Buy-to-leave

Gorgeous_George

I note on teletext (ITV Digital page 881) that MPs are warning that the buy-to-let market is squeezing out first-time buyers.

The report then goes on to discuss buy-to-leave, where investors buy property and leave it to rise in value. Whilst recognising that the credit crunch may end the practise (no flies on them then), MPs say it should be stopped through the tax system.

What are we paying these idiots to do?

This link to the Daily Mirror gives a similar story. I'm not sure if the DM gets its cutting-edge stories from teletext or the other way around. :rotfl:

If true, I think it is not just FTBers that are being saved from the perils of home-ownership. Rents will be kept high by the thousands of empty properties - especially in the highly desireable luxury flats in city centres.

I think if people can afford to buy property and leave it empty, they will need some severe taxation penalties to stop them doing so.

So, what can our highly paid leaders do to the tax system (legally) to discourage buy-to-leave?

GG

Kez100

Well they should pay 100% council tax for starters!

Captain_Mainwaring_2

Kez100 wrote: »

Well they should pay 100% council tax for starters!

Why? they don't use the services.

There won't be many, apart from true cash buyers in any case.

poppysarah

I think they should pay triple council tax. Depriving people of homes just to leave them sat empty is silly.

It confuses local services - more properties should mean more patients for doctors etc makes local services harder to plan.

Empty properties attract crime.

Empty properties make for unstable communities. Other people may be reluctant to buy on a street where no one is living.

Captain_Mainwaring_2

poppysarah wrote: »

I think they should pay triple council tax. Depriving people of homes just to leave them sat empty is silly.

It confuses local services - more properties should mean more patients for doctors etc makes local services harder to plan.

Empty properties attract crime.

Empty properties make for unstable communities. Other people may be reluctant to buy on a street where no one is living.

Cobblers. If "people" could afford them they would buy them. If they can't then quite frankly tough.

The electoral role gives a clue as to numbers, together with doctor registration, and since as yet in the UK I don't note a surplus of essential services , fire, police or ambulance, then by leaving the property empty the landlord does the LA a favour.

You obviously don't have a second property?

Captain_Mainwaring_2

Add while I am ranting, should I wear hand knitted jumpers and drive a milk float just to be "fair"?

Captain_Mainwaring_2

And not only that, let's have everyone who doesn't have a british passport out and down the road too.

UK regulations don't prevent foreign passport holders owning property, how about we close that up before we start?

poppysarah

Captain_Mainwaring wrote: »

Cobblers. If "people" could afford them they would buy them. If they can't then quite frankly tough.

The electoral role gives a clue as to numbers, together with doctor registration, and since as yet in the UK I don't note a surplus of essential services , fire, police or ambulance, then by leaving the property empty the landlord does the LA a favour.

You obviously don't have a second property?

If your empty home gets set on fire, or broken into then you use local services towards which council tax go.

The reason people can't afford them is because the whole housing market has been stuff up by people buying them as investments and not places to live in.

Kez100

Captain_Mainwaring wrote: »

Why? they don't use the services.

There won't be many, apart from true cash buyers in any case.

Services still need provision. It doesn't cost any less, to any major degree, to man a leisure centre which is quiet or busy.

In addition the overall costs of running a council have to be split between properties and the more buy to leave there are in an area the more pressure on CT rates for others.

Also, the OP asked for taxation ideas to stop buy to leave and that's a good and cheap one to implement.

Captain_Mainwaring_2

poppysarah wrote: »

If your empty home gets set on fire, or broken into then you use local services towards which council tax go.

The reason people can't afford them is because the whole housing market has been stuff up by people buying them as investments and not places to live in.

Wrong, the housing market is bolloxed and now collapsing off the back of unfinanced greed. You can be greedy when you have the dough to pay for it. Otherwise it is called unadvised speculation.

Don't play with what you cannot afford to lose.

Don't use a credit card that you cannot afford to pay back.

Anything else I have forgotten here?

Captain_Mainwaring_2

Kez100 wrote: »

Services still need provision. It doesn't cost any less, to any major degree, to man a leisure centre which is quiet or busy.

In addition the overall costs of running a council have to be split between properties and the more buy to leave there are in an area the more pressure on CT rates for others.

Also, the OP asked for taxation ideas to stop buy to leave and that's a good and cheap one to implement.

I haven't agreed that buy to leave is a bad idea.

What do you mean, services that aren't used?, if we are to believe what we are told then the police are a very thin blue line, ambulance is in a pickle, and the fireservice is in a right state.

Can you prove that an empty property properly secured is any more likely to get robbed for nothing or burned?

I've got a car I don't use, should I pay a penalty?