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?

Herocomplex why is spending money you have worked hard for selfish?

Hero. Think that’s the point though, it’s not selfish at all. There are numerous reasons why people have additional properties which has been explained over and over on here.

Some people just don’t want to accept that though because they’re too busy stewing on the fact that everything’s unfair because they don’t have the same. And obviously if you can’t have something then nobody else should be allowed it either...

It shouldn’t be a race to the bottom!

I think "each according to their need" would be... ridiculous. Everyone would breed as fast as possible from the age of puberty in order to bag a mansion.

Anyway, I do agree that foreign "parking" of money is wrong. Someone I know who lives in Croydon was saying that a block of apartments was built in his road, and the whole lot is dark as they were sold en masse to a foreign investor and no one lives there. Croydon!! I also read that it's not just London and environs that are targets for housing money: Edinburgh, Oxford, Cambridge, Bristol... all seen as great investments. And again no one lives in the properties.

The OP asked a question about the use of a resource, in this case property. Everyone in our society needs housing of some sort. At the moment because of the way the market works/is regulated that resource is not available to a large part of the population, and our society is changing as a result.
There are posters saying that it is in the hands of the individual to determine how their own lives turn out. The OP was pointing out that by using their economic power to make their own lives better the rest of society is suffering.
I’m finding it incredibly disheartening to read that people think because they’ve done well they deserve everything they have and sod the rest of you.

Hero. I don’t think sod the rest of you and I’m not sure I see anyone else saying that either. However, my priority is to provide for me and my family not for yours. Sorry if you don’t like that.

What you’re saying is because ‘I don’t have it, you can’t either’. I think that’s a pretty selfish view actually.

It's really not that simple.

Ok, so if every second home in the Lake District were confiscated - would those on housing waiting lists in London accept them? Would even people from the area want them? And what qualifies as local? Parents? Grandparents? Ten generations?

Herocomplex. I do not see any attitude on this thread in anyway similar to 'I have done well so sod the rest of you'. However I do see the attitude, 'I can not have so no one else can have either'.

Is buying property the only means to exercise economic power? How about employing people or using small businesses or donating to charity. Volunteering time to helping others get a foot on the ladder. Helping others to improve skills or education How about keeping the economy moving or helping others economically in different ways.

You are making huge assumptions about people because of their economic status. Do you make the same assumptions about people who are less well off? Do you assume that if wealthier people are selfish then less wealthier people are lazy?

Herocomplex

You've summed up what I have been trying to get at much better than I have!

I do feel depressed by a lot of the replies here- because I honestly didn't think that some people had such damning opinions of those less financially well off than them.

Hero, I could say that people who don't exercise and over eat are selfish because they are significantly more likely to require healthcare support, taking resources from people who need care through no doing of their own.

People who don't look after their health don't do it as a mean to reduce others access to healthcare. It's the same with people with second properties, they don't e d up in this position to despite those who need them but can't get them.

Dorset Your first and second sentences directly contradict each other.
I think you’ve misunderstood my point. People can have what they want, but they should acknowledge honestly how they got it, and that the system might just be unequal.
Personally I think people deserve affordable housing so that they can lead fulfilling happy lives, instead of the hopeless situations lots of people find themselves in through no fault of their own. It’s a question of political will and market forces being more in balance.

swingofthings you can say what you like but it wouldn’t necessarily be true.

Oh my god, no one’s talking about confiscating houses. And I wouldn’t dream of ascribing characteristics to people based on their economic status, that would be incredibly ignorant and reductionist.
You’ll be accusing me of class envy next.

probs I am not the OP but I do think there need to be carrots to encourage people to live in properties suitable for their circumstances. Why? Why shouldn't those 3 single ladies have a three bed house each if they've paid for them? We pay our mortgage off in October, and there will be the two of us (3 if ds hasn't got a job by then), in a large period, 4 bed detached that we bought in 92. It was our third rung on the property ladder. I have no intention of selling it to downsize, and will be able to use one of the bedrooms as a dressing room, and the attic room will become my sewing room. It would have to be a massive untaxed financial incentive to get me to sell and buy somewhere smaller. I don't see that your need for space decreases as you get older...dh will be retiring this year, and I need a big house to be able to sit somewhere else when he has the TV on for his endless box sets that I don't watch!

Jolonglegs Well of course it is. The point I'm trying to make is that whilst most people would agree that capitalism is probably the best way to organise a society, it has to be regulated to ensure fairness. Currently in this era of de-regulation it isn't fair.

Well, you're right that something is wrong with our system but it isn't that de-regulated. We have one of the most regulated rental property markets in Europe - Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, etc just don't have HMO licenses, private landlord registration, deposit protection schemes, etc.. But the social sector is very unregulated in contrast.

What we have is a corrupt system that unfairly penalises and fails to reward hard work. Hence we have people who want to stay in their home town and work hard unable to do so, because the jobs aren't there - the jobs are usually part-time and poorly paid, or full-time and skilled, but moderately paid. So theres little real incentive to work hard. Those who do work hard and who are willing to travel for work are then made the target or ire for wanting to do the normal thing and enjoy the fruits of their labour.

But the heavily regulated housebuilding market is rigged by government so as to favour low competition between large housebuilders and extremely high build costs, including the planning process. Individuals who self -build (usually about a third cheaper) are penalised by unfairly high build plot prices, and additional planning costs such as being made to make contributions of a few thousand to the local council, or ridiculously inflexible landscaping costs.

We don't have politicians or indeed anyone with vision to actually prioritise changing the planning system to something that works (ensuring basic infrastructure is in place before permitting development would be a start too).

Focussing on ordinary people doing things like buying holiday homes is taking the focus away from the real problems.

Hero not contradicted myself at all. You’re calling other selfish because they’re ‘taking’ more than they need. You fail to recognise that it’s not being taken it’s being

I totally agree that people should have access to affordable housing, after all I work in it 😊. That’s not what’s being debated here.

And I don’t see anyone not being honest about how they obtained additional properties. On the contrary, posters have been very honest with that information, including me.

Life isn’t always equal and whilst we can continue to address that, taking away something that rightfully belongs to someone for no reason other than because you don’t have it doesn’t change the underlying issues.

you can say what you like but it wouldn’t necessarily be true
Which part is according to you not true?

Taking more than you need is the definition of selfish isn’t it?

So all people who overeat, ie. Take on more calories than they need are selfish too? Those who have children, because they don't need them, people who buy two coats because they only need one?

Your definition of selfishness doesn't make sense.

It's certainly much easier for the kid who gets a deposit for a flat from mum and dad with a low mortgage payment, then the kid who has to pay 60%+ of their monthly income on rent

But it isn’t that which has changed, is it? I am nearing 50 and I know that I struggled to buy property but had friends who were supported to do so by parents. I have always worked hard but been very averagely paid, despite a degree and a Masters. I went through some very lean years when I divorced. Inheritance is what has made my life easier financially and I really won’t apologise for that, nor will I just give away my parent’s home because other’s haven’t had that ‘luck’.

I can see it’s not necessarily fair, but I’ve had more than my fair share of difficulties in life and I frankly deserve no longer not to have to worry where the next meal might be coming from. What is it you think someone in my position should do?

Hero. Again you’re missing the key point, nobody’s ‘taking’ anything. They, or someone on their family, has worked bloody hard and paid for it.

You can’t afford one house and so are jealous about people affording 2. That’s what it really is isn’t it OP? Spend less energy envious of other people’s lives and more energy on your own

Herocomplex 'I would not dream of ascribing characteristics to people based on their economic status'

I think that you already have! Herocomplex 'they should acknowledge honestly how they attained it'

Because a person has more than you it means they are not being honest?

swing you offered an opinion on the impact of personal lifestyle choice on healthcare provision, and ventured that people who did it were not acting deliberately.
That’s your view, not a fact. It may well be true. But you were offering it as an example of behaviour which was comparative to buying a second property, that people don’t do it to deprive other people. So you were saying that it’s ok to act in your own self interest because it’s your choice, even if the impact wasn’t apparent to you as an individual.

We have a second home that we use for half of the week. Just like @makingmyway10 we contribute to the community, pay council tax, use local tradesmen and women, local shops etc. There is no way we would apologise or feel bad for working hard for what we have. We both grew up in very poor families and didn't go to public schools or anything like that. Neither of us had a privileged upbringing. The second home is near to where my husband grew up and he had to move away to go to Uni, find a job and work his way up before we could afford to buy our home there. I completely agree with @Dorsetdays when you said about it being priority to provide for your own family, not everyone else's. That's us too and we're not sorry for giving our family all that we can after many years of hard work to earn it.

What Annabk said. You can’t measure everyone with the same yardstick...