Guest sibon Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 It's probably more to do with speculators rather than real people living in their own homes. I agree. The answer to this particular problem is to stop the purchases in the first place. Surely we can frame a law that stops foreign owners buying up prime real estate in Central London then leaving it empty. We'd all benefit from that. As for the state stealing private property, just how wrong is that. I'm sure that they will find plenty of vacant properties in North Ken. It might cost a few bob though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alandrea0 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 I understand the thought behind what he is saying but it can't happen. You can't just take someone's property and do as you please with it, that's verging on a dictatorship. Hopefully the owners of these flats will voluntarily give them up to help. We live in a country with Dictators anyway. LOL The aristocracy and monarchy dictate to us. Their ancestors stole and took land and homes from our poor working classes over hundreds of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 We live in a country with Dictators anyway. LOL The aristocracy and monarchy dictate to us. Their ancestors stole and took land and homes from our poor working classes over hundreds of years. When it's the rich taking from the poor, it's alright... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny_Boy Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 We live in a country with Dictators anyway. LOL The aristocracy and monarchy dictate to us. Their ancestors stole and took land and homes from our poor working classes over hundreds of years. What on earth as any of that got to do with people in London having their flats taken off them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 Because we have a huge shortage of affordable homes, which is a basic requirement in life. If we had plenty of homes for people we could afford to leave some of them empty. You'll be wanting to privatise the air next and make us plebs pay for breathing it - that's the logical conclusion of your fetish for private ownership. It's my air, get your filthy lungs off it! Your ideological hatred apparently blinds you to any form of reasoning or indeed common sense. It must be terrible to be that way I do feel sympathy for you. ---------- Post added 16-06-2017 at 13:41 ---------- When it's the rich taking from the poor, it's alright... It isn't alright as well you know and we have laws that make theft illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 I agree. The answer to this particular problem is to stop the purchases in the first place. Surely we can frame a law that stops foreign owners buying up prime real estate in Central London then leaving it empty. We'd all benefit from that. There's any number of things that can be done, but we (well the government) make alot of noise about how free and unencumbered our economy is, and putting barriers up on the lucrative housing market go's against that statement. Thing is if you asked most any member of the public they'd be all for it, which is probably why you don't see or hear anything on the subject form those in government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 What on earth as any of that got to do with people in London having their flats taken off them? That isn't what is being proposed by anyone. What is being considered is temporarily housing people made homeless after the fire in some of the vacant apartments and houses in the Kensington area. Noone is stealing a property or claiming it for the state in some triumphant resurgence of communism. What they are saying is that we have empty properties, lots of people who have suffered terribly, let's put those properties to use for a short period of time as respite homes. I actually struggle to see what is wrong with this approach as long as any reasonable costs to the property owners are met and any damage done to buildings is repaired fully. However, I do agree with other posters on here that the way to deal with the issue is to make property speculation absolutely pointless by making it impossible to make profit off the value of a second home. Rental income can stay as it is, but all capital gains are taxed at 100% for your second property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 We should requisition them permanently, not just when something like this happens. Property empty for 12 months when not subject to probate should default to state property No, it should default into squattable property, that is how Amsterdam dealt with it for years. You don't use your property? Fine, have some anarchist punks live in it until you find a use for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 Successive governments have failed miserably to deal with the giant housing bubble in London, one of the main driving forces in price rises there is the huge influx of foreign money being used to buy up anything and everything. Some countries already ban purchases from foreign buyers, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Australia and Canada all have some kind of system to deal with it. In some countries like Thailand foreign people just flat out cannot buy property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 We should requisition them permanently, not just when something like this happens. Property empty for 12 months when not subject to probate should default to state property I don't agree with this. There are plenty of valid reasons why a property may remain vacant for some time and the state taking ownership does not sit right with me. It is far better to remove any benefit of owning that empty property by placing a 100% capital gains tax on all second properties meaning the only way to make any profit is via rental pretty much forcing the owner to either sell up or rent it out. Whether this deal with second 'holiday' homes or not I'm not sure, I'd think it probably doesn't though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now