to ask what you think about Corbyn and Lammy's suggestion that houses of the rich should be requisitioned to give to homeless Grenfell victims?

[nutter19]

I am not sure what to think about it. On the one hand I agree that there are a lot of very big houses in the borough that are empty and could be used to house the homeless rather than left empty.

On the other hand, it seems a bit sinister to think they would just take private property off those they deem rich.

What do other people think?

and to address another remark on here:
Many of the "poor people" in social housing work very hard indeed, in low paid jobs.
Even if it were possible (it isn't, in case you're wondering) for every person to work their way from poverty to prosperity by "making a go of it" who do you think would clean the toilets in our hospitals and hotels? or sweep the streets or serve us overpriced coffee or care for our elderly and infirm for fuck all money?

Moreover, these were PEOPLE. So many dead, so many bereft in an awful and dispicable catastrophe. In a country of such wealth we should all have the right to live in good enough housing, no matter how well we have "made a go of it."

cantthinkofausernamerightnow
You make so much sense.

Sadly, everyone knows that rich people get rich by just working hard (and not because of a fortunate background, support form parents and connections, inherited wealth etc).
And the poor are only poor because they haven't worked hard enough (and it has nothing to do with poverty, barriers to education, not having inherited wealth/well connected family).

This sums it up digitalsynopsis.com/inspiration/privileged-kids-on-a-plate-pencilsword-toby-morris/

I'm all for laws allowing compulsory purchase of property from overseas investors at cost price myself

Ah yes, I was waiting for that one to creep in

Hardly surprising that Proudhon's idea about property being theft has found a natural home among the Mumsnet hard left - it's just a pity some lack the economic literacy to understand the consequences

It's not hard left to think there is something wrong when house prices are inflated by people buying up housing stock as an investment (with zero intention of living in it) whilst others are in substandard accommodation or homeless.

Thr same way I don't think it's hard left to think there is something wrong with companies avoiding tax whilst nurses use food banks to feed their kids.

Hardly surprising that Proudhon's idea about property being theft has found a natural home among the Mumsnet hard left - it's just a pity some lack the economic literacy to understand the consequences

Oh what utter tosh. People are merely saying that rich foreigners who don't even have a visa to visit the UK let alone live there should not be allowed to buy property and leave it empty. That is common sense not 'hard left'. There are more significant economic and other impacts of allowing it, but hey ho I only have a degree in economics so what do I know.

Property is theft my arse. But flats are for living in not Speculation.

A note re council tax on empty properties - you most certainly do have to pay on an empty property, here it is 50% discount for first year, you pay the full 100% the next year then it goes to 200%. If that doesn't happen all over the country then perhaps it should.

Exactly increasingly.

Friends of mine live in the South West and they say that some villages are like ghost towns out of season because of 2nd homes/holiday lets. The villages have lost services because the year round local population isn't high enough to justify them. It's not ideal but they accept that for the 6 months they are used there's lots of business brought to the area.

Take somewhere like some London boroughs and those properties aren't uses for years. The people who own them don't give a damn about the area and you end up with areas that are half owned by the super rich and are empty. The other half are social housing tenants because nobody in the middle could afford to buy or live there.

It's not hard left to think there is something wrong when house prices are inflated by people buying up housing stock as an investment (with zero intention of living in it) whilst others are in substandard accommodation or homeless

You're right, it's not, and in fact I feel the same myself. Where we differ, though, is in the best way to tackle this

For some the envious, hard left attitude of "soak the rich b**tards" will always come first, whereas others will tend towards a more moderate view and wonder if, perhaps, things like a better taxation structure on empty properties might be wise

Knee jerk reactions rarely make good policy, not least because they so often get shot down by the lawyers

puzzled
Personally, I don't think rich overseas investors should be allowed to purchase property and not live in it. They should have to prove they live in the UK for at least 6 months of the year.
Like you, I'm also in favour of much higher taxation on them.

The issue with taxation I think is that it would need to be really high to prevent. The basic principle for me is that no one who isn't a British or EU national or who has British citizenship/ Indefinite leave to remain should be allowed to buy a property in the UK in the first place.

I may be wrong but I'm seeing a lot of comments about the fact that there should be council housing for those whose families have lived there for many years. I agree with that of course, as that is their home. However it appears that many people are new to the city or indeed the country, and I'm not sure the same should apply. If you need council accommodation then should you not be open to what is offered rather than pinpointing an area? Many, many of us would like to live in areas that we perceive to be better, have more amenities, be closer to friends and/or family - but we can't afford it, so we don't.

Any process of proving where you live would involve intrusive surveillance. No thanks.

As for the South-West: if you own a property thee and are selling you won't care whether the buyer is going to be there full time or just in the summer or every weekend. You just want the best price you can get.

increasinglymiddleaged What about Johnny Foreigner who inherits from Auntie Brit?

If you sell a house do you want the pool of buyers limited by reference to their passports?

People are merely saying that rich foreigners who don't even have a visa to visit the UK let alone live there should not be allowed to buy property and leave it empty

No - some folk are saying that, and in the case of removing some of their incentives to purchase I'd broadly agree

Unfortunately others - like the poster I was responding to - have moved onto suggesting the forced removal of assets at cost price, which in arbitrarily seizing any increase in the property's value might well be tantamount to theft

There should be no tax on speculation, that's part of being in business.

London is no different to any other country big city. Property is as expensive in Paris as is Milan a sit is in London.

The world of mumsnet should stop keep running a hard left retoric of its rich peoples fault for people being poor.

People who are poor have a lot to blame for there own situation. If anyone can explain reasons otherwise I would be most grateful

Andrew I have no issue with buyers for my property limited by passport. In 99% of cases where a foreigner inherited a property in the UK they would choose to sell it anyway, and whatever rules for ownership would apply otherwise.

Oh what utter tosh. People are merely saying that rich foreigners who don't even have a visa to visit the UK let alone live there should not be allowed to buy property and leave it empty. That is common sense not 'hard left'. There are more significant economic and other impacts of allowing it, but hey ho I only have a degree in economics so what do I know.

Puzzled is referring to the houses that foreigners have bought to date. As far as I can tell most people on the thread are broadly in agreement that foreign investment in housing stock should be curtailed in the future.

I think there's an argument for allowing investment properties owned by foreign corporations to be taken over but you have to be really careful that it doesn't become a possibility to take the homes of people who are in hospital long term or who's property is empty while they try to sell it.

I think if you allow the government to seize private property then you'll have injustices from them taking property from the wrong people. It's a hard one.

Better would be to place restrictions on buying... Ban corporations from buying up property, people who aren't living in the country, people who've no intention of living there or renting it out.

People who are poor have a lot to blame for there own situation

Reasons otherwise

Disability
Redundancy
Caring
Refugee from war
Domestic abuse
Childhood abuse
Poor parenting
Lack of education
Accidents
Bad luck

Zero hours contracts
Low minimum wage
High inflation
Lack of employment

Trauma
Abuse
Mental health issues
Physical health issues

Rich people buying up all the properties.
Austerity

Abandonment by spouse
Lack of childcare
Unscrupulous employers

There are millions

People who are poor have a lot to blame for there own situation

Sorry, but even as a right-winger I can't accept that. The problem that we have here is that people's labour is criminally undervalued, both because large corporations have too much power and job automation. Double whammy - low interest rates.

Please consider some compassion.