To think rich people shouldn’t be allowed to buy multiple houses when others can’t afford one?

[YourTealBalonz]

I know people say “it’s their money” but I genuinely think the housing crisis is made worse by second-home buyers and landlords snapping up properties just to sit on them. It drives up prices and freezes people out of the market. I’m glad council tax rules are starting to push back on this. AIBU to think second home ownership should be discouraged more openly?

I don’t think that people who inherit a property should be forced to sell or that a person who wants to cohabit but keep their property just in case are doing anything wrong.

Air B&Bs can be problematic and I think that there will be more protests about this

If people can’t rent a house or afford to buy then what happens to them? Prices won’t fall to levels where everyone can afford a house where they want to live because some areas will be more expensive than others.

We need to ban foreign ownership of UK properties (like Denmark do) and ban holiday lets.

I agree! As long as it's one house per family, none of this separating and then one family requiring 2 houses as the parents cannot live together. That should free up a number of properties.

I think the OPs argument is based on the belief that a) unlike chocolate there is a limited supply of houses b) the more debavd for chocolate there is, the higher the price will be. So buy buying up extra chocolate you are increasing the overall demand

not saying I agree. But this is why your analogy isn’t working well for this argument

There are currently £230bn of properties currently on the market. That’s a 20% rise on the previous year. That equates to about 400,000 homes. There are fewer than 300,000 people classed as homeless.

The problem isn’t enough homes, the problem is enough appropriate housing for people.

People buying more than one home aren’t generally snapping up low value, smaller houses which would be what someone who “can’t afford” a house would be looking for. They tend to be buying larger HMO properties where the return on investment is much higher.

You didn’t like the chocolate analogy, but to make it more relevant, you are suggesting I don’t buy the £20 quid luxury box of chocolates, because you can’t afford a Freddo.

The answer is building more affordable or social housing, it isn’t stopping people buying more than one home.

However, on the larger scale, there is an issue with very very wealthy people just buying up assets because there isn’t anything else for them to spend their pennies on. In the long term that isn’t sustainable.

If these people are buying to let, they are providing a service e

Lots of the people who own a rental aren't "rich". Why are LLs who own 1 or 2 rentals seen as so much worse than large rental companies? Do you really believe stopping BTLs would increase home ownership?

This is such a brainless rebuttal that always gets trotted out whenever any vaguely socialist take comes up. It is possible to think wealth should be distributed more fairly and prioritise bettering the lives of the worse off over individual wealth accumulation without it being anything to do with jealousy.

I mean we had 'commie' in the first couple of posts.

Punitive stamp duty + annual tax on second/ holiday homes and those bought by non residents.

Reduction in Stamp duty where property is bought to let ( we need them) and property to be let for a minimum of X years otherwise SD clawed back and penalty charged.

Oh thank God someone is brave enough to say this. We are full, it's not just a shortage of housing, it's school placements, GP placements, dentists, space on our roads etc, etc.

That’s why many countries have been introducing second home taxes - these are quite high and discourage people owning more than one home. I think it’s a good idea ans am surprised that the UK hasn’t done this yet.

If they're inhabited what's the issue ? Might have some traction if they're permanently empty, but then again their money their choice.

The poor aniw middle classes are being squeezed too much, tighter rules and stricter money surveillance are cutting off the ways money traditionally trickled through. When the gap between the filthy rich and the poor gets too big history shows us how it ends.

We pretty much already have this - significant additional stamp duty is due on a second home and most councils double the council tax for a holiday home. If rented out, income tax is payable on the rent.

Absolutely true. Funny thing is, they said similar in the 30's-40's, just imagine how awful it is to live in this sardine can now. Sorry, don't have to imagine, it hits as soon as you open your front door !

Are you going to ban companies from owning residential property as well?
What about holiday lets - is nobody allowed to stay in a self catering property for a holiday? Only hotels or camping?

This doesn't work at all - as 1) there are a finite number of bars of chocolate, 2) having access to some chocolate is essential for a healthy existence, 3) buying a second bar does increase the cost of all chocolate and making it unaffordable for some

So, incredibly, despite failing to conjure up an analogy which works in any aspect - you've manage to disprove the very point you tried to make

When you say distributed what exactly do you mean?

A binman should be paid the same as a banker? It is not going to happen.

Increased handouts to benefit claimants- something for nothing? This has destroyed the work ethic of the UK and increased the welfare bill.

There will always be disparity. We need to encourage people to better their lot not think they are owed something because they come from a low or no income background.

If people have the money, and not living off of the taxpayer, they can buy what they like as far as I’m concerned.

@Lemonlimonade Scotland does have increased taxes on second homes.

We still have a housing crisis.

You've lurched to the most extreme end of the spectrum. What about 0.01% reduction in wealth disparity between banker and refuse collector?

I personally think it would be more productive to just get a job and pay rent than to keep changing my user name and posting everyday about how it’s unfair no one pays it for you. Just my opinion.

There would not be any private rentals if you cut out seconds homes. They would all be owned by housing associations and this is far far worst in my opinion.

Not everyone can afford to or wants to buy so we need rental properties ,there isnt enough state provided social housing and that wont be solved overnight even if there was political will,so private rental is needed. Perhaps, theres a point about multiple homes that are not used being unfair when so many are in need.