Given the that the increased road congestion in Friday and Sunday evenings
is caused by many people going and from to their country cottages for the
weekend, isn't it time that second homes attracted a punative rate of
council tax?

An added bonus of this would be to free-up houses in rural and other
touristy areas that young people on local wages could afford to buy or rent
who would then spend money in the local economy.

Cast_Iron wrote:
Given the that the increased road congestion in Friday and Sunday
evenings is caused by many people going and from to their country
cottages for the weekend, isn't it time that second homes attracted a
punative rate of council tax?

Is it not mostly caused by either:

(a) people who work in the South-East during the week travelling home for
the weekend, or

(b) people visiting friends and relatives for the weekend

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William
Pitt, 1783)

PeterE wrote...

Cast_Iron wrote:

Given the that the increased road congestion in Friday and Sunday
evenings is caused by many people going and from to their country
cottages for the weekend, isn't it time that second homes attracted a
punative rate of council tax?

Is it not mostly caused by either:
(a) people who work in the South-East during the week travelling home for
the weekend, or
(b) people visiting friends and relatives for the weekend

Don't feed the trolls.

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
Given the that the increased road congestion in Friday and Sunday
evenings
is caused by many people going and from to their country cottages for the
weekend, isn't it time that second homes attracted a punative rate of
council tax?

An added bonus of this would be to free-up houses in rural and other
touristy areas that young people on local wages could afford to buy or
rent
who would then spend money in the local economy.



I can't say I have a second home, but why should a second home be heavily
taxed? Second homes make very low demands upon local services. I would
suspect that even if you prevented anyone from owning a second home, it
would make little difference to the general housing market.

People travelling to their 2nd homes pay plenty of tax travelling to them. I
would suspect most traffic though is caused by people seeing friends or
relatives, or travelling to/from their place of work for the week.

Mikael

"Mikael Armstrong" wrote in message
...
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
Given the that the increased road congestion in Friday and Sunday
evenings
is caused by many people going and from to their country cottages for
the
weekend, isn't it time that second homes attracted a punative rate of
council tax?

An added bonus of this would be to free-up houses in rural and other
touristy areas that young people on local wages could afford to buy or
rent
who would then spend money in the local economy.



I can't say I have a second home, but why should a second home be heavily
taxed?

Because people who own 2 houses are clearly very rich, and the rich should
be targeted for tax for two reasons:

1) Social justice
2) It would actually be impossible to raise enough revenue if everyone was
taxed to the same %age because the rich provide a disproportionately large
chunk of revenue.

Second homes make very low demands upon local services. I would
suspect that even if you prevented anyone from owning a second home, it
would make little difference to the general housing market.

This is completely untrue. There are many examples in West England where the
popularity of second homes, particularly in scenic locations, has driven up
prices making it really hard for people with local jobs to find somewhere
affordable.

People travelling to their 2nd homes pay plenty of tax travelling to them.
I
would suspect most traffic though is caused by people seeing friends or
relatives, or travelling to/from their place of work for the week.

The thing is, most people with a 2nd home will travel there every weekend
without fail.

Mikael

"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...

"Mikael Armstrong" wrote in message
...
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
Given the that the increased road congestion in Friday and Sunday
evenings
is caused by many people going and from to their country cottages for
the
weekend, isn't it time that second homes attracted a punative rate of
council tax?

An added bonus of this would be to free-up houses in rural and other
touristy areas that young people on local wages could afford to buy or
rent
who would then spend money in the local economy.



I can't say I have a second home, but why should a second home be
heavily
taxed?

Because people who own 2 houses are clearly very rich, and the rich should
be targeted for tax for two reasons:

1) Social justice
2) It would actually be impossible to raise enough revenue if everyone was
taxed to the same %age because the rich provide a disproportionately large
chunk of revenue.

Second homes make very low demands upon local services. I would
suspect that even if you prevented anyone from owning a second home, it
would make little difference to the general housing market.

This is completely untrue. There are many examples in West England where
the
popularity of second homes, particularly in scenic locations, has driven
up
prices making it really hard for people with local jobs to find somewhere
affordable.

It is the lack of supply which will have driven prices up. Lets face it, out
of teh total population, very few people have 2nd homes, so you would not
have to let many new homes to be built to offset the effect in the areas
concerned. Lets allow people to build a few more houses in the areas people
actually want to live in, rather than proposing more construction in the
areas already filled to the brim.

People travelling to their 2nd homes pay plenty of tax travelling to
them.
I
would suspect most traffic though is caused by people seeing friends or
relatives, or travelling to/from their place of work for the week.

The thing is, most people with a 2nd home will travel there every weekend
without fail.

And so what? They already pay the petrol tax, they will have paid stamp duty
buying the house (another unfair tax), and no doubt they will be high
earners paying fair amounts of income tax too.

Many people owning 2nd homes probably also spend a reasonable amount in the
local area where they travel to at the weekends, and perhaps will have
employed local people to renovate the houses if needed. Wealth and properity
comes from people doing business, not from taxes.


Mikael

"Mikael Armstrong" wrote in message
...
"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...

"Mikael Armstrong" wrote in message
...
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
Given the that the increased road congestion in Friday and Sunday
evenings

It is the lack of supply which will have driven prices up.

Lack of supply, excess of demand.... whats the difference? It is entirely
subjective.

Lets face it, out
of teh total population, very few people have 2nd homes,

No, but the number of homes being sold as second homes is growing faster
than first homes, so they are having an effect on growing prices.

so you would not
have to let many new homes to be built to offset the effect in the areas
concerned. Lets allow people to build a few more houses in the areas
people
actually want to live in, rather than proposing more construction in the
areas already filled to the brim.

Um, people _do_ want to live in London, and there are 100,000 new homes
propesed. What is the problem with that?

People travelling to their 2nd homes pay plenty of tax travelling to
them.
I
would suspect most traffic though is caused by people seeing friends
or
relatives, or travelling to/from their place of work for the week.

The thing is, most people with a 2nd home will travel there every
weekend
without fail.

And so what? They already pay the petrol tax, they will have paid stamp
duty
buying the house (another unfair tax), and no doubt they will be high
earners paying fair amounts of income tax too.

Because they if they are rich enough to be buying a second house (which I
regard as the ultimate frivoulous activity), they can certainly afford to be
screwed for every penny by the tax man.

And as people keep seeming to forget, every pound that one of these rich
kids pays is a pound that the poor don't have to pay.

Many people owning 2nd homes probably also spend a reasonable amount in
the
local area where they travel to at the weekends, and perhaps will have
employed local people to renovate the houses if needed. Wealth and
properity
comes from people doing business, not from taxes.

Except of course they do _far_ less business than someone for whom that is
their first home.

Parts of the west country are dying off thanks to second home buyers, there
are just not enough people around to support the economy.


Mikael

In article ,
says...

Um, people _do_ want to live in London, and there are 100,000 new homes
propesed. What is the problem with that?

And those would be the low cost housing which they've been forced to
implement because essential workers can't afford to live there?

--
Conor

"Cogito Eggo Sum" - "I think, therefore I am a waffle"

Oliver Keating wrote in message
...

Because they if they are rich enough to be buying a second house (which I
regard as the ultimate frivoulous activity), they can certainly afford to
be
screwed for every penny by the tax man.

Why is owning a second home "the ultimate frivolous activity"? It's well
known that property is as a general rule a solid investment. You get the
benefit of having an appreciating asset whilst having a house in the
country, or nearer your family etc. Why should activities you consider
frivolous be taxed heavily, rather than ones I consider frivolous? Why not
tax gambling like mad?

And as people keep seeming to forget, every pound that one of these rich
kids pays is a pound that the poor don't have to pay.

The argument about heavily taxing high earners is going on elsewhere in the
thread, so I won't repeat myself here.

What I'd like to know is this: If you're so bothered why go to the frivolity
of buying a new car when you've got a couple of apparently servicable cars
knocking around? Why not give what you've lost in depreciation on the CLK to
charity? You don't actually give a toss, but like to think, and for others
to think that you do. Same goes for you being bothered about the
environment. I don't suppose you considered that manufacturing a new car is
widely acknowledged to pollute more than running an old one. If you're going
to constantly bang on about your politics you ought to have the decency to
stand by your views.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:54:37 -0000, "Oliver Keating"
wrote:

Because they if they are rich enough to be buying a second house (which I
regard as the ultimate frivoulous activity), they can certainly afford to be
screwed for every penny by the tax man.

Between us, my wife & I own 2 homes & rent a 3rd. Does that make us rich? Hardly. We have
our family home. We also own the home which, before our marriage, I shared with my mother;
my mother still lives there. My wife also rents an apartment near her work (1000 miles
from home).

Now should I sell my old home, thus making my mother homeless? Should my wife commute
daily?

If you want to tax rich people, tax income, not what people choose to spend their money
on.

--
Duncan