Second home tax discount may end

bodacious

Owners of second homes in England could lose council tax discounts, under new plans to be announced by Communities Secretary Eric Pickles on Monday.



Councils would have the power to reduce or remove council tax relief on second homes and empty homes. Second homes currently receive up to 50% discount.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15509705

staffie1

Yes I've seen the news this morning too.

CLAPTON

seems strange to me
currently council can offer a discount of between 10% and 50%
the proposed new rules seems to offer a discount of between 0% and 50%
not much change really

agrinnall

It's not much change because every council where I've lived in the last few years have limited the discount to 10%, even if they used to allow 50%.

Although I no longer have 2 homes I did for several years, having sold 1 house to buy 2 smaller properties, living in one during the week for work and the other as my main home at the weekend. What I found more annoying than the reduction in the 2nd home discount was that I couldn't claim single person discount on both properties, despite clearly using less services at both than multi-person households.

zagfles

agrinnall wrote: »

It's not much change because every council where I've lived in the last few years have limited the discount to 10%, even if they used to allow 50%.

Although I no longer have 2 homes I did for several years, having sold 1 house to buy 2 smaller properties, living in one during the week for work and the other as my main home at the weekend. What I found more annoying than the reduction in the 2nd home discount was that I couldn't claim single person discount on both properties, despite clearly using less services at both than multi-person households.

That's because it's a tax, not a payment for services. I live in a band E house and yet still get the same size bins as my neighbours in bands C & D.

agrinnall

zagfles wrote: »

That's because it's a tax, not a payment for services. I live in a band E house and yet still get the same size bins as my neighbours in bands C & D.

What a bizarre argument!

Anyway, I've always felt that if Thatcher hadn't made such a mess of introducing poll tax that's what we'd have now and it would be fairer to everyone.

zagfles

agrinnall wrote: »

What a bizarre argument!

Err..why? You wrote

What I found more annoying than the reduction in the 2nd home discount was that I couldn't claim single person discount on both properties, despite clearly using less services at both than multi-person households

So you expect the amount you pay to be less because you use less services. That's not how taxes work.

Mary_Hartnell

The only down side I can see is the "holiday let" type of property in a "less favoured" area.
A property off the beaten track would not be very lettable to a local and only comes into its own for as couple of months in the summer.

Paying Council Tax, could be the last straw on the camels back.
In the Major recession of the early 1990's, ripping the roof off a commercial building would save the business rates charge. So would ripping the roof off a holiday let remove it from the council tax roll ?

lincroft1710

Holiday let may be subject to Non Domestic Rates rather than CT. Removing a part of building to save a tax or any other charge is known as "constructive vandalism". I cannot remember if the loophole (if it existed) was closed, or councils wouldn't play ball, but it hasn't happened AFAIK for years.

The owner will be paying either NDR or CT already and if the latter the property is currently probably only subject to 10% discount, so the extra at most would be £200 a year.

In any case it is a completely dumb idea as 1) without a roof a building will deteriorate very quickly and 2) the cost of removing and replacing tiles or slates would be prohibitive. If an owner can't afford the costs of a second home then they should sell it.

Gas_Powered_Toothbrush

agrinnall wrote: »

poll tax that's what we'd have now and it would be fairer to everyone.

You're joking, right?

John_Pierpoint

lincroft1710 wrote: »

If an owner can't afford the costs of a second home then they should sell it.

It is not quite that simple, selling a stranger a right of way to a remote cottage in a large plot, that goes through your farmyard, would seriously devalue the farm.
Bulldozing the cottage would make sense financially.
It is not just a rural problem, there are parts of this country where houses are standing empty - no jobs = no mortgages = no buyers.