Corbyn wants to seize rich people's homes

[baron]

Come off it, you must know a ton of "celeb luvvies" who are right wing. I don't know many but out of the what say the 6 or 7 I've ever had enough of a conversation with to know their politics about half are reactionary right wingers.

Do these right-wing celebs (I don't know of very many, perhaps Cleese - a liberal realist, Gervais the same, now I'm struggling) routinely criticise others for their lack of empathy, promise that they themselves will take action, then retire to their £20m homes and do precisely nothing? How many leftist luvvies vowed to take in refugees over the past few years? Dozens. How many did? Er, none. Geldof, who along with Brand represents the very depths of hypocrisy, announced that he was more than willing to accommodate four refugee families in one of his houses. I guess it must have slipped his mind. I haven't done the maths but I would bet that if all the leftist luvvies in London opened their doors they could accommodate all the families made homeless in this fire without any inconvenience whatsoever. How many have so far done this? That's right, you guessed it.

 

[MikeG]

Come off it, you must know a ton of "celeb luvvies" who are right wing. I don't know many but out of the what say the 6 or 7 I've ever had enough of a conversation with to know their politics about half are reactionary right wingers.

"Luvvies"... normally being taken to mean actors (and maybe other entertainers).........then no, I don't know any right wingers/ reactionaries amongst those few I have come into contact with. I'm intrigued as to why you would think I know "tons" of such people.

 

[The Don]

The BBC's "Reality Check" assessment of whether the government could requisition those properties:

The claim: Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn says the government should requisition housing if necessary for those made homeless by the Grenfell Tower fire.

Reality Check verdict: Doing so would not be allowed under current rules, and legislation to allow property to be seized in peacetime would be controversial.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40303142

 

[MikeG]

I am totally against squatting but I'd welcome a change in the law to prevent people using property purely as an investment, i.e. leaving it empty......

You don't have to change the law to do that. You just change the tax regime. There must be countless ways of making it unlikely that someone would benefit financially from owning a second home. I would support such a change wholeheartedly. You could bring in a special CGT category of 100 percent for second homes or non-occupied homes, and charge the tax annually against a notional index. You could have punitive rates of council tax for unoccupied homes. You could have a separate band of stamp duty for homes which aren't the primary residence. You could aggressively tax trusts which hold unoccupied homes. It only takes a few seconds to come up with a list of stuff which could at least be considered.

 

[baron]

You don't have to change the law to do that. You just change the tax regime. There must be countless ways of making it unlikely that someone would benefit financially from owning a second home. I would support such a change wholeheartedly. You could bring in a special CGT category of 100 percent for second homes or non-occupied homes, and charge the tax annually against a notional index. You could have punitive rates of council tax for unoccupied homes. You could have a separate band of stamp duty for homes which aren't the primary residence. You could aggressively tax trusts which hold unoccupied homes. It only takes a few seconds to come up with a list of stuff which could at least be considered.

It would need to be some considerable tax, considering the profit to be made on London property. More pertinently it would need to be extremely limited in scope. You could not, for example, simply slap a huge tax on second homes or on unoccupied homes because in most cases this would be detrimental to the economy and would affect the 'average' investor. A lady down the road has left her house unoccupied for several years as she is in a care home but doesn't want to sell the family home. It would not be in anyone's interest to levy a crippling tax on her.

 

[3point14]

You don't have to change the law to do that. You just change the tax regime. There must be countless ways of making it unlikely that someone would benefit financially from owning a second home. I would support such a change wholeheartedly. You could bring in a special CGT category of 100 percent for second homes or non-occupied homes, and charge the tax annually against a notional index. You could have punitive rates of council tax for unoccupied homes. You could have a separate band of stamp duty for homes which aren't the primary residence. You could aggressively tax trusts which hold unoccupied homes. It only takes a few seconds to come up with a list of stuff which could at least be considered.

All good. All of which would, I'm guessing, drive down house prices in London due to sudden availability of large numbers of properties.

Given that the mantra of all governments has been 'house prices must not fall' and the generalised panic that happens when they do, I think there may be consequences to your recommendations that, if nothing else, would cost votes. Not only that, given the area and the people that are likely to be affected, extremely angry letters to the times, reduced donations to the Tory party (if it were done by the Tory party) and - again, I'm guessing - some absolute rollockings in the press because the people who own newspapers are the sort of people who also own property in London.

 

[MikeG]

It would need to be some considerable tax, considering the profit to be made on London property. More pertinently it would need to be extremely limited in scope. You could not, for example, simply slap a huge tax on second homes or on unoccupied homes because in most cases this would be detrimental to the economy and would affect the 'average' investor. A lady down the road has left her house unoccupied for several years as she is in a care home but doesn't want to sell the family home. It would not be in anyone's interest to levy a crippling tax on her.

I've no doubt there would be all sorts of issues to think about, but the case you mention wouldn't be one of them, in that I said "tax the financial benefit of a second home". That old lady would still have that as her private residence, and even if she didn't, the tax would only remove any gain in the value of that property for the period she was in a care home.....not actually take the property off her or her family.

Removing the incentive for people to invest in second homes has got to be no more than a half hour homework exercise for A level economics students, surely.

 

[baron]

I've no doubt there would be all sorts of issues to think about, but the case you mention wouldn't be one of them, in that I said "tax the financial benefit of a second home".

Well, no, you said

- You could bring in a special CGT category of 100 percent for second homes or non-occupied homes​

That old lady would still have that as her private residence, and even if she didn't, the tax would only remove any gain in the value of that property for the period she was in a care home.....not actually take the property off her or her family.

Removing the incentive for people to invest in second homes has got to be no more than a half hour homework exercise for A level economics students, surely.

Most investment in second homes isn't a problem. That's why any new rules would need to carefully target that which is.

 

[MikeG]

CGT= Capital Gains Tax. This could be a 100% tax on any capital gained by a second or unoccupied home. It's only taxing the gain. If the house didn't gain any value, it wouldn't be taxed.

As I said.........this was a 2 minute exercise to show that your (?) stated aim could be achieved without a change in law by using the tax system. Ask a schoolkid (the right one!) how to make it work. I've got a section to finish drawing.

 

[Craig B]

It's unworkable, like most of Corbyn's ideas, but having said that there is a lot of foreign-owned empty property in London that is doing nothing but taking up space and pushing up prices.

Here's an idea: Maybe if every London-based leftist celeb luvvie who tweeted some empathetic emoji or went round giving 'hugs' allowed a homeless family to stay in one of their multi-room mansions, that would be a positive step forwards. But, as in the case of the refugees, we all know this won't happen.

Maybe May will not give them hugs, but surprising things do happen from time to time. Here's Polly Toynbee sounding off about Jeremy Corbyn, and then changing her mind and giving him a hug.

Toynbee take #1. https://www.theguardian.com/comment...tion-jeremy-corbyn?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Gmail

"Was ever there a more crassly inept politician than Jeremy Corbyn, whose every impulse is to make the wrong call on everything? It’s not excitingly flamboyant red radicalism that has done for Labour, but his sluggish incompetence at the absolute basics of leadership."

Toynbee take #2. https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ty-cameron-osborne?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Gmail

"What a contrast was Jeremy Corbyn’s visit, hugging and embracing victims, promising to guarantee that never happens. No one could have devised a better parable to convey the difference between the two parties than those two leaders’ visits"​

 

[baron]

Maybe May will not give them hugs, but surprising things do happen from time to time. Here's Polly Toynbee sounding off about Jeremy Corbyn, and then changing her mind and giving him a hug.

Toynbee take #1. https://www.theguardian.com/comment...tion-jeremy-corbyn?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Gmail

"Was ever there a more crassly inept politician than Jeremy Corbyn, whose every impulse is to make the wrong call on everything? It’s not excitingly flamboyant red radicalism that has done for Labour, but his sluggish incompetence at the absolute basics of leadership."

Toynbee take #2. https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ty-cameron-osborne?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Gmail

"What a contrast was Jeremy Corbyn’s visit, hugging and embracing victims, promising to guarantee that never happens. No one could have devised a better parable to convey the difference between the two parties than those two leaders’ visits"​

It's a naive view. Of course an opposition leader can promise the world, Corbyn more than most because it's highly unlikely he'll ever be in a position to deliver and he knows it. Whilst multi-millionairess, Ferrari-driving Toynbee is one of the more reasonable leftists, and doesn't regularly attain the same level of hypocrisy as many others, the best thing she could do is allow a couple of families to stay in one of her three houses, or maybe just pay the rent for a few families until they can get back on their feet.

 

[fuelair]

I am totally against squatting but I'd welcome a change in the law to prevent people using property purely as an investment, i.e. leaving it empty.

The thing here is that Corbyn knows full well that his idea could not possibly be implemented now or in the near future, and even if it were it would not be anywhere near as extensive as he makes out. He came out with this statement with no regard for the plight of the people who need homes now, it was an opportunist political dig. Like his magic money tree, he's effectively saying, "If I were Prime Minister all you people made homeless would be living in mansions!" Despicable little man.

He does manage to sound a right arse!!!!!

 

[dudalb]

Anybody else flash back to the scenes of Zhivago returnting from World War One to his home in "Dr. Zhivago".

Corbyn is falling back into his bad habits of not engaging brain before engaging Mouth. I hasten to add that many Tory politicians also do this.
As a backbencher he could afford to make this kind of mistake;as party leader he can't. He seemed to have learned this but he has fallen off the wagon here.

 

[Craig B]

It would need to be some considerable tax, considering the profit to be made on London property. More pertinently it would need to be extremely limited in scope. You could not, for example, simply slap a huge tax on second homes or on unoccupied homes because in most cases this would be detrimental to the economy and would affect the 'average' investor. A lady down the road has left her house unoccupied for several years as she is in a care home but doesn't want to sell the family home. It would not be in anyone's interest to levy a crippling tax on her.

Believe me, if people are very clever, they can design property taxes so that they do not fall heavily on houses left empty because their normal residents are in care homes. I used to work in social housing, and if we found that a house was empty we'd try to repossess and relet it; but then if we were told the tenant was in a nursing home, we'd suspend the tenancy termination procedure.

People knew that, and they'd tell us, my father's in hospital, and so on. Doctors would tell us. It wasn't hard to identify such cases. Tax assessments can be suspended on the same grounds, I have no doubt at all.

 

[Darat]

"Luvvies"... normally being taken to mean actors (and maybe other entertainers).........then no, I don't know any right wingers/ reactionaries amongst those few I have come into contact with. I'm intrigued as to why you would think I know "tons" of such people.

You mentioned meeting the queen and her husband a few times, I assumed you frequented the sort 8f circles were such people flock.

 

[baron]

Believe me, if people are very clever, they can design property taxes so that they do not fall heavily on houses left empty because their normal residents are in care homes. I used to work in social housing, and if we found that a house was empty we'd try to repossess and relet it; but then if we were told the tenant was in a nursing home, we'd suspend the tenancy termination procedure.

People knew that, and they'd tell us, my father's in hospital, and so on. Doctors would tell us. It wasn't hard to identify such cases. Tax assessments can be suspended on the same grounds, I have no doubt at all.

That's case-by-cases assessment of assets you or your client owns, which is completely different to legislating for all assets. It would have to be written into law, by definition, and if you can find even once example of simple legislation then I'd be very surprised.

 

[funk de fino]

Ah, yes. Seized. The word he actually did not use. Useful idiots lap it all up.

 

[Craig B]

That's case-by-cases assessment of assets you or your client owns, which is completely different to legislating for all assets. It would have to be written into law, by definition, and if you can find even once example of simple legislation then I'd be very surprised.

No. The right to repossess tenancies, like the right to levy property taxes, is based upon laws, which may not be simple - but brainy people can understand them, I ask you to believe. However, the application of these laws in individual cases is based on assessments of the individual circumstances of the case. Here we have an empty house. Who owns it? Where is that person now? Is the house a principal residence? ... and so on. It can be done; believe me!

 

[MikeG]

You mentioned meeting the queen and her husband a few times, I assumed you frequented the sort 8f circles were such people flock.

That was as a result of being a member of a very successful cricket team, a number of deacdes ago. They've not so much as called or even sent me a christmas card since. I happen to be buddies with a professional baritone, and have bumped into one or two of his circle of singers and concert musicians........but that's just about it for entertainer-type people. My daughter bought Joanna Lumley and Mark Rylance a volleyball net once, though, if that's any help.

 

[baron]

Ah, yes. Seized. The word he actually did not use. Useful idiots lap it all up.

He pretty much did, actually.

- The ward where this fire took place is, I think, the poorest ward in the whole country and properties must be found - requisitioned if necessary - to make sure those residents do get re-housed locally.

Requisition - Demand the use or supply of (something) by official order. e.g. the government had assumed powers to requisition cereal products at fixed prices.