In many of London's more upscale boroughs, such as Westminster, there are council tax penalties which apply to properties that are unoccupied for more than 2 years:
2-5 Years - 100% Premium
5-10 Years - 200% Premium
10 Years + - 300% Premium
Of course, even paying 4X council tax is nothing if you're a billionaire oligarch.
Though council tax rarely aligns with desirability or average property price of a borough. Funny you picked Westminster for the example, the one with the cheapest council tax of all.
Tell me about it. Currently paying way more council tax on a way crappier flat in Tower Hamlets (one of London's poorest boroughs) than we used to pay on a beautiful house in Hammersmith and Fulham (one of London's richest...)
> Of course, even paying 4X council tax is nothing if you're a billionaire oligarch.
True, I was imagining (though I see I never actually said this) a situation though where money raised through these properties would go to making other housing cheaper. I'm not an expert in these matters, but it seems to me like using it for rent subsidies might be the way to do it.
Even in this case, it would still probably have to be much bigger penalties than in the current case of London that you mention, to actually make a significant difference to the perpetual housing crisis. Luckily, I am perfectly at ease with the notion of much bigger penalties.
If there are enough of these, if they actually pay the tax and if there is a will to do something within a given council - this in theory could help finance newbuild council houses. So it might not work as a deterrent, but could indirectly help those in need anyway. I don't know whether any of those conditions are true, or if the amount the greater taxes bring in would could even cover the cost of building any.
