This policy could use another look at its effects.
The first point I want to mention is that it currently affects socialism. This is out of place, as adjusting the price of something without the government directly providing anything is actually much more of a capitalist approach than a socialist one. Regarding the goal of ensuring people have a place to live, rent controls and state housing are much more socialist approaches because they involve the state either directly providing something, or regulating what price may be charged. An empty homes tax is intentionally punitive to people who are using housing as anything other than a place to live, but only severs as a means to return these homes to the market supply. From there, this policy is dependent on the law of supply and demand to bring housing prices back down, and still requires people to purchase homes with their own money. All up, this is a capitalist approach to a socialist goal, therefore any success on its part should not lead people to become more socialist.
Other than that, it should improve equality and reduce the generational wealth gap. This is because the people most affected by high housing prices are those trying to buy in, who are generally younger.
I would also dispute the retired disliking this policy, as who dislikes it has more to do with who is wealthy enough to be buying homes as an alternative to stock trading. Many retired do not have enough wealth to purchase a second home to leave empty, therefore they wouldn’t object to this tax. Objections are more related to wealth than age. With this in mind, I would remove the retired opinion penalty, and tip it into wealthy objection. They frankly don’t object enough.