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.

OP, in case you haven’t got the message yet, increasing tax for landlords and investors or putting restrictions and caps on pricing etc would make matters worse. It is not a viable proposition and would probably lead to a recession.

Something needs to change.
We could consider extending the right to buy to the private sector!

Costs can only go up by as much as they are not regulated for. If a situation like this occured then rent controls such as exist in Germany could be implemented in tandem.

This is not really going to solve anything.

fee.org/articles/how-germany-made-rent-control-work/

At the end of the day, there’s no escape from the laws of supply and demand. The Mietpreisbremse has avoided the worst effects of rent control, but only because it has so far been ineffective. But then, a system of rent controls that is merely ineffective, as opposed to actively harmful, is probably the best one can realistically hope for.

This article first appeared at the UK's Institute of Economic Affairs.

We have rent controls in NYC. They had to be relaxed because they brought new housing construction to a dead halt and landlords were abandoning buildings because they couldn't afford to operate them.

The new rules are more flexible, but have created two housing classes, the lucky few who have RC flats and hang onto them like the grim death and everyone else who pays market rental rates.

So you've now proposed manipulating the market in two ways - price controls and higher costs through increased taxes. I get that you think this will put more housing units into the for sale market, but that will only hurt renters. You need to focus instead on making the pie bigger, not on favoring one type of demand while trying to suppress the other by regulatory diktat.

At the end of the day, there’s no escape from the laws of supply and demand.

Green doesn't look good on you.

@shirleybanister are you suggesting that private landlords have to hand over their property after a tenant has been in for a period of time? So a landlord will pay all of the expenses and upkeep but if a tenant is in place for a number of years they have the right to buy? At what price? Is it the full market value, is it less the rent they have paid over the years? What utter nonsense! Look, what you are taking about is the occupier paying a set amount of money per month, over a period of time and owning the property at the end yes? Well this exists already, it's called a mortgage!
And as for calltheguards reference to "property magnate" I am howling. We are accidental landlords who couldn't sell (due to over saturation in the market ironically) and would now be classed as magnates!!

Bugger off with the making people who live in bigger houses move into smaller ones. I have worked full time for the last 44years, lived without curtains, carpets, holidays etc to be able to afford my home (even held off having children for 8years after getting married). My kids have now grown up so there are just 2 of us, plus several pets, living in a 5 bed, 2 bathroom, 3 reception room house with massive garden and why shouldnt we?? I grew up on a council estate in a lovely house with a lovely garden but decided i would one day own my own home, I do and have no intention of moving unless i choose to. Oh and we own another house as an investment which our youngest child and partner rent while they save for their own home or buy that one from us. As for being rich, if I was I would not still be working in my 60s I have just gone without other stuff to get a nice home and have paid and am paying more than my fair share of damn tax

Part of the problem is that councils have been forced to sell off their council stock. This cost every taxpayer a fortune.

The council houses were owned outright by the respective councils. This meant that rents could be cheaper for low earners, reducing housing benefit payments.

The rents gathered paid for the maintenance of the properties, and brought in an income, so that councils could build more council houses. Now, because private landlords pocket the rent the taxpayer faces massive costs in housing benefit.

ChickenPieBumFace

I don't think that private landlords should hand over their properties to tenants that have been there for X amount of years.

But something has to change.

I have always liked the idea that if you have been a no problem tenant and always paid the rent on time then banks should be able to use that instead of a deposit. Because lets be honest renting is more expensive than owning.

Handsoffmysweets

Maybe the point is that not everyone wants what you are offering?

but they key here is CHOICE.

The key is that everyone has a CHOICE, I am unable to put together a deposit because I rent privately, I have no other option, I don't fit in to HA or social housing and any low cost housing around here is taken by either HAs or private landlords.

I realise that some idiots would think that I am jealous, I am not I would just like a place to call my own.

Part of the problem is that councils have been forced to sell off their council stock.

What forced them to do this? Not being goady, I actually want to know. And if they had no choice, why didn't they use the sale proceeds to build more housing stock to replace what was sold?

should be "not everyone has a CHOICE"

What a difference a word makes.

Maybe you think cash-struck councils should buy every available house to rent out

This is where I'm always reminded of an earlier poster who suggested councils should choose what price to pay, or even outright seize houses they believe to be empty ...

I have always liked the idea that if you have been a no problem tenant and always paid the rent on time then banks should be able to use that instead of a deposit.

If by deposit you mean what I would call a down payment, so that the bank is lending less than the full purchase price, this wouldn't solve the problem for them.

Lending less than the current market value protects the banks interest in case property values fall. If the borrower defaults and they have to take possession of the house and sell it they are more likely to get back what they lent in the first place. It's not insurance against a dodgy paying borrower.

If the stock was expanded why would the criteria need to be narrow?

MissConductUS

Strangely lending 100% of the properties worth (even 110%) didn't stop them lending those amounts in the lead up to the banks crashing.

So given that I am not suggesting that everyone gets a 100% mortgage just those with a faultless record of payment it shouldn't be a problem.

and as Handsoffmysweets and others (including myself) have stated not everyone wants to own.

But having looked at the other options it would certainly solve my problem.

But here is the catch, I can also see why a private landlord would be against the idea because I and others like me are the perfect tenant and you wouldn't want to loose that.

In answer to your question OP, yes you are being unreasonable, and unduly insulting, rude and opinionated. I don't own 3 properties before you point fingers but hats off to those who worked hard and invested in property and rent decent properties to others

Bugger off with the making people who live in bigger houses move into smaller ones

Better still, let's consider what the reaction will be if under-occupying LA/HA are expected to move? They will be expected to move too won't they ... ?

will the social housing be able to accommodate my tenants in a similar style of property to which they are accustomed ?

Maybe ask if they'd be able to accommodate your tenants at all - especially, as you say, those who won't stand a hope of meeting the criteria. Come to think of it, that's another inconvenient question that the "I hate landlords" folk haven't yet answered

Odd, that ...