Is having a second home in this country ever justifiable?

[Zog]

Given the amount of houses that we are told needs to be built to keep up with demand? Are they a luxury that is becoming unsustainable, like cheap air travel?

So in other words, you're poor or working poor, so move away.

Let's consider the cost of moving.

First of all, you have to have a job or some sort of income to pay the mortgage, council tax and bills.

So just upping and moving to another area because it has 'cheap' housing sort of falls flat if you can't get a job that will pay enough to afford even that.

Then there's the actual cost.

Thousands, particularly if you're shifting from one part of the UK to the next.

And let's say you have children.

There are catchment areas to consider, nursery or other childcare arrangements.

Perhaps you were living where you were because your childcare was provided for cheaper by a family member.

Perhapsy you live where you do because you're also caring for an elderly relative.

gosh you'll all be discussing the Gold Standard next...
...or Gallileo's principle of equivalence

I think i'm having a Harry Enfield moment

well, the idea is you'd have to in order to reduce the number of second-homers, make it a luxury for the really rich, much more aspirational and to put more money into the state pot, ideally to fund more social housing.

Of course people move, xenia, just as they always have. However, they used to move for work. Now they can be in a situation where they have work but no home. And I object to only the rich being allowed to enjoy God's country on their doorstep.

gemmie, I don't know what you;re on about but I think you are accusing some posters of Highest Order Ponciness

Surely areas have always changed. Chelsea used to be a slum or marsh or something. The rich and poor have always moved in and out of areas or en masse to Lancashire because there's work in mills or where the mines are or whatever and the cost of housing is part of the question of whether they move or stay. Yes, where local business owners or farmers need workers then they house them. That's why large castles in 1500s had space for loads of servants and workers in them and country estates and why farm labourers' cottages were set up, why the Cadbury and Rowntree families built housing for workers.

If local employers in the country need cheap workers and those workers are moving away then accommodation will be provided for them. I'm not sure how some form of interference in the market is going to help. it's not just weekenders who are the problem but any richer incomers particularly those who use the village as a dormitory and commute every day.

Not when you've got a plentiful supply of seasonal migrant workers to do the low paid job and scarper.

b/c that's what you've got going on.

I'd be off like a SHOT to an area that had cheaper housing.

The problem w/such areas is that there are very limited opportunities for employment to pay for that housing and they are too far to commute into places of high employment.

oh now. tied accommodation is pretty much a thing of the past. I don't think employers are going to start providing housing for their workers again. Crikey, it's hard enough to get employers providing apprenticeships never mind housing.

let's bring back fiefdoms and serfdom, shall we?

we do

"accommodation will be provided for them"

who is doing that these days on any significant scale?

Apart from the government for key workers.

cool, are you saying you provide accommodation for workers?

yes

country estate type thing or something different?

country house

ok, accepted, the small scale staff for a big house thing.

I do still think it's a bit fatuous to make references to Rowntree, Cadbury, New Lanark, coal mines etc etc of the industrial revolution

But the point of the OP's post is "is a second home ever justifiable" and I'm saying why do I have to justify owning a second home at all?

My ex husband's school provided tied accommodation. The nurses at our local hospital have accommodation on site. The many mumnetters who have live in nannies and au pairs provide accommodation.

Perhaps people's expectations of housing are too high in the UK. On the continent a small flat which a family shares is not uncommon and it's often rented. Perhaps people should live more with relatives too. One reason some of my Indian neighbours are reasonably well off is that you will often get two brothers, their wives and children and the brothers' parents in the same house. Go back to rural England 200 years ago and you would have similar set ups.

Oh I see. Good question. I think in terms of its benefit/detriment to society, is it justifiable? And you could say, who cares, I believe in free markets and rich individuals buying what they like.

And that's the debate.

and you are making assumptions about how I run my home - quite offensive actually -

rather just ask me where I do my shopping etc and I will tell you that we have a vegetable garden and do all our shopping locally except for bulk items -

and no, I don't need a second home, but we love to be able to spend time there.

God forbid those peasants expect to live in anything other than a hovel, eh, Xenia.

"On the continent a small flat which a family shares is not uncommon and it's often rented."

And there's the rub. Loads of people rent in Europe, and they rent good quality homes. This government introduced high targets for owner-occupation which has contributed to our ridiculous housing situation. It is not easy to rent in this country. And now it is not easy to buy.

Not so many years ago, Switzerland had teh highest rate of home-renters in teh world and Bangladehs the lowest.

pointydog, I believe the free market best protects those at the bottom, though. It's not the case that only the left care by any means. No rich local in the country employing others wants unhappy workers. In fact many people who employs others go out of their way to give them chances to do better things. It's always pleased me when that has happened even if someone good has left because generally you care more for the person than the loss to the business I think in businesses of most sizes.

I believe in bits of France the French just don't want ot live in the country. They haven't understood the British enthusiasm to be around farm smells and miles from cafes and cities. So the English have stepped in are rejuvenated almost derelict villages. Incomers have also saved many a remote Scottish school too. It's not always bad.

But I'd say if you bulk buy cinema tickets which for example some Christian groups did to watch the Passion film just means those making money from films put the films on elsewhere and therefore there are even more chances to see the film.