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.

And while the peasants and busy arguing who is the greedy one that has two or three properties, a quick look at the 1% of people who own the vast majority of land in the UK should point out that these energies are misdirected.
www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwinrbaLkr7iAhVi8-AKHReUDh0QzPwBCAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fmoney%2F2019%2Fapr%2F17%2Fwho-owns-england-thousand-secret-landowners-author&psig=AOvVaw26YVo0aYSCyCFw6UpJlDx_&ust=1559130024625363

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiW8ZuUkr7iAhVn1-AKHXITBq0QzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.finance-monthly.com%2F2018%2F09%2Froyals-lose-land-crown-uks-50-biggest-landowners-revealed%2F&psig=AOvVaw1jORfC0swxFr6vCUthAC9pwww.flat-living.co.uk/lifestyle/438-who-owns-london-the-great-estates&ust=1559130042957260" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiW8ZuUkr7iAhVn1-AKHXITBq0QzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.finance-monthly.com%2F2018%2F09%2Froyals-lose-land-crown-uks-50-biggest-landowners-revealed%2F&psig=AOvVaw1jORfC0swxFr6vCUthAC9pwww.flat-living.co.uk/lifestyle/438-who-owns-london-the-great-estates&ust=1559130042957260

This thread is ridiculous and some MN poster are bonkers! How exactly it is unfair for people to invest their money how they see fit? They worked hard for it so they deserve to with it as they wish. Its not their fault others have less then them ffs.

@IAmAlwaysLikeThis you actually are the one that sounds like a 5 year old here. you seem to want to debate but can't give any decent reasons for why its "unfair" for people who can afford it to buy property.

@VanCleefArpels wealth tax is pointless. It’s so expensive to administer that it won’t generate enough to justify its existence (let alone the intrusion on privacy). It also has the undesirable effect of encouraging wealthy people to move to friendlier jurisdictions. Likewise with income tax, tax in general, if you tax people more than about 50% (bearing in mind thatas a result of indirect taxation and invisible direct taxation like NI, transaction taxes like CGT and stamp duty etc that the high rate tax payer is typically paying about 50%) then again it encourages people to leave or to avoid tax (dealing with which is very costly). The British taxsystem is actually surprising efficient at the moment. The problem is that the state is simply too big and cannot be sustainable funded. It’s just not possible. The kinds of ill thoughthrough reforms you suggest will just increase administrative costs and reduce revenues as well as potentially having detrimental effects on the economy.

If investors didn’t own the properties, someone else would. confused
Yes, people who want to use them as their family home.

I’m sick of people moaning about property investors

The government have already introduced pension taper, so people trying to save for their retirement get higher taxes

They have all but removed mortgage interest relief on investment properties, removed wear and tear allowance and it is really hard to remove tenants

What more do you want?

Having multiple children is worse for the environment than having multiple occupied properties, surely?

@JaneEyreAgain

Good point. The special tax could be tiered at different levels of property ownership, so the 1% would pay the most.

Monopolies are never good.

www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/housing-market-dealt-serious-blow-new-home-sales-use-help-buy/
Almost all new homes in some parts of the country are funded by the Help to Buy equity loan scheme, raising fears about a house price slump when the programme ends.

So when all the private landlords sell their properties and their are no private rentals left...where will everyone earning too much for housing benefit / social housing live???
Do you think every single person who doesnt own their home (lots don't want to own) should be given social housing by the government?

I agree that at the moment we (society) don’t pay enough tax to fund everything we think the state should provide. But not one politician of any persuasion would ever have the courage to say this. I take the point about admin costs etc too. I don’t know what the answer is, I do know that as a rich person I feel we should be contributing more

Yet another attack on savers.

Yes, people who want to use them as their family home.

So if the landlords sell up, these people will magically be able to afford to buy the houses?

So fed up of people moaning because of property investors.

Why can't people spend their own money how they chose to? Just because young or large families can't get on the housing market ladder it doesn't mean people who are able to should suffer- its not their fault!

OP, people already get taxed for multiple properties. Maybe trying doing a simple Google search before posting a goady thread?

Sallie if property prices tank then many more people will be able to afford to buy them.

Society doesn't consist only of period who can afford multiple properties and people who need social housing. I live in London, many people in pretty good jobs / decent combined incomes can't afford to buy. If property prices dropped they would be able to.

I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing. Simply that your post seems very polarised and forgets the majority of people who lie in between your two groupings.

I would support renting having an option of rent-to-own, where if the renter stayed long enough and paid enough over the years similar to a mortgage, the property would then be theirs. That would add a level of fairness to the present situation where renters are paying over the odds because banks won't lend to them, even though a mortgage would cost less per month than renting.

I'd also support rent caps and not allow Air BnBs on non-main properties.

@MenuPlant how much do you think the prices would drop? 😮

Veering off topic slightly but I have to admit I raise my eyebrows at the cries of ‘we/my parents worked their whole life to make their family sized house a home why should they give it up for someone who demands a bigger home because they have children’ etc comments.

We are a tiny island. Yes nobody should be forced from their homes. But is it not equitable to release family sized homes back to the market when you no longer have a need for a home that size? My parents have just downsized and whilst it was devastating to say goodbye to the home I was born in (I’m now in my 20s), it was a family house and we were all happy that a new young family get to make memories in it like we did. My parents had no need for a 4 bed house for the two of them.

In an ideal world there would be enough land for everyone to have a nice large home but it isn’t really feasible.

Op - haven't you heard that greed, hoarding and fucking other people over is just fine these days. In fact, it is something to aspire to. People will call you successful and ambitious and a hard worker. Whereas toddlers who want to keep all the toys for themselves are told they must share and be nice. The opposite applies to adults.

I think rather than taxing extra houses over 3, people should just be straight up banned from owning more than 3.

That would be simpler.

Landlords are not in any sense providing housing, the houses are already there...landlords are simply preventing others from owning housing...artificially inflating the price of housing, and making money from it.

I've 200K to invest and literally everybody I ask for advise on it suggests buying another house and renting it out. But I won't because I'm not a dick.

My parents died and I inherited a lump sum. I looked at the banks and they offered me around 3-4% in interest at the time. My thoughts were I haven't a decent enough pension so I invested in a property so I could earn more than 3-4% and if/when I get frail enough to need a nursing home then I can sell up and pay me fees to a place of my choice.
I bought a property, split it into two and rent out both..one commercial and one residential.
On average I've learnt around 5.5% over the two properties.
I pay tax, provide a good standard of accommodation and retail space and when I come to need it will sell and pay my own fees so not to burden the taxpayer further for my elderly care. I also own my own house so I own 3 properties in total.
I think I shall save the taxpayer enough by preparing for my older days and providing for myself rather than lining the pockets of a bank who pay a pittance. Fingers crossed the value of my property would have grown enough in that time to pay for all of my care needs.
I could however, sell up, spend all of my money invested on lavish holidays, fancy shoes and give it away so not to have to pay for my future care and let the taxpayers in the future pay for it.
I don't see myself as a parasite, OP but if you wish me to sell up and keep my money in a bank earning a pittance, then I'll happily let the future government pay for the shortfall in my living expenses when I need to.

I would support renting having an option of rent-to-own, where if the renter stayed long enough and paid enough over the years similar to a mortgage, the property would then be theirs. That would add a level of fairness to the present situation where renters are paying over the odds because banks won't lend to them, even though a mortgage would cost less per month than renting

So you basically think that one individual should just hand over to another individual either free rent for many years, or a free house, for absolutely no reason. Yeah, that makes sense

So you basically think that one individual should just hand over to another individual either free rent for many years, or a free house, for absolutely no reason. Yeah, that makes sense hmm

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

But is it not equitable to release family sized homes back to the market when you no longer have a need for a home that size?

Short answer: no.

People can and should choose what to do with their own properties. End of story.

As for whoever won’t invest his/her £200k in property on some skewed morality point, I’m afraid that just means you’re not very savvy🤷‍♀️

@motherofdragons90 we would consider selling our 4 bed property. There are only 2 of us and it would be lovely for a family, but the problem is it would be beyond the reach financially of most young families. When we sell it, it will be at the market rate. I certainly wouldn't be giving a discount just because someone has decided to have lots of children and needs the room. Having large families is harmful to the environment, not owning several properties.
There is a massive stock of unlived in housing in this country. I live in a small village and several houses have been empty for years, one for at least 20. Local authorities have the power to purchase these homes, but of course, they don't have the money. I read up thread about another country stopping non residents buying property purely for investment. I think this is a good idea. It is criminal that so much property has been thus bought in London.

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

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?