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, 1 reply)

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)