The subtext of the above is that you appear to be saying that all empty homes should be handed over to the 'homeless'.

Therefore, I ask in turn is is right to force people to use their property for purposes they don't want it to be used for? Is the forcing of people to hand over property against their will totalitarian? Is that morally right?

Edited by matt_himself (12 Aug 2015 9.36pm)

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

I think quite a lot of the numbers re empty homes relate to people who have a second home (quite a few having a main home in another country),and empty "local authority" and "housing association" properties.

Lets stay away from the "forcing" point.

Would it be desirable if more empty properties were available for homeless people to live in?

If answer no.Stop there.If yes...

then you look at how you might encourage it in a legal way in ways that don't relate to people like you. ie,is there an argument for making it less financially attractive for people to have a second home without a decent reason (ie someone in the family based away from home for a long period because of work).

Doesn't seem like using empty council houses or housing association properties would throw any one "living there" out of "their homes"

Edited by legaleagle (12 Aug 2015 10.32pm)

How would you police this 'tax'? How would you stop people from housesitting in vacant properties? How would you help local economies dependant on second home income, such as villages in the Cotswolds and Cornwall, overcome a sudden loss of income due to your tax?

Progressive tax policy isn't progressive. It is simply more taxes. It is this sort of 'progressive politics' that will strangle our economic recovery and make the UK an unattractive place to do business in.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Why not stop tinkering with these progressive socialist policies and get straight into building multi-storey concrete tower blocks where everyone can be put. Allocation would be on a progressive planned basis according to their needs and contribution to society, or how persecuted they were in their country of origin if an asylum seeker (top priority course). We could call the first block Victory Mansions and have a big mural of Jeremy on the side.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Yes, if we make the distinction between stock let's say, in the private and public domain, I have no objection to loc authority stock being used for migrant housing, providing of course that all already on a waiting list are housed first.

As far as the privately owned housing is concerned, I can't see any government of any colour daring to legislate against multiple property ownership. Political suicide, in my opinion.

UK law permits for Compulsory Purchase Orders, so its not totalitarian at all, if compensation or provision is made to allow for compensation. The state could of course utilize existing properties by compulsory letting, and taking responsibility as a temporary owner of the property.

To forcibly take property, without compensation is beyond the capacity of the state, outside of a State of Emergency. It would take an act of parliament (which would never be accepted by the Lords).

The problem really is the idea of property as a means of investment and return, as has become very common practice since the 80s housing boom.

People throw the word totalitarian and freedom around far to easily.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]