The Government's new compulsory pension scheme sounds a bit ominous - people like me on a low wage who are just getting by are going to have real problems managing. The recent publicity over people who've paid into a company pensions their entire working lives and then lose it all if the company goes under is very scary.
I visited Aldeburgh a couple ofyears back on a very hot weekend - th eplace was deserted at night as the tumbleweed blew along beside us. I thinkmost coastal towns are second homes now.

quote:

Originally posted by queenstomper:
Those who can afford second homes have already been taxed over and over. They should pay 50% council tax.

Well this thread has certainly flushed the manic free-marketeers out hasn't it?

Depends what you mean by "taxed over and over".

Almost certainly more lightly than they would anywhere else within the EU.

In a perfect capitalist situation, availablility increases to meet demand whilst maintaining price competitiveness. It's blindly obivous that the UK is no such Nirvana and owing to a combination of family breakdown leading to huge increase in single occupancy homes, nimbyism, successive Governments'feeble short-termism and the unbalanced economic geography - we have a chronic housing shortage in many parts of the country.

It's OK for Sex God Prescott (just because you can see a man's vest through his shirt does not make him a Socialist) to throw up thousands of hideous pastiche boxes without a thought of infrastructure, in the less-than-picturesque Thames Gateway, but as the gap between the Haves and Have-nots grows (Hello? Is that a "Labour" Government in power?) the Haves are always going to want a bolthole in Padstow rather than Tilbury.

We are where we are, and whilst I would never condone banning legislation, there should be severe financal penalties to the rich who treat the beauty spots as the annexe to their Notting Hill gaff. 50% council tax indeed!

They may only take the Cayenne down 5 weekends a year but they will still want their rubbish taken away, road repaired, and a little man from the village to stick his arm down the u-bend in the small hours after little Miles has been flushing contents of Dad's sock drawer down the loo out of sheer boredom.

Said folk need to live somewhere too.

My brother's branch of the family live in North Devon, all working and contributing, but earning Devon-style wages. Let the two-homes brigade try that.

But we're always whinging about paying our council tax anyway, with the rate it keeps rising. Why should someone pay the full whack when they don't use the services that money goes to? I get 25% off because as a single home owner I am deemed to not use the council services as much as two or more people in a house. So why should someone who owns bricks and mortar but doesn't use it pay 100% of that tax?

Or would you have done with the single person reduction as well?

Two factors that would improve the housing shortage at a stroke: Re-locate large institutions and companies away from the south east and improve public transport, especially the railways.
In this information/networking era the need to be close to the financial hub is entirely notional. Those who do need to move physically shouldn't need to pay through the nose or spend half their working day commuting.

quote:

Originally posted by queenstomper:

Or would you have done with the single person reduction as well?

Not with the current regime, and on primary residence only - no of course not. I would scrap the whole barmy system and replace it with progressive local income tax, however.

Tell me - do you agree with a general flat income tax rate (aka the Tory radicals and some former Eastern Bloc states)?

I've thought about that before. A guide we had in Gibraltar was telling us about how it is there. Everyone pays 40% in tax but there are no other taxes to pay. He said that everyone found that fair. Then again Gibraltar is a very small place and I don't think that would generate enough income if it were in place here.

I don't mind the council tax particularly, but then I'm band A and not the most expensive part of the country either, a lot of people are paying extortionate rates. I don't like how my savings are taxed when I've already paid tax on it when I earned it.

It's a really tough subject. No one system will ever suit everyone. Just with this two home thing, if high taxation on these second homes reduced the incidence of it, would those homes be bought by locals anyway? As has been thrashed out before, only if they are affordable but the only way around that is they are sold to locals only and not resold at a later date for a profit.

quote:

Originally posted by TrevGo:
My brother's branch of the family live in North Devon, all working and contributing, but earning Devon-style wages. Let the two-homes brigade try that.

I live in south devon, where in the south hams the majority of homes are second, third even fourth homes (according to a local estate agent). In Salcombe, 90% of the homes are second homes a majority of which are not let.

Everyone these days is urged to contribute to society. Second home owners contribute very little here in the south west. To all those considering this option just remember that the RNLI are at crises point in trying to recruit locals who live close enough to the lifeboat stations.

quote:

Originally posted by queenstomper:
So why should someone who owns bricks and mortar but doesn't use it pay 100% of that tax?

The second home owners here in the south west are very grateful for police and fire services looking after their bricks and mortar when they are not in residence.

quote:

Originally posted by ovalyellow:
People who crticise second home owners are often displaying simple old-fashioned jealousy.

Really? I think its more a case of wanting a level playing field when aspiring to get on the property ladder.

Second, third and fourth home ownership is having a very detrimental effect here in the south west, literally killing communities such that they become ghost towns out of season.

quote:

Originally posted by TrevGo:

Not with the current regime, and on primary residence only - no of course not. I would scrap the whole barmy system and replace it with progressive local income tax, however.

How would local income tax work with second homes? Would you pay tax to both of the councils you owned homes in and at what proportion? What if you own more than one home in the same council borough?

quote:

Originally posted by TrevGo:
My brother's branch of the family live in North Devon, all working and contributing, but earning Devon-style wages. Let the two-homes brigade try that.

So, I guess the Devon style wages people probably play about £1000 to £2000 of tax a year. I would consider buying a second home, I pay about 30,000 tax, and I do not earn 30 times the amount they earn.

So, could you sustain the hospitals in Devon if it werent for the high tax payers.

quote:

Second, third and fourth home ownership is having a very detrimental effect here in the south west, literally killing communities such that they become ghost towns out of season.

Well then surely some of the blame should be laid on locals selling their homes to "outsiders" in order to make quick bucks.

Personally speaking I don't have a second home. But if I could afford one in the future I'd love one. I know it's a struggle for FTBs - I was one in the recent past. But if it's possible for a single bloke like me in London it should be possible for people elsewhere.

It reminds me of the recent thread where someone was complaining they couldn't get on the property ladder in the south-west and then it transpires that they were on little more than the minimum wage. Spend less time moaning about the unfairness of the market and more time trying to better yourselves!

quote:

Originally posted by ovalyellow:
It reminds me of the recent thread where someone was complaining they couldn't get on the property ladder in the south-west and then it transpires that they were on little more than the minimum wage. Spend less time moaning about the unfairness of the market and more time trying to better yourselves!

Supply and demand I'm afraid - there's simply not enough jobs for
everyone to earn above average wages.

Anyway, house prices are 30% over-valued. FTBers have a right to complain!

Well people on less than average wages should just resign themselves to either never owning a houses or at most not a very nice one. That may not sounds fair but that's life for you.

quote:

Originally posted by ovalyellow:
Well people on less than average wages should just resign themselves to either never owning a houses or at most not a very nice one. That may not sounds fair but that's life for you.

Maybe, but the boomers can't suggest that it was as hard in their time. Coal miners and postmen and bin men etc could afford houses then on a single salary. Could a FTBer bin man now afford a home at 3.5x salary? Doubt it.

quote:

Originally posted by ovalyellow:

quote:

Second, third and fourth home ownership is having a very detrimental effect here in the south west, literally killing communities such that they become ghost towns out of season.

Well then surely some of the blame should be laid on locals selling their homes to "outsiders" in order to make quick bucks.

Personally speaking I don't have a second home. But if I could afford one in the future I'd love one. I know it's a struggle for FTBs - I was one in the recent past. But if it's possible for a single bloke like me in London it should be possible for people elsewhere.

It reminds me of the recent thread where someone was complaining they couldn't get on the property ladder in the south-west and then it transpires that they were on little more than the minimum wage. Spend less time moaning about the unfairness of the market and more time trying to better yourselves!

Okay oval, try putting down your Metro or Evening Standard and try scouring the jobs pages of the North Devon Gazette or The Cornishman for something with a £50K package.

And before you suggest it, it's a long way to cycle from Bideford to Blackheath.

I take your point about it being easier in the past. However you could view today's more difficult FTB climate as helping push forward productivity and profits in the wider world. People have to strive and therefore work harder which helps the economy.

Also to help counteract FTB problems I can see more and more people entering the market by inheriting property. When the baby boomers start shuffling off this mortal coil their properties will be passed down or at least some of the value from them. And as the birth rate has been reducing for the last 30-40 years so there will be less offspring to divvy this up between. Maybe this is flawed logic - I dunno.

quote:

Originally posted by ovalyellow:
Also to help counteract FTB problems I can see more and more people entering the market by inheriting property. When the baby boomers start shuffling off this mortal coil their properties will be passed down or at least some of the value from them. And as the birth rate has been reducing for the last 30-40 years so there will be less offspring to divvy this up between. Maybe this is flawed logic - I dunno.

So FTBers have to wait until they are between (possibly) 40 and 60 before being handed down a house? hmmm!!

Productivity is suffering because of high house prices! More disposable income is going straight to the bank. If prices were lower, more people would have money to save for pensions, spend on the high street etc. Businesses would pay cheaper rents etc...

I thought it might be flawed logic!

I suppose we are now a country of "haves" and "have-nots". But as long as the "have-nots" don't live too near me I couldn't care less. Harsh but true.

quote:

Originally posted by TrevGo:
Okay oval, try putting down your Metro or Evening Standard and try scouring the jobs pages of the North Devon Gazette or The Cornishman for something with a £50K package.

But you *will* find ad for doctors to work in these places for much more than £50k in the BMJ - head teachers in the Guardian - senior council staff in the LGC. And so on.

There is actually be a lot of "local" money sloshing round in these areas nowadays.

The point about someone always having to be "below average wage" is true but we as individuals can always choose to move up the hierarchy.

But that may involve leaving our home town and going to a place with more opportunities.

Sure, people bought houses on a single wage. that was because they had to - most mortgage lenders wouldn't entertain lending more that a third of the partner's earnings anyway because they said she'd only stop work (!) to have babies.

and, people didn't dream of owning their own properties in their twenties. you had to save up a hefty deposit first, and be in a steady job, and be earning enough on one wage. most of us spent years in rented before we could do that, but even in London, rented accommodation was a fraction of what it is now; it has risen out of all proportion to earnings.

it's a whole different ball game now, there is no comparison.

I agree with Queenstomper

quote:

I don't like how my savings are taxed when I've already paid tax on it when I earned it.

I think this is the most unfair tax of all. It just makes no sense at all.

quote:

Originally posted by reverand:

Maybe, but the boomers can't suggest that it was as hard in their time. Coal miners and postmen and bin men etc could afford houses then on a single salary. Could a FTBer bin man now afford a home at 3.5x salary? Doubt it.

No one can deny that it's very tough to get on the housing ladder but, believe me, it always was. Anybody who watched "Life on Mars" or indeed the recent documentary about the seventies would be hard pressed to argue that life was better then. They may have had the houses but they certainly didn't have the gizmos, the new cars, the holidays, the designer clothes, the eating out etc etc (I am aware before anybody starts shouting that many people still dont but far more do). In my opinion, most people have a far higher standard of living now than then.