@dave @moffintosh @Flamer @zero that's not even the biggest issue. Socialists like to look at the numbers and treat them as if you can just move some numbers from one side to the other. No matter if it's food worldwide, money or homes.

In the case of homes, the problem is two-fold:
1. These statistics like to pretend like those vacant properties are in city centers etc while usually they're in places where nobody wants to buy them. They're not vacant because an eeeevil landlord is keeping them vacant, they're vacant because they're in bumfuck nowhere with no job opportunities where even a homeless beggar wouldn't want to live because it would cost him more to commute to good begging spots than he earns from begging.
2. Most of the people who don't own a home wouldn't be able to buy one anyway even if landlords weren't a thing, so instead of renting they'd have to live with their family or be homeless, like it was previously to the home renting boom. So usually socialists also combine it with some program of "redistribution" or magical state-funded building programs which besides stealing others' property, wasting others' money or both result in awful shitty ghettos that give you depression just by looking at them, filled with drunks, druggies and overall scum where living is hell and as a bonus living anywhere in their vicinity is hell. We've been through that in Eastern Europe, that way lies madness. It's all fun and games to whine about giving homes to homeless people, not so much when your state-allocated neighbour is an unhinged aggressive drunk whose apartament doubles as a cockroach breeding centre, and you can't allow your daughter to go to school by herself until she's 18 and has pepper spray handy.