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

lisyloo

CLAPTON wrote: »

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.

Empty homes amount 100% of council tax.
Empty bedrooms 10% of council tax per room.

For size, yes - people live in rooms for privacy reasons.

Not sure on your point about WFH - I said that was exempt.

No I wasn't suggesting doctors would refuse to sign off genuine cases. I was countering the inferred argument about fraud I.e. You suggested rise in non-genuine medical needs. There won't be a lot of fraud on medical or WFH because GPs and employers need to sigh off. The proposal is at genuine medical or working needs are taken into account and are not therefore spare rooms. I am not suggesting it's watertight, but getting sign off is a good way to reduce it as most GPs if employers won't collude with a fraudulent claim.

(I believe we now recognise more conditions e.g. ADHD than we did in the past). The target of this is not normal families and that's why two spare bedrooms are exempt. The target are vast over consumers and speculators using an empty asset.

Is two spare bedrooms insufficient for your family guest rooms? I do think that should suffice and keeping anymore simply for guests is depriving others (regular careers could get sign off from GPs).

If a GP considers the snoring problem to be depriving the partner of health (and I can certainly see that) then this is exactly the kind of scenario that the exemption is for.

If you seriously think we can build the homes and infrastructure to meet everyone's needs then I'm all for it, but they need to sold to people to live in, not for the Chinese to speculate on. In London most new build I'd being left empty so you'd need to have some way of stopping that.
But in principle if it's possible then I'd be for it.

lisyloo

westernpromise wrote: »

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?

It absolutely is the states business. If you grow cannabis in your loft or garden you may go to prison.
I have not suggested the state taking or using people's property.
I have suggested a tax. Property is currently taxed in various ways.

This is attempting to reverse the error.

Yes homeowners have cause the shortage by over consumption, yes they are taking shelter from others.

Like smoking and alchohol or eating sugar it doesn't need to be illegal.
People still have a choice.
I'm not proposing taking away their choice.
People still smoke and drink despite the fact that they are taxed, so they aren't being stopped, merely incentivised and made to contribute towards the problems they are creating for society as a whole.

lisyloo

westernpromise wrote: »

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?

No one is bein expropriated, just taxed. Nothing is being stolen (unless you view all taxation as theft).
A car, packet of cigarettes, bottle if wine, pair of trousers is not expropriated because you have to pay tax on it, neither are homes where owners pay council tax, the word simply doesn't apply.

I don't think a one-child policy is a good idea, but I agree with the government that we shouldn't support (with benefits) those who have more than two children.

Somerset

lisyloo wrote: »

A car, packet of cigarettes, bottle if wine, pair of trousers is not expropriated because you have to pay tax on it.

No. You buy the trousers and at the point of purchase, pay tax. You don't then pay a monthly trouser tax until you sell or dispose of them.

lisyloo wrote: »

neither are homes where owners pay council tax, .

Council tax is a 'service' tax for providing separate services to households - libraries, street lighting, rubbish collections etc. It's not a tax for 'owning' a property, or renting a property. Simply on-going funding required to pay for services received while residing in that property.

westernpromise

lisyloo wrote: »

No one is bein expropriated, just taxed. Nothing is being stolen (unless you view all taxation as theft).
A car, packet of cigarettes, bottle if wine, pair of trousers is not expropriated because you have to pay tax on it, neither are homes where owners pay council tax, the word simply doesn't apply.

I don't think a one-child policy is a good idea, but I agree with the government that we shouldn't support (with benefits) those who have more than two children.

But your goal is to tax people out of their property. That's expropriation.

I presume this would apply also to people renting too much property? They're criminals too, right?

lisyloo

Thanks Somerset, I get your point and I'm mulling it over.

lisyloo

westernpromise wrote: »

But your goal is to tax people out of their property. That's expropriation.

I presume this would apply also to people renting too much property? They're criminals too, right?

No, the goal is not to tax people out of their property and there is a mechanism in place for those who genuinely can't pay (roll it up).
They have a choice of paying a tax to help replace the living space they are depriving others of or to use the space for other (let).

You are not a criminal if you do things that incur tax.

BTW - if you are interested in changing someone's mind then you might want to take note that somerset's approach of explaining things is working better than use of emotive, disproportionate and incorrect language.

CLAPTON

lisyloo wrote: »

No, the goal is not to tax people out of their property and there is a mechanism in place for those who genuinely can't pay (roll it up).
They have a choice of paying a tax to help replace the living space they are depriving others of or to use the space for other (let).

You are not a criminal if you do things that incur tax.

BTW - if you are interested in changing someone's mind then you might want to take note that somerset's approach of explaining things is working better than use of emotive, disproportionate and incorrect language.

unless one actually does cause people to move out of their property, then you haven't achieved any change in housing at all : all you have done is increase the tax take.
So unless you 'force' people to move then you are still left with concreting over the UK (in your words and not mine).

also I'm curious about where anyone would see as fair :
two identical adjacent houses in the terrace
two similar families living next door to each other

one family changes their house so they have a hobby room : would people really see as 'fair' that their tax should go up?


On the matter of doctors lying on behalf of their patients : I have many friends who are doctors and have asked them why we have seen such an increase in 'disabled', clinically depressed, children with special needs etc.
Basically their answer is, there is no scientific way of knowing whether people are (say) depressed so one believes the patient and signs the form.

The answer to a shortage of housing is to build more : to prevent it getting worse is to stop immigration.

lisyloo

CLAPTON wrote: »

unless one actually does cause people to move out of their property, then you haven't achieved any change in housing at all : all you have done is increase the tax take.
So unless you 'force' people to move then you are still left with concreting over the UK (in your words and not mine).

also I'm curious about where anyone would see as fair :
two identical adjacent houses in the terrace
two similar families living next door to each other

one family changes their house so they have a hobby room : would people really see as 'fair' that their tax should go up?


On the matter of doctors lying on behalf of their patients : I have many friends who are doctors and have asked them why we have seen such an increase in 'disabled', clinically depressed, children with special needs etc.
Basically their answer is, there is no scientific way of knowing whether people are (say) depressed so one believes the patient and signs the form.

The answer to a shortage of housing is to build more : to prevent it getting worse is to stop immigration.

If everyone paid the tax then you can use the money for buiding, in reality I'd expect a mixture of not buying, letting and tax paying. i can't see why anyone would be forced to move though for a small tax.. Cash poor asset rich pensioners can roll it up. Do you not think people might not buy future holiday homes of foreign investors might think twice. It's 10 times more punitive tor empty homes so it's meant to target buying behaviour.

The logic is that is that it's unfair to have more than 2 spare rooms for hobbies when other people are on the streets or in unsatisfactory surroundings. I'm open to amendments if there's a particular issue around sub-division. It's intended to primarily target empty homes and lower rates for those with more than 2 bedrooms which should be enough to cover normal use. I do appreciate these things are tricky but I would have expected 2 spare rooms to cover most people's hobby/broken homes/medical needs/guest needs etc.

I agree there may a small number of medical exaggerations. Most people do not want to commit tax evasion though. I don't think you should halt taxes because a minority will lie. I am not denying it will happen, but most people pay taxes correctly. I don't think it's a good enough reason to stop taxes.
You average professional is not going to commit tax evasion for a relatively small amount of tax e.g, I'm band G and it's £200 per year for a room. Most people won't risk a criminal conviction for that.

I don't disagree with building per se, but do you agree that if we sell them all to the Chinese it doesn't solve the issue?
Where will we get our nurses, dentists, carers, taxpayers if we stop immigration?
The bulk of low paid immigrants are not living In mansions with more than 2 hobby rooms or speculating on empty property, they are often living densely or in on-sit accommodation e.g. hotel/fishing boats. I guess we could benefit from some analysis of where the real issue is, but just as you won't stop all tax evasion, you similarly won't ever stop all immigration even if it's illegal.

Just one more question. If we can build these units, then why are they not being built?

cepheus

Cameron trying to find a band that doesn’t hate him

DAVID Cameron is trying to find a band he can listen to, safe in the knowledge that the musicians do not hate his guts.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/cameron-trying-to-find-a-band-that-doesnt-hate-him-20160111105213