To think that owning a second home to use as a holiday home is extremely selfish?

[benadrylcucumberpatch]

It would be a different story if there was a surplus of vacant properties . As it stands holiday home owners turn communities into ghost towns, inflate prices in desirable areas (many of which are rural with low wages) and displace people who would live in the property full time.

Aibu to think this is selfish and reprehensible? Why are such people not villified for taking more than they need in such an extreme way?

It’s not the responsibility of individuals to ensure there is adequate housing stock. Holiday homes are rarely sensibly priced, affordable family homes, and the impact of holiday homes on overall housing stock is minimal.

Direct your ire at the people who are actually responsible for it - successful governments which have completely failed to keep up the demand for new housing.

Your aunt will become a burden to the state with no offspring to pay taxes to support her

Let's not go down the route of calling childless women 'burdens to the state'...

Ohbehave. You’re assuming that those seven DC will all be employed and pay tax, likelihood is that some of them may well not.

You’re also forgetting that the aunt may well have paid tax herself and therefore has already put into the system before becoming reliant on it in in later life or has made provision for care costs etc herself.

I think basic maths would suggest that raising 7 children and thereby using services such as NHS, education, child benefit etc will over a lifetime equate to more being taken out of the system than one single person.

I am very uncomfortable with attitudes like yours OP because while your concerns are fine in theory, the implementation of them is unworkable and somewhat unpleasant.

On all of these threads there’s an attitude simmering away, and in other posts on this thread it had come out overtly, that ‘non locals’ are not welcome, be they from Bangladesh or Brighton.

Talk of ‘our young’ needing houses in the area they were born in sounds a bit insidious.

I think some want people to stay static in their communities, born in one place and working and living there 40 years later.

If you’d said you wanted to ban second home ownership then fine but that’s not what you want. You just don’t want outsiders coming in.

Your aunt will become a burden to the state with no offspring to pay taxes to support her. Your other Aunt has produced 7 taxpayers. Who has been more selfish.....

What a very stupid question. The mother of 7 has been more selfish. Obviously.

I live in an area where lots of people have holiday homes. I rent privately and know I’d never be able to afford to buy here, even though I work here and my dd goes to school here, The average price of houses is €650,000.

I don’t behrudge people with holiday homes though. If I could afford it I would do it.

If you can afford it why not? What are you supposed to do ? Have a law on what people earn or on what they spend it on.
Many people have holiday homes abroad or caravans/mobile homes at seaside resorts and does that count?
Do i envy any of them ? No

If I told you I owned a holiday home in Cornwall plus one in Mallorca, both of which we rented out when we were not there as well as 2 rental properties in addition to our family home, what would you say we should do with them? If I told you that we worked hard to afford them and now are enjoying the fruits of our labour, why is it so wrong? Would you think I should sell up or maybe give them away? Genuinely don’t understand what the problem is. I’m sad that people can’t afford to get on the property ladder but perhaps the answer is to build more properties not dictate how people spend their own money.

If you can afford it why not? What are you supposed to do ? Have a law on what people earn or on what they spend it on.

Judging by the views of some on this thread, presumably you are meant to either spend your income on an over-priced local hotel, or perhaps spend it on over-priced crafty works produced by a local who doesn't want the hassle of moving for paid employment.

The Soviet Union did a particularly nice line in state-run hotels.

The Soviet Union did a particularly nice line in state-run hotels.

You do a nice line in hyperbole.

Deep breaths and calm down.

Floopers Deep breaths and calm down.

Are you the David Cameron of Mumsnet?

If you’d said you wanted to ban second home ownership then fine but that’s not what you want. You just don’t want outsiders coming in.

I really don't see how you have reached this conclusion, it is second home owners who leave homes vacant much of the time, not outsiders. If someone will be living in the house no problem wherever they are from.

The issue will only get worse.

Similar thread running recently.

Successive government legislation to stop btl landlords have resulted in less housing stock for longer term rentals but not the influx of housing coming to the market.

A lot of 2nd home owners have swapped from being a btl landlords to renting the property as a holiday let. They can then put any income against their mortgage interest .

Money up front and even charging the guests for cleaning fees.

*Judging by the views of some on this thread, presumably you are meant to either spend your income on an over-priced local hotel, or perhaps spend it on over-priced crafty works produced by a local who doesn't want the hassle of moving for paid employment.

The Soviet Union did a particularly nice line in state-run hotels.*

Wow you sound awful.. looking down your nose at the residents of places you visit and

Wow you sound awful

looking down your nose

Pot, kettle.

You, however, sound lovely, with your attempted demonising of anyone who disagrees with your politics.

Hardly demonising

Just waiting for anyone to make an argument that can sensibly defend purchasing a scarce resource that they do not need or intend to fully use

Not sure how I feel about this - I'm very surprised at how many homes in my street are owned by second home owners as whilst in a 'desirable-ish' area, it's the cheapest area of my little 'not quite' town.

The plus sides for me, selfishly, is that the second home on one side of me is empty most of the time so not only are they quiet (even when they are here) I don't have to worry about being too noisy for them most of the time. Parking (permit only) can be tricky enough most times - it would be worse if all the second homes were permanently used. They are really nice people (at least when they are here).

Downsides - as I said, this is the cheapest area of little SW Town - just about affordable for FTBs, etc - I'm sure my 'not the best street' isn't the only place that's selling to 2nd Homers - I certainly can't afford the other streets, so prices are being pushed up, not by local demand, but overall demand, fuelled by money that can't be earned locally.

Funny. The locals never complained when they were selling their homes to outsiders and second home owners and making a tidy profit.

Now the younger generation can’t get a house in the village it’s terrible. Cry me a river.

Benadryl cucumber patch:

I reached that conclusion because you didn’t say you wanted to ban second home ownership. Lots of threads on here and the internet generally arguing nobody should be allowed to own more than one home. I don’t agree but that’s defensible and I would take their point.

What you want is to ban non-locals from owning second homes. You don’t (and you haven’t said) you want to ban your life-long neighbour who was born and raised locally from running a BnB or owning an air b n b.

So what you want in practice is for people to be afforded economic opportunities based on where they were born.

A child born in Middlesbrough could grow up to be a millionaire but will probably have no use for an air b n b portfolio in his home town.

He could invest the proceeds of his hard work in a couple of holiday cottages in Cornwall but you would say he shouldn’t be allowed, as an outsider. Only locals get to buy houses where you live.

And by houses I mean holiday homes (in this context)

Our second home is old, has no mains water, gas or mobile signal, no public access road, it’s nearest ‘neighbours’ have been derelict and roofless for at least 40 years, there is no passing traffic, no public transport, we are surrounded by unfenced livestock, the house is popular with passing rodent guests on a chilly night and the nearest supermarket is at least 40 mins by car. In the winter, everything freezes. I’ve no idea where the nearest GP/school is. We pay council tax on it and paid stamp duty to buy it. We are blessed to own it, but as a pp said, some rural second homes are just not suitable for day-to-day family living.

Figment it sounds wonderful, such homes are well beyond the price of most locals in my area, and as you say, most people that need to work locally to pay their mortgage (day-to-day living) wouldn't be able to do so on the price of your property plus the costs of bringing in basic services to make it amenable to a family with kids who need the (now essential) basic services (eg: Internet for school/college work).

Even the basic crumbled farm buildings are going for a big amount now (Q Planning designation) so the likes of me have to live in the cheapest street, in little 'not quite' town, without the birds that fly for free, the views and fresh air that [were] free too. I never felt 'poor' when I lived like that. Lucky you - you should live there all the time and make it your first home.

You can't stop people from making what economists call a mutually beneficial transaction. The property seller wants the money more than they want the house, and the opposite for the buyer. The seller isn't going to care if the buyer is local or not. Families in the area who already own homes benefit from the transaction as well. The only practical curb on the practice would be adding a special tax on holiday homes, which creates a different set of problems, winners and losers.

Shaming people for buying and selling as they please isn't going to help anyone.

Tell me @Ohbehave1 in your view are the disabled, the unemployed, the mentally ill and SAHPs also ‘burdens on the state’ or is it only working adults paying tax but who have no dependants that are a drain on society?

Please do elaborate.