A divided society-what can be done?

As is saying we shouldn't take houses from rich people.
A lack of historical perspective there. Rich people knocked down whole villages because they were spoiling the view.

No, he had a real fight to get a reduction on the council tax, eventually got it to 50%.
How will you discriminate between the owners of properties which someone may intend to live in, may sell, may rent out and one which it is never intended to occupy? Anyone could say that they are still 'renovating', 'intend to sell', 'may rent out' etc.

We need more social housing and all the other arguments are getting away from that fact.

It didn't 'work' in Vancouver at all durhamjen. It's just bad journalism from the Guardian. Click through and read the article they're linking to and selectively quoting.

"It's going to bring more rental properties onto the market but, on the affordable aspect, I think we're going to see the properties being more on the higher end side,"

The previously vacant properties Fazli has seen go up for rent are ones with owners who could afford to keep them empty for the majority of the year.

"We're looking at some pretty amazing properties in Coal Harbour, some luxury homes," he said.

"I don't think it's going to create more affordable housing."

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/property-owners-panic-as-vacancy-tax-takes-effect-1.4190576

OFFS this is not about properties that anyone has lived in, intends to live in, is trying to sell, or rent out but purely about properties bought,never occupied, never intended to be occupied and which are purely investments relying on property value increases.
And he would have got a substantial discount on his council tax Jalima1108 up to 100% for 6 months
There's also a discount for second homes- up to 50%-at the council's discretion. Now nobody can tell me that's acceptable

We had a friend who was trying to sell a property they had renovated and lived in for several years, but they had moved to another one which they were living in and renovating.

Now - he did not want to rent it out because it was beautifully refurbished and on the market, therefore did not want tenants, however good they may have been.
It was on the market for quite a long time - should he have to pay fines? He had to pay council tax on both properties as it was.

For gillybob who believes there are no homeless in Newcastle (although what she thinks all the Big Issue sellers and the blokes in sleeping bags do at night I've no idea)
www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2012/mar/08/homelessness-map-england
We have a lower percentage than most places-but they are there.

"Another measure introduced in cities across the world has been an extra tax for overseas buyers – arguably those most likely to be speculators. Most have been targeted at cooling house price inflation, but may have also dampened people’s enthusiasm to buy somewhere they don’t intend to live in."

"Higher rates of tax for owners and buyers seem to be the preferred choice. In Vancouver, where an estimated 20,000 properties were lying empty all or much of the year, a new tax on empty homes was introduced at the start of this year. The city is now charging 1% of the value of any property left empty for at least six months a year. Owners must declare that this is the case, or face fines of up to $10,000 a day if they do not and are found out. On a property worth £500,000 the annual bill is £5,000 and as the property rises in value, so does the penalty for leaving it unused.

In the days running up to the first taxes kicking in, six months into the year, local media reported that homeowners were caught in a “scramble to rent”, or considering selling up to avoid the tax. The response suggests that the threat of taxation was having the desired effect."

It worked in Vancouver.

The rest of the world tries to stop homes being left empty. Why can't we?

www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/02/how-the-world-is-tackling-issue-of-empty-homes

Oh, I forgot, we like being a divided society.

I remember that gillybob

Perhaps next on the list will be shoes , no one needs seven pairs of shoes, keep one pair give six to a shoe charity
Come on, anniebach - seven pairs of shoes are NOT ENOUGH!

I will go and do something useful now, mustn't spoil the thread


ps are there any homeless people in Russia?
Just a thought

According to the government's estimates, five million people are homeless in Russia (3.5% of the population), one million of whom are children and 50,000 of whom live in Moscow Figures from 2014
People are living in sewers to try to keep warm.

Perhaps if the oligarchs sell their London mansions they could spend the money providing social housing in their own country.

Yes, trisher, lets just leave Russian oligarchs who have bought 10 mansions for £50 billion alone. Poor things, they need our sympathy.

trisher no one is making fun of the homeless. I would imagine they have all experienced a unique journey and there are many contributing factors to their current situation. The only thing I'd bet is that an empty house in Kensington owned by a Russian oligarch is not one of them.

That's interesting gillybob

Tell that to the People's Kitchen volunteers who feed them at night. Come to the Monument one night and see them.

Isn't homelessness and the plight of the poor hilarious, Bet some of you went to church and /or prayed today. Such compassion!!!

Newcastle does not have a homeless problem .

If I buy business premises and want to change their use I have to apply for planning permission and the whole thing is looked at very carefully regarding the area, what the effects would be etc. But I can buy housing and leave it empty without anything being said. IMO that constitutes a change of use, the planning laws should be amended to prevent this happening. It isn't just to do with homelessness but also with the proper use of an area and how a city functions.

Champage socialists make me sick . They talk the talk but never walk the walk !

People don't buy properties to rent out because they care about the lack of social housing and are desperate to help . They do it to make money for themselves.

Ha ha they virtually did just that in Cyprus Jalima.

( took money out of bank accounts that is)

Perhaps next on the list will be shoes , no one needs seven pairs of shoes, keep one pair give six to a shoe charity set up by the mighty Corby

Jalima You are spoiling the whole conversation here by posting very sensible suggestions, that no one can disagree with, would probably work and solve the problem for most people.

Perhaps all the Guardian staffers who have 2nd and 3rd homes could show us the way too. First dibs on the fabulous Tuscan villa owned by Polly Toynbee.

All of this - buy-to-let, buy-for-not-let, empty homes is totally irrelevant. If houses are available to be bought as an investment then some people will buy them as an alternative to a pension fund, savings etc.

This is the private sector - what is needed is more social housing and talk of compulsory purchase of people's property is just hot air - it is like saying that someone has saved too much in investment funds, the bank, whatever, for their retirement - let's take it off them and give it to the poor.
What is needed is more decent social housing at affordable rents - if there was sufficient then people owning buy-to-let whether renting them out or not may perhaps then sell and first-time buyers would have more houses available to purchase at a reasonable price.