Government considers doubling council tax on second homes

stueyhants

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It does not need an owner occupied house to fulfil that need.

Where did I say that the house had to be OO. As long as the house is being used efficiently thats all I would care about. If a house is either being lived in by OO or renting properly as a BTL (paying appropriate income tax etc) I wouldn't apply additional CT. Where a home is used just for weekends I would 10 x CT.

Emy1501

Never understood why CT is not charged on empty homes.

leveller2911

We like many other areas of the South East have had villages decimated by 2nd homeowners, I'm talking about people buying holiday homes and living there one weekend a month.They contribute very little to the local economy and many,many village shops and pubs have have closed partly due to 2nd homeowers.

Its not entirely down to them as the government has encourage the Post office to shut village sub post offices and through taxation local pubs too...

TBH if someone can afford a 2nd home they're not really going to stuggle to pay full whack CT so it won't help the local economy, create jobs or help the younger generations to get on the housing ladder.It will just put a few more quid in the coffers...

Somerset

stueyhants wrote: »

Tell you what I'll buy your local water supply and then raise the price beyond what you can afford!!

No problem. We're on a borehole supply.

Hopefully when the local supply becomes so over-priced we can bottle our stuff like old Del Boy and sell it from a stall outside the house :beer:

fc123

tomterm8 wrote: »

That would be fraud. They would end up being caught, and then going to prison.

Unlikely and the prisons are a bit full up anyway.

fc123

leveller2911 wrote: »

We like many other areas of the South East have had villages decimated by 2nd homeowners, I'm talking about people buying holiday homes and living there one weekend a month.They contribute very little to the local economy and many,many village shops and pubs have have closed partly due to 2nd homeowers.

Its not entirely down to them as the government has encourage the Post office to shut village sub post offices and through taxation local pubs too...

TBH if someone can afford a 2nd home they're not really going to stuggle to pay full whack CT so it won't help the local economy, create jobs or help the younger generations to get on the housing ladder.It will just put a few more quid in the coffers...

I accept much of the above but it could also be due to local resis using big Asda/Tesco/Sainsburys just outside of town a lot more...and a bit more online shopping for convenience too....like Argus and Amazon.
It doesn't take much to kill off a small town centre...just 10% drop in T/O is enough for some traders to jack it in.

JP45

Somerset wrote: »

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.

Precisely. Why limit it to second homes? What about wealthy couples who live in massive properties, with far more bedrooms than they could possibly need? What about all those elderly widows still living in the family home. How about we increase their council tax to 'encourage' them to move out and make way for a family.

Sorry, but the cynic in me suspects this has nothing to do with the need for more affordable housing and everything to do with councils finding new, ever more inventive ways to generate extra income. Here are a few more such ideas from the councils:

Other plans being considered by Mr Denham after they were put forward by councils include increasing the tax on chewing gum, compelling owners of empty businesses to consider turning their buildings into community centres, fining car drivers if anyone in their vehicle throws something from a window; and empowering councils to ban plastic bags.

I wonder if Keith Mitchell, Chairman of the LGA's selector panel, managed to keep a straight face when he uttered the following:

"These proposals show that councils are not only at the forefront of delivering great value and high quality services for the taxpayer but are also demonstrating that they are the think tanks of the 21st century, looking at innovative ways to improve the lives of local people and tackle the problems facing this country."

Does he seriously think that proposals such as increasing tax on chewing gum mean that Councils are now the think tanks of the 21st century?

And since when were "councils .... at the forefront of delivering great value and high quality services for the taxpayer". Judging by the standards of my local council, that statement bears absolutely no relation to reality.
.

fc123

JP45 wrote: »

And since when were "councils .... at the forefront of delivering great value and high quality services for the taxpayer". Judging by the standards of my local council, that statement bears absolutely no relation to reality.
.

My CT on the coast is 25% higher than London suburb (same band) yet, from my point of view, we get far less than London borough provide in terms of 'free' or subsidised things.

London borough have spent a fortune on road bumps (I heard they were 10k each), they are everywhere. Hardly anywhere to park for free, all resi parking or pay and display...even in places where it isn't 'needed'.

Coastal town is blissfully road bump free and a mile outside main hub, very few, if any needless parking rules.

I do wonder of coastal authority could lower CT if it really went for more parking controls outside the main centre. They aren't needed but would raise loads of extra revenue. £1 fee everytime you want to pop into a local shop....soon adds up.

I am not saying they should, but seems parking was/is a great cash cow for councils.

PasturesNew

At the moment in tourist areas a lot of them registered for business rates, then they claim it's available for renting, then they claim a low income rebate on business rates and end up paying less than they would have for council tax - and no need to prove it was rented/available at all.

phil_b_2

Trust me, this will never happen.