That's certainly the preferable solution, I guess it's worth asking if it would work out that way.

So for example, I own 100 houses and I earn £100 per month for each one. (Values for purposes of illustration only!)

Let's assume 10% are empty at one time.

With an income of £9,000 per month I'm paying 20% tax on that, £1800.

Up that tax to £2000 under this scheme, costing me £200 per month.

so do I drop rents by £5 per building which is going to mean my income changes to £9500 minus £1900 tax for a net earnings of £7600

Or do I increase rents by £5 and keep running with 10% empty buildings? Earnings are now £9450 with a tax bill of £2100. Net earnings of £7350 while holding onto hope that I could rent out some of those other empty buildings?

Put simply, if I'm the kind of person who owns a 100 buildings do you imagine my instinctive response is going to be to cut prices or to pass on my costs to tenants?