Shortage of homes

lostinrates

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think you have missed the point.

Having a holiday chalet in a holiday park is not taking a home off the streets for someone to buy, to use, as a home.

but it could be taking from the limited availability of suitable development land.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think you have missed the point.

Having a holiday chalet in a holiday park is not taking a home off the streets for someone to buy, to use, as a home.

only if you can't think outside the box

why can't you live in a holiday park... it's simply a silly local government rule..no more no less... amazingly it can be changed

macaque_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Just looking for thoughts really, as it appears I'm becoming a bit of a socilist hippy with my views towards housing and using housing as investments / having second, thrid etc homes. Wanna know if I'm on my own!

Having concerns about this subject does not consign one to the ranks of socialist hippy. Tax is a well established way of rewarding good spending habits and discouraging bad ones. Donations to charities are tax deductable, investors get tax credits for supporting start up companies etc. On the other side of the coin booze, ciggies and petrol attract higher tax.

People should not be prevented from owning second homes but they should be discouraged from keeping them empty. The solution is simple. Second homes should be treated as a business and taxed on an assumed annual rent. This scheme would not affect home owners or professional landlords (who will already be paying tax on rental income). It would come as a massive kick in the pants however to Lucius and Tamara when their bijou little cottage in the Cotswalds (that they use for two weeks in the summer) starts costing them an extra 6k a year.

CLAPTON

macaque wrote: »

Having concerns about this subject does not consign one to the ranks of socialist hippy. Tax is a well established way of rewarding good spending habits and discouraging bad ones. Donations to charities are tax deductable, investors get tax credits for supporting start up companies etc. On the other side of the coin booze, ciggies and petrol attract higher tax.

People should not be prevented from owning second homes but they should be discouraged from keeping them empty. The solution is simple. Second homes should be treated as a business and taxed on an assumed annual rent. This scheme would not affect home owners or professional landlords (who will already be paying tax on rental income). It would come as a massive kick in the pants however to Lucius and Tamara when their bijou little cottage in the Cotswalds (that they use for two weeks in the summer) starts costing them an extra 6k a year.

So Lucius and Tamara would convert their bijou little cottage into a rental business but make a massive tax loss which they will offset against other gains.................win win situation again.

sjaypink

CLAPTON wrote: »

you have clearly missed the point..maybe too much local inbreeding?

just saying that holiday homes are similar in used to holiday parks i.e. used at peak times ..summer, school holidays etc
so its illogical to swap one for the other

....so either ban both or neither
... you can work out the rest surely

ah well, no, theyre not. they are used (at the moment) very differently

if you mean instead of buying a holiday home, buy a holiday caravan (sorry, park home ) etc, then possibly

if the moral point here is instead of buying a holiday home, simply either 'holiday' -in the traditional sense- at the desired location and surrounding area, or permantly move to said location, then the issue is a different one

there is the further issue of, to put simply (for the benefit of inbreds :cool:) 'why should visitors have houses, when the locals are having to live in temp caravans/ b&bs etc' this is though, a moral issue really, and although i feel it is a big issue for those brought up in tourism based locations, is not necessarily one that legislation needs to be involved in

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

So Lucius and Tamara would convert their bijou little cottage into a rental business but make a massive tax loss which they will offset against other gains.................win win situation again.

A loss is a loss. Not sure how this is win win :rolleyes:

CLAPTON

sjaypink wrote: »

ah well, no, theyre not. they are used (at the moment) very differently

if you mean instead of buying a holiday home, buy a holiday caravan (sorry, park home ) etc, then possibly

if the moral point here is instead of buying a holiday home, simply either 'holiday' -in the traditional sense- at the desired location and surrounding area, or permantly move to said location, then the issue is a different one

there is the further issue of, to put simply (for the benefit of inbreds :cool:) 'why should visitors have houses, when the locals are having to live in temp caravans/ b&bs etc' this is though, a moral issue really, and although i feel it is a big issue for those brought up in tourism based locations, is not necessarily one that legislation needs to be involved in

the reason that holiday homes exist is that locals sold those homes to holiday home makers (should that be illegal?)


the reason there is not enough housing in these areas is because the local people vote for councils that won't approve new housing..doubless because of the all the holiday home owners and of course because of the unelected quangos that run the national parks etc. but that's democracy.

you may consider this is a big issue for people brought up in tourism areas but where is your concern for people brought up in London who have no chance of buying property there because of the influx of all those people from the provinces?

Maybe we should have laws everywhere that no-one who wasn't born within 10 miles radius should be able to buy any property.. surely a moral point?


please show equal concern for all humanity.

sjaypink

CLAPTON wrote: »

please show equal concern for all humanity.

although i feel it is a big issue for those brought up in tourism based locations, is not necessarily one that legislation needs to be involved in

i have equal concern for your inhalation of that city smoke as you have for my genes

PasturesNew

macaque wrote: »

The solution is simple. Second homes should be treated as a business and taxed on an assumed annual rent.

A lot of 2nd home owners (of houses) in Cornwall have unregistered for council tax and registered for business rates, because they can then put in for some "low income" discount and end up paying a lot less in business rates than they would in council tax.

I could be corrected, but I believe also that business rates goes straight up to Govt, therefore any council tax type of income is effectively £0 to the local council.

If you consider the case where 75% of properties are used for occasional holiday use and local shops/services have shut down because occasional visitors don't need local services enough to keep them running ... then the school shuts down because there aren't enough kids, then the buses stop running because there aren't enough locals using them .... and then the council gets 1/4 of what it needs to service the town... it all snowballs. (e.g. Port Isaac, Cornwall)

What often happens in Cornwall is people go to their holiday home 2-3 weekends a year, taking their Waitrose hampers and foods with them. They turn up and go to one local (posh) food place, a couple of designer surf shops ... then it's home without returning for 4 months.