Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Go Cornwall

Cornwall hits holiday home owners with extra council tax, as empty properties are charged 150% and county is first to scrap second home discount

Owners who leave their properties in Cornwall empty for more than two years will have to pay 150 per cent of their council tax bill, while discounts for second home owners have been scrapped in an unprecedented move taken today.

Posted by happy mondays @ 03:31 PM (4531 views)
Please complete the required fields.



12 thoughts on “Go Cornwall

  • mark wadsworth says:

    Yeah! A teeny tiny fairy step in the right direction 🙂

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • i remember the 90`s says:

    +2

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • 150% is not enough! Tax the buggers out with a 500% increase, that would see some market movement and might actually do some good.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Not enough. The 150% charge only applies if the house has been empty and unfurnished for two or more years. More headline grabbing weasel words of little substance!

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • I, too, am in favour but it’s still far too lenient and beats around the bush. Just introduce an extra form of Council Tax named, “Second Home-Owners are Destroying Our Communities Tax” and charge it to anyone who leaves their second home empty for more than half of the year.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Great intentions BUT

    You all forget, once again, that the housing boom was caused by:
    a) artificially low interest rates
    b) government legalising the fraudulent treatment of mortgage backed derivatives as assets, when they are infact liabilities with counterparty risk.
    c) add quantitative easing and bank bailouts to keep the party going

    As a result, NOTHING will come of this. The underlying credit conditions remain, and thus there will be a one off blip downwards in house prices, after which the second home boom will continue unabated.

    Incidentally, all Cornish people will as a result have their houses devalued relative to the rest of the country.

    Its great politics, but terrible economics to regulate an asset class with taxation. It is the monetary policy, not the fiscal policy, you stupid politicians and yet more stupid sheople (yes Marx, you included). Economically illiterate twirps.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • ontheotherhand says:

    Oh the horror! I won the lottery and bought up a load of houses in Cornwall to park the money because I don’t trust banks. Most of the year they are empty and so it makes sense that I don’t pay council tax because as we all know it pays for local bobbies walking the streets and bringing back my lost cat and since I don’t live there, they would only keep the extra council tax and spend it on chocolate hobnobs for the council meetings.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • sibley's b'stard child says:

    Half the time I haven’t the foggiest what you’re banging on about, Lubertas.

    I’m not sure whether it’s my ignorance or because you spout unintelligible cr*p.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Sib’s, and of course, anybody who waffles on about the distinction between “monetary policy” and “fiscal policy” is a bullsh-tter, ultimately the two are much the same thing. It is impossible for either of these to be completely neutral between everything, and they are both exercised/manipulated by the government.

    Even Phil Ridlertas appears to accept that “monetary policy” is being used to subsidise landowners and bankers (he is fairly consistent on this point at least), so we are agreed on that.

    But seeing as both monetary and fiscal policy (to the extent that they are two separate things) ought to be pulling in the same direction, a sensible overall policy would be to stop taking away people’s earned income (via income tax) and subsidising landowners (via public investment) and to claw back some of the wealth which is otherwise scooped up by landowners via rental values (via LVT). Obviously, sensible “monetary policy” would end artificially low interest rates for landowners and bankers, but we can nail this down with LVT – there would simply be nothing left for them to buy and sell and lend or speculate on.

    Job done 🙂

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Mark Wadsworth, AKA Carl Marx. Land values only based on rental values? Simplistic “economics” which may be easy to communicate but which doesn’t function.

    What you are claiming, is quite preposterous, even to a 9th grader. You propose that credit conditions have nothing to do with property values!

    The only situation where rent could possible be the sole determination of property prices is if EVERYBODY rented their homes, including landlords. Of course, since home ownership in this country is quite dominant, clearly that situation is an example of pure economic theory not born in reality. It could only exist in a Fascist country where everybody was FORCED to rent from landlords or the State, since in a free market many people will choose to buy.

    Your claim is that credit conditions cannot decouple from the rental power of renters. This is nonsense, given that in the majority of towns now, rental values cannot pay mortgage repayments without massive down payments whereas ten years ago that business model was a no brainier.

    The economy is far more dynamic than you and others who came before you, believe. As a result, it is impossible to control entire asset classes with mere fiscal policy, If taxation were enough to control and regulate the economy, we would not have any problems. Of course, just like the Federal Reserve who say that QE isn’t working because we don’t have enough, you say, after 100 years of high taxation in this country, that it would only work if we had the right taxes, that we just haven’t taxed properly before, that the free market is defunct and could not be self-regulating.

    Essentially, you are an example of the hierarchical society which caused this problem in the first place and the fundamental problem is a focus on linear solutions and “understandings” for complex non-linear feedback systems of the type discovered in chaos theory and quantum mechanics, but you still exist behind the Descartian divide of predictable cause and effect, even though all your experience and all history would prove otherwise that the world never reacts the way you want it to react, which is the fundamental reason why, rather than attempt to control the world, we should attempt to set it free, to provide the fertile ground for self regulating feedback systems to function honestly and properly. Systems like price discovery via supply and demand in the context. But you have to come in and say that market malfunction caused by prior government intervention can be solved with further government intervention, if only government could find the right tools. But in the end, realise that you are the tool.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Dear Libertas aka Phil Ridley, here’s some basic economics for you:

    1. Land rents are a FLOW of wealth from “the whole nation” to “landowners and banks”. The rental values are largely unaffected by credit conditions and have everything to do with how well the economy is doing, local amenities, taxpayer funded infrastructure, law and order, stable government, law abiding populace etc. For example, when interest rates went up quite markedly in the early 1990s, this had no particular impact on rents, they did no go up or down. The estate agents don’t deny this for a second, remember the mantra “Location, location, location”? That’s their way of saying what I would call “community generated rental values”.

    2. The selling price of land is the capitalised value of future flows of rental income. If credit conditions are too easy, then the discount rate applied is lower and so the selling price goes up, then we get bubble conditions and so on, and then everything collapses again unless the government pumps more taxpayers’ money into land values and banks.

    These two things are quite distinct, the privatly collected rental value provides the raw material and credit conditions determine the multiple.

    Everybody else understands this intuitively, you are about the only person in complete denial. But then again, you don’t know the difference between “assets” and “liabilities” so I don’t hold out much hope.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



Add a comment

  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user´s views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>