Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Cornwall... Target On 2Nd Home Owners !


Bosh
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.lovemoney.com/news/property-and-mortgages/buying-and-selling-property/18511/council-tax-discount-scrapped-for-second-homes-in-cornwall?source=1000550

Cornwall becomes the first county to attempt to scrap second home council tax discounts.

Second homes in Cornwall may no longer be able to benefit from a 10% council tax discount after a vote today by the Cornwall Council cabinet.

There could also be a 150% charge levied on houses in the area which are left vacant for two years or more.

Cornwall is the first county to propose scrapping the second home discount and it’s possible others, including those in London, are soon to follow.

Although this has been voted on by the cabinet, the plans will now have to go through a scrutiny committee and the full council will take a vote on 11th December before anything becomes final.

If they are agreed the changes should take place on 1st April.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might be unintended consequences there. Where a couple own a London home and a Kernow home, it might prompt them to register one as his and one as her permanent address, and then kick themselves for not having done that long ago to get the single person discount on both places.

The one thing that would hit them is the one they've successfully made into a political no-go area: John Major's fuel price escalator could eventually have prompted a change to that lifestyle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second homes shouldn't be permitted at all unless they are occupied for more than 6 months a year*. Buy to let? Fine, as long as it's occupied. Holiday let? Fine, as long as it's occupied. Holiday home you only use for four weeks a year? Sorry, no. Rent a place for that time and actually contribute to the community.

*or some other time period calculated to maximise occupancy and minimise impact on those very few people who do actually need two homes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second homes shouldn't be permitted at all unless they are occupied for more than 6 months a year*. Buy to let? Fine, as long as it's occupied. Holiday let? Fine, as long as it's occupied. Holiday home you only use for four weeks a year? Sorry, no. Rent a place for that time and actually contribute to the community.

*or some other time period calculated to maximise occupancy and minimise impact on those very few people who do actually need two homes.

Non owner occupation / non main home (includes BTL, holiday home. holiday let), charge business rates.

1 year leeway for inherited as long as no income generated / not previously caught.

Failure to register - big fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the problem is best resolved by allowing more homes to be built, if there is such demand? Charging more council tax is not going to reinvigorate communities. The local people priced out will still need to move away. Or perhaps locals are moving away because there is not enough employment anyway? Either way, the extra tax will not solve the problem. The problem can only be solved by a more vibrant economy and housing that is more affordable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the problem is best resolved by allowing more homes to be built, if there is such demand? Charging more council tax is not going to reinvigorate communities. The local people priced out will still need to move away. Or perhaps locals are moving away because there is not enough employment anyway? Either way, the extra tax will not solve the problem. The problem can only be solved by a more vibrant economy and housing that is more affordable.

Indeed, while the discount was doubtless a source of great irritation for people living in the communities, it's not going to make any difference to the overall cost of housing, the loss of the 10% discount will be something like £25/month if you've got a really big place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, while the discount was doubtless a source of great irritation for people living in the communities, it's not going to make any difference to the overall cost of housing, the loss of the 10% discount will be something like £25/month if you've got a really big place.

Spose its a start, but 10% extra CT isn't exactly going to break the bank for those who own half million quid second homes....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Cornwall is the first county to propose scrapping the second home discount and it's possible others, including those in London, are soon to follow.
7 December 2012
Council tax on second and empty homes in Camden to rise
Camden says it is the first London council to propose the changes and will decide on implementing them in January.
"Camden has a severe shortage of housing, yet every year thousands of properties are left vacant by private landlords and second homes continue to enjoy a tax break," said councillor Theo Blackwell.
The 10% discount on second-home owners and and landlords of furnished properties would also be abolished.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-20634448

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing will come of it. There will be lots of ways around it. Houses are the only thing the UK has going for it now.

It's another good step, IIRC these were on only 60% council tax a few years back, it sends out a message and paves the way for greater than 100% council tax on these empty homes. The news should dissuade others from buying them so continuing the downward movement in prices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second homes shouldn't be permitted at all unless they are occupied for more than 6 months a year*. Buy to let? Fine, as long as it's occupied. Holiday let? Fine, as long as it's occupied. Holiday home you only use for four weeks a year? Sorry, no. Rent a place for that time and actually contribute to the community.

*or some other time period calculated to maximise occupancy and minimise impact on those very few people who do actually need two homes.

I spy an authoritairian statist.

Oh, and if were occupied for 'more than six months a year' it wouldn't be the 'second home', would it?

Edited by happy_renting
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spy an authoritairian statist.

Oh, and if were occupied for 'more than six months a year' it wouldn't be the 'second home', would it?

No, you have it exactly the wrong way around.

What would happen to all the empty second homes in London without the intervention of an authoritarian state?

Edited by (Blizzard)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you have it exactly the wrong way around.

What would happen to all the empty second homes in London without the intervention of an authoritarian state?

Spord says that second homes should not be 'allowed' - implicitly by 'authorities'. That is clearly statist.

I was also pointing out that if a place is occupied more than 6 months by its owner, it is obviously a main home, not a second home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spord says that second homes should not be 'allowed' - implicitly by 'authorities'. That is clearly statist.

I was also pointing out that if a place is occupied more than 6 months by its owner, it is obviously a main home, not a second home.

No, it isn't.

A large part of the problem with the way we distribute land, is that people have been fooled into confusing the functioning of government with the functioning of a market. Land is distributed by government, it is a government permit scheme.

It requires a strong state to keep land unused. If the state did nothing, there would not be unused land in popular areas.

Whether this is good or bad is a different matter.

I don't disagree about the definition of a second home, but then I'm not an MP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it isn't.

A large part of the problem with the way we distribute land, is that people have been fooled into confusing the functioning of government with the functioning of a market. Land is distributed by government, it is a government permit scheme.

It requires a strong state to keep land unused. If the state did nothing, there would not be unused land in popular areas.

Whether this is good or bad is a different matter.

I don't disagree about the definition of a second home, but then I'm not an MP.

Ok.. if people are not to be 'allowed' to have second homes, who would enforce that? If not the State, who?

The State dictating how many homes you can have, or where, is statism.

"In political science, statism (French: étatisme) is the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy". - Wikipedia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok.. if people are not to be 'allowed' to have second homes, who would enforce that? If not the State, who?

The State dictating how many homes you can have, or where, is statism.

"In political science, statism (French: étatisme) is the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy". - Wikipedia

You are making the same mistake the Labour party makes when they claim a benefit cut is the same as a tax.

The government simply stops protecting the land claims of some people. It isn't an intervention, it is an end to the existing intervention.

As an analogy, taking the income from, say, a doctor, requires the intervention of the state. Suggesting we take away the Doctor's income is an argument for a bigger state.

Giving income to the queen, requires the intervention of the state. So suggesting we take away the Queen's income is an argument for a smaller state.

Landowners would love us to think they are entrepreneurs involved in free-trade, and go to great lengths to convince us they should be left alone, untaxed, and unregulated. This is a big lie.

The land market is a giant government intervention, and totally inconsistent with the idea of liberal free markets.

Of course, in practice, the idea of banning 'unused' houses is unworkable. How do you define an unused house? Is a single person in a 4 bed house using it enough?

Monitoring this would involve state agencies, and lots of snooping. That doesn't change the fundamental big state nature of the housing market.

Edited by (Blizzard)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are making the same mistake the Labour party makes when they claim a benefit cut is the same as a tax.

The government simply stops protecting the land claims of some people. It isn't an intervention, it is an end to the existing intervention.

As an analogy, taking the income from, say, a doctor, requires the intervention of the state. Suggesting we take away the Doctor's income is an argument for a bigger state.

Giving income to the queen, requires the intervention of the state. So suggesting we take away the Queen's income is an argument for a smaller state.

Landowners would love us to think they are entrepreneurs involved in free-trade, and go to great lengths to convince us they should be left alone, untaxed, and unregulated. This is a big lie.

The land market is a giant government intervention, and totally inconsistent with the idea of liberal free markets.

Of course, in practice, the idea of banning 'unused' houses is unworkable. How do you define an unused house? Is a single person in a 4 bed house using it enough?

Monitoring this would involve state agencies, and lots of snooping. That doesn't change the fundamental big state nature of the housing market.

I am not making a mistake. Intervention can be by negative means as well as positive. If the State were to selectively apply such a policy, as you suggest, it would still be social policy, and therefore statism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not making a mistake. Intervention can be by negative means as well as positive. If the State were to selectively apply such a policy, as you suggest, it would still be social policy, and therefore statism.

And at the moment....we have Fascism....the owning class dictating what THEY can get away with.

Whatever happens, there is a convenient ism to cover it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not making a mistake. Intervention can be by negative means as well as positive. If the State were to selectively apply such a policy, as you suggest, it would still be social policy, and therefore statism.

No, if the state stops recognising the land permits for one group, then the state is doing less.

It might, or might not, be fair. That's not the point.

The point is that the land market requires government intervention, and many reforms - banning multiple homes, empty homes, or a land tax, are, despite all propaganda to the contrary, about reducing state interference.

For example, I am opposed to the idea of banning second homes for practical reasons. However I am not entirely opposed to the idea of banning foreign ownership of land. The state imposes an artificial market, it should at least do that in such a way to benefit its own electorate.

Or just stop, and let the market work. Either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, if the state stops recognising the land permits for one group, then the state is doing less.

It might, or might not, be fair. That's not the point.

The point is that the land market requires government intervention, and many reforms - banning multiple homes, empty homes, or a land tax, are, despite all propaganda to the contrary, about reducing state interference.

For example, I am opposed to the idea of banning second homes for practical reasons. However I am not entirely opposed to the idea of banning foreign ownership of land. The state imposes an artificial market, it should at least do that in such a way to benefit its own electorate.

Or just stop, and let the market work. Either way.

No, if a state iecognises only some land permits, for the purpose of social engineering, it is statism.

You are against the banning of second homes for practical reasons? Fair enough.

I am against that sort of ban because I do not want to live in a society that meddles to that degree in how I run my life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, if a state iecognises only some land permits, for the purpose of social engineering, it is statism.

You are against the banning of second homes for practical reasons? Fair enough.

I am against that sort of ban because I do not want to live in a society that meddles to that degree in how I run my life.

The government already decides who gets to live where. You're really arguing about how it makes that decision.

The government has decided that the duke of Westminster gets the best bits of London. It's no different, in principle, if they decide that some people can't have two homes, and it's a detail considering they have already decided that many people can have none.

In practice, a rule like 'Catholics can't have land' might be even worse than the status quo, and banning two homes is somewhere on this spectrum of unfairness.

However this doesn't change the fact that the government controls the allocation of land now, and it's allocation is arbitrary and unfair. That's the status quo.

There's nothing ideologically inconsistent about banning second home ownership and advocating free markets beyond the existing inconsistency between free markets and government allocated land permits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.