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?

I did 60+ hours a week for years and years in hospitality. Thanks to that I could afford a house in not particularly desirable postcode, but lovely part of it 🤷 Plus I studied qnd continue to do so while working. Still not where I want to be, few more years to go, but doing that enabled me to buy, hence have much smaller monthly outgoings so now I can afford holidays and some treats.
You can't possibly expect to do 40 hours a week, no extra hours qnd no extra education and skill development in your own time and have same living standard like people who do all that.

Transform. But you’ve answered your own question in a way, you could earn more money by moving companies. What is it that’s stopping you doing that?

I will do after maternity leave and have done several times already. The downside is having a few pensions with different companies and not much in them. Also lots of companies on my CV.

I can’t work weekends anymore due to no childcare as my DH works weekends. We will already be juggling working hours in the week to need less hours at nursery.

OP - if you are going to respond to me directly, can you try and demonstrate a little bit better education than you have done thus far and refrain from insults and swearing?

I concede I shouldn't have sworn, but it was through utter frustration at you repeatedly misinterpreting everything I have said and twisting it's meaning and derailing any sensible discussion by going off on unrelated tangents.

Incandescent. Think you’ve misread my post! I was responding to a post where I was accused of being selfish as I own more than one property and was told it’s ‘morally wrong’ because I’m depriving people of shelter. Simply pointing out that based on that argument it must be the same for anyone who has a spare room they don’t give up for someone who’s homeless.

Benadryl. I work part time because, funnily enough, I’ve done my share of working 70+ hrs a week, 7 days a week which is why I’m now in a position to reduce my hours. I’ll also be retiring before 55 because I’ve made sure I can 😊

You can't possibly expect to do 40 hours a week, no extra hours qnd no extra education and skill development in your own time and have same living standard like people who do all that.

Working full time should enable you to be able to fulfill your needs and have a stake in society though. You won't be able to buy a house but it should afford you the ability to have suitable accomadation and enough money leftover to feed yourself and your children and feel you have a stake in society.

There are a multitude of reasons someone might be unable to work extra jobs, such as health problems, lack of access to childcare, disabilities, poor transport acess, caring for I'll or elderly relatives, lack of employment opportunities in the locality. Should such people be sentenced to a life of barely scraping by despite working hard and contributing to society within their limitations, when swathes of higher earners live lives of luxury? Should it not be more equal?

Shelter is absolutely a human need. It is a national disgrace that one of the G20 cares so little for the most vulnerable and we have people turned away from night shelters. It’s disgraceful that families are living in single rooms on dodgy hotels. It’s why I am happy to pay higher rate taxes to improve provision.
I’m not sure that equates with everyone who wants it being given, for free, a four bedroom semi in their home village.
There’s a balance and the problem is less about holiday homes than demand. There is increased demand because there are far more single parent families and more broken families plus people are living longer and property isn’t released back onto the market. That means more homes are wanted and usually those homes are at the cheaper end so not what builders are creating because they aren’t as profitable.
The country voted in Tories who have a political objection to societal support and who feel ownership and personal responsibility is the only way. People voted for lower taxation which means less money to support those in need. You can’t have everything.

Working constant overtime while it could get you that deposit, it could also send you to an early grave...

Not sure why we should encourage a race to the bottom? Surely all humans deserve a decent quality of life, that can't be a controversial thought, really?

Decent? Yes. Same? No.
Again though depends on what is considered "decent".
Accomodation which will not make you ill? Absolutely. Having enough to buy yourself food? Absolutely.
Imho a decent accomodation can be a nice quality shared house. For someone else that's not considered decent.

And on what basis do you disgree with the statement that shelter is a basic human need?

I'm saying we move on from that and have a more complex discussion. It is indeed a statement that cannot be disagreed with, but it does not justify attacking holiday home owners, or trying to guilt trip people who pay taxes and have holiday homes. There is much more complex reasoning involved.

I'm afraid I don't actually believe some of the people on here who claim to be so morally beyond question that it permits them to insult others who don't take the same stance on social media. Any person who has renovated a property and returned it to the general housing stock has done something far more useful than attacking second home owners on social media does.

Part of the problem is the way the planning system in this country operates. It is non-competitive, because it encourages large housebuilders to bank land and to build swathes of new build houses, rather than encouraging people with tax incentives to renovate older properties which are more affordable. Self build is expensive and relatively rare in this country because of this. In other European countries, people often form small co-operative where they can share skills to build their own small development, and there are tax advantages for that too. Local authorities asking for financial contributions from individuals building their own family home is ridiculously disproportionate compared to the national developer asked to build a small sports centre without a swimming pool to offset hundreds of houses on a new estate. Basic infrastructure is often lacking here too, despite the zoning system. If houses in villages are being bought up by second home owners, perhaps we should be asking why and moving on from vilifying them with all the sorts of inventive measures that other countries employ. Big developers often incentives and people become unaccustomed to doing DIY and expect their first home to be a brand new shiny 3 bed detached with garage.

And Benadryl there is absolutely no excuse for speaking to me as abusively as you did. No excuse whatsoever. I do question how you were brought up if you believe that sort of language is acceptable. You do seem to have a problem with people enjoying themselves and you sound incredibly cheerless to be around. Perhaps you are ok in real life...

gingerbreadsprinkle A race to the bottom? Really? My view is the opposite. It’s a race to the top when young so you can enjoy the view.

Those living in poverty are far, far more likely to end their lives early.

A decent quality of life? Yes absolutely. Working for it comes into that because work builds self esteem. Reward for effort is a good thing.

@CherryPavlova, your kids have had a lot of help from you to get on the property ladder, haven’t they?

Those living in poverty are far, far more likely to end their lives early.

Suicide rates in Japan are very high and you will find their working culture leaves practically no time off. People in poverty may have a higher suicide rate because they work so many hours in a low paid job and when they are not working, they are commuting, yet they still cannot make ends meet because they work in London and can't get a job elsewhere...

I do think the situation in some areas is really hard- I've recently got a teaching job in Cornwall (which is where I grew up), and finding somewhere to rent has been difficult- it's not even really about the affordability of properties, it's about the availability. In the area I'm looking, a lot of properties are holiday lets or student lets, so finding a one bed flat to rent is pretty tough. I think there's an argument to be made that a certain percentage of housing in an area should be reserved for essential workers to ensure that communities have access to proper services.

Holiday homes/second homes that stand empty for 90% of the year are definitely morally wrong and add nothing to a community- there should definitely be some kind of restriction on these.

Holiday lets with a high level of occupancy are a bit different- but I do think the "tourism" issue is complicated. A lot of the jobs created by tourism are low paid and seasonal- people don't have reliable work year round, and therefore may struggle to find somewhere to live themselves- yet presumably the people who come on holiday want someone providing these services for them?

People who come on holiday usually want shops and restaurants to visit, and maybe activities to do as well- but if there isn't enough of a local market to sustain these businesses over the winter, they can go out of business. This can, over time, make the destination less attractive for holiday makers, and can become a sort of negative cycle. So really, it benefits everyone to have healthy local communities who can support local businesses year round as well. I've previously worked for businesses that rely or partly rely on tourism, and I've seen how difficult it can be to make things work (and no, the answer isn't more tourism, because the business is usually working to full capacity in the summer).

It's all very well to say people should move elsewhere, but if everyone did that you'd have areas without essential services, and without anyone to do the low paid work that the tourism industry relies on.

A lot of people do "just leave"- of my school friends, I'd say over 75% no longer live in the county, a lot of them left for uni and never came back- even though I know a lot of them would love to! But equally, being able to move away in the first place requires a certain amount of money to get yourself started, and having to live away from your support network can be pretty tough. Also, in the longer- medium term, this will have consequences.

I think the answer is maybe to have some kind of balance- so maybe a percentage cap on the number of homes that can be used as second homes/investment properties/ holiday lets in an area, to ensure that there's housing available and community services are able to survive.

FWIW, I don't think just building is the answer either. For a long time, in my home town, developers have been trying to build. They haven't been blocked from doing this as such, but the council have said that existing services (e.g. schools, doctor's surgery) can't cope, and any development would also have to include some provision for these services- and then the developers pull out. In one case, all the developers were asked to do was to fund some improvements to the existing road network to ensure that access wasn't a problem, but they weren't even willing to do that!

Oh fgs it's not about guilt tripping, we are all entitled to our own views - if you believe I'm wrong then why the need to defend yourself so vigorously? You have a holiday home and believe that's okay - I wouldn't have one because I disagree. Not a problem, and I'm not morally perfect but this is just something I wouldn't do personally.

gingerbreadsprinkle I wasn’t talking about suicide but mental health problems are associated with poverty. I was actually talking more generally about dying early. Their lives ending early rather than a deliberate taking of their life. Poverty rather than hard work does that, sadly.

Alsohuman, yes, we’ve helped ours a bit but they have also worked hard to get on the ladder and stay on the ladder. Our son is currently doing sixteen hour days deployed in horrendous conditions. He has a tenant in his flat so will save enough to move from a flat to a house on his return. We’ll not help with that.

Hard work does it too. As the early deaths in my dad’s family after 50 years down the pit testify. I don’t suppose the poverty helped.

I was actually talking more generally about dying early. Their lives ending early rather than a deliberate taking of their life. Poverty rather than hard work does that, sadly.

Originally I was too, and I still think the same. If the only things you do are work, commute, sleep, work, commute, sleep without a day off your making yourself susceptible to so many life-limiting diseases that come from stress. People in poverty might be more likely to be unwell because they are forced to work so much overtime, not for a deposit, but just to keep up with their bills. It's very expensive to be poor. For example, they are more likely to have to use a pay day loan in an emergency and unlike the middle class, they cannot choose to save by buying a season ticket or bulk buying.

Oliversmummy: If you take on multiple jobs and work your arse off going from job to job and cutting your expenditure to the bone for a period of time you will be able to buy a place somewhere.

Very good point especially when I think of the many people I've known in fairly low paid jobs who managed to buy, starting off in a small flat (one bought a studio flat), and gradually working up. It really depends on how much someone wants their own place, if they do they'll work for it.

Most people don't have to work all hours forever though, just for a while. No one could work at that pace forever without their health suffering.

I had a row with some woman on a local fb page.

She was vociferously complaining about how her children couldn't afford to live here, so expensive, newcomers pushing the prices up, houses should be for local people only blah blah.

Then she snottily said that it wasn't like that in [popular coastal resort] where she had a second home.

She went very quiet after I pointed out what a raging hypocritical cow she was being.

BuzzShitbagBobbly

With all due respect, I'm not sure what this anecdote adds to the discussion?

Yanbu, I'm not against second homes per se but second (holiday) homes in (typically touristy) areas pricing the locals out shouldn't be allowed. In certain parts of Scotland I know they are trying to combat this problem.

Jayblue FWIW, I don't think just building is the answer either. For a long time, in my home town, developers have been trying to build. They haven't been blocked from doing this as such, but the council have said that existing services (e.g. schools, doctor's surgery) can't cope, and any development would also have to include some provision for these services- and then the developers pull out. In one case, all the developers were asked to do was to fund some improvements to the existing road network to ensure that access wasn't a problem, but they weren't even willing to do that!

That is horrible to hear. And there are plenty of local authorities which don't make such conditions part of planning permission, or make it only contingent on a really feeble condition, such as landscaping.

I think I notice it more because I used to live in The Netherlands, and the infrastructure there is so much better. No matter where you live, there will always be a safe cycle path and footpath, usually on both sides of the road.

However, the property market is so over-heated there that its basically really difficult to either buy or rent anywhere in the country. Finding a room to rent is so difficult, but you always have the option of living outside the city and cycling in. And thats with the Dutch living in 3 or more storey houses as standard and renting little bedrooms with no proper window accessed only up a narrow steep internal staircase that would be illegal here.

Interestingly, the Dutch still have mortgage interest tax relief for first time buyers.