Government considers doubling council tax on second homes

stueyhants

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7061794/Government-considers-doubling-council-tax-on-second-homes.html

Second home owners could face a hefty "surcharge" on their council tax under plans being considered by the Government.

We have a shortgage of housing and we allow people to own more than one!!! Absolute madness. If your rich and have money to invest go and put it in the stock market. A government needs to have the balls to tackle this problem. My plan would be to raise CT on 2nd homes by 20% a year for the next 20 years. Gradually force people to sell these homes (I don't think a sudden wave of selling would be fair to the current owners, so a gradual sell off is fairer.)

Is this plan fair ?

CLAPTON

yes indeed,
all property is theft and so should be owned by the state
each property should be allocated according to need
as its also unfair that some people are richer than others, all forms of income should be determined by the state
obviously some people with special merit will be allowed to have higher incomes and second homes but that will be limited to people who are psychppaths willing to kill and torture to maintain the purity of the ideal.

zygurat789

And, of course, MPs could claim it back on expenses. They wouldn't do anything to cause them to share our burden.

stueyhants

CLAPTON wrote: »

yes indeed,
all property is theft and so should be owned by the state
.

People are free to own property but they should be encouraged not to own more than they need. Why should someone who is weathly either through hard work or inheritence have the right to deprive someone else of a basic need.
What about water or air, should people who are rich have the right to prevent poor people from breathing or drinking water ?

stueyhants

Mr.Knightley wrote: »

It would lead to second homes being reclassified as rental property.
I think it will be too costly and impractical to police.

Thats fine, at least the house is being used.

It will be difficult to impliment and some people will find a way around it, but a good majority will accept it and release housing back for other people to use.

stueyhants

Mr.Knightley wrote: »

Rental property can sit empty too - especially if the owners want it to IYKWIM.

Yes fair point. Difficult to police, but not impossible and should be looked at in more detail.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

stueyhants wrote: »

People are free to own property but they should be encouraged not to own more than they need. Why should someone who is weathly either through hard work or inheritence have the right to deprive someone else of a basic need.
What about water or air, should people who are rich have the right to prevent people from poor breathing or drinking water ?

1. The basic need for survival is for shelter from the weather. This does not have to be a house, owned by the occupier. A rented room, flatshare, or for that matter a tent or caravan would suffice. The level of accomodation is, and should, be rationed by price.

2. Asset allocation by the state through punitive taxation is a slippery slope to go down. What if they determine only essential (state) workers need cars. What if they determine only essential (state) workers need fuel. If you wish to live in a communist society, there are still one or two left. By all means feel free to emigrate.

abaxas

Mr.Knightley wrote: »

Bit OTT there Hamish. Have you forgot your pills.
Governments have been trying to influence behaviour through taxation for ages, it's not a new idea.

We could go a stage futher as the goverment has attempted to rig markets. Which is even worse!

stueyhants

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

2. Asset allocation by the state through punitive taxation is a slippery slope to go down. What if they determine only essential (state) workers need cars. What if they determine only essential (state) workers need fuel. If you wish to live in a communist society, there are still one or two left. By all means feel free to emigrate.

A car is not a basic need.

Radiantsoul

I am surprised there is a discount for a second home. I am not sure why.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

abaxas wrote: »

We could go a stage futher as the goverment has attempted to rig markets. Which is even worse!