Spotted by SBC at Houseladder:
Thousands of properties in England are to be brought back into use thanks to a new government cash injection. Communities minister Andrew Stunell revealed £145 million will be used to help tackle the empty homes problem, with 20 successful councils to share £60 million to help make the dwellings liveable and occupied...
It is hoped the move will result in around 5,600 empty homes coming back into use - but Mr Stunell noted there is plenty more work to do before the issue is fully resolved and the crisis over. Despite the number of empty properties in the UK standing at its lowest level since 2004, there are a total of 720,000 houses still unoccupied.
£145 million ÷ 5,600 homes = a staggering £26,000 per home for renovation. My first thought was that as per usual, trying the opposite tack by slapping empty or derelict homes with a hefty precept never occurred to them, but lo, at the end of the article is this:
Furthermore, an Empty Homes Premium has been introduced, which will enable councils to impose extra council tax on properties that have been left vacated for at least two years.
If they had their wits about them, they could make the scheme self-financing, i.e. stick a £1,000 annual precept on all empty homes, that gives us a pot of £720,000 which could be handed out as soft loans to pay to get 100,000 homes back into use, i.e. those which require only £5,000 - 10,000 each to make them habitable. Then in the next year, bump up the charge to £2,000 and finance the renovation of the more derelict ones, and so on, until it reaches the stage where an owner finds it cheaper to go and do the bloody renovation himself than to pay the extra tax.
No scrumping
3 hours ago
11 comments:
Aaaarrggghhhh. It's not a 'Government cash injection', it's a 'taxpayer cash injection'. That is it's another transfer from the prudent and careful to the feckless and landowners. Bastards.
L, yes of course. I hate that expression too, as well as the word "help" which usually means "give money to".
How about not telling other people what they should or should not do with their own property?
Or can you LVTers not refrain from bossing other people around?
S, yes, and while we're at it, could the owners of BMW refrain from bossing their customers about by setting high prices for the actual and potential customers?
Land rents are simply not "private property", they arise from the existence of the nation-state, and the nation-state is in turn the end result of thousands or millions of citizens agreeing to abide by common rules. Ergo, land rents arising in any nation-state belong (equally) to all citizens of that nation-state.
It is possible for one person, or a small group of people, to make a car, a painting, put on a stage show, write a book. It is impossible for an individual or a small group of people to create land rents in the absence of the nation-state - first of all, they have to FORM such a nation-state. And that's ALL they have to do. Once they have done that, all they have to do is ensure the continuity thereof and the rents just roll in.
Ah, so there you have it, the owner of the property is not its legal owner, but everyone else in 'society'. LVT is the abolition of private property - as I have always said.
Slapping fines on empty homes is telling people what to do with their property, having an LVT isn't.
S, you're lying again, presumably deliberately.
You are abusing the word "property" to mean "land" and nothing else.
Land is merely one kind of property - the most important kind of private property is YOUR EARNED INCOME, there are plenty of other kinds, from cars to CDs to shares in companies to fridges or indeed bricks and mortar.
ALL OF THESE COULD AND SHOULD BE UNTAXED AND WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED OR TOUCHED IN THE SLIGHTEST BY LAND VALUE TAX.
So contrary to your Home-Owner-Ist propaganda SHIFTING TO LAND VALUE TAX IS THE FULL REINSTATEMENT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.
Do you understand this basic point?
What I am talking about is LAND RENTS, which are something quite independent of the physical land. Or else how can the rental value of any site/location go up or down, even though the site/location is exactly the same?
And pray tell, who or what creates those land rents if not the nation-state? Have you ever tried or even contemplated buying or renting out land in Somalia or Afgh or in a war zone where two countries are fighting over possession?
Do you understand any of this at all?
Interestingly, there is an article on the BBC site today about a chap who has just started the first dry cleaners in Mogadishu for more than 20 years.
The point is that there is a mad scramble for commercial premises, brought about by the expulsion of the Islamists. This proves MW's point perfectly - no peace/loonies in charge means no rent can be levied; even imperfect peace results in an immediate and unearned return for landlords.
H, thanks, that's an excellent example.
I fear this is the result of the Channel 4, Empty Homes Agency, Shelter and George Clark(celeb property developer's campaign exactly to get this subsidy for more speculation in property.
I pleaded with all the execs of these charities to stop, but they just thought me a commie.
RS, oh yes, very much so, he's mentioned in the article as one of the great and good who'll be dishing out this cash.
Post a Comment