Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Lepista

Empty Property Tax

Recommended Posts

The trouble with hitting 2nd home owners with increased council tax, is that when it's rented out, the landlord just passes this additional cost onto the renter.

Why not have two rates set - the normal rate, and a MUCH higher rate for empty properties?

The onus would therefore be on the landlords to rent out the property, as all these additional costs come back to them. When it's being rented out, they don't get stung with the "empty property" tax, so no additional cost to the renter.

Otherwise, I forsee a lot of landlords sitting on their "investment", not renting it out, in an impasse to the governments attempt to cap the social renting costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(...)

Why not have two rates set - the normal rate, and a MUCH higher rate for empty properties?

(...)

I think that is a good idea. It is anti-social to keep a house empty.

Besides, empty properties have also a depressing effect on its surroundings.

It should be taxed at a higher rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble with hitting 2nd home owners with increased council tax, is that when it's rented out, the landlord just passes this additional cost onto the renter.

I really dont think this is true. Some LL's will find themselves unable to let their property as they cannot afford to accept the best offer they get. I can see the perfect storm brewing.

Renting it out cos they cant afford to sell.

Cant afford to accept best rental offer.

Crash on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really dont think this is true. Some LL's will find themselves unable to let their property as they cannot afford to accept the best offer they get. I can see the perfect storm brewing.

Renting it out cos they cant afford to sell.

Cant afford to accept best rental offer.

Crash on!

Yes. If they rent it for ordinary residential purposes, the renter will pay their own rates. If it is for holiday let purposes, the rental will include whatever costs need to be covered. The fact is property prices are out of control/mad and the major cost in rent is covering the cost of purchase. So let's just get on with the HPC and any council tax changes on empty or second homes can soon follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really dont think this is true. Some LL's will find themselves unable to let their property as they cannot afford to accept the best offer they get. I can see the perfect storm brewing.

Renting it out cos they cant afford to sell.

Cant afford to accept best rental offer.

Crash on!

I certainly am already seeing properties taken off the Market to be let out. Saw several for sale signs turn to to let. They seem to be finding tenants fairly fast at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stupid idea, they bought the house, they can do what they like with it.

What next, a secondary car tax if you don't drive it enough ?

What about that pair of shoes you're not wearing, tax those too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stupid idea, they bought the house, they can do what they like with it.

What next, a secondary car tax if you don't drive it enough ?

What about that pair of shoes you're not wearing, tax those too.

The house is taxed. It's called a council tax. At present, there is a rebate if no-one lives in it. That's what is stupid. It's a subsidy for the landlord.

I don't know many people who want to live in shoes (apart from this one old lady).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The house is taxed. It's called a council tax. At present, there is a rebate if no-one lives in it. That's what is stupid. It's a subsidy for the landlord.

Depends where you live but the rebate can be as little as 30%

Since the absent owners are using many of the local services, why not reduce the fee ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends where you live but the rebate can be as little as 30%

Since the absent owners are using many of the local services, why not reduce the fee ?

Because it is a disincentive to having the property occupied.

Making an empty property a less desirable option means more properties occupied, and helps to relieve this housing shortage that the government speaks of, and increases the available rental pool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stupid idea, they bought the house, they can do what they like with it.

What next, a secondary car tax if you don't drive it enough ?

What about that pair of shoes you're not wearing, tax those too.

I think you are not being honest. I think you are using misleading rhetoric, instead of proper logic, and that you know that.

I guess you have some vested interest in this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The house is taxed. It's called a council tax. At present, there is a rebate if no-one lives in it. That's what is stupid. It's a subsidy for the landlord.

Not much of a rebate.

In fact, it's more expensive to leave a house unoccupied, than for a single person to live in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The owner could always claim he is repairing the property and claim for a full exemption rather than just a rebate.

With any luck (for him) the council will then lose the paperwork and take years to realise that the property is occupied again.

Yes, this actually did happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the main point is that council tax is meant to pay for some of the services that the council provides. Not as a tool to engineer house price into the price bracket we want them to be in.

Services are used by people mainly, not houses. (police, and other are used by empty houses). So there is not a very logical argument for increasing taxes on an unoccupied house.

Raising council tax on unoccupied properties would certainly bring many onto the market. But remember politicians like rising house prices because they make people feel rich!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are not being honest. I think you are using misleading rhetoric, instead of proper logic, and that you know that.

I guess you have some vested interest in this.

Honest about what ? You may not agree with the analogy but it's not misleading.

Taxing someone more for something they own but don't use seems perverse.

Edited by exiges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is fraud - an anonymous phone line would fix that problem. If the owner is not paying the council tax the neighbours are paying it for him/her.

It was actually picked up in an audit of the council which got a slap on the wrist. I have no idea what happened to the owner of the property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our newer house is empty as we speak and we are not paying council tax on it but we are paying council tax on the one we are in now..we have up to six months before we have to pay council tax on the newer one...why should i pay council tax on two properties as you are suggesting.....you lot have not thought this one out.. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our newer house is empty as we speak and we are not paying council tax on it but we are paying council tax on the one we are in now..we have up to six months before we have to pay council tax on the newer one...why should i pay council tax on two properties as you are suggesting.....you lot have not thought this one out.. :o

A simple exception is hardly a reason to dismiss the idea Geoff, I'd have expected more from you. either you could have a 3/6 month "freebie" for new properties, relocation (for example 6 months "free" within any 5 year period due to relocating?), or you say no exceptions, and it's just an additional cost of relocating.

Just because it impacts you negatively looking at the current situation, doesdn't mean that the long term effect would be negative for someone in your situation. The additional cost would have to be factored in, maybe lowering HP's in the process. councils income would rise, resulting in them needing a lower overall council tax for the majority of non-movers / non-landlords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The market - if one can really call it that - is so skewed against renters and FTBs that this makes perfect sense. Either use the land for residential purposes or allow someone else to do. It's very reasonable. I can own a hundred cars but it's not stopping anyone else from getting their own Rover 214 and heading down to Margate as a treat for the family at the weekend.

Edited by RichM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honest about what ? You may not agree with the analogy but it's not misleading.

Taxing someone more for something they own but don't use seems perverse.

It is misleading, because you are pretending that houses are not a government controlled resource. They are - look at planning laws.

If the government restricts the supply of houses as it does, it is liable for a lot more control work to make things function, including taxing empty ones heavily.

You are either simple or disingenuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honest about what ? You may not agree with the analogy but it's not misleading.

Taxing someone more for something they own but don't use seems perverse.

OK then. I'll admit the possibility that you honestly didn't know why the analogy is not valid.

If you don't use a car, or a pair of shoes, you're not blocking others from using their cars, or their pairs of shoes, as there are plenty of cars and pairs of shoes around, and their production is freely allowed. But since housing is socially essential, scarce, and building permits limited, it is anti-social to keep a house empty. Besides, it also affects a neighbourhood. The problem is even worse in some holiday destinations, with pretty villages having few permanent residents, affecting local commerce, and general viability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is misleading, because you are pretending that houses are not a government controlled resource. They are - look at planning laws.

If the government restricts the supply of houses as it does, it is liable for a lot more control work to make things function, including taxing empty ones heavily.

You are either simple or disingenuous.

+ 1

It would have saved me time if I had the whole thread before replying, above. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 261 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.