What disincentives could discourage people from buying second homes?

[Unabletosleep]

What disincentives would work to stop people buying second homes?

Inspired by a different thread. It seems a number of people share my abhorrent of second homes.

I have seen the place I grew up turned into a ghost village by selfish idiots buying second homes. Now there is no local shop, no local school, no doctors surgery, no pub, no busses nothing. There were not enough people using them consistently for them to make money.

So what would make people stop killing local communities. Financial penalties I guess but how high? Wales has introduced a 100% local tax increase on second homes but it doesn't seem to be enough.

Maybe but choice of holiday lettings in the middle of a housing crisis shouldn’t be the priority imho

Depends how you define Londoner. I have no problem with people buying in London if they work here no matter where they're from. Leicester or Lahore, if you work here and base your family here, that's fine.

It's those blocks of riverside apartments that have been bought by various dodgy dealers as a safe spot for their ill-gotten gains but which stand empty all year. Apart from the housekeeper who makes it look as though it's occupied.

I am advocating for systematic change. Not individuals to decide to put a principle ahead of their families best interests. Yes it would lead to lower house prices but that will allow locals to buy at a fair price.

Less choice for holidays but more choice for homes.

I’m saying it cld be an option if people wished. Not that they’d have to do it.

Exactly

Yes swapping might be a good idea for longer breaks but I don’t think I could swap my home for 2 weeks ( nor do I want the faff) as it is not in a tourist destination.

Absolutely. This isn't about banning outsiders or something. I define locals as anyone who is going to be living in the community full time. And of course they can go on holiday but as their home

This doesn’t work. Buyers lie about living in a house, then put it on Airbnb.

On the contrary. We as a country need to generate revenue and employment. When people holiday they spend money on activities and meals out.

Local shops and pubs would benefit from people not shopping in supermarkets, or using home delivery, but locals don’t want to do that. Airbnb certainly needs controlling, but there’s enough evidence to show that those with second homes they actually use bring more to the local economy than most locals. For a start they tend to employ gardeners and cleaners, and eat out far more often than locals. They spend more with local tradespeople, because they’ve got more money and they want to live in houses that have been farrow and balled to the max. So, be careful what you wish for…

https://cep.lse.ac.uk/_NEW/NEWS/abstract.asp?index=10020

Given that successive governments have also eviscerated the rental market, relocating for work becomes harder and harder as well, and if you can’t buy or rent a house in another area what do you do? The effects of a ban on the economy are widespread.

As second home owners already pay more council tax in some areas, pay huge amounts of capital gains tax (or inheritance tax) when their homes change hands I am not sure how the government replaces that income stream if you ‘ban’ second homes.

The harsh reality is that house prices are artificially high because supply is limited. Locals are priced out of some areas because locals in those areas sell their houses to whoever is willing and able to pay. We just need to build more of the sort of houses that people want to buy in places they want to buy them. Not keep building 2 bed flats in city centres that are bought by PE backed property businesses and investors so that they can monopolise rents in a given area. But, for some reason governments don’t want to do that - the want to enrich corporate property businesses, and disadvantage small, local, long term property investors.

All the UK government needs to do is build more proper council houses to create a pool of properties that tenants can live in long term if needed. That’ll cut the housing benefit bill. They need to build them in areas people want to live. They need to make it cheaper and easier for people to relocate - high stamp duty is a severe hindrance to that. Why move if you don’t have to if you’re facing a 5 or 6 figure tax bill for your next house. That’d have the knock on effect of driving growth in all the sectors that benefit from people moving; builders, kitchen fitters, furniture businesses, flooring contractors etc etc.

Of course but say you went off traveling for three months you might consider it. The option could be there for people if they wanted

@Claudiebus do many people go on holiday for 3 months? I don’t think there would be much take up.
Most people want a long weekend, or a week or two.

Since this is an issue that particularly affects parts of the country that are holiday destinations, could a local land tax that goes into building affordable homes for local people work? E.g the tax would go to a nonprofit housing association to build affordable starter homes for young people and families, and local support services.

Disagree. The financial penalties are a discouragement for those who value wealth and bargains and will encourage them to look at alternatives.

The money collected also would be needed to regenerate the areas and establish services.

If you want a second home that doesnt make the community thrive then you need to pay more to ensure the community thrives

It's madness isn't it.

So if we want to go on a long weekend to The New Forrest this weekend, the only way I can go is if I rent my house for the exact same 3 days?

And who is policing this circus?

Agricultural ties are put on some properties

Isn’t that what airbnb originally was? Renting your home or a room out for a couple of weeks?

I day or 3 months, no. I'd have to empty my home and put everything into storage.

I think so. Still, not for me and too trusting.

Absolutely. This isn't about banning outsiders or something. I define locals as anyone who is going to be living in the community full time. And of course they can go on holiday but as their home.

You have to make it so it’s unaffordable for most second home owner to keep a property empty as a holiday home. There will always be some rich people who will do this, but if you knock it from 50+% of villages to less than 10% of properties you’d fix a lot of the problems.

So something like have set areas where this is an issue, in those areas anyone listed as owning a property is taxed at 10-20% of the house value each year unless they can prove it’s their primary residence or someone else’s primary residence (eg they have a full time tenant, not just a holiday let, or they own it but a family member live in the house full time).

It would at least raise money for the local area in the short term, forcing people to either sell up or move in.

Right wing press would hate it though.

Second home owners already pay double council tax. Many second homes are too expensive for first time buyers to purchase. In Cornwall they stopped homes being sold to second home owners. We have friends who live there and they told us there were 3 houses of a million pounds each no one is buying. Normally they would be snapped up by a second home owner. Now they are just empty . Their previous owners died and new owners can't sell them to locals because wages is typically low in South West. A house being occupied for 20 percent of the year where the owners eat out in local restaurants a lot is better than empty houses.

You can stay in holiday lets that don’t damage the local community. Eg a barn on a farm, a cabin, an annexe, camping, glamping etc. There are lots of options. Farmers are struggling so staying in a holiday let on a farm rather than in a house that could be lived in, is a good way round it if you are going to a rural area. In cities it’s more tricky I think, although there can be garden rooms available, that kind of thing, I do find it harder to rent an ethical choice in cities.

Stopping others from purchasing a second home is politics of envy, similar to adding VAT to independent schools.

Correct