This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
Houses. First, to provide shelter for those who do not have it. Secondly, to crash the market in residential property so it is no longer viable as an investment asset, thereby ensuring that houses are used for their intended purpose (as homes) and the asset rich do not get richer simply by hoarding a scarce resource.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@SunshineGirl That would risk a lot of houses becoming abandoned ruins, their last owners unable to sell them to buy somewhere smaller in their twilight years. The French had something like that happen in rural areas due to antiquated inheritance laws compounding young people moving away from the villages anyway. Many of these houses became bought by ex-patriate Britons and other foreigners with a rosy view of Gallic rusticity.
I would certainly try to discourage the idea that a house is an "investment" first and dwelling second in priority, end the "housing ladder" nonsense; and make it far harder to buy a house as a second-home or holiday-let including "Air B-&-B" ones.
(The housing ladder was meant to cover the situation of couples buying their first, small house then needing find a large one as they started to have children. That's fair enough but too easily encourages the "investment first" notion.)
I would certainly try to discourage the idea that a house is an "investment" first and dwelling second in priority, end the "housing ladder" nonsense; and make it far harder to buy a house as a second-home or holiday-let including "Air B-&-B" ones.
(The housing ladder was meant to cover the situation of couples buying their first, small house then needing find a large one as they started to have children. That's fair enough but too easily encourages the "investment first" notion.)