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

CLAPTON

lisyloo wrote: »

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?

my point is that

either you successfully drive people out of their homes
or
you don't gain any increase in space availability but only an increase in taxation

in London and the SE, the scarcity is land with planning permission.
Money is in excessive supply, hence the high prices.

Again if two spare room is ok for most people, then your tax will only bring bureaucracy and little result.

I accept that tax on foreigner ownership might have an impact in places like London but that can be done without the imposing a room tax on the entire country.

lisyloo

CLAPTON wrote: »

my point is that

either you successfully drive people out of their homes
or
you don't gain any increase in space availability but only an increase in taxation

in London and the SE, the scarcity is land with planning permission.
Money is in excessive supply, hence the high prices.

Again if two spare room is ok for most people, then your tax will only bring bureaucracy and little result.

I accept that tax on foreigner ownership might have an impact in places like London but that can be done without the imposing a room tax on the entire country.

I don't agree with you first point.
The major target with 10 times the tax are empty homes. If those are sold then no-one loses a home.

Ok, then how about the tax on empty homes and not on excessive bedroom use I.e. The first part and not the second.
Would that solve most of your objections? As it affects no-one living in a home at all. You can only have one home unless you need a second for business e.g. MPs.

CLAPTON

lisyloo wrote: »

I don't agree with you first point.
The major target with 10 times the tax are empty homes. If those are sold then no-one loses a home.

Ok, then how about the tax on empty homes and not on excessive bedroom use I.e. The first part and not the second.
Would that solve most of your objections? As it affects no-one living in a home at all. You can only have one home unless you need a second for business e.g. MPs.

I believe it is estimated that there are 200,000 long term empty (i.e more than 6 month) and 600,000, for less than 6 months.

I would guess but don't know for sure, that of those 200,000 empty for 6 months half would have a good reason (probate taking longer than expected, people in hospital, owner working abroad for a year etc)

so we are haggling about 100,000 homes : or say up to £100 million in tax (1,000 per property) which might build say 500 houses at £200,000 each


it won't solve the housing problem : we still need to build about 4 million

still leaves the problem of how we know a house is empty.

lisyloo

CLAPTON wrote: »

still leaves the problem of how we know a house is empty.

An excellent place to start would be those that have already declared their property empty for a council discount.

I've never denied that a minority will try to circumvent the law (the same is true of immigration). That doesn't mean we shouldn't ever do anything.
Immigrants will take extreme measures to get into the country as some have nothing to lose and are even prepared to die.
Most homeowners won't want to evade tax as they do have a lot to lose if they get a criminal conviction.
We need to consider how to deal with it, but I don't think it should stop us implementing policies.

If we need 4 million then where are all those people now? They aren't all on the streets. How many of those 4 million are genuinely required given that the vast majority are currently sleeping somewhere sheltered?
Are you suggesting concreting over the country so everyone can have 3 hobby rooms?

buglawton

Council discounts on empty properties - except for temporary voids between tenants or doing renovation - have been a thing of the past for over a decade AFAIK.

Do ANY UK councils still offer long terms discounts on empty properties?

HornetSaver

lisyloo wrote: »

If we need 4 million then where are all those people now?

Some want to buy, can't and are resentful about a system stacked against them. Others are living in accommodation obviously unsuited to their circumstances:

Those in their late 20s or older living with parents because they can't afford to pay market rents in areas that will provide them employment opportunities (perverse given that parents of such adults are 50+ or older, and many would quite happily downsize to a part of the country with a more relaxed lifestyle and better bang for their property buck, whereas the younger ones generally need the centralized location to climb the career ladder.

Families that can't afford to upsize, or who would require substantial state support to realistically do so, resulting in four sharing one bed flats or five to six in two beds.

Single adults (often but certainly not anywhere near exclusively immigrants) sharing ridiculously small housing (the sort that makes lower end student halls look luxurious) because they are earning at or below the median wage in an expensive area. Areas where there is an abundance of low paying jobs because of the strong local economy, and because few people can make that paycheque work in that location.

buglawton

Well put. I wonder if the overall UK inflation rate included a weighting for the cost of a sq. m. of living space, both rented or mortgaged, it wouldn't be more like 3% atm.

CLAPTON

lisyloo wrote: »

An excellent place to start would be those that have already declared their property empty for a council discount.

I've never denied that a minority will try to circumvent the law (the same is true of immigration). That doesn't mean we shouldn't ever do anything.
Immigrants will take extreme measures to get into the country as some have nothing to lose and are even prepared to die.
Most homeowners won't want to evade tax as they do have a lot to lose if they get a criminal conviction.
We need to consider how to deal with it, but I don't think it should stop us implementing policies.

If we need 4 million then where are all those people now? They aren't all on the streets. How many of those 4 million are genuinely required given that the vast majority are currently sleeping somewhere sheltered?
Are you suggesting concreting over the country so everyone can have 3 hobby rooms?

I am suggesting that we build more houses so people under 40 can afford a modest family home to start a family if they so desire

It doesn't require concreting the entire country : just expanding the 10% 'developed land' by 2-3%. Reducing immigration would help for the future too.

I (genuinely) was discussing with my neighbour, the history of his house;
Apparently it started as a one up one down cottage : a couple and their 7 children lived there. So no, in reality we have no housing shortage : in fact we could probably house 500 million with the existing housing stock, if we used historic standards.
The said property is now a spacious 4 bed house with only a retired couple living there.

cells

buglawton wrote: »

Well put. I wonder if the overall UK inflation rate included a weighting for the cost of a sq. m. of living space, both rented or mortgaged, it wouldn't be more like 3% atm.

probably not, half the country is the same price or lower than it was a decade ago. Mortgage rates are 2% when they were over 5% a decade ago. So in half the country house price costs have considerably in nominal terms and even more so in real terms

A repayment mortgage of £100,000 would have fallen from about £620 a month to £420 a month

Of course London is a different story with prices about double what they were if not more but then London is small compared to the combined housing stock and population of the north and the midlands

westernpromise

Much better to add VAT to rents on spaces that I deem needlessly large. That should encourage renters to man up and buy.

No reason to limit the Marxism to owners. Renters can be robbed too.