any person or organisation that owns 3 or more homes must pay a yearly tax of 0.5% of the value of those homes each year
you can have one home, and one investment property or holiday home, but any more and you get taxed. this would reign in the buy-to-let purchases that distort the property market, and make society a little more equitable and nice.
I'd also ban short selling of stocks. there's no argument of wealth creation, it's just pure speculation. It used to be banned and should be again.
( cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 24 Apr 2015, 10:40, 34 replies)

so what you're saying is that people who earn too much to qualify for social housing but not enough to meet affordability requirements for a mortgage should live...on the streets?
Residential property is a useful asset class for many reasons.
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Fri 24 Apr 2015, 10:42, closed)

just becuase there was a modest increase in tax for large scale buy-to-let, they wouldn't necessarily destroy the home that they have
they might sell them slightly cheaper to somebody who isn't covered by this tax, or wear the cost of renting them out. It would make housing more affordable. as it is Britains seems to be returning to a fuedal system of large property owners and rent paying peasants. Great, as long as you're not a peasant
( cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 24 Apr 2015, 16:58, closed)

you were proposing no more than one BTL per person

(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Fri 24 Apr 2015, 19:00, closed)

yes

( cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Sat 25 Apr 2015, 6:51, closed)

Costs always get passed on to the consumer.
The rents on such properties would go up, and the situation would be made worse.

What if 10 people (who individually own their own house) club together and buy 10 properties to let? Should they be taxed at 0.5% annually? Why should they be punished for putting their eggs in multiple baskets, when they have only 2 properties each on average?

Why should someone who owns 3 shitty little bedsits be taxed more than someone who owns 2 gigantic mansions?

What do you propose to do about the inherent economic chilling effects that result from taxing accumulated wealth as opposed to the acts which cause wealth to accumulate?
(eViLegion Chief Commissioner of the Scottish Lunacy Board, Fri 24 Apr 2015, 11:03, closed)

2 House limit then.
Want to buy a 3rd? Go to Spain yer bloody house hoarder.
(smellysamlyingcable Seaman on, Fri 24 Apr 2015, 12:44, closed)

the rent will go up the same as the extra tax.

(waxdart hello., Fri 24 Apr 2015, 14:50, closed)

possibly, but the owner would make no extra money, it would raise revenue for the governemtnt, and he would be less competitve against people with only one investment property who didn't have to pay this tax
If it became an issue he may even sell for slighly cheaper than he'd like
now do you begin to comprehend the genius of this plan?
( cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 24 Apr 2015, 17:01, closed)

So, you're basically recommending a measure which makes no difference to the landlord,
but adds an additional tax to be paid by the renter? I had assumed you were left wing, but I now see you're further right than the Tories.
(eViLegion Chief Commissioner of the Scottish Lunacy Board, Fri 24 Apr 2015, 17:48, closed)

you might disagree wtih my reasons, but I did say why it would make a difference to the landlord
If I have to repeat myself this could get a litte tedious
( cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Sat 25 Apr 2015, 7:22, closed)

I believe the difference it would make would be much less than you think.
Without increasing the possibility for competition to the market you're not going to drive the prices down. People will still be priced out.
(eViLegion Chief Commissioner of the Scottish Lunacy Board, Sun 26 Apr 2015, 19:46, closed)

Absolute gash.
A lot of people can't afford to buy their own homes and some people have acquired property through inheritances etc.

Fucking commie xxx
(Reverend Fister "a disciplined fuckwit", Fri 24 Apr 2015, 11:11, closed)

yes, and a significant reason that these people cant afford to buy their first homes is that they're competing with buy to let investors

( cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 24 Apr 2015, 17:03, closed)

Possible idea but your maths is out
Simple house price £250,000 = tax of £1250

Simple rent of £1000/month = £12k = tax of £4800

So Ratman puts rent up by 10% or else writes off tax against profit so no money raised.

I agree on the 2nd idea, so 1/2 a vote from me.
(LetsGetDownToIt, Fri 24 Apr 2015, 11:29, closed)

for one, you can't write off tax. It's tax
and two, he might raise rents to recover his lost tax, but he is competing against people with only one investment property who don't have to.
( cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 24 Apr 2015, 17:04, closed)

Do you not see that this wont help the little guy at all?
There'll be some change in the demographic of home ownership, but it will be people who already own 1 home who benefit, at the expense of those who have 3 or more.

It might be popular with a moderately wealthy section of the middle class, as some portion of the wealth of the VERY rich will be moved to the QUITE rich, but the people who it's supposed to help (presumably younger first time buyers) will shafted exactly as hard, if not slightly harder.

Edit:-----
If you really want to sort out the housing crisis, you have to do a bunch of things that you will absolutely hate me for suggesting:
1) Build a shit load of new houses in lovely green places.
2) Child benefit for 1st child only, tax on 3rd child and onward.
3) Complete control of immigration, so that we only let in people with required skills (+spouse and children), or people with massive amounts of money to spend.
4) Increase government spending on education by around 10 to 100 times, in an effort to replace population growth with technological advance as the primary economic driving force.

Essentially, you need very strict population control, combined with an effort to reorganise the economy so that it isn't based on continued population growth.
(eViLegion Chief Commissioner of the Scottish Lunacy Board, Fri 24 Apr 2015, 17:56, closed)

yes, having less population will help make housing cheaper, Chairman Mao
but it won't cause the huge buy-to-let owners to divest themselves of their assets. they will simply buy more houses at cheaper prices, increasing their portfolio to even less equanamous levels.
my plan makes this form of making money less competitive compared to a more distributed model. I think it would be a better society where more people owned their own homes, which is why I'm advocating
( cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Sat 25 Apr 2015, 7:06, closed)

Dude, the housing crisis has a simple cause:
Too many people, and not enough houses.

The matter of finances is mostly irrelevant... there will always be people wanting to own and always be people wanting to rent. What matters is availability... increase the demand or decrease the supply and they get more expensive.

These simple economic pressures will not go away by changing the financial arrangements based on top of them. In the long run there is only one direction that property value goes: up.

Building more houses, or creating fewer people are your only real options... I recommend the latter as it's the long term one.
(eViLegion Chief Commissioner of the Scottish Lunacy Board, Sun 26 Apr 2015, 19:41, closed)

what's wrong with pure speculation?
I assume you contribute to a pension scheme of some sort, you're doing that with the sole aim of making money.
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Fri 24 Apr 2015, 11:54, closed)

well, short selling has several downsides, and very little benefit to society
during the 2008 financial crisis, investors taking large short positions in struggling financial firms like Lehman Brothers, HBOS and Morgan Stanley created instability in the stock market and placed additional downward pressure on prices.
( cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 24 Apr 2015, 17:08, closed)

I get your point, though people will just set up trust funds and private companies to buy the properties, to opt out of being personally liable

(Porcupine, Fri 24 Apr 2015, 12:10, closed)

Separate trust per property. Job's a good'un.

(eViLegion Chief Commissioner of the Scottish Lunacy Board, Fri 24 Apr 2015, 12:35, closed)

as there is other things, there would be legislation to identify the beneficial owner

( cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 24 Apr 2015, 16:56, closed)

but what if the trust is set up overseas?
you can't compel another jurisdiction to give you information - the tax authorities would love it if you could!
( rachelswipe with a fork, Fri 24 Apr 2015, 17:08, closed)

actually, most countries have safeguards in place to restrict foreign ownership of property, such as land registries where you have to define the beneficial owner
you can't just put Starlight Trust, El Colon, Panama, down on the forms.
I always find arguments such as "you can't tax the rich, as they will just find a way not to pay it" as particular odious. You can if you have the will to do it.
( cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Sat 25 Apr 2015, 7:00, closed)

1 house maximum. No one needs more than that.
All rents should be through local government, who will seize all excess and/or empty properties. People with 3 or more homes may need to be shot, whilst this is all being set up.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Fri 24 Apr 2015, 13:00, closed)

why does nobody need more than one house?

(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Fri 24 Apr 2015, 13:10, closed)

OK, really fat people can have the option to knock through to the neighbours.

( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Fri 24 Apr 2015, 15:11, closed)

jews should pay more tax lol

( MEATSNAKE Richard Hammond, Fri 24 Apr 2015, 15:12, closed)

yeah
up to 12K - 100%
next 40K - 100%
anything above 52K - 100%
(Baggenfrock get fucked, Fri 24 Apr 2015, 15:17, closed)

That's me in your target zone then
Where will students live? I've got a number of one/two bed flats in Leeds. Post grad/PHD students in Leeds don't fall within the campus system. You might say I exploit them, but better to say that I provide a service not otherwise available.

Pretty much all of my flats are rented to post grad - I've got it this way by trial and error - and isn't it right that my tenants should have fair and affordable rent, not skewed by your imposition?
( The Disappointed Caravanner of the year, Fri 24 Apr 2015, 18:57, closed)

Oh, you're a regular humanitarian. Such selflessness
you're not really buying up housing stock that people otherwise could own and live in just so you can squeeze money out of poor students, youre providing a service. It's basically charity.
Yes my scheme is aimed exactly at people such as yourself. they'll be a bunch of flats in leeds going a bit cheaper when my tax forces you to give them up. You can keep one though. We need to think of the students
( cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Sat 25 Apr 2015, 7:20, closed)

My flats are in Burley and Hyde Park
Walk through there in August and it's Nagasaki 1945. It's virtually all student. Not very accessible to employment areas via public transport. The handful of residents left are older people, for whom I feel sorry.

There's no shortage of good quality affordable housing in Leeds. I'm a very small player in a very big market too.

TLDR - misjudged comments not familiar with subject

EDIT - Will enter into coalition with Dr Skagra
( The Disappointed Caravanner of the year, Sun 26 Apr 2015, 18:59, closed)

lol commie povvo

(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sun 26 Apr 2015, 20:28, closed)