George Monbiot suggests taxing empty bedrooms

[the last yatto]

Its not just letting homeless into the homes,

Instead of paying rent, lodgers – who are vetted and checked by the charity that runs the project – help elderly homeowners with shopping, cleaning, cooking, gardening or driving.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Its not just letting homeless into the homes,

Instead of paying rent, lodgers – who are vetted and checked by the charity that runs the project – help elderly homeowners with shopping, cleaning, cooking, gardening or driving.

Wow.  I can see this going very, very wrong.

[the last yatto]

At least there is oversight, what about those who choose craigslist to fill the empty space

[Cain]

The rate of homelessnesss in the UK is very small in the first place.  I've heard the number put between 300-500 for years, and for an island with a population of 60 million, that's pretty good going.

The problem with houses are thus:

- the government, in collusion with the financial services industry (and later, the media) sought to use houses to inflate a property bubble, sold on the ridiculous notion that house prices go up, but never go down, and that houses are always a great investment.  That's why the average three bedroom semi-detatched has essentially doubled in price in 6 years.  Cheap credit, government incentives for buying and a plethora of daytime TV programs about how to make it big as a property investor all feed this bubble.

- UK wages have been virtually static for the past generation, while inflation on the general cost of living has not.  The Labour government offset this with a number of welfare programs which were essentially tax-payer funded tax breaks for corporations, as they allowed them to keep their wages down below inflation levels.  As such, most first time buyers who are not stockbrokers have been virtually priced out of the market.

- the government created many, many (far too many) green zones where the building of houses was prohibited, and introduced a number of legal difficulties into trying to build more houses.  As a consequence the population is growing faster than the houses are being built and so house prices are rising due to the age old laws of supply and demand (within an artificially constrained market).

All of these represent far greater problems than under-occupancy.  But Monbiot was never really good with numbers, or economics.

[the last yatto]

"introduced a number of legal difficulties into trying to build more houses"
Vs
"only answer anyone is prepared to mention is more building: let the rich occupy as much space they wish, and solve the problem by dumping it on the environment,"

[Adios]

Its not just letting homeless into the homes,

Instead of paying rent, lodgers – who are vetted and checked by the charity that runs the project – help elderly homeowners with shopping, cleaning, cooking, gardening or driving.

Are you a Marxist?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

"introduced a number of legal difficulties into trying to build more houses"
Vs
"only answer anyone is prepared to mention is more building: let the rich occupy as much space they wish, and solve the problem by dumping it on the environment,"

False dilemma.

[The Ingenuous Hidalgo]

Instead of paying rent, lodgers – who are vetted and checked by the charity that runs the project

CRB checks for the homeless, yeah that's gonna work like gangbusters!

Monbiot is a douche. He probably thought that the window tax was a good idea and decided to update it for the 21st century.

If I take some non rent paying random homeless person in do I lose my 25% council tax reduction? At which point i'm on the breadline, stop paying the mortgage, lose my home and...end up living in someones 'spare' bedroom  

This appears to leave just one likely explanation: money. My guess, though I can find no research or figures either to support or disprove it, is that the richest third of the population has discovered that it can spread its wings. A report by the International Longevity Centre comes to the same conclusion: "Wealth ... is the key factor in whether or not we choose to occupy more housing space than is essential."

Monbiot shouldn't let a lack of facts get in the way of his dogma (and doesn't). Single occupant households are not always rich households. An ageing population leaves people in homes (asset rich) but often unemployed or retired (income poor). 

If you live by yourself, regardless of the size of your property, you get a 25% council tax discount. The rest of us, in other words, subsidise wealthy single people who want to keep their spare rooms empty.

Yeah, but Monbiot has no idea at all if these single occupiers are actually rich.

If he knew anything about housing (which he doesn't seem to at all) he would know that the supply of 1 bedroom accommodation is quite low. Most developments of housing or flats are 2 bedroom or more. Why? Because people want room to spare in case they have kids, or a spare room for visitors, and because building a 2 bed is more cost effective than building a 1 bed property.

[Cain]

At which point i'm on the breadline, stop paying the mortgage, lose my home and...end up living in someones 'spare' bedroom

Give it another 4 years under the coalition and you'll probably be there anyway.

All good points though.  I suspect Monbiot had a flash of "inspiration"/dumb when he wrote this, which would explain a lot, including the lack of more nuanced thinking on the subject.  I'd like to know the excuse for the editors t-oh, of course.

Goddamnit.

Clickthrough = views per page = more advertising.  It's the Melanie Phillips Gambit.  Say something outrageous and stupid, get tons of links and views, point out your increased site visits for the quarter and push up online advertising costs as a consequence.

I know some UK bloggers actually refuse to link to stories they are criticizing, especially in the Mail and Express, because of this particular problem.  And in many respects, the Guardian's CiF section is little better than either of those two sites.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Instead of paying rent, lodgers – who are vetted and checked by the charity that runs the project

CRB checks for the homeless, yeah that's gonna work like gangbusters!

Monbiot is a douche. He probably thought that the window tax was a good idea and decided to update it for the 21st century.

If I take some non rent paying random homeless person in do I lose my 25% council tax reduction? At which point i'm on the breadline, stop paying the mortgage, lose my home and...end up living in someones 'spare' bedroom  

This appears to leave just one likely explanation: money. My guess, though I can find no research or figures either to support or disprove it, is that the richest third of the population has discovered that it can spread its wings. A report by the International Longevity Centre comes to the same conclusion: "Wealth ... is the key factor in whether or not we choose to occupy more housing space than is essential."

Monbiot shouldn't let a lack of facts get in the way of his dogma (and doesn't). Single occupant households are not always rich households. An ageing population leaves people in homes (asset rich) but often unemployed or retired (income poor). 

If you live by yourself, regardless of the size of your property, you get a 25% council tax discount. The rest of us, in other words, subsidise wealthy single people who want to keep their spare rooms empty.

Yeah, but Monbiot has no idea at all if these single occupiers are actually rich.

If he knew anything about housing (which he doesn't seem to at all) he would know that the supply of 1 bedroom accommodation is quite low. Most developments of housing or flats are 2 bedroom or more. Why? Because people want room to spare in case they have kids, or a spare room for visitors, and because building a 2 bed is more cost effective than building a 1 bed property.

Who is this new guy I like him.

[the last yatto]

"introduced a number of legal difficulties into trying to build more houses"
Vs
"only answer anyone is prepared to mention is more building: let the rich occupy as much space they wish, and solve the problem by dumping it on the environment,"

False dilemma.

They say similar things, can you find the one that has bias

[the last yatto]

Its not just letting homeless into the homes,

Instead of paying rent, lodgers – who are vetted and checked by the charity that runs the project – help elderly homeowners with shopping, cleaning, cooking, gardening or driving.

Are you a Marxist?

Only on mondays (when I used to goto the meetings)

[BabylonHoruv]

At which point i'm on the breadline, stop paying the mortgage, lose my home and...end up living in someones 'spare' bedroom

Give it another 4 years under the coalition and you'll probably be there anyway.

All good points though.  I suspect Monbiot had a flash of "inspiration"/dumb when he wrote this, which would explain a lot, including the lack of more nuanced thinking on the subject.  I'd like to know the excuse for the editors t-oh, of course.

Goddamnit.

Clickthrough = views per page = more advertising.  It's the Melanie Phillips Gambit.  Say something outrageous and stupid, get tons of links and views, point out your increased site visits for the quarter and push up online advertising costs as a consequence.

I know some UK bloggers actually refuse to link to stories they are criticizing, especially in the Mail and Express, because of this particular problem.  And in many respects, the Guardian's CiF section is little better than either of those two sites.

So if i post something I vehemently disagree with I should quote extensively and not link?

[Cain]

Depending on where you post it.  The people I am talking about are major bloggers, within the top 100 in the UK for site traffic and so on.   Big hitters, in other words.  Here it probably isn't an issue, even if we go by the 90-9-1 rule of internet participation I cannot see it generating that much additional interest and so profit.