

15. mister ed said...

@13
Good points British Blue. As you say: much of this would be offset by an increase in employment, more energy efficient houses, less congestion on the roads, less crime, healthier people etc, etc. Why has this escaped politicians from both sides of the house for so long as there is Capitalist argument for doing this as well as a Socialist argument.

Absolutely right, though it isnt that the fact has escaped politicians; its more that they just forgot about it. Until the 1970s, politicians on both sides of the political spectrum were broadly in favour of building social housing as evidenced by this from the Conservative manifesto for the 1951 General Election:

Housing is the first of the social services. It is also one of the keys to increased productivity. Work, family life, health and education are all undermined by crowded houses. Therefore, a Conservative and Unionist Government will give housing a priority second only to national defence.

Its only since the 1980s since weve had this idea that social housing is somehow socialist (and therefore bad), and that an unfettered private housing market is capitalist (and therefore good).

Many countries with a successful capitalist economy build social housing. Germany is a case in point, which not only builds social housing but also has a system of rent controls. This enables money to be spent on productive assets, and also makes for a highly mobile labour force, which again increases productivity.

Sunday, September 13, 2015 05:34PM Report Comment
 

16. britishblue said...

Back in 2008 there was the financial crisis. I employed a number of graduates that were aged 23 to 24. They are now 30 to 31 and paying exhorbitant rents. They are in the age group of new media, rather than our right wing press . At the next election they will still be renting and they will be 33 to 34. It is food for thought. There are vast swathes of our population have seen the downside of neo liberalism and successive governments worried about being 'electable' rather than being conviction politicians. They no longer believe the screams of politicians that denigrate anything different, whether it be Farage or Corbyn. If Corbyn pushes the housing shortage week in and week out, I think he will pushing at an open door as far as a lot of our youth are concerned. The housing shortage in London and the surrounding counties is untenable and the comments by the Wilsons bring that home

Sunday, September 13, 2015 05:36PM Report Comment
 

17. hpwatcher said...

Fleecing? You fools!

Do I detect more-than-a-hint-of contempt?

Surely not.

Sunday, September 13, 2015 09:00PM Report Comment
 

18. libertas said...

Pete Green. Corbunkle wants to build social housing and let all and sundry in so, you will be paying more taxes to house millions of foreigners who have never and their ancestors have never contributed anything to the country. This gift will suck yet further in.

This is why I think one must be a citizen to benefit from social housing. This means living and working here five to seven years before getting on the waiting list for social housing. Fair do's, given that British teenagers have to wait until their 20s to get on the register now.

Sunday, September 13, 2015 10:45PM Report Comment
 

19. libertas said...

British Blue, yes, 30 yr olds may get sucked in by Corbynkle, but the vast voting block of pensioners who lived through the 1970's will see us through till the early 2030s, by which time Labour will have become more centrist or will no longer exist, splitting in two again.

Sunday, September 13, 2015 10:47PM Report Comment
 

20. i remember the 90`s said...

I read all comments up to 18 .Libby comments since the "fools" r now ignored who is the fool now!!!!!!!!!!

Monday, September 14, 2015 06:33AM Report Comment
 

21. pete green said...

Libby by your answer can I take it you are in favour of a million council houses as long as they are not for foreigners?

Monday, September 14, 2015 06:36AM Report Comment
 

22. britishblue said...

Libby at multiple posts.

Corbyn does not want to let everyone in. Have you read anything what has said in the last 15 years. He goes to the root cause analysis of why there are refugees. But he see refugees as humans rather than swarms. The refugee crisis in Syria has worsened because of the West involvement. We strengthened the 'liberation army' which now in part is ISIS. Corbyns view is that Assad is a nasty man, but why have the West isolated Syria when Saudi Arabia's crimes go unchecked all the tome. They execute 40 people a month and if you convert from Muslim to Christianity its of with your head, but not a bleep from the petro dollar friends. Saudi are bombing Yemen unchecked. Corbys argument is why are the two standards. In Assads capital city, moslems from all sides, christains and jews all live peacefully together. Corbyns argument is that we should have had dialogue with Assad however represhensible he is. We didnt and look whathappened. . The west went to war because of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist in iraq. Putin stood up in the United nations and warned that if the west intervened in Syria that the other side was much worse. I wouldnt want to be on the wrong side of an argument with Putin in Russia, but 'baddies' are not always wrong in their analysis. If theWest had not invaded Iraq, the stand of between iraq and Iran would probably have been enough to cause some form of stalemate stability in the middle East. Corby was also against bombing Lybia. Why did we do this? Yes Gadaffi was another horrible dictator, but if you depose of a dictator who you can have dialogue with, what replaces it.

I note in a higher post all social housing is now being blocked for refugees. Gues what the givernment culd pass emergency laws to build large scale housing tomorrow. With every problem you need to look at the root cause

Monday, September 14, 2015 08:54AM Report Comment
 

23. reticent said...

@BB et al.

Regardless of your political hue, easily the best thing about Corbyn being leader of the opposition is that building council houses is now back on the agenda.

@Mister Ed

That's a very interesting quotation.

Monday, September 14, 2015 01:19PM Report Comment
 

Add comment

  • If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
  • If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines
Username  
Admin Password
Email Address
Comments

Main Blog | Archive | Add Article | Blog Policies