Second home council tax discount cut

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

But you do know why that is don't you? It's not about 'you might want to use them one day' it's because it's a tax raising exercise. Nothing more or less.

Council tax is similar - it's a blunt property tax.

I'm looking at a holiday home in Cornwall (10% discount). The cost to me if I had to pay full council tax vs. 90% is £109.60 per year. Clearly it's not a dealbreaker.

However, just because I own two houses doesn't mean I use double the services. I can see there's a base level of service to pay for, a retainer if you like, but if you take bin emptying as an example; there needs to be a visit each fortnight but the cost of dealing with the refuse is much less in the second home. There are plenty of examples like this. The overhead costs of providing services to second home owners are the same as those for local residents. The direct costs are lower though.

Discounts for second home owners are on the way out - it's not going to be a big deal for the home owners financially, the general public are hardly going to protest and it's easy to implement. It's a fantasy to think though that anyone's going to see a reduction as a result - all that'll happen is that total tax take increases.

I'd be more concerned about the number of people that don't pay council tax at all (paid for by central government instead). The numbers dwarf second home owners and they probably use more services than the average council tax payer let alone the second home owner.

joguest

A._Badger wrote: »

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.

Churchill was an advocate of LVT. Presumably you must therefore think that he was a socialist? LVT is advocated by many people on the economic right wing - it's usually assocaited with the liberal tradition in the UK. Nothing to do with socialism whatsoever.

"If you cannot see the moral difference between someone receiving money from others for no reason"

Landowners do receive money from others for no reason. That's the whole point - land values increase due to the efforts of the community that work in the vicinity of the land.

pqrdef

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

The big items in council spending are education and social services. Nobody uses twice as much of those because they've got two houses. They've got no logical relation to property at all. But of course we had that argument under Thatcher.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

That is also rather hard to justify.

myhouse_2

wotsthat wrote: »

However, just because I own two houses doesn't mean I use double the services. I can see there's a base level of service to pay for, a retainer if you like, but if you take bin emptying as an example; there needs to be a visit each fortnight but the cost of dealing with the refuse is much less in the second home. There are plenty of examples like this. The overhead costs of providing services to second home owners are the same as those for local residents. The direct costs are lower though.

It's more than a tax raising excercise though I'd certainly agree that that is probably the main factor - it's encouraging better use of the housing stock, and helping maintain vibrant communities. Although it's certainly true that your bin might not need emptied as often, that's a very small part of what your house costs the council. The main infrastructure of roads, lighting etc need to be maintained even if you use them little. Even things like schools and hospitals are often built based on the amount of housing in the area - if an area has too many second homes, the council gets less tax income and real residents are subsiding your contribution.

robmatic

pqrdef wrote: »

The big items in council spending are education and social services. Nobody uses twice as much of those because they've got two houses. They've got no logical relation to property at all. But of course we had that argument under Thatcher.

And people in higher band properties pay more council tax even though they are unlikely to be bigger service users (it's not calculated based on useage is it?). In that sense the argument that second homes should not pay full rates falls down as there is already a redistributive element to this tax and this proposal can be viewed as a continuation of that.

ukcarper

A._Badger wrote: »

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.

Originally Posted by joguest
(landowners aren't much different to benefit spongers).

and that's from someone who has 2 properties.

wotsthat

myhouse wrote: »

It's more than a tax raising excercise though I'd certainly agree that that is probably the main factor - it's encouraging better use of the housing stock, and helping maintain vibrant communities.

I play a more active role in my second home area than my hometown. I participate in local events, visit tourist attractions and am enthusiastic about local goods. I think many second home owners are like this - after all they buy in places they want to be rather than places they have to be.

Going4TheDream

myhouse wrote: »

It's more than a tax raising excercise though I'd certainly agree that that is probably the main factor - it's encouraging better use of the housing stock, and helping maintain vibrant communities. Although it's certainly true that your bin might not need emptied as often, that's a very small part of what your house costs the council. The main infrastructure of roads, lighting etc need to be maintained even if you use them little. Even things like schools and hospitals are often built based on the amount of housing in the area - if an area has too many second homes, the council gets less tax income and real residents are subsiding your contribution.

This was very apparent a few years back in many villages where the 2nd home owners bought up property for weekend use and priced locals out of the area, the ones that had already lived there found their local shops, and such like, maybe bus services etc disappeared as they were not used as often by as many people , many vibrant communities were effectively killed off. Local services supplied by councils were moved cut or amalgamated further away leaving even less for locals....

A._Badger

joguest wrote: »

Churchill was an advocate of LVT. Presumably you must therefore think that he was a socialist? LVT is advocated by many people on the economic right wing - it's usually assocaited with the liberal tradition in the UK. Nothing to do with socialism whatsoever.

"If you cannot see the moral difference between someone receiving money from others for no reason"

Landowners do receive money from others for no reason. That's the whole point - land values increase due to the efforts of the community that work in the vicinity of the land.

Citing Churchill to back an argument doesn't cut much ice with me, I'm afraid. He held some extremely strange views at times.

What Land Tax advocates seem not to understand is that they are fundamentally undermining the basis of property ownership - one of the bedrocks of Anglo-Saxon society. The 'property owning democracy' means just that: property ownership.

What Land Taxers are proposing is the imposition of a tax on the mere ownership of an asset. In effect, it would be as if a property owner were leasing it from the state.

Why not any other asset? A piece of jewellery or a painting?

It might be argued that this is no different to Council Tax but, clearly, it is as (whether you want them or not) there is at least the pretence of an exchange taking place. A Land Tax has no such relationship.

ukcarper

The discount seems to be 10% in Devon and Cornwall will this really make a difference to the people that own them and how much money will it raise.