http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23745376

I can't see why you should fall victim to some outrageous social policy for owning a property (especially considering the living arrangements of some elected reps). As long as it's not a hazard, why should anyone have any right to tell you what to do with it?

Because:

1. There's a shortage of homes
2. There are empty houses being unused.
3. The Govt must be seen to be doing something about it. Even if it's not building more homes like it should.

Ther is also the point that what happens in one house can affect others. In a terrace or semi, if something goes wrong in a vacant property it can affect the neighbours as much. If there's a record of who owns a property, that could be used to ensure vacant properties don't fall into a state of disrepair that can affect innocent parties.

What's so outrageous about it? If somebody is leaving a property empty in an area where homes are in short supply, there should be a charge for that. Taxes serve more than one purpose, one of those is to encourage social goods (or discourage sins).

Property taxes should also apply to all the vacant lots that currently are undeveloped because they are used as collateral for loans.

I'm just of the opinion that if you bought it fair and square and maintain it, it's yours to do what you want with it. This seems to be nothing more than a revenue raiser to hide the fact that there aren't enough homes being built - it doesn't actually solve the 'problem' of vacant homes. And it's not like selling a property is much fun these days to start with.

Well that's obviously not true. If you have a 'problem' of 'vacant homes' then by extension you have many problems of 'vacant home'. So each home you cause to stop being vacant becomes one less of those.

Likewise, you have a problem of not enough homes being built, especially within a specific geographical region, then each vacant home within that region is one less house that needs to be built isn't it?

As for interfering with somebody's right to do what they want with their property. firstly we already accept many limits to that, and if you wish to test my theory you need only try to convert your dwelling into a massage parlour, or a pub. This is just a property tax, nobody is seizing the premises.

I don't honestly believe it does much to solve the 'problem', and just screws the owners over because 'Why not?'. I don't consider that a very good social policy no matter what way you come at it. It took a year or so to sell my grandmother's house in one of the nicer parts of Belfast at a heavy discount - I can totally understand why properties lie 'vacant'.

If I thought it would actually change much I wouldn't have much of an objection, that's the truth of it. Would it be better for the council to put bids in, for instance?

But that's how policies work. They tip the balance so that your incentives align with those of the rest of us. It is how civilisation operates in general. We coax people to act against their self interest for the greater good, and we all benefit more than we lose out overall, so there's no point getting too grumpy about a small thing. That's how people end up camping out in Montana with high powered rifles, guarding their freedoms and crapping in holes.

IMO, if you've got a significant asset like a spare house, you've got enough cash to be able to absorb a bit of taxation on it. If you haven't got enough to pay the tax, sell the house and eliminate the problem.

How would the council know. You could just pay the tax as normal and the council would never know it's unoccupied.

There's lots of ways you could tell if there's anyone in a house or not. If the bins are ever collected, for example.

Neighbours reporting the place. Burglar alarms going off and no one at home.