Second home council tax discount cut

Going4TheDream

heathcote123 wrote: »

I think it comes down to what you think council tax is for. I'm going to take it at face value and assume it's for the local council to provide services, rather than a tool to bash anyone with more money than me.

Of course then I am probably wrong when I say that second home owners should if anything get a far bigger discount than 50% - it's very unlikely they use up many of the local councils services at all.

But they expect the services to be there when they need them......

Personally I think they should pay full council tax.

They often move in to areas and use the places for weekend homes and leave ghost towns in the week. Local shops and facilities dont get the support they need to survive and often close, leaving the full time residents without.

Lets be honest anyone who can afford a 2nd home isnt struggling in the same way that many people are so what is another £1k ish a year to them to pay full council tax?

Graham_Devon

heathcote123 wrote: »

Of course then I am probably wrong when I say that second home owners should if anything get a far bigger discount than 50% - it's very unlikely they use up many of the local councils services at all.

So apply it across everything.

I don't currently use schools. I want a rebate.

I don't use libraries. I want a rebate.

I haven't had a fire. I want a rebate on the money I have put towards the fire service.

I haven't used the police, to my knowledge. I want a refund.

Point is, I might need to use them one day, and I may get FAR more in service than I have ever paid in to the pots, just from one call out.

It's a bit short sighted to suggest you don't use them. You do have the same access as anyone else. Up to YOU whether you use the lighting etc, and it's down to circumstances as to whether you ever have the unfortunate need to use any emergency service.

I'm sure you wouldn't be best pleased if the fire service let your second home burn down, or the police let feral youth vandalise your home from the inside out, just because you have decided you should'nt have to pay into the pot.

Anyone with two cars has to pay 2 full sets of road tax. Regardless of how much you use your BMW X5 "Shopping" car.

OptionARMAGEDDON

vivatifosi wrote: »

Under council tax rules "granny annexes" are classed as separate dwellings if they have their own entrance IIRC. I think removing tax on those is a bit of a moot area. Its fair that the elderly should be able to live with their families, but not that families should have a unit to rent which they can then offer to rent as this will be an unfair incentive over other rental properties, IYKWIM.

I don't think the removing the two homes reduction is a bad idea either. Any money raised is good, no matter how small the contribution.

you cant rent Granny Annexes typically as a seperate address. It usually is a term in the planning permission that use as a seperate dwelling other than for a relative or friend. norent. you already get An exemption if you have a retired family member. living with you at 100 pc of the annexe rate. we pay 70 per month on our annexe if it is furnished, 0pc if its unfurnished.

A._Badger

If local finances are really the issue, a better start would have been for the government to have grown a spine and stooped the outrageous pay and expenses being extorted by local council 'executives' and councillors alike.

Instead, Cameron and his troupe of clowns play the politics of envy card, thus proving they are indistinguishable from the previous rabble.

joguest

Council tax only covers around a third of council spending. The idea that it pays for local services is misleading.

Aside from the obvious reason the exemption should be removed (i.e. why should a second homeowner get a tax break??), what is interesting is the possibility of the 6-month empty house exemption being removed (as has been discussed in relation to these proposals). Such a move would obviously lower net yields (given the additional cost during voids) and hence put further downward pressure on house prices, as it's economically impossible for landlords to pass costs on to tenants.

A._Badger

joguest wrote: »

Council tax only covers around a third of council spending. The idea that it pays for local services is misleading.

Aside from the obvious reason the exemption should be removed (i.e. why should a second homeowner get a tax break??), what is interesting is the possibility of the 6-month empty house exemption being removed (as has been discussed in relation to these proposals). Such a move would obviously lower net yields (given the additional cost during voids) and hence put further downward pressure on house prices, as it's economically impossible for landlords to pass costs on to tenants.

I'm amused you think it is 'obvious', What is obvious about making someone pay for services he will not be using and, perhaps even more importantly, has no say in the provision of?

As for the six month rule, what about landlords struck with voids?

Why not go the whole way and let councils employ pickpockets licensed to dip anyone they consider looks 'wealthy' or 'privileged'?

Envy dressed up as morality is an unedifying spectacle.

Graham_Devon

heathcote123 wrote: »

I think it comes down to what you think council tax is for. I'm going to take it at face value and assume it's for the local council to provide services, rather than a tool to bash anyone with more money than me.

Of course then I am probably wrong when I say that second home owners should if anything get a far bigger discount than 50% - it's very unlikely they use up many of the local councils services at all.

A._Badger wrote: »

As for the six month rule, what about landlords struck with voids?
.

Business hazard.

A shop with sudden little custom doesn't get a discount in business rates.

This is absolutely nothing to do with envy, and it is absolute madness to suggest so (IMO).

When we get a discount in road tax for a second car....discount in income tax for the second job.....discount in capital gains tax for buying more shares, then the policy of discount in council tax for a second home may be a just discount.

Until then, it serves no purpose other than to pass a higher burden onto the people living locally.

joguest

A._Badger wrote: »

I'm amused you think it is 'obvious', What is obvious about making someone pay for services he will not be using and, perhaps even more importantly, has no say in the provision of?

As for the six month rule, what about landlords struck with voids?

Why not go the whole way and let councils employ pickpockets licensed to dip anyone they consider looks 'wealthy' or 'privileged'?

Envy dressed up as morality is an unedifying spectacle.

Nothing to do with envy. Everything to do with economics and a fiscal policy that encourages productive activity.

Better still would be a land-value tax (as a replacement for other taxes such as income tax). LVT taxes the wealth that landowners appropriate from the increases in economic growth created by other people. Such a tax change would reward those that work and punish those that seek economic rent (landowners aren't much different to benefit spongers).

A._Badger

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Business hazard.

A shop with sudden little custom doesn't get a discount in business rates.

This is absolutely nothing to do with envy, and it is absolute madness to suggest so (IMO).

When we get a discount in road tax for a second car....discount in income tax for the second job.....discount in capital gains tax for buying more shares, then the policy of discount in council tax for a second home may be a just discount.

Until then, it serves no purpose other than to pass a higher burden onto the people living locally.

What burden? Second home owners are already boosting local trade and paying 90 per cent (in many cases) of a charge in return for which they receive a small percentage of the services.

You are expecting them to pay even more for no other reason than you can force them to do so.

And of course, it's an easy ploy for a government too lazy, stupid and complicit to do anything about the disgraceful wastage and exploitation going on in town halls around the country.

I should add, I am not a second home owner.

A._Badger

joguest wrote: »

(landowners aren't much different to benefit spongers).

Astonishing - the authentic voice of 19th century socialism, just as if it had poured out of one of Mr Edison's phonographs!

If you cannot see the moral difference between someone receiving money from others for no reason and someone being forced to pay a tax simply because they own something, then I suggest it's time you took your compass in for realignment.