Should we tax foreign buyers on property deliberately left empty?

cepheus

Or even British buyers? Why is nothing being done?

The report, called Finding Shelter, cites statistics showing that 85% of prime London property purchases in 2012 were made with overseas money. Estate agent Savills found that last year £7bn of international money was spent on "high-end" London homes, with just 20% of that spent by UK citizens. Two-thirds of homes bought by people from overseas were not purchased for owner-occupation but as investments.

Civitas says the problem is not confined to the top end of the market and that overseas buyers are also acquiring less expensive newbuild homes. It says that over the past two years only 27% of new homes in central London went to UK buyers, while more than half were sold to residents of Singapore, Hong Kong, China, Malaysia and Russia.

"The UK property market is being used as an investment vehicle by the global super-rich – and increasingly the simply well-to-do," the report says. "The inflationary impact of this extra cash is good news for property owners – until they want to trade up the housing ladder

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/feb/01/rich-overseas-investors-uk-eu-housing-market

Carl31

Nothings being done as the increase in property value is being used to increase our countries net worth in terms of asset value, which will improve our credit rating and Osborne and Co can keep up the back patting and pretence they are doing something for the country

all the foreign income is being seen as good news for the economy, the UK population cannot provide them this income, so they are going overseas. The additional benefit is of course more and more of the population will also be lining the government's pockets with sdlt as house prices rise

the housing policy in this country stinks at the moment and will probably cost the cons the next election at the rate it's going, which is sad as they got a lot of things right the past few years

Bantex_2

We should tax all residential property and land left empty.

PasturesNew

I don't think they pay stamp duty for starters .... as for being left empty, if I had a tiny holiday cottage in England I'd still have to pay Council Tax - I bet they dodge it.

CLAPTON

What is prime London property?
How many such properties were purchased?

85% prime London property uses foreign money : is that good or bad ?

2/3rd of what exactly?

ruggedtoast

Anyone with a second or empty property should have to have a homeless in it, or they should have to pay taxes equivalent to housing a homeless for each month.

They are monopolising housing and putting people on the streets and need to be made to pay.

I think a similar thing should happen for people with large homes and many bedrooms that they arent using. There is too much greed in this country and people prancing around like little Mary Antoinettes.

System

How do you prove that it is deliberately decision to leave it empty rather than through disinterest in dealing with the property?

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Anyone with a second or empty property should have to have a homeless in it, or they should have to pay taxes equivalent to housing a homeless for each month.

They are monopolising housing and putting people on the streets and need to be made to pay.

I think a similar thing should happen for people with large homes and many bedrooms that they arent using. There is too much greed in this country and people prancing around like little Mary Antoinettes.

there are no homeless in the UK except a few unstable/mentally ill people who refuse to be housed

and the wonderful people who resolved the Marie Antoinette issue went on to cause a European catastrophe and the death of millions
(mainly poor working class)


a typical win win for socialism

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

there are no homeless in the UK except a few unstable/mentally ill people who refuse to be housed

You are so utterly wrong here, I'm wondering why you would make such a statement?

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You are so utterly wrong here, I'm wondering why you would make such a statement?

Please correct me immediately with the correct information.

there are of course many people living in accommodation that many would deem unsuitable.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

Please correct me immediately with the correct information.

there are of course many people living in accommodation that many would deem unsuitable.

There were 12,980 people accepted as homeless by local authorities in the 4th quarter of 2013. Over the year, thats around 52,000 homeless families accepted as being homeless under law. (This is excluding those who are intentionally homeless)

The people above are not neccesarily sleeping on the streets, but don't have a home. They could be on sofas, on floors, in hostels etc, but they ARE homeless.

There were 2,414 (up 5% on 2012) estimated rough sleepers in Autumn 2013 (the study happens each Autumn).

Your statement is utterly bizzare and somewhat insulting to homeless people.