Council Tax concessions on second homes

[LornMowa]

AIBU to think that discounts on Council Tax should have been one of the first things to go. Surely, when many people can't afford even one home, then those people who are demonstrating that they have surplus income (by owning a holiday home) should pay full wack for their council tax on that second home.

Seewww.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lib-dems-plotting-council-tax-hike-for-second-homes-2145638.htmlthis

Yes definately.

Ihave always wondered what benefit there is in half empty homes with no local workers in.

Sorry the link doesn't work, try:

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lib-dems-plotting-council-tax-hike-for-second-homes-2145638.html

I live in West Cornwall and the issue of home ownership is one thing guaranteed to make me howl with rage! The primary reason there are so many people who cannot afford houses down here e.g. me and DH is because there are so many people who think they are too good to simply rent a house for their holidays like mere mortals. Everything possible should be being done to discourage it, but this is primarily a Tory government, so it won't be.

Completely agree -I grew up in the Highlands and it is a real problem. Second home owners will claim they are adding to the local economy but most of them seem to load their car with a supermarket shop before leaving their first home and spend very little when they get there.

I think that council tax discounts for second homes can be a good idea.

Where I live the discount for a second home is 10%. So people pay 90% of the council tax, but are in effect guaranteeing the council that they wont be using the services that they would be entitled to if the home was their main residence (eg education, social work/social care). I think that for the council this is probably cost effective.

I don't think CTAX discounts per se should go. I think you'd need to look very carefully at which ones went.

eviscerate - probably not if you look at it in the round. They may not be using social services (although lots of people retire to their second homes so they may well in time) but they are also damaging local economies and communities. For starters, you lose young people who have to move away due to high housing costs and lack of affordable accommodation.

And if someone can afford a second home, they can definitely afford full council tax.

Plenty of people retire to their second home and older people do use a lot of services. Then the local school goes.

If they retire to the second home they wont be eligible for the discount any more.

I have never understood why second homes get a discount. The concession should go. Or, better still, charge them a premium.

If the discount goes then what is to stop people registering for services in both areas - charging more probably wouldnt work either as people in a couple would just put one house in each name.

I have always thought that the strategy in my area was pretty clever - for a discount that will work out typically at ~£150/year they are then guaranteeing that these people will pay 90% of council tax, yet not have any entitlement to the bulk of council services.

You are definitely NBU. I'm from somewhere near Ariesgirl by the sound of it, and like her I can't even imagine being able to buy a house near my family.

Dead right that many second home owners will stock up on Waitrose stuff before they go away for the weekend, because they only have frightful Tesco at their destination. They might pick up a darling little pot of chutney or something while they're there but that's not exactly propping up the local economy.

If second home owners cared as much as they claim to for the places they have their second homes, they would pay the full council tax gladly, for the benefit of the community. Especially given that many do hope to retire to that community - you would think they would want to ensure there was still a community left there when they retired.

And for the record, second home owners' absence for most of the year does not save the council money. It actually damages local communities by creating e.g. streets with no occupants, no lights on at night, schools closing because the families with kids have had to move away, bus services being reduced because the second home owners are not going to catch the bus in a million years etc.

Maybe it does depend on the type of second home too - for example I know someone who lives in their second home for about 1/3 of the year (and I think spends a lot of money locally when there), and someone else who has a flat that they use for maybe 1-2 weeks a year - the effect on the local community of the two will be different.

IMO second homes should pay a premium.

Second home owners in my family all agree with that too. It's just yet another sop to the wealthy.

Are wealthy people more likely to vote conservative? I have noticed amongst family and friends that voting preference is more related to other things than wealth.

There must be some stats somewhere

I think so (on the wealth thing) - in general yes.

Look at the Tory strong holds - them look where Labour strongholds are.

Tory=Rich
Labour=poor

(obviously within those areas there will be those that don't fit into that) - but I think there must be a general trend towards it.

NBU - I agree that second homes should pay a premium. But I also feel that there should be a register of second homes ( in the manner of planning permissions for types of business) in an area, and once 10% of the local housing stock are 2nd homes no more are to be permitted. (With ENORMOUS fines / transferal of the property to local council control like powers for empty homes) for those who do not comply still buy in an area.
(I realise this is probleably slightly extreme but the impact it has on this area is extreme too!)

those that say they don't use local services, around here south hams, south devon school face closure as the numbers are too low to remain viable as a result of the large % of second homes, limiting the availability of housing for families. Likewise local bus services- not using a service actually has a far from beneficial effect!

"Second homes" are a big issue here. What used to be cottages lived in by ordinary folk - farmers, shop workers and the suchlike - are now astronomically priced and often empty most of the time. Younger people are struggling to stay in their own area. This has a knock-on effect for families and support networks, which I'm sure costs something in social care and health somewhere down the line.

The tax relief should absolutely go. I can't see it happening though. The planned housing benefit cap will drive lower-income people further out of rural areas, and make countryside living the preserve of the rich. The coutryside has always had a diversity of people, and it will be a shame to lose that.

Doris, I fully agree with you about quotas, as well.

most of the things listed as negatives happen in areas like mine and are nothing to do with second home ownership, and plenty to do with an ageing population, fewer people per occupied house, and no new housing stock being built in the area (so high prices, schools closing, a decline in population)

there is also some difficulty in defining 'second home' and 'holiday rental' - holiday rentals bring in lots of cash.

elephants the things you list save the council money - not having to light streets or run subsidised bus services does save cash.

YANBU
no point repeating what others have said but it makes my lefty heart bleed for rural communities.