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.

@BeardyButton thanks for the reply and perspective on the IEA, which was unknown to me as a Yank. I'd love to read the FT articles you linked, but alas, they are behind a paywall and I cba to subscribe. If it's any consolation, I do subscribe to a British financial publication, The Economist, but I don't recall much coverage on this issue there.

The middle class and working class spend because they have to. The rich spend on themselves, sure but not to the same degree when you compare population size.

Ever visited Cuba, the economy & society functions differently there
It's not a capitalist country

Ever had a look at their poverty stats?

Calltheguards it was your choice to start this thread and many, many PPs have indulged you by considering your points and asking questions which arise from them. I've just scrolled back and seen that you've answered almost none ... so far it's mainly been a diatribe about how unfair everything is, but with no workable solutions offered

Just wondering if you're going to do anyone the courtesy of engaging with their queries?

If the money is not spent the economy suffers, that's just how it works.

Money "sitting in accounts" isn't idle, it's returned to the economy as capital, either as bank loans to businesses or mortgages, or to the capital markets as short term commercial loans. The economy couldn't function without capital.

How do you think banks manage to pay interest on deposits?

I believe that people in this country that own 4+ properties are not on the average wage of £35,423, definitely.

OP. I'm afraid you've started a debate on something you clearly don't know very much about.

However, as with a lot of people with opinions, you don't know what you don't know, so you think you're an expert.

Try a bit of research. Look into the subject from all angles, and not just in the capital and for a couple of generations. Then you can start flinging round your fancy ideas of taxing someone just because they happen to be more successful than you.

I think that's called jealousy... And as others have pointed out landlords already are taxed to the back teeth and it still hasn't fixed the housing shortage. So how about we dont keep doing the same thing, and expect different results.

The way this country is going we will be going back to a window tax and 95%tax for so called higher earners. Makes me sick seeing all proposals to relive people of money.

If all the people of the working and middle classes stopped spending money what would happen to all those companies that employed your renters? They would shut down. You would have no rent to collect.

Yes I've visited Cuba

OK let's look at something different

Instead of buying another property
What happens if a person decides to spend their savings on shares in a property company that builds houses
You invest x amount, they promise xx interest
Is that OK ?

Well said treacle. The OP hasn’t put across a coherent argument and ignores common sense. Im not sure what the OP expects really; a completely unrealistic world - This thread was based on jealousy.

MissconduitsUS the IEA are beyong biased. They are a libertarian think tank with far too much influence on brit politics. They are currently hard at work lobbying for a hard brexit.
I prefer ft on this.
www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/fe805c60-a6ac-3aab-8582-41b7fcacbfc0

Its not a simple case of demand meets supply. Its a complex matter (the ft piece shows this i think). The fact that some own 4plus properties and thereby make profit and benefit from price increases, while others (increasingly the younger generation) fail to the property ladder at all, shows the market is not working perfectly. Whether gov intervention will imprive this, and what intervention would be most effective is actually a different question.

Also like this
www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/efe1f74c-3c1d-11e9-9988-28303f70fcff

My previous question:

Do you believe that rent as a % of income has remained static and not been affected by property magnates?

What do you think will happen to the economy as the % increases, companies continue to shut down, and new jobs created are zero hours contracts in a gig economy?

I have an accent I can't get rid of so I demand everyone to adapt their accent to mine so I get equal chances in jobs, education etc.

Sounds weird, doesn't it. Or imagine people who can't have children demanding others don't either because they don't have the choice themselves.
Or all of us being in a wheelchair so we are all on the same level as a certain person.
It doesn't work like that in life.
Some have things, some don't.
What we do is: provide IVF and adoption so people can have a child like others and ensure accessibility in workplaces, public places and houses so a person on wheelchair can have same options as a fully mobile person.

I will repeat this for a last time.
Don't pull people down. Pull others and yourself up.

If all the people of the working and middle classes stopped spending money what would happen to all those companies that employed your renters?

Was this directed at me?

When people stop spending discretionary income the economy slows down, but that's things like eating out, gifts, or purchases that are not really necessary in the short term. Rent is not discretionary. If you don't pay it eventually you get evicted and another tenant takes your place.

The economic concept you seem to be grasping for regarding the economic effect of spending is called the velocity of money.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money

You seem often wrong but never in doubt, which is not a good place to start a debate.

Spare the thought for women who rent out their old homes because they can’t manage a full time job and look after their kids and/or elderly relatives but they need a modest source of income to have some degree of financial independence.

Op so I should be penalised for being "born at the right time" whatever that is?? So being born in the 50's, seeing my parents work all the hours god sent to keep a roof over our heads, going without Christmas presents as a child because times were tough, working full time for over 40years, nearly losing our home when interest rates peaked under Mrs Thatcher means that because we have more than 1 property we are lucky so should be taxed even more than we are and have been already. I deserve my home, I deserve my holidays and I deserve to spend whatever income I have on whatever I choose be that diamonds or property. I have gone without a lot in my life and now I have something I dont take kindly to people suggesting that I should move, pay extra tax or not own what ive worked damn hard for or because Im lucky to have been born at the right fecking time 😠