3 ms·
The government should make a law saying that houseowners shouldn't keep a house empty if there's someone offering even a single rupee or yuan a year, plus payin
by kartickv 8y ago
The government should make a law saying that houseowners shouldn't keep a house empty if there's someone offering even a single rupee or yuan a year, plus paying the insurance premium to protect the homeowner from any damage done by the tenant, plus deep cleaning to restore the house to a rentable condition when the tenant leaves. A landlord cannot keep the house empty if there's at least one person offering the above, say prepaid for the next one year to protect the landlord from having to chase down non-payers. As long as someone is willing to do the above, the landlord can't keep the house empty. The landlord can, at any time, ask the tenant to move out, refunding the prorated amount that he already prepaid, provided the landlord isn't going to keep the house empty.
With this, millions of people who're homeless will suddenly find a home. Investments that have already been made will be useful to society, which should be the case to begin with.
If this policy deters investment in housing, rents will eventually rise till it again becomes sensible to invest in building houses. The market takes care of itself.
Instead of a ban, perhaps a high annual tax, say 30% of the value of the house, if it's left empty for more than a month a year.
- rmrm 8y agoThis would certainly eliminate the rental market altogether, if that was your goal.
- kartickv 8y agoYou haven't explained why that would happen, nor has any of the downvoters.
- logfromblammo 8y ago> The government should make a law... King Canute should just decree that the tide is to go out.~ No matter how you structure the law, the capacity of property speculators to evade its intent will likely exceed the government's ability to enforce it, especially when some of those speculators are government officials. I foresee that a vacancy tax would be avoided by building apartment buildings that are only 80% finished, or whatever the law threshold may be, such that they do not qualify as vacant housing units, but can still be brought onto the housing market more quickly than erecting a new building from the foundations.
- kartickv 8y agoYour points would be received better without the sarcasm in your opening sentence. Regarding your point that this tax will be hard to enforce, why do you think this is harder than to enforce than the cornucopia of taxes and construction rules we have today? Regarding your point about leaving buildings 80% finished, there can be another tax on land not put to productive use. This would include both land left empty, and unfinished construction. In return for these taxes, eliminate other taxes like property tax, stamp duty, registration, transfer of ownership, etc.