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.

In England alone 65 percent of the population own their own homes.

It's almost identical in the US. Of course, that includes all of the evil old rich people who got houses almost for free 20 or 30 years ago.

The kulaks are always the first to receive revolutionary justice.

I’m kinda with you OP. Although it’s a legitimate business for some people I don’t think housing should be. I think there should be a combination of the government outright banning the ownership of 2 or more properties & deposit-free mortgages.

TBH I'm still laughing at the post about the next to mention jealousy being "a poo poo head", and then criticising the "standard of discourse"

You all know HAs are a businesses running profit, don't you? No difference to a person running a business and a profit.

Anyone with a bedroom which isn't being utilised should take the next available person on the homeless register (or more if more than one empty bedroom).

Old people should be forced to downsize to 2 bed bungalows at the age of 70.

Anyone with more than three children should give one away to a family who cant have any.

Any more?

@Joeydoesntsharefood2 I mean I guess I can only direct you toward the pages of economic theory and benchmark data on the previous pages to explain why banning ownership of a certain number of properties isn't a good idea. In terms of a deposit free mortgage, please see "Lehman Brothers" and "Subprime Mortgage+Financial Crisis" for more information.

In the spirit of this thread, I have this completely unique idea to solve the problem of poverty in old age.

What needs to happen, right, is that special savings accounts are set up by people's employers. As an incentive, people can use their pretax income to pay into them, and employers can also lob in a few quid to match it too.

But the real USP of these accounts is that they are locked away till the person is in their 60s, so they can specifically fund retirement.

I know - genius right? Can't believe nobody's come up with this before me.

Its not about individual landlords... Its not about words like jealousy or parasite. You should do with your money what you like. Its about social justice.
There is no such thing as a perfectly free market. Talking about supply and demand as if that's the full extent of the story is a mistake. The government will always intervene, at the very least to prevent monopolies. At the heart of it, its about incentives. Government should ensure that the incentive structure of any market is compatible with a certain idea of societal fairness.
Some (increasingly the younger generation) can earn decent salaries, while the ideal of property ownership is out of the bounds of possibility. Some are trapped renting properties in horrific conditions, as their position (immigration status or perhaps very lowly paid occupation) makes them vulnerable to truly (but hopefully rare) parasitic lls. Then some can buy property after property in virtue of their privilege. Dont kid yourselves. Hard work, resilience, 'investment t know how' are all minimum conditions. Many also work hard, make good choices and yet do not become wealthy. All your hard work and choices happen against a political backdrop. If you are lucky, your hard work will pay off. If you arent, it may not. If you are amongst the unlucky, your hardwork may contribute towards making your landlord rich. If this happens on a large scale (older generations of property owners getting rich from rent and property appreciation, while the younger ones struggle as renters), it is up to the government to disincentivise this wealth accumulation. Happy to hear about the changes in tax. But years and years of quantitaive easing (among other policies) has had the effect of prioritising house prices, and this because of the importance placed on house prices by older voters.... There is a system there. Its not about individuals. Its about making sure the system is fair for all.

OP you do sound jealous. Yes people shouldn’t buy property and leave it empty, but buying property and renting it out is providing an available home for someone who might not have the credit / capital to buy their own.
I bet if you had the chance to buy properties and secure yourself a good income for life you wouldn’t think twice.

@BeardyButton

🥂👏

@calltheguards Sorry, but did you read what BeardyButton said? They don't agree with your theory. The incentive structure is there through the taxes that exist, those that have been explained to your repeatedly without response. Yes, the grey pound is worth a significant amount politically, but what Beardy touches on is actually a wider social question of the extent of government intervention in areas well beyond BTL.

What you've suggested throughout today would subject the most vulnerable to the very 'parasitic ills' that Beardy touches upon in their post...

My theory is that a tax shouldn't be set against people who have 3 or fewer properties, really just people who have property empires especially since AirBnb has taken off.

But, but...... what if I get really lucky in the next few years and decide to do it again. And take on a 4th house. Only to rent out mind you until the children reach a certain age and then they can either buy it from me or I'll sell it and split the equity between then as a house deposit.

Should it be taxed more in the meantime? I'm not profiteering or air bnb'ing, just investing for the family.

Sorry the text at the top of that last post should have been in quite marks, sorry for any confusion

People already pay a higher stamp duty for second (and more) homes. Plus capital gains if they sell. Tax on rental income.

I don't doubt that people already pay more tax if they have more than one property but what I am suggesting is a tiered tax that targets these property empires in a progressive sense. If you own 2 properties then your tier would be lower then another who owned 4, which would also be lower than an individual who owned 10, then 20, 30 etc until that tax rate is so high that it is not viable for a company (or the 1%) to own 1000s.

If the Bank of England wanted to reduce housing prices the simple solution would be to raise interest rates. That would make other investments more attractive and moderate demand. According to this, the market is cooling off anyway.

www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/30/the-uks-house-price-boom-is-slowing-and-thats-welcome-news

But, but...... what if I get really lucky in the next few years and decide to do it again

Dolly, that would clearly mark you as a Kulak, with possible negative implications.

Can one of the posters who wants all landlords to...well... stop being landlords.... tell me where the university students will live during term time?

Anyone?

@BuggerOffAndGoodDayToYou
Uni library . Sleeping bads along the walls. Imagine all thayt knowledge that would help them gain!

@calltheguards The result of what you want then, is to reduce multiple property ownership to the most elite within our society through the additional tax burdens you seek to levy. Assuming your end goal is the end of buy to let, could you please respond to my previous posts remarking on the economic consequences of this? I'm happy to continue debating politely on this matter

@Bluntness-I'm on your doorstep, come and open the door. I've got wine.

Can one of the posters who wants all landlords to...well... stop being landlords.... tell me where the university students will live during term time?

Most universities here guarantee housing in university owned residence halls aka dormitories, but your point stands. There will always be demand for transitory housing and the price on it will rise until supply meets demand.

Honestly op. You need to stop posting, and then spend some time with mr google and educate yourself. You don't seriously think that the top one percent of the sixty five percent of people who own Their own homes own "thousands" of homes each?

Most universities here guarantee housing in university owned residence halls aka dormitories, but your point stands

Not past the first year they don't.

Anyone buying a second property for the last 3 years or more has had to pay an additional dwelling supplement - was 3% and now 4% - in Scotland at any rate. Might still be 3% in England and Wales.

I think that the rental rate of any property should be capped at 50% of the cost of the equivalent mortgage based on LtV of 75% @ 25 years. This would help reframe houses as homes and not investments. As property prices re- balanced the reduced availability of rental homes would be off set by a new wave of home owners. House prices should reflect the cost of land, build and maintenance, notand investment value.