"First time buyers are being denied access to the housing market by people purchasing multiple homes. If everyone were limited to two houses, after which there was a blanket 50% income tax (with no tax free band) on the third house owned if rented, then 75% for the fourth and any consecutive then the house market would be more easily accessible to first time buyer snad the poor."
I hope to be a "first time buyer" some time soon (I've been hoping this for the last three years, so I'm not holding my breath) and goodness knows house prices are terrifying in most of the UK.
But I really, really, really don't think that this would help. Let's suppose it was brought in tomorrow. My landlady, who is a professional who owns a number of houses, keeps several permanent maintenance staff, sets her rents fairly, treats her tenants well, etc., would be paying a vast extra sum on lots of places. Like I say - she's a professional. She makes her living this way. She sets the rents fairly, but she does also make a profit. Naturally. She needs to. So if she were paying extra taxes on the rents, I'd be paying the extra tax ... Which would rather cut into my ability to save a deposit for purchasing a house in future, wouldn't it?
This wouldn't penalise landlords. It would penalise tenants. Those who, for whatever reason, can't buy their own places - or don't want to. Disproportionately penalise the "poor" that the petitioner's attempting to help. Oops.
1 comment:
My own FTB experience is clear enough in my own mind for the word 'parasite' to be a useful part of my vocabulary if you get me on the subject of buy-to-let at the right time.
But saying that, vast amounts of property have moved into private ownership over the last couple of decades, and yet as a country we are still rushing to tarmac the countryside and build tiny houses on any plot that can be found to just about pass planning regulations so clearly something isn't working in terms of housing availability.
Hammering tenants is not the way to fix anything, nor is it much use to anyone when people live multiple hours' travel away from where they work whether through deliberate choice or lack of choice. So as far as I can see it's only one part of a much wider question, and one that would be better dealt with as part of that whole than as a single issue.
I can't see how any tax sanction against multiple home-owners that isn't hypothecated for the purposes of providing social housing is going to improve the housing situation, and I certainly don't expect that to happen while there are dubious wars to be supported and other questionable money pits for the tax pound to sink away in.
But that's a whole other bunch of ranting - best of luck with your own first time buyerism, whenever it comes. I'd be lying if I said it was an easy process to go through, but I can say that when it all comes together it is well worth the hassle.
Post a Comment