Is Corbyn right about "requisitioning" property from the rich?

[Synobun]

If the people are so poor and on government handouts already why not just relocate them outside the city where property is cheaper, build housing out there?

How will they work and access services if they are outcasted to outside the city? Social housing sort of has the secondary prerequisite of allowing those who use it to access things that would help them one day leave social housing.

Anyways, I don't see a particular problem with this. You can't have residential properties sit there, empty, in a high-demand housing market. That is reasonable. Other cities employ an empty home tax. Real estate as an investment tool is fine but empty properties are a net disadvantage to the surrounding area. If you don't want your empty residential property used as social housing, rent it out or live in it. You'll certainly make more money by renting it out yourself than by having the government take control of it for the welfare system.

 

[luiz]

Wow, a sighting of Luiz in the Corbyn PM threads (albeit not in the major one...). Must feel bad, Luiz, that your most hated Corbyn is set to be prime minister How can it be? Wasn't he just not popular at all other that with some fringe far-leftists?

1. Are you even British? Do you live in the UK? Why do you love this guy so much? Jeez! I dislike a lot of politicians, I hate a few, and I tolerate some others. But this level of hero-worship that you dedicate to Corbyn is frankly embarrassing. Get a life!

2. Forgive my ignorance, but didn't Labour receive less votes than the Conservatives? Isn't that called, you know, losing the election? Maybe you think your God-hero wins even when he loses, but I'm pretty sure that's not how it works in the UK. He got less votes, he lost, he doesn't get to be PM. Tough luck. Go dedicate your crush-obsession to someone else, I guess. May I recommend Nicolas Maduro? At least he's actually in power.

Moderator Action: Personal attacks are not acceptable. FP
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Ammar]

Probably too direct an intervention, but I feel government involvement in housing in major cities is necessary.

Problem is that once you own a good property in a city you have it made. The profit margin when renting out is very large and if you have enough units almost risk-free. On the other hand if you start poor and have to rent it is much harder to become wealthy.

I do not think it is good for the economy if the rich can made more money without much effort or risk. There have been periods in history where once rich you could easily live from rents (covers more than housing), and it was always bad for social mobility.

A reasonable amount of Inequality is not the problem, the problem is when the distribution of wealth becomes less correlated to merit. But inheritance and rents are important drivers in this regard.

 

[Commodore]

but this isn't a slippery slope,

The only reason it's not a slippery slope in the US is because the government is constitutionally required to pay property owners for their land rather than just being able to seize it. In historical examples where the government was free to seize property without limits or having to compensate the owner of said property, it was a slippery slope.

 

[Kyriakos]

1. Are you even British? Do you live in the UK? Why do you love this guy so much? Jeez! I dislike a lot of politicians, I hate a few, and I tolerate some others.
<snip>

Well, i have lived there for years, so somewhat know their mentality, more than others. Strange that you project Maduro to anything, yet it doesn't take much ability to note that the people voting Corbyn don't care about your south american dictators either. And relax, if you can't take talk on some politician, you aren't in the right place in the web.

Moderator Action: Do not quote mod text at any time and remember that quoting infracted posts is usually a bad idea. ~ Arakhor
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Farm Boy]

There is pay, and then there is pay. Did you get fair market value? If not, are you going to sue to try and get fair market value? Are you going to recoup the legal fees if you get a higher price? What about damages not covered by raw land value, does your quiet farmstead now sit 90 feet from a freight line? Do the trains really trip out your chickens? How long does it take to get to an overpass over the rail line? Did they even build one? Does the property partially seized remain a viable parcel? Do you litigate for those damages being built into the price too? It's complicated, but that doesn't mean its unfair, fair, or even semi-unusual.

 

[Commodore]

even semi-unusual.

I don't think anyone is saying that it is unusual. In fact, I'd say a good portion of those who are anti-property seizure are that way precisely because it's not unusual.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

I'm not sure if the situation in Britain is the same as it is in the States, and would love to be corrected if I'm wrong. In the U.S., a lot of the empty real estate properties exist because the owner gets a tax right-off for owning vacant properties. Indeed, for years the office building next to my work was empty, and was serving as a massive tax right-off for some dentist in New York. Because he had no real interest in selling, he kept the asking price to rent/sell insanely high because having tenants wasn't the point. He also didn't seem to care that keeping the building vacant was torpedoing the local property value.

If Britain has the same situation, then instead of seizing private property from their legal owners, how about instead removing the tax breaks, which would discourage the vast ownership of vacant properties.

 

[Lexicus]

The only reason it's not a slippery slope in the US is because the government is constitutionally required to pay property owners for their land rather than just being able to seize it. In historical examples where the government was free to seize property without limits or having to compensate the owner of said property, it was a slippery slope.

Just here to note that the most obvious example of the US government seizing property and redistributing it is in fact the abolition of slavery, which saw the largest capital asset in the country taken from its owners and given to the poorest people in society.

 

[Hrothbern]

Just here to note that the most obvious example of the US government seizing property and redistributing it is in fact the abolition of slavery, which saw the largest capital asset in the country taken from its owners and given to the poorest people in society.

Napoleon as a good second when he made the law that everything in the ground beneath xyz meter belonged to the state (the mining property)

 

[EnglishEdward]

I'm not sure if the situation in Britain is the same as it is in the States, and would love to be corrected if I'm wrong. In the U.S., a lot of the empty real estate properties exist because the owner gets a tax right-off for owning vacant properties. Indeed, for years the office building next to my work was empty, and was serving as a massive tax right-off for some dentist in New York. Because he had no real interest in selling, he kept the asking price to rent/sell insanely high because having tenants wasn't the point. He also didn't seem to care that keeping the building vacant was torpedoing the local property value.

If Britain has the same situation, then instead of seizing private property from their legal owners, how about instead removing the tax breaks, which would discourage the vast ownership of vacant properties.

I am not an expert.

However I believe that in the UK tax right offs are permitted for relevant costs, losses and government favoured activities,
and not simply for owning empty properties.

There is no local council tax for properties if they are unfurnished and unoccupied.

This concession was designed to protect builders and renovators with unsold and unrented property, but it is misused by speculators.

In the UK the problem is that a lot of rich foreigners buy up property and then sit and watch property price inflation double their money.
Many London (and also Manchester) properties are sold to Chinese or Arabic purchasers who have never even seen them.

In theory they should pay capital gains tax on such profits, but there are an awful lot of tax avoidance/evasion scams.
For instance, the property is bought in the name of an overseas company; the owner sells the company or its (obfuscated
via tax havens), parent company and not the property itself, so the claim is that there is no change of ownership and no tax due!

In theory the UK should benefit from such elevated building activity, but as much of the workforce are temporary immigrants
and off book, the benefits to central government and local councils are very questionable.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

This concession was designed to protect builders and renovators with unsold and unrented property, but it is misused by speculators.

I believe that was the same intent with most U.S. versions of the law, and the same result.

properties are sold to Chinese or Arabic purchasers who have never even seen them.

Same thing which is happening to your football teams. It seems really in vogue for wealth Middle Easterners to purchase a team, either in the EPL or League 1/2 (or Italians for that matter, sorry Layton Orient ), run if for a few years, realize that football teams aren't designed to make the owner money, then sell it to the next oil magnate or Chinese telecom bigwig.

 

[Perfection]

If the people are so poor and on government handouts already why not just relocate them outside the city where property is cheaper, build housing out there?

People don't like to be kicked out of the city they have spent considerable amounts of their lives in. If it at all feasible it is best to avoid such a state of affairs.

 

[civver_764]

I disagree, I think that it is about unused resources (empty housing stock), rather than about inequality.

And the powerful and rich use eminent domain arguments to force through the eviction of the ordinaries to build luxury flats all the time.

But they are hypocritical and want to be the only people to benefit from eminent domain.

Conspiracy theories about the rich aside, you make a good point. If this falls under eminent domain and the owner is compensated then that's OK.

 

[Hygro]

Of course it's justified. History has shown how this sort of measure works wonderfully, is efficient from an economic POV and is never abused by governments.

If you doubt me, just look at Venezuela, which adopted very similar measures to this, and even expanded on them. Is Venezuela not paradise on earth? It's no wonder that Corbyn is a fanatical admirer of the late Hugo Chavez and his glorious revolution. Great minds think alike.

Courage, comrade! Forwards! Hasta la victoria siempre!

Yeah man. And did you hear, Venezuela is increasing teacher salaries 15% next year. The president said so.

 

[luiz]

Yeah man. And did you hear, Venezuela is increasing teacher salaries 15% next year. The president said so.

I'm pretty sure all salaries are increased by several hundreds percent every year in Venezuela. That's how glorious the Revolution is. And Britain could be too.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't think anyone is saying that it is unusual. In fact, I'd say a good portion of those who are anti-property seizure are that way precisely because it's not unusual.

That is true.

 

[bernie14]

start with the queen

 

[Truronian]

Conspiracy theories about the rich aside, you make a good point. If this falls under eminent domain and the owner is compensated then that's OK.

Absolutely. If we're happy enough evicting people from their homes to build a new runway for Heathrow or for HS2 then can't see the objection to the forced purchase of empty houses for disaster relief.

 

[Kyriakos]

start with the queen

She was heckled by a protester yesterday.