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?

Thanks. Buy-to-leave still mystifies me though. The sort of people who can afford to have property sitting empty are the sort of people who can afford to have every insurance under the sun and therefore manage out the risk.
It's not like the rich to miss a trick, they usually like to sweat their assets.

All you can (sensibly) do is use taxation as a disincentive (e.g. higher council tax for empty properties) and use those monies to mitigate the effects on the community. I've made this point squillions of times throughout this thread.

Ah, you see this is where I strongly disagree. I'm an accountant so tax is my bread and butter daily work. I see the effects of the excessive use of the taxation system to control peoples' behaviour. In my opinion it doesn't work. There are always loopholes to exploit and unforeseen consequences that are damaging in other ways. I'd rather that Parliament introduced specific laws to stop specific acts rather than try to control people via the back door through taxation.

Just look at the window tax a few centuries ago. The rulers wanted more tax revenue so decided to tax people according to how many windows they had. The effects are still clear to see today in old buildings where the owners simply bricked up windows to avoid the tax!

At the moment, the local councils can't collect council tax because they don't know who the owners are of many empty properties that have been bought via overseas companies and trusts, their true ownership being hidden behind those trusts/companies. You could double, treble, quadruple council tax, but if it's not being paid now, it won't be paid when it's higher!

I'd say we need to leave the tax system alone - it's already far too complicated, obtuse and not fit for purpose, as it's far too easy to manipulate and avoid. Let's have some proper laws drafted for specific purposes.

It has been said that at least some justification for wrapping this building in what may be flammable material was so that the rich would have better views/their property values would improve.

So nothing to do with Ken Livingstone's demand (when he was Mayor) that housing authorities had to reduce their carbon footprint by 60% then???

By leaving it empty, you are basically wrapping it in cling-film, it stays pristine and untouched and can be sold immediately whenever you want.

Exactly this. If you have tenants in, you have to factor in the timescale to end the tenancy and/or evict tenants. Your "investment" is far less valuable with sitting tenants.

The law also requires the managing agents to deduct and pay over basic rate tax on the rental income for non resident landlords. So, you factor in probably 25% management agents fees, 20% basic rate tax, service charges, repairs & maintenance, etc., and you can quickly see it not really being worth it for someone with huge amounts of money such as Russian Oligarchs or the mafia.

At the moment, the local councils can't collect council tax because they don't know who the owners are of many empty properties that have been bought via overseas companies and trusts, their true ownership being hidden behind those trusts/companies. You could double, treble, quadruple council tax, but if it's not being paid now, it won't be paid when it's higher!

I don't follow.

In my experience, the council gets their money. They don't fuck about. So are they exempting properties that shouldn't be, or just not receiving payment?

I see the effects of the excessive use of the taxation system to control peoples' behaviour. In my opinion it doesn't work.

We need to tax smarter, not harder. I think that Stamp Duty is, technically speaking, a brilliant tax. If you don't pay the tax then you don't own the property - nobody wants to evade that tax!
I believe that we should have a tax on all movements of cash. A teeny, teeny percentage of tax would raise huge sums of money but it needs global implementation.

When I say 'cash' I mean movement in bank accounts.

I'd rather that Parliament introduced specific laws to stop specific acts rather than try to control people via the back door through taxation.

outright bans can have other problems though.

Just look at the window tax a few centuries ago. The rulers wanted more tax revenue so decided to tax people according to how many windows they had. The effects are still clear to see today in old buildings where the owners simply bricked up windows to avoid the tax!

but that's the idea. Sometimes, reduced use is a perverse outcome of a tax. That happens when the intended purpose of a tax is to collect more revenue, but it just ends up reducing usage so you don't collect more revenue.

in this case, reduced usage is the intended outcome. We want people to reduce their buying.

At the moment, the local councils can't collect council tax because they don't know who the owners are of many empty properties that have been bought via overseas companies and trusts, their true ownership being hidden behind those trusts/companies

then they should find out! they are the government. They can make a tax and non payment can be find. In this case you don't have to find the individual if they don't pay. You know where the asset is!

it's already far too complicated

it doesn't need to be. Having a complicated tax code wasn't on one of Moses' tablets.