• buzziebee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    Could be done fairly easily via the tax system. Each additional property you own increases the income tax on any rent and the capital gains tax when selling it. Bump up council tax for empty properties massively too and the market should correct itself with minimal direct intervention.

    Set it up so having a second home means paying more for it, having 3 or 4 or 10 means it’s not profitable to keep it at all.

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The core question here, which I genuinely don’t know the answer to, is how much of the supply crunch is being caused by the additional properties of individual parties? Are there really that many second, third, etc. homes in the UK?

      Just from some quick looking, it seems like London’s residential vacancy rate is something to the effect of 3%, so I’m inclined to think that the core problem is more lack of total supply rather than poor allocation of existing supply. We’ve seen cities boom all over the world in the past 20 years, but new construction hasn’t remotely kept up with the pace of population growth. This is the pretty inevitable result.

      Edit: Just to add numbers, London’s population has grown by nearly 2 million since 2000. I would be highly skeptical that two million new apartments have been added in the same time. Add in the fact that a lot of those 2 million people are educated high-earning professionals, and this is what necessarily happens. When demand exceeds supply, price goes up. When the people driving that demand are relatively wealthy, price goes up a lot.

      • buzziebee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You’re absolutely correct that it’s not solely an issue of landlords buying up property that’s causing the shortage. I was just providing a possible legislative method to cut down on the number of properties being owned by speculators and corporate landlords.

        There simply isn’t enough housing being built for the population growth we’ve been seeing. That’s 100% going to lead to an increase in prices.

        In cities outside of London though there isn’t always that same pressure (i.e. Liverpool still has a housing surplus), so why are housing costs rising past the point where people can afford to buy them? Supply and demand should mean that prices remain affordable for most people but they aren’t.

        A large number of rental properties are rented by investors of one form or another, if we can cut down on homes as speculative assets we should see more homes being sold to homeowners and prices fall back to more manageable levels for everyday people.

        There are loads of other problems such as the UK building houses instead of things like apartments, planning permission bs, NIMBYism, economic activity being focused in the south, homeowners not wanting their valuations to go down, etc etc which are all part of the puzzle. Ensuring that more homes are owned by residents rather than investors can only be a good thing though imo.

    • smeg@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I read an article a few years ago about how some luxury London flats were sold indirectly - you purchased a company (which did nothing) and gained all their assets (which consisted of only one flat). You didn’t own the flat, you owned a shell company which owned it; it’s the same problem as having the wealthy create companies to avoid income tax. I think massive taxation for extra property ownership is a great idea, but I have no idea how you make it work.

    • irmoz@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That is far too lenient on the landleeches

      Just seize them and kick them out on their arse

    • Big P@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Okay, but how does it work when a company owns a house? If a property developer builds a load of houses, wouldn’t they be incentivised to sell the house for more to recoup the penalty to them?

      • buzziebee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think if it’s a first time build you could work something out to not punish developers for building houses which take a little time to sell, but you’d also want to avoid developers building and sitting on properties. That will probably already happen though as they’ll want to recoup construction costs asap I imagine. For portfolio property buyers they’ll be incentivised to sell which is only a good thing.

    • frazorth@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It wouldn’t be because people owning multiple houses is not the issue. Going to have to paste my usual response from Reddit to people thinking that landlords and second houses are the problem.


      https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2022-0001/

      In total, the EHS estimates that English households owned 873,000 second homes, of which 495,000 were second homes located in the UK.

      https://citymonitor.ai/government/england-short-4-million-homes-here-s-how-we-can-build-them-3921

      And there are 27.8 million homes in the UK, and we are apparently short 4 million.

      So we ban second homes and that releases almost 450,000 houses which is less than 2% of the housing stock and we are still short 3.5 million houses, now what do we do?

      • Liquid_Fire@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The EHS defines these as “homes that are primarily used as holiday homes (by family, friends or let to others as a holiday let) or are occupied while working away from home.”

        This clearly doesn’t include regular rental properties, so I don’t see how it shows landlords are not a problem.

      • buzziebee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well there are 4 million rental properties in the UK so your numbers don’t quite add up. A very significant number of properties are purchased and rented as investment assets. No one is saying that ending landlord property portfolios will magically fix the issue overnight, but it certainly adds inflationary pressure on house prices and prices normal people out from being able to purchase homes. Houses should be homes first, not speculative assets.

        Through taxation policy it should be possible for a family to move home and rent their old one, or rent an inherited one whilst waiting to sell, etc without much additional burden. But we shouldn’t encourage private entities pricing out normal people from homes and forcing entire generations to only be renters.

        The economic damage from high house prices and lack of generational wealth is way too expensive to allow this portion of the market to continue. Simultaneously we need to be building a fuckload more homes, yes, but there being other things to change shouldn’t dismiss other helpful ideas.