We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Government considers doubling council tax on second homes
Comments
-
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »If you wish to live in a communist society, there are still one or two left. By all means feel free to emigrate.
I've lived in two. IMHO, they were both more capitalist and less controlling than the UK.In case you hadn't already worked it out - the entire global financial system is predicated on the assumption that you're an idiot:cool:0 -
stueyhants wrote: »People are free to own property but they should be encouraged not to own more than they need.
Why restrict it to property?
You could also apply it to :Savings, Cars,Pension Funds etc etc etcstueyhants wrote: »People are free to own property but they should be encouraged not to own more than they need.
Need - have the state decide if you need those three bedrooms, garden, dining room etc. Maybe the state should restrict your 'living space' to what it deems you need, maybe pass on that property to someone who needs it more.
Maybe just go the whole hog and nationalise the housing market and let the state decide where you live and what you live in ?0 -
Why restrict it to property?
You could also apply it to :Savings, Cars,Pension Funds etc etc etc
Need - have the state decide if you need those three bedrooms, garden, dining room etc. Maybe the state should restrict your 'living space' to what it deems you need, maybe pass on that property to someone who needs it more.
Maybe just go the whole hog and nationalise the housing market and let the state decide where you live and what you live in ?
I'm all for it.
Tax breaks for people who live and work in a logical and optimized way. Tax hell for those who dont.0 -
stueyhants wrote: »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.
That's such a load of bleugh.
I can see where you're coming from though but CT should just be the same whether you own 1 or 2.
I speak as someone who currently runs two households (one rented, one owned) so I may be biased but these communist type ideas just don't work in practice.
I am not rich either....but that's because running and paying for 2 households is bluddy expensive. It's a real PITA too. I can't wait to just live in 1 again......bring on July 2010.
If we were charged a penalty council tax then I would just seperate from OH and do one in each name...it would have to be a fairly high penalty to be bothered...but it's easy enough to get around. Therefore pointless.
You would have loved Communist Russia. My sister in Law got given a lovely place in centre of St Petes when she hit 18. Communism collapsed and it was just given to her. She still owns it.
It took a while for the Russians to work out 'The Value' of things afterwards but they caught up.;)
Her friend bought swathes of land on the outskirts for next to nothing as no-one knew what things were 'worth' in the years after it fell.0 -
stueyhants wrote: »http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7061794/Government-considers-doubling-council-tax-on-second-homes.html
...
. 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 ?
The only objection I have is that this surcharge should only relate to houses which are not occupied.“The ideas of debtor and creditor as to what constitutes a good time never coincide.”
― P.G. Wodehouse, Love Among the Chickens0 -
Second home owners will get round any new 2nd home charges by claiming a ficticious sole tenant lives there, (and pay their ctax on their behalf), so they only have to pay 75%.(The sole occupant charge)"It's official, MSE's harbouring total fruitcakes">^..^<0
-
That would be fraud. They would end up being caught, and then going to prison.“The ideas of debtor and creditor as to what constitutes a good time never coincide.”
― P.G. Wodehouse, Love Among the Chickens0 -
Why restrict it to property?
You could also apply it to :Savings, Cars,Pension Funds etc etc etc
Why would you do that, savings are not in limited supply and a basic need? There is nothing wrong with people getting rich and investing, just using a basic need when we are short of houses is wrong.
Tell you what I'll buy your local water supply and then raise the price beyond what you can afford!!0 -
stueyhants wrote: »A car is not a basic need.
It most certainly is in large parts of rural Britain.
Where public transport is very poor, very expensive, or non existent.
I know lots of people who live many, many miles from the nearest bus or train stop. And equally far from the nearest shop.
How do you propose they get to work? Or to the shops, the doctor, the dentist, etc....“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
stueyhants wrote: »Why would you do that, savings are not in limited supply and a basic need? There is nothing wrong with people getting rich and investing, just using a basic need when we are short of houses is wrong.
Tell you what I'll buy your local water supply and then raise the price beyond what you can afford!!
Having shelter form the weather, and not freezing to death, is a basic need.
It does not need an owner occupied house to fulfil that need.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards