Time to get tough on unoccupied and second homes...

angrypirate

noodle_doodle wrote: »

There's two unoccupied homes within 4 doors of me either side, both down to OAPs getting moved into residential care. How could they pay 10 times council tax given they're already being chiselled by the care costs?

If they are in care homes why do they need a house? Sell the house and they can afford the care costs -a little family can then buy a home

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

StevieJ wrote: »

That has a certain mid 19th century feel to it, why don't we just bring back workhouses and be done with it

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.
"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."
"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.
"Both very busy, sir.""Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."

A return to Victorian Values. Mrs Thatcher would be delighted.

Mr._Pricklepants

Generali wrote: »

Homelessness is rarely caused by the lack of a home directly. It is much more likely to be the indirect result of mental illness.

Thanks Generali.
I will keep that in mind next time I read another incoherent rant by homelessskilledworker.

antrobus

20400keith wrote: »

Homelessness costs the nation millions, apart from the distress to individuals. Maybe now is the time to use taxation to relieve the problem. My proposal......All profit from these measures is ringfenced to reduce stamp duty. The more property that changes hands, the more spend on DIY, decorating etc and a boost to GDP.

Massive logic failure here, I believe.

You express concern about homelessness. You propose increasing CT on certain properties to address the problem, but insist that the money raised by used to reduce stamp duty on property transactions? That's not exactly going to help the homeless is it?

antrobus

noodle_doodle wrote: »

There's two unoccupied homes within 4 doors of me either side, both down to OAPs getting moved into residential care. How could they pay 10 times council tax given they're already being chiselled by the care costs?

Quite.

940,000 empty properties sounds a lot, but it's about 4% of the total housing stock. At any one point in time a certain percentage of the housing stock is bound to be empty, simply because ... things happen. People die, go into hospital, are obliged to work elsewhere in the country or even abroad, get imprisoned and so and so forth. And as you can tell from the article, 2/3rds of this total are empty for less than six months, so their 'empty status' is clearly only a temporary state of affairs.

coastline

I read somewhere last year there were over 900,000 homes empty in the UK...80,000 were owned by the local authority..
Its the council homes which seem to be highlighted ...especially on TV...and they're probably empty due to various social problems...
Theres a detached house just half a mile from my home...its in a fantastic location with a sea view...its been empty for a decade I know of...
Fair enough its a private residence and probably someones pension at a guess...but if we have over three quarters of a million more like this...then we have a problem which needs addressing.
Thing is here the people with influence who make the rules will probably own more than one home themselves so it looks like a non starter..

BobQ

20400keith wrote: »

Homelessness costs the nation millions, apart from the distress to individuals. Maybe now is the time to use taxation to relieve the problem. My proposal...

Any second/holiday home should be charged at 5 times assessed Council Tax rate.

Any unoccupied home should be charged at 10 times assessed Council Tax rate.

Individuals with two or more spare bedrooms cannot claim single person Council Tax relief.

All property empty for more than a year will be listed on a Council website (bit of naming and shaming). Anything empty for more than two years can be subject to compulsory purchase at 50% of market value.

All profit from these measures is ringfenced to reduce stamp duty. The more property that changes hands, the more spend on DIY, decorating etc and a boost to GDP.

This sounds like a communist revolution to me or the ramblings of a bitterly twisted mind. Who is going to administer this state interference in the lives of ordinary people?

The solution to the housing problems is for the state to build more houses and allow them to be rented at a rate that those who need them can afford.. It would have all the beneficial effects you seek for the economy and would reduce the cost of houses for those who can afford them. Its so much better than state terrorism.

Loughton_Monkey

coastline wrote: »

...its been empty for a decade I know of...

Fair enough its a private residence and probably someones pension at a guess...but if we have over three quarters of a million more like this...then we have a problem which needs addressing......

Whoever owns it, he's losing out on its rental value. That's his hard luck. Or deliberate choice.

Personally, I wish there were more people like this. Anyone who wants to buy up the housing stock, board it up, and take it out of the sales/rental market, then it keeps the price of all our houses a bit more 'healthy'.

If 900,000 homes were suddenly flooded onto the market, just think of all the damage it would cause! Absolute mayhem.

It would be a bloodbath!

AliceJenkins

Punish people for working hard, so they can buy a holiday home. Who do they think they are working hard instead of claiming benefits and getting !!!!ed every day.

ruggedtoast

AliceJenkins wrote: »

Punish people for working hard, so they can buy a holiday home. Who do they think they are working hard instead of claiming benefits and getting !!!!ed every day.

I know of plenty of people with 2nd, 3rd and 4th + homes who have never done a days work in their life. Not what I would consider to be work anyway.