Taxing empty houses

numpty888

FireWyrm wrote: »

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?

Nope.

With an essential resource that is insufficient to go around - allowing people to waste it does not make any sense.

If you want communism back - then this is the best way to achieve it. It's like a having a few people that own way more than they need saying "let them eat cake" to the rest. That usually ends up with people loosing their heads.

You should be absolutely allowed to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't cause you or others harm. This causes great harm to others - make no doubt...

FireWyrm

GAH wrote: »

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.

Yes, but most of them are living 15 to a room which while definately overcrowding in the micro sense is hardly the sole reason behind why people cannot get on the property ladder.

No, it's more to do with expectation. For instance, there was an article in the paper the other day about some lady complaining that she wanted a 3rd child, but since the eldest two already had a room each, she felt it was cruel to make the youngest bunk in with one of the others, she wanted a 4 bedroom house instead. She actually said that she felt it was 'overcrowding'. Now, I live in a modest late Victorian terrace that has three modest sized rooms and the people of those days seemed to have little issue with having more than one child in a room. Likewise, if you really must live in London, then you are going to pay a massive premium since London is finite and there are only so many properties for sale. However, move just a little outside and suddenly there are more properties than you can shake a stick at. Just a cursory search on Rightmove for any 3 bed house within 40 miles of London in the price-range 90K to 140K produces 1000+ results. That's hardly a shortage. If you widen the search on say Birmingham city centre (40 mile radius) you get exactly the same results. There are thousands of houses for sale in this country. There is NO shortage at all.

Where you have problems however, is expectation. The same search on 4 bed houses reveals only 449 using the same parameters. Assuming that Mr and Mrs Average save £30K in 4 or 5 years, they will be able to find a three bed house within 40 miles of London and afford it. Hands up everyone with more than 10K debts to deal with? There's your problem! Not lack of houses, lack of spare cash and cash flow. If that 10K of debts didnt exist, all repayments on that imaginary debt could be chanelled into the deposit instead.

Lightf00t

FireWyrm wrote: »

Yes, but most of them are living 15 to a room which while definately overcrowding in the micro sense is hardly the sole reason behind why people cannot get on the property ladder.

No, it's more to do with expectation. For instance, there was an article in the paper the other day about some lady complaining that she wanted a 3rd child, but since the eldest two already had a room each, she felt it was cruel to make the youngest bunk in with one of the others, she wanted a 4 bedroom house instead. She actually said that she felt it was 'overcrowding'. Now, I live in a modest late Victorian terrace that has three modest sized rooms and the people of those days seemed to have little issue with having more than one child in a room. Likewise, if you really must live in London, then you are going to pay a massive premium since London is finite and there are only so many properties for sale. However, move just a little outside and suddenly there are more properties than you can shake a stick at. Just a cursory search on Rightmove for any 3 bed house within 40 miles of London in the price-range 90K to 140K produces 1000+ results. That's hardly a shortage. If you widen the search on say Birmingham city centre (40 mile radius) you get exactly the same results. There are thousands of houses for sale in this country. There is NO shortage at all.

Where you have problems however, is expectation. The same search on 4 bed houses reveals only 449 using the same parameters. Assuming that Mr and Mrs Average save £30K in 4 or 5 years, they will be able to find a three bed house within 40 miles of London and afford it. Hands up everyone with more than 10K debts to deal with? There's your problem! Not lack of houses, lack of spare cash and cash flow. If that 10K of debts didnt exist, all repayments on that imaginary debt could be chanelled into the deposit instead.

You've just told the truth. A lot of people here don't like to hear it so you'll probably be reported and censored.

FireWyrm

numpty888 wrote: »

With an essential resource that is insufficient to go around - allowing people to waste it does not make any sense.

Agreed. IF that essential resource was in some way insufficient

numpty888 wrote: »

If you want communism back - then this is the best way to achieve it. It's like a having a few people that own way more than they need saying "let them eat cake" to the rest. That usually ends up with people loosing their heads.

Communism doesnt work. Sorry, it's been proven time and again. Even with the state owning all assets, there'll be someone with more than his fair share and it's usually someone at the top - the party faithful. Trust me, communism is an absolute dead duck.

numpty888 wrote: »

You should be absolutely allowed to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't cause you or others harm. This causes great harm to others - make no doubt...

It doesnt harm anyone else. If these mythical people wanted a house, they could save for it, scrimp for it and make sacrifices for it. Why should others be forced to relinquish that which we have worked so hard for just because someone else wasnt as driven. It's the politics of envy and it doesnt work.

gmang

The prevalence of empty homes being used as static assets is one big reason not to criminalise squatting. Legal squatting is essential to prevent rich investors cornering the market on property.

Lightf00t

FireWyrm wrote: »

Agreed. IF that essential resource was in some way insufficient



Communism doesnt work. Sorry, it's been proven time and again. Even with the state owning all assets, there'll be someone with more than his fair share and it's usually someone at the top - the party faithful. Trust me, communism is an absolute dead duck.



It doesnt harm anyone else. If these mythical people wanted a house, they could save for it, scrimp for it and make sacrifices for it. Why should others be forced to relinquish that which we have worked so hard for just because someone else wasnt as driven. It's the politics of envy and it doesnt work.

You tell them. Hit these lefties with a nice big dose of reality.

tbs624

WhiteHorse wrote: »

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

Makes it harder than what?

Ts in this country have far less security of tenure than other European countries

tbs624

FireWyrm wrote: »

People are unable to get on the property ladder for all sorts of reasons and it most certainly isnt for lack of properties.

There is however a shortage of affordable decent properties to rent, worse in some areas than others.

tbs624

Lightf00t wrote: »

Squatters should be shot.

Dear oh dear. Clearly Lightfoot is from the Fascist state headed up by Clarkson, J.

ILW

tbs624 wrote: »

There is however a shortage of affordable decent properties to rent, worse in some areas than others.

Depends on your definition of decent and affordable.