To think people who own more than 3 properties should have a special tax applied to them?

[Calltheguards]

I'm just thinking with the housing crisis, should people really own more than 3 properties? I would assume it's a property portfolio and used to exploit renters. AIBU to think there should be a special tax applied to property owners who own more than 3 properties? Maybe tax them at a really high rate to discourage people from hoarding property.

There is rent to buy scheme. But obviously it doesn't give you a house just for nirmal rent in the end. Rent is capped at 80% so people can save up deposit.
There used to be a different rent to buy where small portion of rent went towards discount on price.

Whereas toddlers who want to keep all the toys for themselves are told they must share and be nice. The opposite applies to adults.

Bit you'll also teach the toddler that the toy belongs to someone else. So they'll need to give it to them.

@IvanaPee I know they can and should.

It is wishful thinking but it would be nice if people considered housing arrangements that benefited society as a whole rather than just themselves.

People can invest how they like. Stopping people have multiple properties is not going to solve the issue. There is not enough money to build all the social housing that some people seem to want.

Properties should not be left empty. If a property has been left empty for more than a year or is occupied for less than say 6 months out of 12 then either it should be sold or the Council can compulsorily purchased to get the property back into the market. That would stop holiday homes just used a few weeks out of the year, but would allow those with longer term rentals and holiday homes that are let and occupied a lot. That would free up housing.

Bring back more 95% and 100% mortgages, since deposits seem to be the big issue. If someone can afford to pay more than the mortgage amount in rent, it seems silly that they are told they do not earn enough to pay the mortgage.

Stop right to buy for Council housing. They are being sold at massive discounts and the money is not enough to replace the social housing. If they want to keep a right to buy type scheme or the ability to sell older Council homes to bring in newer stock, they should be at full market or slightly discounted prices, not where people can get up to 70% off.

On top of that, people need to take responsibility for themselves as well. I know too many people complaining that they cannot afford to buy with 2, 3 or more children so are stuck renting because they decided to have children first and cannot get social housing. That is fine if people choose that, but they need to own the choice they make as well and not always think it is the fault of those who have more than one house or the government. We get to choose our own priorities.

*Er. That’s a loan so you can own the deeds at the end.

Rentals are already owned, and the renter is paying for a good/service. Namely: somewhere to live.

Did the distinction really need spelling out to you?*

I'm sorry you need everything spelled out to you, that must be hard if you can't see the point I was trying to make. Rent to own schemes already exist in other countries. There's nothing ostentatious or "free" about it.

To take it to the extreme imagine a community where all older couples still live in big family sized homes with multiple bedrooms where new young families are crammed into flats and smaller homes, doesn’t make sense right?

In answer to the OP original question, I say a resounding 'yes'.

I personally could have quite easily afforded to sequentially buy several houses, using equity in one to fund the next, but I don't because I think it's immoral.

I perfectly understand that people do it because it's legal, but it is a system that entrenches wealth in a small number of hands, relatively speaking, while socially (and financially) impoverishing many others- sounds like Tory policy, doesn't it?

The manner in which we Brits are not only permitted, but encouraged to regard our homes as money boxes has lead us here. It's a dangerous game.

The next house price crash will upset a fair number of people since all their eggs are in that basket.

@Calltheguards
Honestly, your posts seem a little goody, so not sure of your intentions, but if you actually want a reasoned discussion of the housing market then you have to understand housing is an asset, and asset markets operate under certain rules.

You called landlords ‘monopolistic’. If you mean a ‘monopoly’, this means that landlords control virtually all the housing supply in the UK (or area you’re discussing). This isn’t true. Even if you meant ‘oligopoly’ (a few landlords control the market) this isn’t true either.

ivana I realise this may shock you, but some people value ethics above profit. We are quite likely in the end to donate the lot to charity. We are just working out which charities are investing most in local business services etc before making a decision.

When I'm on my deathbed I damn sure I'll be wondering more about the ethics of what I've done in my life, than the amount of gold I've accrued.

So then you’re talking exclusively of council owners rent to buy homes.

But then there’s that pesky problem of there being a shortage of council homes, and the environmental impact of building more of them, no?

Well, that’s very nice of you @M3lon

From the way you posted I assumed you wanted to invest it.

You also mentioned that landlords are ‘taking all the properties’. This assumes their is a fixed supply of properties available in the Uk. This might be true in the very short term (matter of months), but in the long term, if landlords are snapping up loads of investment properties (increasing demand), then the prices will be so attractive, that developers will have an incentive to build new properties (supply will increase). Under the alternative which you propose, investment properties are less attractive to landlords, so demand decreases. As a result, property price growth rate will decrease. This will act as a disincentive for new construction
, particularly the environmentally efficient construction you mentioned.

OP, you really sound a bit clueless. Do you understand how a mortgage works? It's a loan. The bank pay XXX amount of money minus your deposit for house, you then pay the bank back over a set amount of years until the loan is paid off, then you own the house outright. This is not the same as renting. If you don't understand the basics of this then you really ought to do some research before starting a thread like this.

In your world, do you give the house back to the bank after you've paid the mortgage for 30 years?

Obviously not. But I would pay interest to the bank along with a deposit of far more than one months rent for them to give me the mortgage in the first place. And strangely enough, it's not up to my mortgage company to pay for all the maintenance and repairs that my house requires over 30 years just because they lent me some money that I will pay them back.

It was a ridiculous suggestion.

I've really got my fingers crossed for a massive house price crash. People who have a house and live in it can continue to do so (even if in negative equity) and all buy to let landlords out of business. Young people able to afford a mortgage when now they can't.

Yup - roll on with it, I say.

ivana I would still consider it investing in a way. If we actually support developing nations to put infrastructure in place then we won't have the awful deaths in the Med every year due to economic migration etc.

As to the accumulation of wealth by elites, it helps to understand property is an asset. If investment property was made unattractive using taxes, the wealthy would invest in alternative assets (equity, bonds etc), so the accumulation of wealth would not be prevented.

*Honestly, your posts seem a little goody, so not sure of your intentions, but if you actually want a reasoned discussion of the housing market then you have to understand housing is an asset, and asset markets operate under certain rules.

You called landlords ‘monopolistic’. If you mean a ‘monopoly’, this means that landlords control virtually all the housing supply in the UK (or area you’re discussing). This isn’t true. Even if you meant ‘oligopoly’ (a few landlords control the market) this isn’t true either.*

Hmm that number, call someone goady when you don't like their posts that's a great tactic to try to shut people up. It gets a bit boring though, you might as well try to act a little morally incredulous when people tell OP to fuck off as well. Otherwise your bias is showing so there's no point in responding.

The point at which the government started inflating rents in order to prop up house prices was a particular low...it would definitely have been better to let them go. Imagine all the money the government has put in the hands of landlords in the form of housing benefit - it might all have gone to properly fund the NHS instead!

yes well the rich will indeed always find a way to get richer...but it would be great if the taxes that should be going to support the least well off in society weren't being stuck into their pockets, just for the fun of it!

Rent to own is no different than being owner financed and the owner can set the rent rate according to that, sorry if that's a shocking premise to some here.

BogglesGoggles

Motives matter when people pretend that they are doing someone a favour when it is in fact a business arrangement

There are already several economies we can look to as case studies where investment in properties is difficult. Notably, in some emerging markets where property rights are difficult to enforce/ non existent. Think of it this way, if it was uncertain you’d get your property back from your tenants, you’d be pretty unlikely to buy properties to let out. In these countries, the housing market is usually worse off as compared with the UK. First, property prices stagnate. Banks are unsure they will realise the value of a mortgage in the event of default so they give out fewer mortgages, and more expensive ones. This makes it much harder to buy. This means there is more rental demand and much fewer rental properties on the market. This leads to a true housing crisis.

Hmm that number, call someone goady when you don't like their posts that's a great tactic to try to shut people up. It gets a bit boring though, you might as well try to act a little morally incredulous when people tell OP to fuck off as well. Otherwise your bias is showing so there's no point in responding.

Actually OP, you are sounding completely clueless and ignorant. Its difficult to have an intelligent debate with someone about the housing crisis when they don't even understand how a mortgage works and refers to Landlords as "parasites". Let alone lacking any factual information to back up their "blue skies" solutions.

You have are still yet to respond to the many posters who have pointed out the you that multiple property owners do already pay more tax. It seems that you only have one way of thinking and expect everyone else to feel the same.

And all the people that have needed housing benefit to provide themselves with somewhere to live, where would they have gone?

It's not the government that has claimed housing benefit because they can't house themselves, it's individual people!