2nd home council tax

housebuyer143

Bookworm105 said:

MobileSaver said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Redrum99 said:

Hi, I use a 2nd home which I've bought to stay at while working away 2 or 3 nights a week. I've always paid full council tax on this but I've just had my year's bill doubled with a 100% uplift for 2nd home, they now want nearly 4.3k a year. Is there anyway to reduce this as I now have to consider leaving my job and selling up as I now have a combined council tax bill of 6.5k. Feeling a bit done over at the moment. 

that means the standard CT rate for the second home is £2.15k so that is quite a high rate of CT.  That is a property some way up the banding.

Sounds a bargain to me, my standard CT (rural mid-Wales) for the coming financial year is just over £5,000!

you live in the most expensive band anywhere in the UK. So what. Blame it on devolution if you prefer.

A band D in Wales is almost £2k in my part of Wales. That's a 3 bed semi right there...

Bigphil1474

GDB2222 said:

I do wonder whether the councils will be able to manage financially without second home owners? A typical second home uses scarcely any council resources. Certainly not the most expensive services, such as schools and social care. 

That's the problem not the upside. If you have a local family living in a local house and working locally, they spend their wages in the local shops, their kids go to the schools, they use local services. Only about a fifth of my local council's revenue comes from council tax - there's government grants, property revenue, business rates etc. Government funding is based on loads of factors but the make up of the local population is part of that - deprivation, unemployment, wealth etc. Second home owners aren't local population. Deprived areas have actually been the worst hit from austerity.  Second home ownership does nothing for the local community, hence the need to double council tax to discourage 2nd home ownership (which seems to be working in this case), or increase council revenue to make up the shortfall in the community. 

ReadySteadyPop

MobileSaver said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

https://thenegotiator.co.uk/news/regulation-law-news/authoritys-aggressive-second-homes-taxes-cause-12-4-fall-in-house-prices/

Buying opportunity for locals?

Did you actually read the article or just the click-bait headline?

"it still leaves many people priced out"

"may incentivise landlords to start using their properties for short-term lets"

So as the article says, apparently not a buying opportunity for locals...

But as you said only 3% of people have a second home? So second homes don`t contribute to the mythical "housing shortage" do they? And as you also seem to get, houses are still too expensive, and we all know the reason for that don`t we?

Bookworm105

Bigphil1474 said:

GDB2222 said:

I do wonder whether the councils will be able to manage financially without second home owners? A typical second home uses scarcely any council resources. Certainly not the most expensive services, such as schools and social care. 

Only about a fifth of my local council's revenue comes from council tax - there's government grants, property revenue, business rates etc. Government funding is based on loads of factors but the make up of the local population is part of that - deprivation, unemployment, wealth etc. Second home owners aren't local population. Deprived areas have actually been the worst hit from austerity.  Second home ownership does nothing for the local community, hence the need to double council tax to discourage 2nd home ownership (which seems to be working in this case), or increase council revenue to make up the shortfall in the community. 

that's politics for you then. Social engineering through taxation!
Put the data on a map and decide who to target... but don't then complain if the tourist industry feels the pinch and the locals start losing their living?
Map showing % of second homes by local authority

My district council's income by source:

• 37% – Government Grants
• 34% – Sales, Fees and Charges
• 16% – Council Tax
• 5% – Interest on Investments
• 3% – Business Rates (amount retained from the NNDR collected and passed over to "the govt")
• 3% – Other Grants
• 2% – Contributions (Benefits and recycling credit)
  
  
  

MobileSaver

ReadySteadyPop said:

MobileSaver said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

https://thenegotiator.co.uk/news/regulation-law-news/authoritys-aggressive-second-homes-taxes-cause-12-4-fall-in-house-prices/

Buying opportunity for locals?

Did you actually read the article or just the click-bait headline?

"it still leaves many people priced out"

"may incentivise landlords to start using their properties for short-term lets"

So as the article says, apparently not a buying opportunity for locals...

But as you said only 3% of people have a second home? So second homes don`t contribute to the mythical "housing shortage" do they? And as you also seem to get, houses are still too expensive, and we all know the reason for that don`t we?

Many of that 3% own more than one second home so in total there are over 800,000 second homes in the UK which obviously is a factor in the housing shortage that is a fact of life.

Houses are expensive primarily because demand outstrips supply; there are not enough houses of the type that people want in the places that people want them. Additionally both materials and labour costs have increased significantly since Covid so new and replacement houses would be more expensive anyway even if the supply and demand market was balanced.

ReadySteadyPop

Bigphil1474 said:

GDB2222 said:

I do wonder whether the councils will be able to manage financially without second home owners? A typical second home uses scarcely any council resources. Certainly not the most expensive services, such as schools and social care. 

That's the problem not the upside. If you have a local family living in a local house and working locally, they spend their wages in the local shops, their kids go to the schools, they use local services. Only about a fifth of my local council's revenue comes from council tax - there's government grants, property revenue, business rates etc. Government funding is based on loads of factors but the make up of the local population is part of that - deprivation, unemployment, wealth etc. Second home owners aren't local population. Deprived areas have actually been the worst hit from austerity.  Second home ownership does nothing for the local community, hence the need to double council tax to discourage 2nd home ownership (which seems to be working in this case), or increase council revenue to make up the shortfall in the community. 

But an earlier poster said that only 3% of the population have a second home, I don`t get it?

ReadySteadyPop

MobileSaver said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

MobileSaver said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

https://thenegotiator.co.uk/news/regulation-law-news/authoritys-aggressive-second-homes-taxes-cause-12-4-fall-in-house-prices/

Buying opportunity for locals?

Did you actually read the article or just the click-bait headline?

"it still leaves many people priced out"

"may incentivise landlords to start using their properties for short-term lets"

So as the article says, apparently not a buying opportunity for locals...

But as you said only 3% of people have a second home? So second homes don`t contribute to the mythical "housing shortage" do they? And as you also seem to get, houses are still too expensive, and we all know the reason for that don`t we?

Many of that 3% own more than one second home so in total there are over 800,000 second homes in the UK which obviously is a factor in the housing shortage that is a fact of life.

Houses are expensive primarily because demand outstrips supply; there are not enough houses of the type that people want in the places that people want them. Additionally both materials and labour costs have increased significantly since Covid so new and replacement houses would be more expensive anyway even if the supply and demand market was balanced.

I see, so some people have been greedy? Where are all the locals living at the moment?

theartfullodger

ReadySteadyPop said:

lincroft1710 said:

FlorayG said:

I don't think you have much of a case. While your situation is slightly different to those who have a 'holiday home', the council will say you could rent somewhere or have lodgings or stay in an AirBnB or hotel 3 nights a week while a local family could buy your property and live in it.

Agree. Is there any need to own a property where you will only stay for a maximum of 40% of the time?

Wealthy people do this all the time, with multiple properties, 40% of the time is quite a lot.

Some in UK only have to pay income tax voluntarily and have many residences... 

Best wishes to all

400ixl

ReadySteadyPop said:

Bigphil1474 said:

GDB2222 said:

I do wonder whether the councils will be able to manage financially without second home owners? A typical second home uses scarcely any council resources. Certainly not the most expensive services, such as schools and social care. 

That's the problem not the upside. If you have a local family living in a local house and working locally, they spend their wages in the local shops, their kids go to the schools, they use local services. Only about a fifth of my local council's revenue comes from council tax - there's government grants, property revenue, business rates etc. Government funding is based on loads of factors but the make up of the local population is part of that - deprivation, unemployment, wealth etc. Second home owners aren't local population. Deprived areas have actually been the worst hit from austerity.  Second home ownership does nothing for the local community, hence the need to double council tax to discourage 2nd home ownership (which seems to be working in this case), or increase council revenue to make up the shortfall in the community. 

But an earlier poster said that only 3% of the population have a second home, I don`t get it?

If you apply common sense then you will spot that these second homes are often in hotspots like costal towns / villages where the impact is magnified and causes real local issues.

If you aren't in a hotspot then the impact will be minimal in the grand scheme of things. Although some other areas have an issue with derelict housing being the issue and depleting the housing stock.

Difficult to have one rule for one postcode and another for a different one.

ReadySteadyPop

400ixl said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Bigphil1474 said:

GDB2222 said:

I do wonder whether the councils will be able to manage financially without second home owners? A typical second home uses scarcely any council resources. Certainly not the most expensive services, such as schools and social care. 

That's the problem not the upside. If you have a local family living in a local house and working locally, they spend their wages in the local shops, their kids go to the schools, they use local services. Only about a fifth of my local council's revenue comes from council tax - there's government grants, property revenue, business rates etc. Government funding is based on loads of factors but the make up of the local population is part of that - deprivation, unemployment, wealth etc. Second home owners aren't local population. Deprived areas have actually been the worst hit from austerity.  Second home ownership does nothing for the local community, hence the need to double council tax to discourage 2nd home ownership (which seems to be working in this case), or increase council revenue to make up the shortfall in the community. 

But an earlier poster said that only 3% of the population have a second home, I don`t get it?

If you apply common sense then you will spot that these second homes are often in hotspots like costal towns / villages where the impact is magnified and causes real local issues.

If you aren't in a hotspot then the impact will be minimal in the grand scheme of things. Although some other areas have an issue with derelict housing being the issue and depleting the housing stock.

Difficult to have one rule for one postcode and another for a different one.

That is why they are doing one rule for all postcodes?