Councillors make move to scrap second home council tax discount

CLAPTON

a rational policy would of course encourage more property building available for everybody.

it would provide local building jobs, increased council tax, extra jobs for more people due to the increased spending by people visiting their holiday homes

the overall property price level would fall making it easier for local people to buy property

and of course there is plenty of land to build on without spoiling the countryside

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

These are hardly something the council can do anything about.

Maybe with the 10% extra tax they could enforce pasty shops to make more pasties?

Why do you want to move to Cornwall again?! lol

Did you not read the line just 5mm above the extract you posted?

It needs some original thinking from businesses as well. A couple of examples I can think of - both from Hayle

wotsthat

d.ross wrote: »

And how do you suggest the county council gets it's money when they are giving discounts to the rich who own two homes?

Well if they worked on creating a more vibrant economy maybe the take on business rates would increase.

CLAPTON

d.ross wrote: »

And to do that they need money.

it's not the job of local councils to make investment decisions; much better they let the private sector use their own money investing.
howevere the councils can encourage people to invest in their area by reducing costs and relaxing planning controls.

wotsthat

d.ross wrote: »

And to do that they need money.

This £1.6m tax increase might be just the ticket. Maybe it will solve all of Cornwall's problems. You're getting upset about 13,500 households getting £120 discount when, did you know, 27% of Conwall's population get housing benefit, council tax benefit or both.

From the audit commission...

In June 2010, 39,510 people received housing benefit and 51,690 received council tax benefit. Between June 2009 and June 2010, the number of people claiming housing benefit increased by 8.4 per cent and the number of people claiming council tax benefit increased by 6.5 per cent. Caseloads in Cornwall rose by more than the English averages of 7.4 per cent and 5.9 per cent respectively. In Cornwall, about 27 per cent of households in the council’s area receive either housing benefit or council tax benefit or both.

You have to ask yourself why there's such a focus on 13,500 rich people who, to be honest, could easily avoid the tax altogether if they wanted when 51,690 households are in receipt of benefits. You'd think that that many people not paying council tax would affect the councils funding somewhat. Of course council tax benefit is funded by central government and the taxpaying public at large so there's no incentive to the council to try and reduce these benefit claims.

That's 51,690 households who get their bins emptied and services provided by people who have never visited Cornwall let alone bought a second home there.

wotsthat

and here's how the rich can avoid council tax on their second homes and make some money from them at the same time

To make sure your property qualifies as a furnished holiday letting, it must be:

in the UK or EEA
furnished
available for commercial letting to the public, as holiday accommodation, for at least 140 days a year
commercially let as holiday accommodation for at least 70 days a year (the rent must be charged at market rate - not at cheap rates to friends and family)
a short term letting of no more than 31 days

Graham_Devon

"Owners of second home owners in cornwall are angry at the prospect of paying full council tax. "

Understand one of them, it's basically a shack, with no electricity, no water, no indoor loo etc.

However, lady with a massive home, swimming pool etc, feels she should not be penalised. Speaking with a problem plum in her mouth, she suggests she is being victimised as she provides employment.

It's only 10%. But it seems to have caused quite some anger.

Labour int he area say removing the 10% tax will mean they can't count the amount of second homes easily.

Lib dems state they want second home onwers to pay more than 100%.

Tories state it should be up to the local authority and there should be no national law. Should be able to look at these things locally and charge less, more, or the same, dependant on the local issues.

PasturesNew

I don't think it should apply to the shack type of '2nd homes' and I bet if the reporters had done proper research they'd find it doesn't apply to him either.

Shacks, caravans, anything on a holiday home/campsite should be different. I see 2nd homes as being: regular houses, in a regular street, bought by people for the occasional weekend visit. And people who do holiday lettings in such types of houses.

The shack man's probably not actually going to be affected.

Graham_Devon

PasturesNew wrote: »

I don't think it should apply to the shack type of '2nd homes' and I bet if the reporters had done proper research they'd find it doesn't apply to him either.

Shacks, caravans, anything on a holiday home/campsite should be different. I see 2nd homes as being: regular houses, in a regular street, bought by people for the occasional weekend visit. And people who do holiday lettings in such types of houses.

The shack man's probably not actually going to be affected.

Yes, I couldn't quite understand the shack myself.

I've watched programmes on the TV, and people have often built buildings on their land, with the view to be able to pipe services to the building. However, they don't, and keep it as a playroom, offices, etc, as this then doesn't attract council tax.

If they do want to seperate it as an inhabitable building, they simply pipe in the services as and when they wish to.

Don't know if you saw the news item, but this was basically a wooden building on land, with an outdoor loo. No heating, no water etc. Apparently they live there in the summer, and I assume they use gas stoves and collect their own water. Maybe this living part is the issue?

PasturesNew

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes, I couldn't quite understand the shack myself.

I've watched programmes on the TV, and people have often built buildings on their land, with the view to be able to pipe services to the building. However, they don't, and keep it as a playroom, offices, etc, as this then doesn't attract council tax.

If they do want to seperate it as an inhabitable building, they simply pipe in the services as and when they wish to.

Don't know if you saw the news item, but this was basically a wooden building on land, with an outdoor loo. No heating, no water etc. Apparently they live there in the summer, and I assume they use gas stoves and collect their own water. Maybe this living part is the issue?

There's a lot of them. They're "holiday occupancy only", so services/access vary from 8-12 months of the year, but you are not allowed to live there. You usually have to provide evidence of a proper home elsewhere. You can't get post delivered to most of them.

I've nothing against lots and lots of holiday homes of the normal sort. It's the 2nd home/holiday home type where they've taken over 'normal residential houses'. Most of which are empty most of the time. And they use that "we bring money into the area" line, which is entirely fictional in most cases. How can somebody using a place a few weekends, or even a month, a year bring money in that a full-time resident doesn't?