Not a time to be a buy-to-let landlord

westernpromise

lisyloo wrote: »

No to theft.
I favour taxes to incentive/penalise behaviour (this goes on all the time for example tobacco, alchohol, higher road tax for gas guzzlers and yes I favour all that).

The difference is that these are taxes on ongoing consumption you can avoid by altering behaviour. You are proposing to tax people out of something they already own and have long since paid for because you think the state has more right to decide how their house should be used than they, as the owner. This is simply theft by the state.

It's worth remembering that all this is proposed to solve a problem that homeowners did not cause.

lisyloo

westernpromise wrote: »

The difference is that these are taxes on ongoing consumption you can avoid by altering behaviour. You are proposing to tax people out of something they already own and have long since paid for because you think the state has more right to decide how their house should be used than they, as the owner. This is simply theft by the state.

It's worth remembering that all this is proposed to solve a problem that homeowners did not cause.

First thanks for the sensible debate.
Why can't the behaviour be altered? For example by getting lodgers?

Yes I do think the democratically elected state has a right to decide on scare but essential resources needed for life (another example would be rationing food or water in a crisis to make sure everyone got some).

Homeowners have partially caused it.
By taking more housing than they are entitled to have.
I would call depriving others by taking a fair share of resources as necessary for life as a kind of theft (I'm talking about shelter, not ownership).
You can keep your property but not over consume by letting if you gave a particular attachment to a property.

Please can you explain to me (because I am open to changing my views if there is an alternative) how it's possible for some to over-consume without affecting others when a resource essential for life is scarce

CLAPTON

lisyloo wrote: »

First thanks for the sensible debate.
Why can't the behaviour be altered? For example by getting lodgers?

Yes I do think the democratically elected state has a right to decide on scare but essential resources needed for life (another example would be rationing food or water in a crisis to make sure everyone got some).

Homeowners have partially caused it.
By taking more housing than they are entitled to have.
I would call depriving others by taking a fair share of resources as necessary for life as a kind of theft (I'm talking about shelter, not ownership).
You can keep your property but not over consume by letting if you gave a particular attachment to a property.

Please can you explain to me (because I am open to changing my views if there is an alternative) how it's possible for some to over-consume without affecting others when a resource essential for life is scarce

How would you in practice define 'fair'?

lisyloo

CLAPTON wrote: »

How would you in practice define 'fair'?

I don't underestimate the difficulty here as there is with any system that tries to be fair.
The target is homes/excess bedrooms that aren't in use.
So completely empty properties should be penalised unless there is a good reason such as
. Being renovated
. On the market
. Awaiting probate
. Resident temporarily abroad or in hospital

For empty bedrooms let's say we decide 2 is acceptable, so that allows a couple starting a family to have a 3 bedroom house.
BedRooms used for mobility equipment or couples that need to sleep separate for medical reasons are excluded.
Anyone with more than 2 bedrooms pays tax per bedroom, so the more you over-consume the more you contribute.
Money goes to new housing.

CLAPTON

lisyloo wrote: »

I don't underestimate the difficulty here as there is with any system that tries to be fair.
The target is homes/excess bedrooms that aren't in use.
So completely empty properties should be penalised unless there is a good reason such as
. Being renovated
. On the market
. Awaiting probate
. Resident temporarily abroad or in hospital

For empty bedrooms let's say we decide 2 is acceptable, so that allows a couple starting a family to have a 3 bedroom house.
BedRooms used for mobility equipment or couples that need to sleep separate for medical reasons are excluded.
Anyone with more than 2 bedrooms pays tax per bedroom, so the more you over-consume the more you contribute.
Money goes to new housing.

would a spare bedroom in Hull be charged at the same rate as one in Kensington?

would rooms of different sizes be charged differently

if I have a large room and subdivide it, would it be charged as two or one

if i had two small rooms and knocked them into one would I be penalised

do you agree you are discouraging people working at home who 'need' an office

do you agree there would be a massive increase in couples that need to sleep separately for medical reasons

if I'm separated can both homes have sufficient for the children to stay

how would the charge to determined : by town/area, by size of and type of house, by income

if my (grown up children who nominally live with me but spend all their time at their boy/girl friends property) would I be charged extra?



why don't we simply build 500,000 high rise buildings with say 100 flats in each (i.e. 50 million units) at taxpayer expense : wouldn't this be more fair?

lisyloo

CLAPTON wrote: »

would a spare bedroom in Hull be charged at the same rate as one in Kensington?

would rooms of different sizes be charged differently

if I have a large room and subdivide it, would it be charged as two or one

if i had two small rooms and knocked them into one would I be penalised

do you agree you are discouraging people working at home who 'need' an office

do you agree there would be a massive increase in couples that need to sleep separately for medical reasons

if I'm separated can both homes have sufficient for the children to stay

how would the charge to determined : by town/area, by size of and type of house, by income

if my (grown up children who nominally live with me but spend all their time at their boy/girl friends property) would I be charged extra?



why don't we simply build 500,000 high rise buildings with say 100 flats in each (i.e. 50 million units) at taxpayer expense : wouldn't this be more fair?

Tax would be based on value & area. We already have council tax bands so perhaps we can reuse that rather than revaluing every property.

Size of room doesn't matter.
If you permanently sub-divide a room you get charged for 2 as you're depriving 2 people of living space by dividing.
Knocking 2 rooms into 1 is still depriving 2 people of living space (unless there is an exceptional medical exception).
I'm not proposing taxing people on genuine office/study space. Any new study space would need a declaration from an employer (who generally won't be keen to collude in tax evasion).
No I don't see an increase in genuine medical needs or tax evasion (which is quite a serious offence). Your GP would need to sign off medical needs.
If the rooms are genuinely lived in then yes you can be separated, so children can effectively occupy 2 rooms (as can people like MPs who work away from home because that is genuine living usage).
Charge is determined as per council tax banding so no new valuations required.
If your children's residence is with you then that's fine for them to stay elsewhere. There is already a definition of PPR.

I don't underestimate the difficulties with a fair system, but I think you can see the intention which is that genuine uses - medical, work etc. Are ok, PLUS you can have 2 spare rooms, but excessive use is not.

I am not against building per se, but
I don't want to see our country concreted over so that the Chinese can store their cash in empty houses. Do you think that's fair to future generations? I don't. There may be a shortage but there is also an over-consumption issue that we need to deal with.

anchovypizza

The one thing that has been learnt off this thread is what a sensitive little soul chucknorris is, Ahhhhh bless, these playboy millionaire property owning studs are very fragile

CLAPTON

lisyloo wrote: »

Tax would be based on value & area. We already have council tax bands so perhaps we can reuse that rather than revaluing every property.

Size of room doesn't matter.
If you permanently sub-divide a room you get charged for 2 as you're depriving 2 people of living space by dividing.
Knocking 2 rooms into 1 is still depriving 2 people of living space (unless there is an exceptional medical exception).
I'm not proposing taxing people on genuine office/study space. Any new study space would need a declaration from an employer (who generally won't be keen to collude in tax evasion).
No I don't see an increase in genuine medical needs or tax evasion (which is quite a serious offence). Your GP would need to sign off medical needs.
If the rooms are genuinely lived in then yes you can be separated, so children can effectively occupy 2 rooms (as can people like MPs who work away from home because that is genuine living usage).
Charge is determined as per council tax banding so no new valuations required.
If your children's residence is with you then that's fine for them to stay elsewhere. There is already a definition of PPR.

I don't underestimate the difficulties with a fair system, but I think you can see the intention which is that genuine uses - medical, work etc. Are ok, PLUS you can have 2 spare rooms, but excessive use is not.

I am not against building per se, but
I don't want to see our country concreted over so that the Chinese can store their cash in empty houses. Do you think that's fair to future generations? I don't. There may be a shortage but there is also an over-consumption issue that we need to deal with.

by way of example what you you like / expect a spare room in kensington and one in hull to be charged ?

a person would be have no charge for a room 30ft x 25ft but some-one with two room 8ft x 6 ft would be charged.

I have no figures but huge numbers of companies encourage workers to work at home at least some of the time: many councils encourage this on the basis of limiting environmental damage etc.

You're suggesting that if a person went to their doctor and said they were depressed, suicidal etc and needed 'space' from their partner, the doctor would refuse to sign the relevant form?

( in the last 20 years there has been a 50% rise in 'disabled' people and now 1 in 5 school children have some sort of special needs (all signed off properly) - do you really believe this? )

recently I've needed to visit my sister more often and she has needed to visit her daughter and see the grandchildren : both event require staying overnight : would this count as a genuine need for a extra room?

I have a friend who snores : their partner finds this disturbing : would this count as a genuine need for an extra room



building 500,000 high rise blocks wouldn't concrete over the country : in fact we could reduce the amount of concrete we already have: there would be a large cost but wouldn't that be reasonable in the fight for a 'fairer' country.

westernpromise

lisyloo wrote: »

First thanks for the sensible debate.
Why can't the behaviour be altered? For example by getting lodgers?

Yes I do think the democratically elected state has a right to decide on scare but essential resources needed for life (another example would be rationing food or water in a crisis to make sure everyone got some).

Homeowners have partially caused it.
By taking more housing than they are entitled to have.
I would call depriving others by taking a fair share of resources as necessary for life as a kind of theft (I'm talking about shelter, not ownership).
You can keep your property but not over consume by letting if you gave a particular attachment to a property.

Please can you explain to me (because I am open to changing my views if there is an alternative) how it's possible for some to over-consume without affecting others when a resource essential for life is scarce

Something you already own is yours. It is none of the state's business how it is used. The state has no stake, no say and absolutely no right whatsoever to decide that your property is somehow the state's to dispose of (which will certainly be corruptly).

If something is in short supply now but wasn't 40 years ago because of the policies the state has pursued, tough luck; the state should reflect on what it did wronbg and how it could reverse its error.

Homeowners have not caused a shortage, partially or at all. They just bought a house at its market value. It's theirs. They have not "taken shelter" from others.

Why not just make private property illegal?

westernpromise

CLAPTON wrote: »

would a spare bedroom in Hull be charged at the same rate as one in Kensington?

would rooms of different sizes be charged differently

if I have a large room and subdivide it, would it be charged as two or one

if i had two small rooms and knocked them into one would I be penalised

do you agree you are discouraging people working at home who 'need' an office

do you agree there would be a massive increase in couples that need to sleep separately for medical reasons

if I'm separated can both homes have sufficient for the children to stay

how would the charge to determined : by town/area, by size of and type of house, by income

if my (grown up children who nominally live with me but spend all their time at their boy/girl friends property) would I be charged extra?



why don't we simply build 500,000 high rise buildings with say 100 flats in each (i.e. 50 million units) at taxpayer expense : wouldn't this be more fair?

Those expropriated would find their stolen property was given away to supporters of the party that advocated this.

Why not have a one-child policy as well?