"Conor" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
says...

Well I'm sure permission could be granted for the construction of a few
extra houses to satisfy some of the demand.

Nope. Govt policy on greenfield sites.

We know that! But perhaps that is the policy which should be modified! Not
the taxation one.


--
Conor

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

Conor wrote:

This applies to people living and working in a rural community. People
like agricultural workers.

Who nowadays are generally asylum seekers bussed in from the nearest big
city.

--
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)

"Silk" wrote in message
...
Oliver Keating wrote:

1) Social justice

People who are not prepared to work should get no money. That's social
justice.


What about people who want to but are not allowed to?

In article , Oliver Keating
writes

"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.
You mean that rich people should have there 2nd house outside of the UK.
So another country can tax them.

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.
Houses with scenic view have always been more expensive. Build houses
with out scenic views

--
Zaax
http://www.ukgatsos.com

"Silk" wrote in message
...
Oliver Keating wrote:

1) Social justice

People who are not prepared to work should get no money. That's social
justice.


What an incredible contribution. Thank you. I have seen the light

"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

"PeterE" wrote the following in:


Conor wrote:

This applies to people living and working in a rural community.
People like agricultural workers.

Who nowadays are generally asylum seekers bussed in from the
nearest big city.

Stupid statements like that reveal nothing but your own idiocy.

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Enjoy the Routemaster while you still can.

"Handlebar catch and nipple."

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?

Just how congested are the roads on Friday and Sunday evenings?
UIVMM they're far from the busiest times!

Robin May wrote:
"PeterE" wrote the following in:


Conor wrote:

This applies to people living and working in a rural community.
People like agricultural workers.

Who nowadays are generally asylum seekers bussed in from the
nearest big city.

Stupid statements like that reveal nothing but your own idiocy.

Do disagree that agricultural workers are often bussed in from cities then?
Whether they're asylum seekers, illegal immigrants or whatever is
irrelevant.

Perhaps in your fantasy world agricultural work is done by long-serving
workers called "Clem" who live in tied cottages next to the land being
farmed.

Meanwhile, in the real world....

--
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)

"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...

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

What on earth is social justice? I don't know if you've ever noticed, but
people who have a fair bit of money chucking around generally have it for a
reason. The average rich person probably runs a business which employs a
fair few people, or is high up in a business and through their work ensures
the business is profitable, thus employing people. It's not like they've
made their money by walking around flogging the working classes and killing
their children. The aforementioned rich ******* and his employees go and
spend money, which makes more jobs for the people selling goods and
providing services. You tax people purely because they're rich and all you
do is put off people from being enterprising.

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.

But if you reduce the tax burden surely you encourage enterprise, which
moves more money around the economy and thus you still get your tax. I am
not an economist, but AFAIK there are still arguments about high vs low tax
. The rich will always provide you with more revenue per capita as they're
spending and earning more cash.