How Many Spare Houses Would We Have If ....

lostinrates

Well, I'll go against the grain and say I would CHOOSE two houses.

Until recent years its how its been in my dh's family ( and still is in other places) and my family also had a base in London because of my father's job until retirement.

Its useful not just for the working week ( my husband works in London, we don't make our primary home there, so there is expenditure on rent) but for extended family and friends finding feet in London and all sort of things to have a Base in the City. People live in different ways.

If we could afford to live the way previous generations did we might well do (not that fussed about wealth acquisition etc, just would like easiest, best life options for us. )

MobileSaver

PasturesNew wrote: »

People don't need a second home to live in during the week

People don't need two cars either so should second cars also be banned unless the old one has been in the family for 10 years?

PasturesNew

lisyloo wrote: »

I have to work in London at the moment but have a weekend home and look after elderly parents in my home area.
Am I allowed 2 homes or am I judged to be a terrible and wastful person both for being prepared to get on my bike for work and look after the old folks?

That would depend... that'd be in the "grey area to be determined".

PasturesNew

MobileSaver wrote: »

People don't need two cars either so should second cars also be banned unless the old one has been in the family for 10 years?

Different thing. But, if you're living in a car then you'd be allowed two.

lisyloo

That would depend... that'd be in the "grey area to be determined".

Ok, please tell me what you think we should do.
Go unemployed and claim state benefits?
or just abandon the parents who can't go out without assistance?

Your opinion isn't going to change our behaviour.
We going to take the work and look after the parents too at the cost of over-consuing housing because we don't see another viable option (at least until they go into a nursing home).

I'm just curious as to what you expect us to do and why you would seek to punish people who are doing the right thing by making efforts to work and look after their parents.
The second home tax is intended to change behaviour right?
All that would do is perhaps persuade us to rent rather than buy but we'd still be consuming the same size of property.

lisyloo

People don't need two cars either so should second cars also be banned

More cars can be manufactured if we required.
The issue with housing is that we have constrained supply.

seven-day-weekend

I don't see what is wrong with having a second home and renting it out. It's still a home for someone. It would be a home for someone whether you owned it or not.

Tax for unoccupied second homes - yes I agree with that. But not for those that are used intermittently for family members and others.

Students in purpose-built halls of residence, yes, good idea, but other new homes could also be built on the same land, leaving the older stock for the students.


I'm afraid people, especially single person/smaller households are going to have to learn to live with higher density housing than we may have have been used to. Rows of modern terrace houses/ apartments.

chucknorris

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I don't see what is wrong with having a second home and renting it out. It's still a home for someone. It would be a home for someone whether you owned it or not.

The term 'second home' usually refers to someone using their second property as their home (either for holidays or work etc.), rather than renting it out (unless of course they subsidise their holiday home with holiday lets).

PasturesNew

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I'm afraid people, especially single person/smaller households are going to have to learn to live with higher density housing than we may have have been used to. Rows of modern terrace houses/ apartments.

If it were me I'd be building communal living for other groups of people - enabling them community support within an area where they can have services delivered centrally. That'd include families - why penalise single people, who aren't over-populating the country?

e.g. why give a young/single parent a whole 2-bed flat, all alone and without life skills, when they'd be better off in a properly managed 'commune' where they learn life skills, share parenting/knowledge and don't feel so alone. Those left alone are more likely to wander off the path, or end up with a flat full of skunk heads just because they're lonely and are a magnet for ne'er do wells with nowhere to go.

Same with older people, inadequate communal/sheltered accommodation for them to live, safe, among friends/people just like them, where carers wouldn't be driving across a 20 mile radius, but could park up and see 5-6 of them in a row.

A holistic approach is needed to housing, not just people putting up piles of bricks for profit. There could still be profit, but budgets could be spent more wisely to improve lifestyle and reduce overall costs for services provision.

seven-day-weekend

PasturesNew wrote: »

If it were me I'd be building communal living for other groups of people - enabling them community support within an area where they can have services delivered centrally. That'd include families - why penalise single people, who aren't over-populating the country?

e.g. why give a young/single parent a whole 2-bed flat, all alone and without life skills, when they'd be better off in a properly managed 'commune' where they learn life skills, share parenting/knowledge and don't feel so alone. Those left alone are more likely to wander off the path, or end up with a flat full of skunk heads just because they're lonely and are a magnet for ne'er do wells with nowhere to go.

Same with older people, inadequate communal/sheltered accommodation for them to live, safe, among friends/people just like them, where carers wouldn't be driving across a 20 mile radius, but could park up and see 5-6 of them in a row.

A holistic approach is needed to housing, not just people putting up piles of bricks for profit. There could still be profit, but budgets could be spent more wisely to improve lifestyle and reduce overall costs for services provision.

These are already in existence as sheltered housing, surely?

As an older person with no care needs I would loathe and detest being told I had to live in a commune. I've just bought a bungalow with a large garden.

When I said about single people having higher density housing, I merely meant that if new smaller units of housing are to be built, then they will be higher density than in the past. I'm not saying single people should be forced to live in them!