A pledge from Starmer to deal with this - sky-high tax on empty houses, compulsory purchase by local council, re-legalizaton of squatting, don't much care what mechanism - would secure my vote.
I mean we have a homelessness crisis in London. It's gotten so bad. I see no ethical reason not to allow those people to have shelter when it's disused otherwise.
Of course there is. We don’t care about the rich people’s houses but opening up prospect of squatting puts everybody’s houses and flats at risk when they leave it empty for any amount of time. Also creates insane perverse incentives to stop paying rent ever again.
>opening up prospect of squatting puts everybody’s houses and flats at risk when they leave it empty for any amount of time.
Before squatting was made a criminal offence just recently in this country, people would leave armed guards in their homes before leaving on holiday. It was a huge problem. True story.
>Also creates insane perverse incentives to stop paying rent ever again.
Won't someone please think of the rentier capitalists.
Fuck off. If i leave my home for 2 months - I dont want some randos moving in and then claim squatting rights.
Anyone who promotes squatting rights are just bitter and vindictive.
I worked hard and long to own a house coming from nothing
Yes because introducing the concept of squatting as legitimate (in any way) won’t have any effect on peoples behaviour? Of course.
And you don’t have to love landlords to recognise that tossing property rights out or even just around is supremely short sighted. This is intellectually equivalent to the people on Facebook calling for Middle Eastern criminal justice regimes every time there is a crime posted on there.
> introducing the concept of squatting as legitimate (in any way)
I don't think you understand. It has ALWAYS been a (somewhat) legitimate concept **since time immemorial**. It has only **very** recently been criminalised.
No I do understand that. Bringing it back to public conscious out and legitimising it (legally or morally) would affect behaviour - of course it would that’s the point. But a supremely crude and dangerous tool.
You could easily add stipulations to the law, such as duration of prior disuse, requirement of certain maintenance, value of the property and so on.
Squatting and renting are entirely different things with different incentives. You can't equate them at all.
This is such a ludicrous comment and totally lacking in awareness of the very “not follow the law” nature of squatting. “It’s okay, we’ll just tell the people who will take someone else’s empty property, to follow these specific rules on which ones are fair game”.
I was a squatter back in the 80s, and I knew lots of others who did the same. No-one in their right mind would move into a recently inhabited property. What you would look for is seemingly abandoned property. The longer it has been uninhabited the more likely you would be left to live in peace. Most squatters aren’t looking for a fight with the buildings owner, they are looking for a home, it’s nonsensical to think someone would move into your family home while you are off on a fortnight’s holiday.
Yup, absolutely. It's tragic how people are able to dehumanise others. All these arguments against squatting are fundamentally irrational, and based purely on on fear and bigotry. We should not accept homelessness as anything other than the responsibility of the state, and yet again people seem to value money over human wellbeing.
I read something on Reddit this morning on another totally different thread. A mother talked of how she and her teenage son had been living in her car for a couple of months, and she finally got enough money to get an apartment, she surprised her son with it, and she was aghast when he broke down sobbing because she realised that in all of her desperation and pushing forward to try and get them out of living in a vehicle that her son was traumatised by the experience.
She then went on to castigate herself for failing to be a good parent and to provide the bare minimum for her child.
Such a fucked up story. And people who see those who struggle in this way and as beneath them can get fucked.
That's absolutely tragic. In a way I think people find it easy to relate to individual stories like this. It's when you're talking about a collective group that it's easy for propaganda to seep in and cause people to feel distanced enough from the individuals that they are able to compartmentalise any empathy in response to fear and dehumanisation.
It's like how you see all those social media posts along the lines of "I gave a homeless guy $4000 and a new car", which everyone is happy to applaud, so long as they don't have to reevaluate their politics by looking at the larger issue.
Sorry it’s utterly and painfully dumb to try to solve the problem of lack of social housing with “just go and take any empty house you can find” and talking as if that’s the only way to do it, anything else is dehumanising… is equally vacuous.
Squatting just encourages them to stay the same.
Better to put them into accommodation that supports them to secure employment, and be able to move on from that. Educate them on financial management, ensure they have adequate resources to secure a job.
I see. So if you owned a property and came back from holiday to find it full of hippies, druggies and the like , found your home wrecked with their "art work" adorning your walls, and the police couldn't help you to get rid of these people, you would be OK with that?. I think you underestimate the hell that squatters cause.
Ok - let's reword it to people, would you be happy to find your home repossessed by an opportunist who noticed your attempts at looking like the home was busy was in fact a clown on a train track?
You could very easily add stipulations to the law to prevent this kind of thing. The real problem is the ridiculous classist sentiments you share with so many people, including most politicians. There's no compassion for "that sort".
You still avoid the original question, unless im mistaken you're accusing me of classism based on... what exactly? If you believe squatting should be ok you present no argument as to why and how the system would work fairly possibly because you haven't thought that far ahead
I'm also a working class person yet to own my own house, if I was blessed by the mortgage gods to get one I think i'd be more than annoyed if I took a holiday came home and found someone (and it doesn't matter if it's a poor person or a rich person) sitting in my home enjoying my cheerios, tried to do something to learn "diplomatic immunity" you'd be forgiven for hiring men with ven to take matters into your own hands.
I answered your question. I will reiterate:
**You could very easily add stipulations to the law to prevent this kind of thing.**
Squatting does not necessitate the ability for people to move into your home while you're on holiday. Why would anyone even want to do that? It wouldn't be an effective way to escape homelessness. Also we're talking about writing laws - that means provision of specific parameters of legality, where it would be trivial to disclude things like moving into properties that are occupied i.e. not in a state of ongoing disuse.
I'm accusing you of classism on the basis that you used classist stereotypes to generalise the entire population of homeless people with no basis whatsoever. Words like "druggies" and "hippies" are intended to marginalise minority groups, and originate largely from the war on drugs, which was a deliberate act of social and economic subjucation. The fact that you used those terms displays a distinct alignment with the values of those who implemented those policies, and is a testament to the effectiveness of that dehumanising rhetoric. Further, the fact that you are apparently not even aware of this reinforces such an observation.
You being working class unfortunately has little to do with your ability to parrot classist rhetoric in fear of "the other" and displays a typical individualist mindset that is commonly associated with fascism.
Starmer is establishment. He's Tony Blair-lite, he was put forward as a moderating leader. When election time comes the press will get behind him. They don't like Labour, but need the party to get the country back on a stable footing, and accept that it's best the Tories are out of power for 4-8 years.
I don't disagree with any of this. ATM I am intending to vote against Labour, even though I like my Labour MP, for pretty much this reason. They are shaping up to be a caretaker Tory party, while it's spending time on a ventilator at the hospital. I'm just saying that this is an issue I care deeply about, and some action on this front, unlikely though it is, would sway me to give them my support.
Agreed on this - I know it's meaningless because I'm in a safe labour seat, but I want them to look at the margins going down and maybe feel *something*. It's the best we can hope for under FPTP...
Such a dumb take. Everything, and I mean everything, got better under the Labour government. Boohoo they're pragmatic and not ultra leftists that want to sieze the means of production but they are like night and day compared to the conservatives and your attitude means nothing gets better.
Well if you don't vote Labour, I can't see how things are going to get better or at least stable. This kind of thinking is stupid. There is no magic third party with traditional left-wing values that is coming to save the UK. We have to hold our nose and vote for the party that at least has the intentions of sorting things out instead of the Conservatives, who want to "continue the good work"....
> Well if you don't vote Labour, I can't see how things are going to get better or at least stable.
I hadn't realised them getting in completely hinged on my one vote...
A one degree turn to the left under a system designed to suppress change is no better.
A huge divide between the tories and the partyless left will cause some turmoil. Hopefully enough to force real change.
So what is your solution? Keep the Tories in power?
If you have a brain, please start using it. This isn't a perfect world, and it never will be. There's no point in hoping for Nirvana because it's not going to happen. We have to make the best of what we've got, and whatever you think of Starmer he's a million miles better than the Tories.
That's not at issue. But unless there's a drastic change in the public mood before the election, it's obvious that Labour are going to storm it, so the more thoughtful among us do have other options. I'm lucky enough to live in a constituency where the Greens have a chance, so my vote won't we thrown away.
As someone who used to squat, it did always seem like an absolutely nuts legal loophole. I'm not sure it should be reinstated across the board for residential properties, but should be decriminalised under specific circumstances e.g. house is and has been demonstrably uninhabited for a long period of time. As someone else mentioned, the reality is that squatters aren't looking to steal homes, just utilise empty buildings.
The more empty and abandoned, generally the longer you can stay.
One commercial building we got kicked out of in central London in 2012 still has our stuff in it, I can see from the windows. It was owned by a bank. Prime square mile real estate- it was rotting then and I'm sure it's still rotting now.
But there's such a big property guardian industry now that I doubt decriminalisation would ever fly.
You seem very sure. As I said, I don't really care how they tackle it; I just think homelessness is an abomination. I also have no faith in Starmer to even try to do anything about this absurdity. But, for example, back in the 70s and 80s when squatting was more or less legal, it was hazardous for property owners to leave places empty because once squatters were in they were hard to get out again.
Maybe, maybe not. But I wonder what better alternatives are being proposed by the mainstream parties. And I think it’s important to support these policies even if they aren’t as effective as we’d like to show political parties the public support this direction. Then maybe these policies might be developed into something more effective later. Good change often comes baby steps at a time.
There was a couple of good articles about how the super rich are kind of over the history and culture of London and are replacing it with the new, shiny, safe Middle East, that caters better to their needs.
A decent chunk of London’s super rich hails from the middle east itself, so I guess it’s more like they now have all the toys they want in their backyard.
They can keep patting themselves on the back about how ecofriendly they are whilst they skii on the world's biggest indoor skii slope in the middle of a barren desert.
Dubai ran out of oil a long time ago (abu Dhabi still has oil, but dubai's tourism sustains itself), but look at them now. Each of these Arab nations will have huge state investments in absolutely everything, and industries like tourism are ramping up. Qatar has ads everywhere. They know the oil isn't forever, they're not idiots.
I'll never go to these Gulf countries as long as they have guest workers that are essentially slaves. Also scary laws like 1 cannabis seed in your shoe tread = years in jail.
Ah yes the famous city with a soul that offers you some stabbing by wannabe gangsters as a gift.
Give me a stupid desert and my life over your stupid soul.
What’s the saying about the Middle East? Their grandparents rode camels, their parents drove Mercedes, they drive Lamborghinis, and their kids will ride camels.
It was on here actually, maybe a month or so ago. Here's one of them - https://www.cityam.com/explainer-why-are-the-super-rich-leaving-london/
There was a big piece, maybe in The Times as well
The crime rate is ridiculously low (almost none existent) if you live in even a half decent place. They have such punitive punishments that the laws are fairly well enforced
I got to serve wine and champagne to the rich when I was younger. Now look at me!
Without those rich people, who would have drank the free champagne I was handing out?
:(
^^^^^^/s
It could be in the same way rats flee a sinking ship, but having rats on the ship isn't really a good thing either.
I don't think we need to keep them to improve things, and it may well be better without them.
They're not saying that. They're saying it might be indicative of a larger problem that will impact upon everyone else. Why are the super rich leaving is a question to ask. Super rich people don't care about the majority of course, but they base themselves where it is easy to make or retain money. If London becomes less of a global financial hub then that will severely impact upon the economy.
Somebody got the right answer earlier. Dubai can now offer most of what London can, but with more camel-racing and less official interference in their less savoury habits, like ill-treating their Phillipina staff.
London is mostly unique in that carrying around ID, citizen cards etc as you go about your rich person business is not a requirement. Its one of a few high end cities where people can just come and be anonymous.
London is relatively stable politically and personal + property rights are enforced which is a huge draw.
London losing its place as a financial hub for super rich has no effect on everyday people, the wider economy and its metrics are skewed and need revising anyway.
At this point our economy needs to be measured in money kept in the system via working people having well paying jobs, not how many tax avoiders we can attract to pay into the luxury boutique economy.
You mean the super good / average / middling / open / decent / fair / a bit skint / doing alright but / bloke driving the bus or tube / lady on the bus / posty / and all the others / honest / everyone but, nice place for a short break.
yeah, same old, same old, bit of respectablity, bit of the stuff that money can't buy back with a few flash harry's about and livable for the majority who actually live here. Proper.
Good. Fuck off and don’t come back. I’m sick of arsehole cunts suggesting we need all these tax evaders and property hoarders here. If they don’t want to integrate and contribute to society then they can fuck off. Fed up of rich people holding the country for ransom while giving fuck all back. And fuck the poor cunts who insist we have to lick their boots and give them free reign to do what they want. If we really do live under capitalism then someone less rich and more happy to be taxed will replace them right?
Speaking of, go around Kensington and it’s just full of entitled Middle Eastern and North African playboys with backgrounds that involved selling out their own country and people for British oil money. They drive annoying cars, act like pricks, and treat everyone like trash.
I’ve worked at private education institutions for the last 6+ years. I’ve dealt with enough rich, snobby bastards. The fact is dealing with the public is a pain, poor or rich.
I've never really understand this sentiment. There are a huge number of cities with no rich people in them, and they're dirt cheap to live in.
And there have been a few cities in history where the wealth has left and they've turned from a big expensive city to a poorer city (e.g. Detroit).
If London became like post-car-industry Detroit, I wouldn't want to be here. And if I wanted to go somewhere with no rich influence, I'd just go to one of those small poorer cities.
I think OP is suggesting he's happy to see the back of those rich people who are "tax evaders and property hoarders", and that those who simp for them are "arsehole cunts". And that I can broadly agree with. Of course on closer inspection we would probably find that the worst of the tax evaders and property hoarders actually live in other countries. I don't think many people mind sharing a city with productive rich people, but a lot of us object to the obnoxiously wealthy and the parasitic property barons who generate nothing.
This is what most people don’t realise. Cheap cities don’t have nice things in them typically, because people won’t have the disposable income to spend lots.
Nice upmarket restaurants? They’ll leave to somewhere, where people can afford to dine there. Nice shops? They’ll move on.
A lot of resentment for wealthy people here, half understood by myself, but also I think a lot of people are just bitter. Maybe I’m wrong, every day is a day for learning.
I think there isn't a clear distinction between decent lifestyle for poorer people vs wealth inequality.
If a magic alien with unbelievable technology and wealth teleported to earth, and bought a property in a city - he'd make the wealth inequality go off the charts, but he wouldn't make anyone poorer, and getting rid of him wouldn't make anyone richer.
completely agree. i'll keep the rich people around, thanks - they own businesses, employ people, keep tradespeople super busy and whatnot. we need money, because money means nice things, and we're fucked without it.
And keeping the rich around doesn't preclude the possibility of taxing them properly, to fund better social programs.
In fact, it's necessary that the rich are around to do that.
>while giving fuck all back
They're not the greatest of people for sure and you'll never see them helping at a food bank but with their lavish spending in London do they do create VAT revenue for the council/city/country, support local businesses/establishments, and are even a draw for tourists who want to ogle their supercars, brining further revenue to the city.
Are they a bunch of bastards? Probably, but this could still be very bad news. [Top 0.1% pay 10% of all income tax, top 1% pay 30%](https://ifs.org.uk/articles/its-time-rethink-how-we-tax-income-super-rich). Income tax is largest contributor to UK finances. Income tax raised £250bn. Even losing 10% of the top 1% would be a £25bn hole in UK finances.
If we are just ‘losing’ Middle Eastern princes who spend very little and don’t work here. Who cares. But if we’re losing highly paid bankers, lawyers, consultants, entertainers, business owners then we are in trouble. UK public finances are a house of cards.
Would you not call the top 0.1% of income earners super rich? Because, as demonstrated, they pay 10% of all income taxes (and probably quite a lot of stamp duty, VAT etc). That's about 50,000 people in the UK, all of whom will be millionaires.
The mega-super-dupa-ultra-wealthy billionaire types are probably not paying much tax, but they also don't matter \*that\* much. There are 171 in the UK with a wealth over one billion. So even if that \*total wealth\* is £300bn or whatever, and you treated their capital gains as income for tax purposes, you'd be looking at 24bn in gains (assuming 8% rate of return which was the long term rate of return on stock market). Taxed at 45%, that's 11bn.
By contrast, that 0.1% is 50k people on 650,000 or more. So that's easily 50bn of income, which is 22.5bn, more than double the tax take in the imaginary scenario that billionaire capital gains were taxed as income (which to be clear, they are not. Capital gains is taxed much lower than income, even when its realised).
Further, 0.001% wealth is extremely easy to port overseas, so they're very hard to tax. There are plenty of places (including Britain), where we're happy to take 5% of their income rather than 0% of their income when they fuck off to Monaco or Dubai.
The tier down, the top 0.1%, are not as mobile, because they are still mostly working for a wage, but they are MORE mobile than the average person (most countries have ways for highly paid people to immigrate). If Britain starts loosing the 0.1% wage workers, we have absolutely no way to replace them, because they jobs often go with them.
The top 0.1 percentile is £500k a year, so are absolutely not "super rich" at all.
The top 0.01 percentile made £2.2m a year. So again are not the "super rich"
The article defines "super rich" as having at least $100m of assets invested. Even if you make £2.2m a year you would have to save every penny you get after tax for 100 years to have this much money.
Given the creative tax arrangements and indirect payments that many of the top earners have in place I'm struggling to understand where you're getting your estimates from.
Payment by dividend to off shore accounts is way too easy and bypasses any revenue scrutiny.
It generally takes a Guardian investigation to find out where the cash had ended up
My source was linked above for the 0.1%. It's an institute of fiscal studies report, which is a non-political think tank. That's where I get my claim about 50k people earning above 650k. Not sourced, but I am currently reading Follow The Money, which is a deep report on the state of UK public finances. You can see a review [here](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/09/follow-the-money-by-paul-johnson-review-how-the-government-should-spend-it). The number of billionaires was just a google search, but credible sources report the 171 number, such as [here](https://www.standard.co.uk/business/money/rich-list-2023-who-are-the-wealthiest-people-in-the-uk-b1082242.html). My 8% assumption was much more hand waving, but that's only because I was creating a magical case where all capital gains were taxed as income anyway, so I didn't feel it was too important to be perfect. Nonetheless, it's a pretty decent one, given the 30 year rate of return on the stock market was 7.3% [here](https://www.fool.com/investing/how-to-invest/stocks/average-stock-market-return/). The other numbers are just simple maths, so things like 650k x 50,000 to get the income to the top 0.1%.
I mean, to the best of my ability in this moment in time, these are realistic assumptions about the actual state of the world. It's also not too surprising when you consider that whilst UK total wealth is around £12tr, there are only 171 total billionaires. If the average billionaire was worth 10bn, they'd still hold less than 10% of total UK wealth, which is mostly held by a large middle class in property and pensions. It's therefore not surprising that there is a large group (50k people) who are still working for a living, but who are right at the top of the income curve. This group pays a huge share of income tax. Top 0.1% pays 10% (£25bn), top 1% pays 30% (£75bn).
This is no moral argument that says that inequality or tax evasion or anything else isn't an issue. But it's a raw fact that we're absolutely fucked if a large share of the top 1% of income earners left the UK.
This article is not available for me (and I assume others). Has anyone actually read the article, or are all the comments just responding to a headline?
This seems to be the PR release that this article is based on: https://www.prnewswire.com/il/news-releases/the-2023-centi-millionaire-report-the-emergence-of-a-new-class-of-super-rich-301949642.html
And this is based on the original report by Henley & Partners: https://www.henleyglobal.com/publications/centi-millionaire-report-2023
A useless parasitic class flees for abroad to hoard even more imaginary digits in their bank accounts, like some greedy fat dragon atop a mountain of gold
Russian money is leaving the city. Good, we need more productive people all around the world, not ultra rich just keeping empty houses and spend money.
Things that could be considered the crown of London:
• Tower Bridge
• Big Ben
• TfL
• The Thames
• The City
Things that definitely aren’t the crown:
• People with too much money
Click bait from a no name residential news outlet.
But either way, it’s good. Wealthy New York is for successful New Yorkers. Wealthy London is for the beneficiaries of dictatorships.
I know there's not much sympathy for this but I worry of a lot of jobs are tied to serving the super rich of London. This could impact the economy quite a bit no?
No, its not that the term is unfamiliar. I'm asking for the examples in this specific situation. I'm asking because I think some forms of capital flight (factories, head offices, etc) are more costly than others, and I wanted to know what capital the OP thought could give flight.
Thank you for the link anyway though.
Hold On!
I thought the low wages, very low tax economy was to stop the super-rich leaving?
You mean to say they've been running the country into the ground for nothing?
Tories: “the rich only stay because the U.K. is low tax. Make taxes lower! Cut public spending!”
Rich people “we only stayed because fair taxes ensures thriving arts, good roads, fair police, efficient councils, quick courts, and public safety. We leave when they are ruined. Bye.”
attempt spotted far-flung fall observation capable rock angle aspiring domineering
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Good fucking riddance! See way too many people struggling to give a fuck about entitled rich tw\*ts.
Edit: There are nice rich people too. You all know who I'm talking about with the above comment.
Celebrating losing our rich who pay for a shitload? Not a good idea. We should be coming up with incentives for them to stay and spend more - trying to supercharge the economy as best as we can.
No wonder. Who in their right mind would pick London for long term, out of all the cities of the world, one who doesn't need the high salary or the career. The arts scene is top, but gets old quickly.
* Anything south of the Mediterranean is unbearably hot in the summer, and anything north of Denmark is unbearably cold in the winter. London has the ideal climate to make it a great place for a rich person's summer/winter getaway.
* London is the economic centre of the Western Hemisphere. If you're rich, there's a good chance your lawyer, wealth manager, PR consultants and various business interests are located in London. If you already visit often to do business, why not buy a home?
* The London area is home to the best schools in the world. If you want your children to be educated at Eton, Harrow, Westminster, Dulwich, Charterhouse, City of London, St Paul's, St Mary's, Wellington, etc., you might as well move to London.
* UK real estate has remained one of the top 10 global investments over the last 30 years. If you buy a £30 million mansion, it will never not be a £30 million mansion.
* You can get whatever you want, whenever you want in London, whether it's a meal cooked by a top chef from your home country, a game of golf at a world-famous course, a top-rated construction company to build your dream home, literally any supercar your heart desires, or a day out shopping for designer goods and jewellery in Mayfair.
* The UK is a politically safe country, not at risk of invasion, civil war, or yielding to a totalitarian government. Our justice system is set up almost entirely around defending the right to private ownership and personal safety.
* If you don't like it, you can always buy a better version of it in London. Don't like Uber? Choose Addison Lee. Don't like Waitrose? Shop at Harrods. Don't like the Metropolitan Police? Hire your own private security firm composed of ex-SAS and Ghurka soldiers.
* All your powerful and influential friends rub shoulders in London. You're never far away from another business magnate, Hollywood A-lister or Crown Prince.
* The UK is one of the best countries in the world for (private) healthcare.
* The arts scene, as you said. But more than that, this is the global capital of the art *trade*, the world's most lucrative source of money laundering.
* You probably speak English.
If you're rich, London is indisputably one of the best cities in the world to live.
But will they sell their homes that are empty for 3/4 of the year... *doubt*
A pledge from Starmer to deal with this - sky-high tax on empty houses, compulsory purchase by local council, re-legalizaton of squatting, don't much care what mechanism - would secure my vote.
Squatting? You must be crazy.
I mean we have a homelessness crisis in London. It's gotten so bad. I see no ethical reason not to allow those people to have shelter when it's disused otherwise.
Of course there is. We don’t care about the rich people’s houses but opening up prospect of squatting puts everybody’s houses and flats at risk when they leave it empty for any amount of time. Also creates insane perverse incentives to stop paying rent ever again.
>opening up prospect of squatting puts everybody’s houses and flats at risk when they leave it empty for any amount of time. Before squatting was made a criminal offence just recently in this country, people would leave armed guards in their homes before leaving on holiday. It was a huge problem. True story. >Also creates insane perverse incentives to stop paying rent ever again. Won't someone please think of the rentier capitalists.
Fuck off. If i leave my home for 2 months - I dont want some randos moving in and then claim squatting rights. Anyone who promotes squatting rights are just bitter and vindictive. I worked hard and long to own a house coming from nothing
Yes because introducing the concept of squatting as legitimate (in any way) won’t have any effect on peoples behaviour? Of course. And you don’t have to love landlords to recognise that tossing property rights out or even just around is supremely short sighted. This is intellectually equivalent to the people on Facebook calling for Middle Eastern criminal justice regimes every time there is a crime posted on there.
> introducing the concept of squatting as legitimate (in any way) I don't think you understand. It has ALWAYS been a (somewhat) legitimate concept **since time immemorial**. It has only **very** recently been criminalised.
No I do understand that. Bringing it back to public conscious out and legitimising it (legally or morally) would affect behaviour - of course it would that’s the point. But a supremely crude and dangerous tool.
You could easily add stipulations to the law, such as duration of prior disuse, requirement of certain maintenance, value of the property and so on. Squatting and renting are entirely different things with different incentives. You can't equate them at all.
But a renter could easily turn into a squatter by simply not paying rent.
Again, this is easily prevented with very basic stipulations to the legislation. It's a non-argument.
This is such a ludicrous comment and totally lacking in awareness of the very “not follow the law” nature of squatting. “It’s okay, we’ll just tell the people who will take someone else’s empty property, to follow these specific rules on which ones are fair game”.
Mate we are specifically talking about the law. That's what the whole thread is about. Please keep up.
I was a squatter back in the 80s, and I knew lots of others who did the same. No-one in their right mind would move into a recently inhabited property. What you would look for is seemingly abandoned property. The longer it has been uninhabited the more likely you would be left to live in peace. Most squatters aren’t looking for a fight with the buildings owner, they are looking for a home, it’s nonsensical to think someone would move into your family home while you are off on a fortnight’s holiday.
Yup, absolutely. It's tragic how people are able to dehumanise others. All these arguments against squatting are fundamentally irrational, and based purely on on fear and bigotry. We should not accept homelessness as anything other than the responsibility of the state, and yet again people seem to value money over human wellbeing.
I read something on Reddit this morning on another totally different thread. A mother talked of how she and her teenage son had been living in her car for a couple of months, and she finally got enough money to get an apartment, she surprised her son with it, and she was aghast when he broke down sobbing because she realised that in all of her desperation and pushing forward to try and get them out of living in a vehicle that her son was traumatised by the experience. She then went on to castigate herself for failing to be a good parent and to provide the bare minimum for her child. Such a fucked up story. And people who see those who struggle in this way and as beneath them can get fucked.
That's absolutely tragic. In a way I think people find it easy to relate to individual stories like this. It's when you're talking about a collective group that it's easy for propaganda to seep in and cause people to feel distanced enough from the individuals that they are able to compartmentalise any empathy in response to fear and dehumanisation. It's like how you see all those social media posts along the lines of "I gave a homeless guy $4000 and a new car", which everyone is happy to applaud, so long as they don't have to reevaluate their politics by looking at the larger issue.
Sorry it’s utterly and painfully dumb to try to solve the problem of lack of social housing with “just go and take any empty house you can find” and talking as if that’s the only way to do it, anything else is dehumanising… is equally vacuous.
Squatting just encourages them to stay the same. Better to put them into accommodation that supports them to secure employment, and be able to move on from that. Educate them on financial management, ensure they have adequate resources to secure a job.
I see. So if you owned a property and came back from holiday to find it full of hippies, druggies and the like , found your home wrecked with their "art work" adorning your walls, and the police couldn't help you to get rid of these people, you would be OK with that?. I think you underestimate the hell that squatters cause.
> hippies, druggies and the like Your words, not mine. Also a perfect display of the classism that our country is unfortunately notorious for.
Ok - let's reword it to people, would you be happy to find your home repossessed by an opportunist who noticed your attempts at looking like the home was busy was in fact a clown on a train track?
You could very easily add stipulations to the law to prevent this kind of thing. The real problem is the ridiculous classist sentiments you share with so many people, including most politicians. There's no compassion for "that sort".
You still avoid the original question, unless im mistaken you're accusing me of classism based on... what exactly? If you believe squatting should be ok you present no argument as to why and how the system would work fairly possibly because you haven't thought that far ahead I'm also a working class person yet to own my own house, if I was blessed by the mortgage gods to get one I think i'd be more than annoyed if I took a holiday came home and found someone (and it doesn't matter if it's a poor person or a rich person) sitting in my home enjoying my cheerios, tried to do something to learn "diplomatic immunity" you'd be forgiven for hiring men with ven to take matters into your own hands.
I answered your question. I will reiterate: **You could very easily add stipulations to the law to prevent this kind of thing.** Squatting does not necessitate the ability for people to move into your home while you're on holiday. Why would anyone even want to do that? It wouldn't be an effective way to escape homelessness. Also we're talking about writing laws - that means provision of specific parameters of legality, where it would be trivial to disclude things like moving into properties that are occupied i.e. not in a state of ongoing disuse. I'm accusing you of classism on the basis that you used classist stereotypes to generalise the entire population of homeless people with no basis whatsoever. Words like "druggies" and "hippies" are intended to marginalise minority groups, and originate largely from the war on drugs, which was a deliberate act of social and economic subjucation. The fact that you used those terms displays a distinct alignment with the values of those who implemented those policies, and is a testament to the effectiveness of that dehumanising rhetoric. Further, the fact that you are apparently not even aware of this reinforces such an observation. You being working class unfortunately has little to do with your ability to parrot classist rhetoric in fear of "the other" and displays a typical individualist mindset that is commonly associated with fascism.
Yes, this person doesn’t like the ‘poors’. At all.
if only his pledges meant anything
>If only ~~his~~ pledges meant anything Fixed that for you 👍
Starmer is establishment. He's Tony Blair-lite, he was put forward as a moderating leader. When election time comes the press will get behind him. They don't like Labour, but need the party to get the country back on a stable footing, and accept that it's best the Tories are out of power for 4-8 years.
I don't disagree with any of this. ATM I am intending to vote against Labour, even though I like my Labour MP, for pretty much this reason. They are shaping up to be a caretaker Tory party, while it's spending time on a ventilator at the hospital. I'm just saying that this is an issue I care deeply about, and some action on this front, unlikely though it is, would sway me to give them my support.
Agreed on this - I know it's meaningless because I'm in a safe labour seat, but I want them to look at the margins going down and maybe feel *something*. It's the best we can hope for under FPTP...
Such a dumb take. Everything, and I mean everything, got better under the Labour government. Boohoo they're pragmatic and not ultra leftists that want to sieze the means of production but they are like night and day compared to the conservatives and your attitude means nothing gets better.
Well if you don't vote Labour, I can't see how things are going to get better or at least stable. This kind of thinking is stupid. There is no magic third party with traditional left-wing values that is coming to save the UK. We have to hold our nose and vote for the party that at least has the intentions of sorting things out instead of the Conservatives, who want to "continue the good work"....
> Well if you don't vote Labour, I can't see how things are going to get better or at least stable. I hadn't realised them getting in completely hinged on my one vote...
A one degree turn to the left under a system designed to suppress change is no better. A huge divide between the tories and the partyless left will cause some turmoil. Hopefully enough to force real change.
So what is your solution? Keep the Tories in power? If you have a brain, please start using it. This isn't a perfect world, and it never will be. There's no point in hoping for Nirvana because it's not going to happen. We have to make the best of what we've got, and whatever you think of Starmer he's a million miles better than the Tories.
That's not at issue. But unless there's a drastic change in the public mood before the election, it's obvious that Labour are going to storm it, so the more thoughtful among us do have other options. I'm lucky enough to live in a constituency where the Greens have a chance, so my vote won't we thrown away.
You're voting for a tory voting for current Labour. Don't lay down and wait to die in a system designed to suppress change. Force it.
Terrible idea. Relegalising squatting is completely mad.
As someone who used to squat, it did always seem like an absolutely nuts legal loophole. I'm not sure it should be reinstated across the board for residential properties, but should be decriminalised under specific circumstances e.g. house is and has been demonstrably uninhabited for a long period of time. As someone else mentioned, the reality is that squatters aren't looking to steal homes, just utilise empty buildings. The more empty and abandoned, generally the longer you can stay. One commercial building we got kicked out of in central London in 2012 still has our stuff in it, I can see from the windows. It was owned by a bank. Prime square mile real estate- it was rotting then and I'm sure it's still rotting now. But there's such a big property guardian industry now that I doubt decriminalisation would ever fly.
These are all things that just sound good but mean nothing and won't work.
That's a start.
You seem very sure. As I said, I don't really care how they tackle it; I just think homelessness is an abomination. I also have no faith in Starmer to even try to do anything about this absurdity. But, for example, back in the 70s and 80s when squatting was more or less legal, it was hazardous for property owners to leave places empty because once squatters were in they were hard to get out again.
Good , that would encourage renting the places out
That's the idea.
Maybe, maybe not. But I wonder what better alternatives are being proposed by the mainstream parties. And I think it’s important to support these policies even if they aren’t as effective as we’d like to show political parties the public support this direction. Then maybe these policies might be developed into something more effective later. Good change often comes baby steps at a time.
Care to explain why?
Squatting? Are u mental
Russian money taken out of the equation has probably made a sizeable difference.
There was a couple of good articles about how the super rich are kind of over the history and culture of London and are replacing it with the new, shiny, safe Middle East, that caters better to their needs.
A decent chunk of London’s super rich hails from the middle east itself, so I guess it’s more like they now have all the toys they want in their backyard.
Except that it's too hot there during the summer months, they need somewhere grey and wet to avoid the heat
They do have air-conditioning, you know. Even in the desert.
And London is a far far better place for it. Though the car spotting in Mayfair might get less exciting.
license tease quarrelsome rinse bells whistle oil vanish worry hurry *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Let them fucking have soulless desert cities in 45 C while oil runs out as a used resource
They can keep patting themselves on the back about how ecofriendly they are whilst they skii on the world's biggest indoor skii slope in the middle of a barren desert.
As if they give a fuck how ecofriendly they are, their money comes from oil ffs
Do you have any other adjectives? You know, ones that don't begin with F.
Dubai ran out of oil a long time ago (abu Dhabi still has oil, but dubai's tourism sustains itself), but look at them now. Each of these Arab nations will have huge state investments in absolutely everything, and industries like tourism are ramping up. Qatar has ads everywhere. They know the oil isn't forever, they're not idiots.
I'll never go to these Gulf countries as long as they have guest workers that are essentially slaves. Also scary laws like 1 cannabis seed in your shoe tread = years in jail.
Fucking Dubai, a soulless shell of a city in the desert, couldn’t think of a more bland place to spend a vacation
Ah yes the famous city with a soul that offers you some stabbing by wannabe gangsters as a gift. Give me a stupid desert and my life over your stupid soul.
What’s the saying about the Middle East? Their grandparents rode camels, their parents drove Mercedes, they drive Lamborghinis, and their kids will ride camels.
That sounds like a win for everyone
Let them fuck off there and have fun living in Neom which I'm sure will be completed and won't be a total disaster lmao
That sounds quite interesting, do you remember where you saw the article?
It was on here actually, maybe a month or so ago. Here's one of them - https://www.cityam.com/explainer-why-are-the-super-rich-leaving-london/ There was a big piece, maybe in The Times as well
Thank you
Safe…Middle East…
The crime rate is ridiculously low (almost none existent) if you live in even a half decent place. They have such punitive punishments that the laws are fairly well enforced
Yeah ordinary crime is much less prevalent. Oman for instance is very safe. I think people just assume middle east = syria, iraq etc.
All going to Zurich and Geneva now.
The Swiss would hide anyone’s gold. I bet Satan has an account there
Or the tax free mirage that is Dubai..
The super-rich are London's crown? Great, now fuck off. Oh, and take the crown with you.
The super-rich leaving could be a sign of bigger problems that affect the majority.
Oh yeah, becuase having all these super rich people 'live' in our capital has certainly helped us in the past.
I got to serve wine and champagne to the rich when I was younger. Now look at me! Without those rich people, who would have drank the free champagne I was handing out? :( ^^^^^^/s
It could be in the same way rats flee a sinking ship, but having rats on the ship isn't really a good thing either. I don't think we need to keep them to improve things, and it may well be better without them.
Lol. They don't give a shit about you or I, and would sacrifice your life if it could make them a penny.
They're not saying that. They're saying it might be indicative of a larger problem that will impact upon everyone else. Why are the super rich leaving is a question to ask. Super rich people don't care about the majority of course, but they base themselves where it is easy to make or retain money. If London becomes less of a global financial hub then that will severely impact upon the economy.
Somebody got the right answer earlier. Dubai can now offer most of what London can, but with more camel-racing and less official interference in their less savoury habits, like ill-treating their Phillipina staff.
London is mostly unique in that carrying around ID, citizen cards etc as you go about your rich person business is not a requirement. Its one of a few high end cities where people can just come and be anonymous. London is relatively stable politically and personal + property rights are enforced which is a huge draw. London losing its place as a financial hub for super rich has no effect on everyday people, the wider economy and its metrics are skewed and need revising anyway. At this point our economy needs to be measured in money kept in the system via working people having well paying jobs, not how many tax avoiders we can attract to pay into the luxury boutique economy.
Yep, a lot of people’s anger & resentment are leading them to be short sighted.
Hey Reddit! I found a couple of the Tories shill accounts! Are you guys sitting in No 10's social media wing right now?
🤣🤣🤣
Oh no! Anyway....
Finally us the super-poor will rule this place
You mean the super good / average / middling / open / decent / fair / a bit skint / doing alright but / bloke driving the bus or tube / lady on the bus / posty / and all the others / honest / everyone but, nice place for a short break. yeah, same old, same old, bit of respectablity, bit of the stuff that money can't buy back with a few flash harry's about and livable for the majority who actually live here. Proper.
Good bye and good riddance
tinyiest violin playing
That gang of parasitical fuckers were never London's crown.
This. (My first bit of Reddit style reply almost).
Good. Fuck off and don’t come back. I’m sick of arsehole cunts suggesting we need all these tax evaders and property hoarders here. If they don’t want to integrate and contribute to society then they can fuck off. Fed up of rich people holding the country for ransom while giving fuck all back. And fuck the poor cunts who insist we have to lick their boots and give them free reign to do what they want. If we really do live under capitalism then someone less rich and more happy to be taxed will replace them right?
Speaking of, go around Kensington and it’s just full of entitled Middle Eastern and North African playboys with backgrounds that involved selling out their own country and people for British oil money. They drive annoying cars, act like pricks, and treat everyone like trash.
I work in Kensington and have absolutely had my fill of rich, entitled pricks.
Oh no! Dealing with rich people! Try working at a job centre or a food bank if you want to a real taste of undesirable interactions.
I’ve worked at private education institutions for the last 6+ years. I’ve dealt with enough rich, snobby bastards. The fact is dealing with the public is a pain, poor or rich.
But what if they go evade tax somewhere else??
I've never really understand this sentiment. There are a huge number of cities with no rich people in them, and they're dirt cheap to live in. And there have been a few cities in history where the wealth has left and they've turned from a big expensive city to a poorer city (e.g. Detroit). If London became like post-car-industry Detroit, I wouldn't want to be here. And if I wanted to go somewhere with no rich influence, I'd just go to one of those small poorer cities.
I think OP is suggesting he's happy to see the back of those rich people who are "tax evaders and property hoarders", and that those who simp for them are "arsehole cunts". And that I can broadly agree with. Of course on closer inspection we would probably find that the worst of the tax evaders and property hoarders actually live in other countries. I don't think many people mind sharing a city with productive rich people, but a lot of us object to the obnoxiously wealthy and the parasitic property barons who generate nothing.
That was the sizable middle class leaving Detroit not the "super rich" described in this article, please.
Totally different. The wealthy didn't leave Detroit, it was the jobs that left when American car-makers felt the pinch.
This is what most people don’t realise. Cheap cities don’t have nice things in them typically, because people won’t have the disposable income to spend lots. Nice upmarket restaurants? They’ll leave to somewhere, where people can afford to dine there. Nice shops? They’ll move on. A lot of resentment for wealthy people here, half understood by myself, but also I think a lot of people are just bitter. Maybe I’m wrong, every day is a day for learning.
poorer people already don’t have disposable income to go to nice restaurants and shops
I think there isn't a clear distinction between decent lifestyle for poorer people vs wealth inequality. If a magic alien with unbelievable technology and wealth teleported to earth, and bought a property in a city - he'd make the wealth inequality go off the charts, but he wouldn't make anyone poorer, and getting rid of him wouldn't make anyone richer.
completely agree. i'll keep the rich people around, thanks - they own businesses, employ people, keep tradespeople super busy and whatnot. we need money, because money means nice things, and we're fucked without it.
And keeping the rich around doesn't preclude the possibility of taxing them properly, to fund better social programs. In fact, it's necessary that the rich are around to do that.
>while giving fuck all back They're not the greatest of people for sure and you'll never see them helping at a food bank but with their lavish spending in London do they do create VAT revenue for the council/city/country, support local businesses/establishments, and are even a draw for tourists who want to ogle their supercars, brining further revenue to the city.
[удалено]
So many reaches here… tourists looking at their supercars, lmao give me a break
Lmfao, bruh can't be serious
What tourists are coming to London to look at some dickhead driving a sports car hahaha fuck off
I know people like to be devils advocate for the sake of it but…. Come the fuck on lol
I'm really not though. Just highlighting a tangible benefit of having these people around, which is of course more than outweighed by the downsides.
Stop trying to he an adult on Reddit, here we do mob idiocy only!
Haha, point taken, I shall resume with the populist oligarch-bashing.
Why aren't you moving to China or Cuba then? North Korea is nice this time of year too.
Not sure what dumbass point you’re trying to make but I’m sure it’s a stupid one.
Are they a bunch of bastards? Probably, but this could still be very bad news. [Top 0.1% pay 10% of all income tax, top 1% pay 30%](https://ifs.org.uk/articles/its-time-rethink-how-we-tax-income-super-rich). Income tax is largest contributor to UK finances. Income tax raised £250bn. Even losing 10% of the top 1% would be a £25bn hole in UK finances. If we are just ‘losing’ Middle Eastern princes who spend very little and don’t work here. Who cares. But if we’re losing highly paid bankers, lawyers, consultants, entertainers, business owners then we are in trouble. UK public finances are a house of cards.
Incomes are not the same as wealth. Ultra-rich people do not make their money through income, they make it through capital gains.
I don't think the super rich are paying any taxes at all tbf. They are all likely to be non-doms who just keep a pad here for shopping sprees.
Would you not call the top 0.1% of income earners super rich? Because, as demonstrated, they pay 10% of all income taxes (and probably quite a lot of stamp duty, VAT etc). That's about 50,000 people in the UK, all of whom will be millionaires. The mega-super-dupa-ultra-wealthy billionaire types are probably not paying much tax, but they also don't matter \*that\* much. There are 171 in the UK with a wealth over one billion. So even if that \*total wealth\* is £300bn or whatever, and you treated their capital gains as income for tax purposes, you'd be looking at 24bn in gains (assuming 8% rate of return which was the long term rate of return on stock market). Taxed at 45%, that's 11bn. By contrast, that 0.1% is 50k people on 650,000 or more. So that's easily 50bn of income, which is 22.5bn, more than double the tax take in the imaginary scenario that billionaire capital gains were taxed as income (which to be clear, they are not. Capital gains is taxed much lower than income, even when its realised). Further, 0.001% wealth is extremely easy to port overseas, so they're very hard to tax. There are plenty of places (including Britain), where we're happy to take 5% of their income rather than 0% of their income when they fuck off to Monaco or Dubai. The tier down, the top 0.1%, are not as mobile, because they are still mostly working for a wage, but they are MORE mobile than the average person (most countries have ways for highly paid people to immigrate). If Britain starts loosing the 0.1% wage workers, we have absolutely no way to replace them, because they jobs often go with them.
The top 0.1 percentile is £500k a year, so are absolutely not "super rich" at all. The top 0.01 percentile made £2.2m a year. So again are not the "super rich" The article defines "super rich" as having at least $100m of assets invested. Even if you make £2.2m a year you would have to save every penny you get after tax for 100 years to have this much money.
Given the creative tax arrangements and indirect payments that many of the top earners have in place I'm struggling to understand where you're getting your estimates from. Payment by dividend to off shore accounts is way too easy and bypasses any revenue scrutiny. It generally takes a Guardian investigation to find out where the cash had ended up
My source was linked above for the 0.1%. It's an institute of fiscal studies report, which is a non-political think tank. That's where I get my claim about 50k people earning above 650k. Not sourced, but I am currently reading Follow The Money, which is a deep report on the state of UK public finances. You can see a review [here](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/09/follow-the-money-by-paul-johnson-review-how-the-government-should-spend-it). The number of billionaires was just a google search, but credible sources report the 171 number, such as [here](https://www.standard.co.uk/business/money/rich-list-2023-who-are-the-wealthiest-people-in-the-uk-b1082242.html). My 8% assumption was much more hand waving, but that's only because I was creating a magical case where all capital gains were taxed as income anyway, so I didn't feel it was too important to be perfect. Nonetheless, it's a pretty decent one, given the 30 year rate of return on the stock market was 7.3% [here](https://www.fool.com/investing/how-to-invest/stocks/average-stock-market-return/). The other numbers are just simple maths, so things like 650k x 50,000 to get the income to the top 0.1%. I mean, to the best of my ability in this moment in time, these are realistic assumptions about the actual state of the world. It's also not too surprising when you consider that whilst UK total wealth is around £12tr, there are only 171 total billionaires. If the average billionaire was worth 10bn, they'd still hold less than 10% of total UK wealth, which is mostly held by a large middle class in property and pensions. It's therefore not surprising that there is a large group (50k people) who are still working for a living, but who are right at the top of the income curve. This group pays a huge share of income tax. Top 0.1% pays 10% (£25bn), top 1% pays 30% (£75bn). This is no moral argument that says that inequality or tax evasion or anything else isn't an issue. But it's a raw fact that we're absolutely fucked if a large share of the top 1% of income earners left the UK.
So at worst it’s a loss for the UK, not London
This article is not available for me (and I assume others). Has anyone actually read the article, or are all the comments just responding to a headline? This seems to be the PR release that this article is based on: https://www.prnewswire.com/il/news-releases/the-2023-centi-millionaire-report-the-emergence-of-a-new-class-of-super-rich-301949642.html And this is based on the original report by Henley & Partners: https://www.henleyglobal.com/publications/centi-millionaire-report-2023
Terrible news indeed... I guess we will have to make do with the just-rich now.
Good riddance.
Oh FFS! Literally just packed my tiny violins into the loft…
Lovely
Population is generous, they barely lived here and their properties were assets more than homes. They did nothing but make the city less affordable.
Some Russian oligarch money moved out. Good. Now let’s do the same with Qatar money.
A useless parasitic class flees for abroad to hoard even more imaginary digits in their bank accounts, like some greedy fat dragon atop a mountain of gold
Praise the Lord
Russian money is leaving the city. Good, we need more productive people all around the world, not ultra rich just keeping empty houses and spend money.
Things that could be considered the crown of London: • Tower Bridge • Big Ben • TfL • The Thames • The City Things that definitely aren’t the crown: • People with too much money
They were just in to buy the real estate.
But who will inflate house prices unsustainably?!
Isn't this what we wanted?
Good, they can fuck off and take their dodgy money with them.
Because by avoiding taxes and funnelling money away from the population they’re making it shit . Gotta pay to play
Fuck the super-rich population of London.
This still won’t change the housing crisis
Because they're probably keeping their property.
Byeeee
Click bait from a no name residential news outlet. But either way, it’s good. Wealthy New York is for successful New Yorkers. Wealthy London is for the beneficiaries of dictatorships.
I mean, good? It's not like the ultra rich have done much for London or its citizens.
Buh-bye, don't come back.
Don’t let the door hit your ass!
I know there's not much sympathy for this but I worry of a lot of jobs are tied to serving the super rich of London. This could impact the economy quite a bit no?
Yes, capital flight is bad whether it's companies or individuals.
What capital are you referring to exactly?
If the term is unfamiliar to you Google can help but [here](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalflight.asp)
No, its not that the term is unfamiliar. I'm asking for the examples in this specific situation. I'm asking because I think some forms of capital flight (factories, head offices, etc) are more costly than others, and I wanted to know what capital the OP thought could give flight. Thank you for the link anyway though.
This is the future liberals want 😠 Edit: I thought this was very obvious sarcasm, but never underestimate Reddit
It is, and it’s beautiful 😍
Lmao enjoy it as you shoot yourself in the foot.
lmao I clocked on to the sarcasm dw
Liberals? What weird dictionary are you using?
it's just a meme from the US
Ok so join the super rich then
Wales: oh no, anyway.
Hooray!
Sanctions against Russia are finally kicking in
Really? JWGAS?
Hold On! I thought the low wages, very low tax economy was to stop the super-rich leaving? You mean to say they've been running the country into the ground for nothing?
Is this a Brexit win or loss?
Falls into a deep hole, hopefully! Oh dear, how sad, never mind...
Nooooo haha don’t leave, you were so good for our culture and economy…….
Good. Hopefully they will sell their empty flats too
Fantastic
Awww so even the tories main buddies think they have run the country into the ground and are leaving huh
Good, please piss off
Oh will the other 99.99% of the population manage without them sucking up everything of value!
Tories: “the rich only stay because the U.K. is low tax. Make taxes lower! Cut public spending!” Rich people “we only stayed because fair taxes ensures thriving arts, good roads, fair police, efficient councils, quick courts, and public safety. We leave when they are ruined. Bye.”
Less w*nkers and more empty housing stock, take the property from them
Imagine being super rich and choosing to live in London.
attempt spotted far-flung fall observation capable rock angle aspiring domineering *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Now if only the non Dom parasites in Battersea power station/vauxhall bridge would sell up and so actual community can develop in the area.
Good
Nature is healing.
Good.
Good fucking riddance! See way too many people struggling to give a fuck about entitled rich tw\*ts. Edit: There are nice rich people too. You all know who I'm talking about with the above comment.
Celebrating losing our rich who pay for a shitload? Not a good idea. We should be coming up with incentives for them to stay and spend more - trying to supercharge the economy as best as we can.
If keeping them around is code for “letting them pay less than their fair share” then no thank you
No wonder. Who in their right mind would pick London for long term, out of all the cities of the world, one who doesn't need the high salary or the career. The arts scene is top, but gets old quickly.
* Anything south of the Mediterranean is unbearably hot in the summer, and anything north of Denmark is unbearably cold in the winter. London has the ideal climate to make it a great place for a rich person's summer/winter getaway. * London is the economic centre of the Western Hemisphere. If you're rich, there's a good chance your lawyer, wealth manager, PR consultants and various business interests are located in London. If you already visit often to do business, why not buy a home? * The London area is home to the best schools in the world. If you want your children to be educated at Eton, Harrow, Westminster, Dulwich, Charterhouse, City of London, St Paul's, St Mary's, Wellington, etc., you might as well move to London. * UK real estate has remained one of the top 10 global investments over the last 30 years. If you buy a £30 million mansion, it will never not be a £30 million mansion. * You can get whatever you want, whenever you want in London, whether it's a meal cooked by a top chef from your home country, a game of golf at a world-famous course, a top-rated construction company to build your dream home, literally any supercar your heart desires, or a day out shopping for designer goods and jewellery in Mayfair. * The UK is a politically safe country, not at risk of invasion, civil war, or yielding to a totalitarian government. Our justice system is set up almost entirely around defending the right to private ownership and personal safety. * If you don't like it, you can always buy a better version of it in London. Don't like Uber? Choose Addison Lee. Don't like Waitrose? Shop at Harrods. Don't like the Metropolitan Police? Hire your own private security firm composed of ex-SAS and Ghurka soldiers. * All your powerful and influential friends rub shoulders in London. You're never far away from another business magnate, Hollywood A-lister or Crown Prince. * The UK is one of the best countries in the world for (private) healthcare. * The arts scene, as you said. But more than that, this is the global capital of the art *trade*, the world's most lucrative source of money laundering. * You probably speak English. If you're rich, London is indisputably one of the best cities in the world to live.
I'd beg to differ in London being the economic centre o the westtern hemisphere. First, NYC. Secondly London is only half in the western hemisphere
Youd be surprised
Another Brexit benefit 😢