London Banter - View Single Post

JNugent

wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

obin May wrote...

"Vulpes Argenteus (formerly M)" wrote:

I like the idea of 'social justice' insofar as a second home is
much less heavily used in terms of local resources: waste
disposal, road maintenance and so forth, and should therefore
be comparatively lightly taxed.

But a second home is an inefficient allocation of resources.
Something that could be used to help solve housing shortage
problems instead ends up sitting unused for large amounts of the
time and the owners make little contribution to the local
economy.

I hve bought five houses and sold four.

Well done. Would you like a medal?

No, thanks.

Having a home to live in (and a potential inheritance for my offspring) is
reward enough, even taking account the year or two I spent scrimping and
saving (and working every available hour) to get the deposit (and other
required sums) together for the first house.

I have never seen anything in any part of any of the contracts
which said or implied that I was under any obligation to do
anything towards "solve housing shortages" [sic], or to "make
contribution to the local economy" - or even that I had to live in
the property being purchased.

Well my my, what a surprise.

Well, it was a surprise to me when you implied that there was such a duty
incumbent upon the owners of houses.

Has property law changed in the last tweve years?

Your whole argument is completely irrelevant to what I was saying.

Argument?

What argument?

I was asking you a *question* or two - prompted by your astounding
implication that houses are *only* there to "help solve housing shortage
problems" (whereas most of us think of them as places to live rather than as
fodder in some class war). I was just as surprised by your implicit claim
that the owner of a home" (you *must* be thinking of Two Jags / Five Homes
Prescott here, I think) has some sirt of duty to "make ... contribution to
the local economy".

Statrtling propositions, yes... but actually, not so startling when one
thinks how many other liberties have been swept away in the past six years
or so.

Does the fact that there is no law against something mean it is good
and has no negative effects?

Does the fact that there is no law agaisnt something mean people aren't
allowed to do it?

If you believe that you're more stupid
than I had ever imagined possible. I wasn't saying anything about
property law so why you should bring that up is a mystery.

But you *were* saying something about property!

You were strongly implying that home-owners have some sort of "duty" which
goes above and beyond the duties they took on when buying / inheriting.

I was
merely pointing out that while a second home may make be less of a
burden to local authorities,

That much is definitely true.

"Second homes" mean little - or more likely - *no* demand from that house
for the services of the local education services (the largest slice of LA
expenditure), and they almost certainly mean no demand for the services of
the Social Services department (another moneypit).

In practice, the only direct service the second home owner is likely to
demand from the LA is that the bin is emptied - and even that may not be
every week. And that is more then well-paid-for by a 50% council tax bill,
as I'm sure you'll agree.

it is also an inefficient allocation of
resources and so should definitely not be lightly taxed.

(a) Local authorities have no duty (or power, I hasten to add) to seek
efficiency in allocation of resources other than their own services (and not
all of them manage even that, we should remember).

(b) Homes are not "taxed" like income; the council tax is supposed to be a
fee for services rendered, not a spiteful grab to satisfy grudge-bearers.

This would
remove one of the disincentives to buying another home and thus
encourage inefficient resource allocation.

Really?