Taxing empty houses

numpty888

I saw in the news that there are loads of empty properties in the UK.

Apparently most of them are privately owned by people who are really just trying to time the housing market.

How can this make sense when there are so many people desperate for somewhere to live?

Why doesn't the government tax this?

This makes even more sense for empty commercial property? If they taxed this - it would encourage the owners to reduce the rent on them making more businesses viable.

Isn't it crazy not to tax this?

King_Of_Bling

numpty888 wrote: »

I saw in the news that there are loads of empty properties in the UK.

Apparently most of them are privately owned by people who are really just trying to time the housing market.

How can this make sense when there are so many people desperate for somewhere to live?

Why doesn't the government tax this?

This makes even more sense for empty commercial property? If they taxed this - it would encourage the owners to reduce the rent on them making more businesses viable.

Isn't it crazy not to tax this?

They are taxed! They normally receive 3 months exemption, then 100% rates.

Itismehonest

There are lots of reasons why properties stand empty & it isn't always the owners choice.
I know of instances where owners would like to let properties & help the housing situation but Planning will not let them.

F_T_Buyer

Well yes I agree. Personally I would remove all exemption for empty homes, so if it's not lived in or rented out it becomes a liability.

I would also remove the 25% Council Tax discount for single occupancy too, and that's coming from someone who gets this benefit too! Just my 2p, and it won't be popular.

FireWyrm

Fine. With that thinking, you wont mind lending your car out when you're not using it would you? Why is it suddenly a right to have a house and if you're not living in it, you should jolly well give it up - have we suddenly gone communist in this country? It is an asset, just like a car and you wouldnt want to be taxed on it just because you didnt use it every single day would you? Dont you think that is a tiny bit of jealousy speaking?

People are unable to get on the property ladder for all sorts of reasons and it most certainly isnt for lack of properties. There are tonnes of properties outside the M25 corridor if one is prepared to make a few changes to one's lifestyle. Ditch London, move about 50 miles north and you would be suprised what you can find and what is reasonably affordable. Historically, people struggled all their lives to hold a roof over their heads if they owned it, they didnt expect to have a fully furnished all inclusive pad handed to them on a plate. Personally, I think the government should be reducing tax left and right, it's the best way to kick-start the economy overnight. Leave the people with more in their pockets and they'll spend it, guaranteed.

WhiteHorse

Itismehonest wrote: »

There are lots of reasons why properties stand empty & it isn't always the owners choice.
I know of instances where owners would like to let properties & help the housing situation but Planning will not let them.

And don't forget the legislation that makes it much harder to get rid of bad tenants.

sariebeth

I have landlords on my books who have empty properties for various reasons including;

1) Unrentable because a previous tenant has trashed it (obviously not one of my tenants) - and they can't yet afford the repairs
2) Hard to let or sell for various reasons (below sea level in a coastal town for example! )
3) Private holiday homes - they work hard for the money to buy them, why shouldn't they have them exclusivly
4) They want to sell, the market is pants, and I wont let out properties that may be sold within the next 2 years (so many tenants come to me because their home has been sold from underneath them)

I appreciate that some properties are left permanently empty and unused, but you can't tar every empty home owner with the same brush

WhiteHorse

numpty888 wrote: »

IHow can this make sense when there are so many people desperate for somewhere to live? Why don't they have anywhere to live?

Try overpopulation.

Why doesn't the government tax this?

Instead of applying coercion, why not apply encouragement? Offer incentives, (like less tax and more sensible laws), instead of threats.

Now here's one for you to consider. Once the state has seized all private property (which is what is actually riding behind this idea), what then?

Lightf00t

numpty888 wrote: »

I saw in the news that there are loads of empty properties in the UK.

Apparently most of them are privately owned by people who are really just trying to time the housing market.

How can this make sense when there are so many people desperate for somewhere to live?

Why doesn't the government tax this?

This makes even more sense for empty commercial property? If they taxed this - it would encourage the owners to reduce the rent on them making more businesses viable.

Isn't it crazy not to tax this?

It would be a different story if you happened to own one or more of these properties. Politics of envy rears its ugly head again.

Our country is overpopulated for 2 main reasons:

1) Medical care allows people to be kept alive long past their use by date, so we end up with lots of unproductive burdens on society.

2) Immigration is too high.

GAH

Why should the people that owns these homes be taxed.

They already pay Council Tax, they will also be paying to insure the house (probably more costly with it being empty), paying for heating and electric etc.

As said above, there are some valid reasons why these homes are empty. I have also known some very rich people over the years with large portfolios who do forget about some of their properties as well.

Also as just mentioned above, we are overpopulated, I don't think the government have actually really got any idea of how many people are living here that shouldn't be.

jjlandlord

WhiteHorse wrote: »

Try overpopulation.

Try "I want to live in a house, with a garden".
England is densely populated, but what exactly constitutes "overpopulation"?

WhiteHorse wrote: »

Instead of applying coercion, why not apply encouragement? Offer incentives, (like less tax and more sensible laws), instead of threats.

That what the Housing Act 1988 did.
I think there's enough encouragement.