Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Squatting is to become a criminal offence: do you think it should? POLL watch

  • View Poll Results: Should squatting become a criminal offence?
    Yes, with a custodial sentence
    48.96%
    Yes, with a fine or other punishment excluding a custodial sentence
    30.90%
    Only in certain circumstances - please state
    10.07%
    Not at all
    10.07%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ivor)
    There is no council tax on unoccupied homes in most areas. People are keeping these homes for financial gain, i dont know about anyone else but im not likely to porfit on my unused possesions such as pens and pencils.

    Companies have to pay tax on the value of its stock at the end of the year because its being used to make money, why should an individual be any different?
    if the house has an owner then yeh they still pay council tax, my parents rent out houses and dealt with this when they first started.
    and theres nothing wrong with keeping a bit of land or house for financial gain, its their property, their choice! Stock is different because it does not belong to one private individual, but to a corperate business
    a lot of people keep stamps/coins/jewlery etc to make money, wanna tax them too?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Overal I agree with Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke actions on this, it is not right that someone should have there house pretty much stolen from whoever owns the house.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seasick Steve)
    Normally I would advocate prison, but there's no point. Our prisons are too overcrowded and most of the squatters are illegal immigrants anyway. A deportation order, or a heavy fine in compensation, should be enough.
    Lol dumbest suggestion yet?

    No one knows where the illegals are from - where are you going to send them with your 'deportation order'?

    And a fine - do you think squatters have money they declare to the Inland Revenue?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f00ddude)
    if the house has an owner then yeh they still pay council tax, my parents rent out houses and dealt with this when they first started.
    and theres nothing wrong with keeping a bit of land or house for financial gain, its their property, their choice! Stock is different because it does not belong to one private individual, but to a corperate business
    a lot of people keep stamps/coins/jewlery etc to make money, wanna tax them too?
    They are taxed upon sale anyway... The government doesn't miss a trick.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    They are taxed upon sale anyway... The government doesn't miss a trick.
    not really what we're talking about, the other guy wants to tax people on unoccupied houses in order to try and make them rent them out/sell them
    the stamp duty is a one off fee that everyone pays and is based on the houses value not status of occupancy
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f00ddude)
    not really what we're talking about, the other guy wants to tax people on unoccupied houses in order to try and make them rent them out/sell them
    the stamp duty is a one off fee that everyone pays and is based on the houses value not status of occupancy
    I know. My point was just that people are already taxed enough on that property. Why they don't want to rent it is beyond me, especially in the nicest parts of London. Rental yields are like 5%+ p/a.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    If somebody is in your house then the police should be able to throw them out straight away, without any court orders.
    These squatters are really taking advantage of our laws.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJkG.1)
    Lol dumbest suggestion yet?

    No one knows where the illegals are from - where are you going to send them with your 'deportation order'?

    And a fine - do you think squatters have money they declare to the Inland Revenue?
    The same way Customs deport any illegals that are found in the back of vans at Dover or in some warehouse in the country.

    As for the fine, even squatters have some tangible assets that can be recliamed by the state. If not, community service would help benefit the community, whilst keeping prison spaces for violent offenders.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by W.H.T)
    Thats quite a naive way of thinking about this. The fact that those people don't own the house and for most cases they will not be have to face any consequences from how they treat the property, means that they aren't likely to take as much care to the house as if it was their own.
    From what I've seen of suatters they tend to make uber-effort to take care of the building; of course squatters have their reputation to consider.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I dont see how the **** it was legal to begin with!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    if someone did that to my house we'd get the shotguns out and charge them out of our house!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seasick Steve)
    The same way Customs deport any illegals that are found in the back of vans at Dover or in some warehouse in the country.
    The reasons we have illegals in the UK is because they declare themselves here - without ID and claiming to be from Afghanistan. Customs can only deport illegals when they know where they are from.

    If you walk into a derelict building full of illegals - with no idea where they are from - they aren't going anywhere!

    As for the fine, even squatters have some tangible assets that can be recliamed by the state. If not, community service would help benefit the community, whilst keeping prison spaces for violent offenders.
    I don't mean to put you down bro but that would cost so much more than the value of the assets which would be legally recoverable. Community service might work...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    I know it is, and I think it is wrong. This is my original point. A society shouldn't allow some people to be homeless and others to own more than one property. It doesn't seem right. Sometimes it's not about choosing to follow the rules or not; it is impossible for some people to follow society's norms once in a certain position. I understand that most squatters aren't doing it out of desperation, but I advocate squatting for political purposes too. Anything that draws attention to the huge inequalities in society is good.



    Actually, they're not living there illegally. It's not currently a criminal offence, but there is talk of making it one, which is what this thread is about. It's not so easy for people to just 'get a job'. If they have no qualifications, no experience, have been in prison etc. they're going to find it very difficult. A lot of people with more than one property have inherited it. Why is one person more deserving than another?
    I did mispeak, and I apologize. Many of them are there illegally and many of them aren't.

    You talked about huge social inequalities. Yes. That will happen in ANY society. One person may not be more deserving than another, but people are definitely not equal (in an ability or intellectual sense). This inequality will always serve to separate classes in a society, and some will always have more than others. Sure, it doesn't seem right that society lets some people go homeless. I agree, it's bad. But that's how the world is. Take away individuality and the drive to succeed, and then it might change, but until then, sorry :/.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f00ddude)
    if the house has an owner then yeh they still pay council tax, my parents rent out houses and dealt with this when they first started.
    and theres nothing wrong with keeping a bit of land or house for financial gain, its their property, their choice! Stock is different because it does not belong to one private individual, but to a corperate business
    a lot of people keep stamps/coins/jewlery etc to make money, wanna tax them too?
    There's a potentially infinite amount of stamps, coins, jewellery et al to go around, and more is being created all the time which will eventually accrue in value.

    But land is finite, particularly in the UK. It is not a commodity that should be cheaply bought and sold for a profit, but a valuable resource that we must make the best of. Allowing private individuals to own huge swathes of land simply to turn a profit seems ludicrous to me - we have better uses for it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by W.H.T)
    So your argument is one of necessity, that surplus or 'unused' resource should be utilised even if this is at the expense of an individual's right to their own property. With that logic, you could similarly say that people should have their savings taken away and given to the poorest of the population who can't afford basic essentials, because many people have savings that are untouched well over 10 years :rolleyes:
    The difference is that squatters don't acquire rights in the property unless the owner does nothing about it for 10 years and then ignores a letter of notice. As soon as the owner wants to vindicate their rights they can do so by court order. If the house is literally sitting there untouched for many years then the owner isn't losing anything by the squatters being there.

    The state of the law as it is exists is to discourage people from not bothering to rent out their rooms or hire an agency to do basic maintenance like dusting and cleaning every month, which would allow them to make sure there are no squatters. When properties are going to waste because the owners (like Gadaffhi's son) have hundreds around the world and don't care about it it drives up prices for people who actually want to buy houses (like myself) but are priced out.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    No otherwise all these stupid lazy c***s will get a free council house and cost the government more of the tax payers money ffs
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Under Labour we saw huge huge increases in the amounts being spent on the poor in an attempt at equality... and what do we have? Even more inequality. I am as susceptible to anyone of the 'won't somebody please think of the children argument', but I am also susceptible to the argument that having these people as parents is just as damaging if not more damaging as being poor. Even if you had 1 social worker to 3 poor children on council estates, and made every school into a Jamie Oliver style dream school (which would cost nigh on 1000% of our economy), there would still be the same persistent social problems that we face. The only option, then, is to reduce the burden that these people pose on the working, because taking money out of their pocket to subsidise the feckless is clearly resulting in swelling numbers of the feckless and dwindling numbers of the hard working.

    I know these people who only have access to the 'bad' jobs. They sat next to me in class. They were told thousands of times that if they continued down the route they were taking they would end up in this position. They didn't just get out of bed one morning and find themselves in this situation. They were also taught by everyone around them to use contraception properly, but still over 1/5 of all girls in my year got pregnant and dropped out of school. They couldn't have been given more opportunities. Furthermore you also seem to forget that we need these people in our economy. Presumably you don't take your own rubbish to the dump? Or scan your own items in when you go to the cornershop? Or pour your own drinks when you go out at night? Or sew your own clothes? The travesty is that people like yourself repeatedly tell those on the lowest rungs (who are there through mostly their own fault) deserve more for less. These jobs need doing.
    It is clearly a social problem when the class system repeats itself again and again. There is nothing innately inferior about working class people - to a large extent you can buy success in this country. I bet if you took a reception class (or whatever they call them these days) on their first day of school, you could tell who was going to have 'success' as society defines it, and who would fail. The education system is based on middle class norms and values and people who don't fit into that suffer as a result.

    I know we need people to do lower status jobs in society, but it shouldn't be people from the same background and the same families generation after generation. In an equal society, someone whose parents were doctors could become a factory, rather than someone's parents were factory workers becoming factory workers. This can happen now, but in the majority of cases we'll stay in the same economic group as our parents.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It's pretty obvious this law is being brought in for the large number of people who are going to have their homes repossessed over the next couple of years.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    There's a potentially infinite amount of stamps, coins, jewellery et al to go around, and more is being created all the time which will eventually accrue in value.

    But land is finite, particularly in the UK. It is not a commodity that should be cheaply bought and sold for a profit, but a valuable resource that we must make the best of. Allowing private individuals to own huge swathes of land simply to turn a profit seems ludicrous to me - we have better uses for it.
    gold is not infinite especially say roman coins and trinkets
    and i think before you get to the taxation stage there are so many other ways you can do it
    for example, you can't tax people more on their land whilst the government still owns its own empty land! this land may be in the middle of nowhere but acording to you land is land in the same way stamps are stamps and gold is gold
    taxing empty properties more is just a stupid idea
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    I know. My point was just that people are already taxed enough on that property. Why they don't want to rent it is beyond me, especially in the nicest parts of London. Rental yields are like 5%+ p/a.
    holiday homes and so on? renovation (biggest squatter problem) or they only live there half a year
    my parents retirement plan is living in the UK for 6months a year in summer then New Zealand for the other 6months whilst its summer over there, its way too much hassle renting a house out for 6months a year so they will always have one house thats not being used.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.