Taxing empty houses

FireWyrm

tbs624 wrote: »

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

Now, THAT I agree with. In the south east, we were paying £785 for a three bed semi in a village. When we started renting, it was just on the cusp of being unaffortable 3 years ago. Now, the same places are going for £1500 pcm. This is pure greed on the part of landlords and if anyone should be taxed, it should be them.

numpty888

FireWyrm wrote: »

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.

Hey - you couldn't find someone who hates communism more than me.

If we had capitalism - we would balance interest rates between investors and borrowers (7% at least). No more QE. No more housing benefits that go to landlords. No more mortgage benefit. Remove all this and house prices would drop 70%.

Face it - we effectively have home owner welfare right now paid for by everyone else.

Okay - no problem. But having a million empty properties when loads of people need them. Now that really is crazy!

FireWyrm

numpty888 wrote: »

Face it - we effectively have home owner welfare right now paid for by everyone else.

How on earth do you figure that? I dont get a penny piece from the government, in fact, I'm a bloody net contributor to the great septic cow. I worked hard to get an education, then a job and I'm still working hard to pay for every career baby factory in the country. I get absolutely nothing from the state except a good old fashioned s**fting. I manage to scrape together a little money and buy a house of my own which cannot be taken from me at the whim of some greedy LL and a little stabilty for me and mine and everyone else wants yet another piece of what little I've managed to keep from the state.

numpty888 wrote: »

Okay - no problem. But having a million empty properties when loads of people need them. Now that really is crazy!

They are empty because people choose other priorities than saving or working. That's their choice, but they cant have their cake and eat it too.

numpty888

Just because you don't get a cheque from the government doesn't mean that you aren't having a hand-out.

Housing benefits that go to landlords have the effect of propping up house prices (at the expense of tax payers)
Interest rates being at 0 and QE have the effect of propping up house prices (at the expense of savers/pensioners).
The average home owner in the UK has way more "welfare" than someone on unemployment benefit.
Face it and be happy - it probably won't last much longer actually..

Just saying that true capitalism would likely see a 70% drop in house prices.

F_T_Buyer

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

Because [in effect] cars are not a finite resource, whereas land [and hence housing] is.

I hear all the micro arguments for different things, however looking from a macro point of view, money going into housing is not productive. That is why the economy is now being strangled.

I like the theory of land tax, taxing unproductive resources. However in the western world, I cannot see how it can ever be introduced. The closest thing we have to this is council tax; e.g. if I bought a 4bed house, fine, but I pay more tax for it. Or I could be prudent and buy a 2bed house and pay less ongoing tax.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying increase tax - just change it. But it won't happen...

lighting_up_the_chalice

Oh no. We can't touch those who own their own homes. Social tenant under occupying the home they have lived in (and paid rent for) for 30 years? Tough. You'll have to live in a flat. But the O/Occ in the same position..?? Beyond reproach. In fact, they should be subsidised by the very people they are forcing into "retirement flats".

Renters get squeezed at every opportunity while those lucky enough to have secured a place on the ownership ladder are sheltered from such concerns. Such is the hypocrisy within the housing "market". All these "accidental" landlords whining because they cannot make their tenant homeless at the click of their fingers (despite not bothering to research the subject).

We live in a have/have not world, where owners are protected and the rest are thrown to the wolves. And God help anyone here who suggests that Social Housing may help, for they shall have scorn poured upon them from the O/Occ brigade who regard security of tenure for the few as some affront to their own, personal fiefdom.

Tax owner/occs who under occupy till the pips squeak. Tax empty properties till it hurts. Only then will the property "market" reflect the truth.

propertyman

tbs624 wrote: »

Makes it harder than what?

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

But its the appalling court system that is funded in such a way as to prevent landlords taking swift action on breaches or rent arrears to avoid large numbers looking for new or temporary housing and unable to get it.

propertyman

It is a largely pointless suggestion. In most cases if an owner can derive an income that is profitable they will do so.

Too often the cost of modernising and fitting out a home for rent or selling it exceeds the return, often as the return in that area is so low due the level of economic activity.

Charging full council tax makes little difference to majority.

Re directing economic activity will stimulate demand and prices.

WhiteHorse

jjlandlord wrote:

England is densely populated, but what exactly constitutes "overpopulation"?

More people than the land can feed.

WhiteHorse

Now here's a question.

Various posters on this thread have advocated siezure of private property, squatting and so on, but there's another property resource that should be mentioned.

Empty council properties. There are many of them. There are loads of bad council tenants too. People who contribute nothing and wreck the houses given to them. People who turn their houses into centres for crime.

Why do councils not sling them out and give the houses to better people? Not only would it save millions in maintenance, it would generate cash money as more would actually be paying rent.

In a time of cuts, why no action?