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.

Decision made to sell because of £7,800 council tax. Generations of happy memories. I very much doubt the buyers will be locals, as the purchase price is too high and the property is remote. The buyers will almost certainly be second home owners, probably with main home in London, for whom almost 8 grand a year is nothing. Have friends in similar situations.

Are you fucking serious??

Because of recent changes to council tax, people are making the really hard decision to sell family homes. Yes they are second homes, but family homes too. The owners have contributed to local economies for generations. They have held onto those homes while paying inheritance tax.

You want local people housed. Let's get real: jobs are thin on the ground in holiday areas, and most of the jobs in enchanting but remote touristy areas don't pay well.

There's a reason why there's a slump in the market for homes in "holiday hotspots" (coastal/highland/picturesque). It's the extra council tax on second homes that's either already been imposed or is on its way soon.

But even with the current dip in the housing market in holiday areas, and even though owners/renters of a single property "only" have to pay the normal amount of council tax, house prices are still too high for many: young people, young families.

And so almost all second homes, in Cornwall, Pembrokeshire, wherever, will be sold not to locals but to new second home owners. "Old school" second home owners selling to new money second home owners is, and will be, to the detriment of the local economy.

Buyers in the market for a second home are more cautious now, unless, as I said before, they are very rich indeed. So sellers who are parting with places dear to them are already having to settle for less than what the market value would be without the caveat of huge council tax.

But now you want the sellers of second homes penalised with an extra tax, a "local Stamp Duty" for selling to "the wrong people"? You want them to sell to local people only?

Then you fucking step up, via your income taxes, and massively subsidise the local buyers in holiday areas, so that they can afford to buy a house.

Step up and pay more income tax towards building more social housing. Pay a "local Stamp Duty" yourself, should you be judged to be selling your home to the wrong kind of people.

Where do you live?

A lot of good ideas on this thread for creating ghost towns. Not quite so many for creating thriving local
communities.

I didn’t say I agreed with the principal, and indeed as someone who sold what was actually a third home when my husband died it would have cost me dearly then, and would cost me dearly if I chose to get rid of my second UK home. But the fact remains, to limit the number of second or third homes you need to make the people selling suffer, not the people buying. As there will always be a buyer with more money :)

Perhaps read my other post on this thread to see my actual position on the benefits to local economies of second homes :)

How about a scheme for every second home the buyer must provide a deposit to a family who qualify (unable to save but able to pay a mortgage).

It would never work but there's nothing the rich hate more than giving their money to us povos and it would reduce the amount spent on UC from going straight back to second home owners. 🤣

I live in a deprived area and work in schools as a supply TA. I understand why people living here might send their kids to private schools. Most can't afford to. If there weren't private schools as a bail-out option for those who have influence, they might not be making the stupid decisions being made now.

As it is, the parents who can't just send their kids to a posh school in a leafy suburb are fighting tooth and nail for better provision from the state.

It's not a case of parents here not caring. It's a case of the parents in areas like ours being systematically ignored because they've not got the influence and nobody cares about little Johnny who struggles because the assumption is little Johnny will never be a high achiever.

The level to which nobody gives a shit is heartbreaking. The fact that this would change considerably if the MP's kids had to attend one of these schools is depressing, but I believe, true. Suddenly, we'd find that magic money tree, you can bet your bottom dollar we would.

It isn't going to happen, but I wouldn't presume everyone who thinks it might not be a bad thing if it did lives in a 'naice' area.

Well, that's effectively what will happen if you restrict sales, the house prices will fall or they just won't sell.

Introduce a 50% (Pick a %) transfer tax on sale or death. To be charged on the sale price or probate valuation. In addition to CGT on the non PPR.

Introduce Local needs legislation. Property being sold under a certain value threshold can only be sold to those with local connections/family/work etc. Others need not apply. Over the threshold amount - go ahead anyone but look at the sale transfer tax and CGT mate. That is exempt for locals.

Gotta get tough. I have a distant cousin in Ireland. They have local needs legislation so only those with connections to the area can buy/build a NEW house. OK to purchase second hand though, but they are snapped up by word of mouth in the local community and are only on the websites for show. So I'm told lol !

This is the best idea. There are already financial penalties for second homes, yet those funds are just kept in local or national coffers. The local businesses that are suffering should be funded from these levies to ensure they are viable.

Non viable businesses should not be subsidised by the taxpayer. The funding in local coffers is used to provide local services, as they should be. The funding in national coffers already subsidises business by paying top up benefits to low paid workers.

Airbnb is just a platform for self catering properties. Self catering properties and holiday Cottages have been around for decades. I stayed in them throughout my childhood in the 80s for example.

Yes but you are imposing a solution rather than relying on individuals principles. It also relies on estate agents checking this which they don't do well. I know plenty of people who have been lied to when selling.

I think a change to inheritance tax that you can leave your primary residence tax free, but it must be proven that you actually lived there.
Second homes, buy to lets and asset hoarding should be taxed much higher upon death, something like 75% or that you can only get back the money that was invested and all appreciation goes to the local area.

True it existed- but as most things on the internet not on the scale online platforms fascilitate. however much nmore effective would be the banning of international investors in the UK property market- rural properties are often bought by those abroad and put on platforms such as Airbnb, it would also solve the housing crisis at a stroke meaning no more rural nd greenbelt land would be needed for housing.

Yes but knowing people who owned a couple of these in the Lake District in the late 80s, early 90s, it was very hard to also have that as your holiday home. If you wanted to rent your property out as a holiday let, you had to sign up with a holiday rental company and effectively give them control of when it was available for rent. Most had a policy on a max 2 weeks you could reserve it for yourself over the summer season (April to end of September). You were allowed to have limited locked cupboards in the property, none of this current Airbnb trend of a whole room locked for all the owners own stuff.

If you stayed in one of these over your childhood, you stayed in a business. The other option - which is what wealthy people did - was you bought a holiday home and it was yours all year round but you didn’t get any rental income from it.

What air bnb does is allow people to combine the two. They can’t really afford a 2nd home as a holiday home for themselves but with air BnB they can sacrifice some time at the house for rental income. This has made holiday home ownership more affordable for a lot of people and as such, it’s becoming a new problem just how many properties in some towns are becoming 2nd homes /holiday lets that are empty most the year.

Making it easier and more affordable to own a 2Nd property has increased the numbers and while communities could cope with at 5-10% of houses s holiday homes, 60%+ is killing the community and local economy. (And no the summer tourist boost doesn’t balance out the winter shutdown)

What's wrong with being more flexible for holidaymakers who can't get a whole week off work and/or can't afford accommodation for a whole week?

Do you know the sheer enormous number of AirBnB hirings thaf go perfectly normally and don't make the news for illegal raves? And if AirBnB didn't exist, do you think the very tiny proportion of rave organisers wouldn't just find venues some other way? You may as well say that corner shops actively bring crime into communities, because occasionally they get robbed.

I'm also pondering... if somebody lives and works long hours in a city all week and then comes to their second home every weekend and is active in the local community there... how does that necessarily differ materially from the locals working long hours all week (possibly lots travelling to the city to work as well) and only really being active in that same local community at weekends?

What if somebody lives in that small community permanently, but drives 10 miles to the big supermarket for all their food and household needs, and orders everything else online - whilst the visitors (including those who own second homes when they come) determinedly support all the local shops and businesses?

There's also a massive spectrum of second hone owners. It seems unfair to consider the people who are there for some time most weeks, or maybe split their year with a month here and a month there, with the mega-rich people who like the idea of somewhere quaint and beautiful that they went to once for a weekend, and so buy into it (and also throw into conversations to boast about), but only ever actually stop by there once in a blue moon.

Lots of “Airbnbs” (read self catering properties) are businesses. Mine is and we are on non domestic rates to prove it. We never stay in it and nor do most people I know who have a self catering property. The conflation of second homes with self catering is a misnomer - of course some people do both but (for example) in Scotland where we are you would need a different license for each.

i don’t disagree with checks and balances but there is a huge amount of hysteria and populism over this issue with people quoting wild stats that are created by scraping data from OTAs. It’s caused a massive mess in Scotland with the Edinburgh festival now under threat thanks to over zealous career politicians going for the populist vote and scapegoating self catering rather than addressing the real issue of affordable housing.

I don't see whats wrong with people having second homes if that's what they choose to spend their money on.

Remember that local services are all classified as businesses nowadays. So a local school or GP surgery is only viable if they have enough pupils or patients to attract the minimum funding needed to operate. A small primary school with only 10 kids in a class cannot survive based on the normal funding rules. But if the council subsidises them from the extra council tax and stamp duty charged on second homes then these vital local services could prevail. Instead, the revenue they get from secondary home owners is wasted on vanity projects or additional councillors who are not needed for diminishing community populations.

“From everyone who has been given much, much will be required”…..you think people with second homes just…..got given them op? Or did they perhaps, buy them with their own hard earned money, on which they paid high levels of tax, then they paid additional high levels of tax for it being a second home?
Attempting to dictate how people spend their own money is in no way “liberal”.

I think that anyone earning that sort of money yes has been given things. Education, opportunities and other things. Yes it still involves work, a lot of work. I am high earning and my job is busy and stressful however I fully understand that a friend who earns minimum wage in 3 different jobs is working just as hard as me and still need UC top up. My skills are more marketable so I get more money. I do not work harder than her. So yes that quote is applicable.

There used to be something called an Agricultural Occupancy Restriction written into the deeds of some UK properties in rural areas.

Maybe some Updated version of this were you need to demonstrate that you have local connections or employment.

To you. It’s applicable to you. Personally, I’d view it in a totally different way and I haven’t been “ given” anything.