What affect would taxing second homes have on the economy

Soldato
Joined
18 Feb 2006
Posts
9,570
My parents didn't get hand outs, my mother in law worked 3 jobs at one point to give them what they wanted. Did they moan about it? No. My parents are close to retiring (1 already has). My Dad worked from the age of 16, planned wisely, never out of work, they have done very well. Yes they have property which is now of good value. Why would you expect him to pay more NI, when for the last X years they have been.

Why would you expect those 65+ to not pay NI? Is any tax of those who are retired acceptable? Or just NI? Or is it just taxing those 65 and above for social care? I.e. those eligible. I personally think it makes perfect sense for everyone receiving an income, regardless of age, to be taxed at the same rates. I'd take it further and abolish NI and change the tax bands to what they actually are, 32% and 42%. Capital gains and income from property rentals will then be captured in this.
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Feb 2011
Posts
3,619
That would be too simple. The government doesn’t want everyone to know how much tax they actually pay otherwise we’d start to ask the awkward questions we should be asking now.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2012
Posts
10,072
Location
West Sussex, England
What about people with family/partners abroad?

How long can they be with their partner before they have to give up their own home?

Or do I just need to "let" my house to a family member or a friend for a nominal £1 or something if I'm there more than 10 months?


Oo actually totally a good business idea what's the minimum legal status for "empty" like 60 days?

You could run a good business spending say 1 week in various 2nd/holiday/investment/un let properties every 2 months to keep them "rented".

Also how many homes can you legally rent?


A tax on not let properties could be side stepped by them being bulk let to a holding company of some sort?

Tenants'r us kinda thing

What about them, I didn't include each person's main residence.

As for homes being owned by companies, I don't believe that should be allowed anyway, save for a mortgage company.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Jul 2008
Posts
2,530
Location
Birmingham
Why would you expect those 65+ to not pay NI? Is any tax of those who are retired acceptable? Or just NI? Or is it just taxing those 65 and above for social care? I.e. those eligible. I personally think it makes perfect sense for everyone receiving an income, regardless of age, to be taxed at the same rates. I'd take it further and abolish NI and change the tax bands to what they actually are, 32% and 42%. Capital gains and income from property rentals will then be captured in this.

Well pensions are taxed, although they don't pay NI. The argument is that, they have already paid "what was needed" in order to pay for their potential care post that point. Those that have property/assets, will be expected to use it to pay for social care, whereas others they don't will get it for free.

Yes things have moved on, things cost more money, but for me it is what it is.
 
Caporegime
Joined
22 Nov 2005
Posts
45,164
As for homes being owned by companies, I don't believe that should be allowed anyway, save for a mortgage company.
all houses should have to be rented out at social rents :p , any empty homes should be seized.
all those london homes no one lives in because people are playing monopoly........
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2012
Posts
10,072
Location
West Sussex, England
all houses should have to be rented out at social rents :p , any empty homes should be seized.
all those london homes no one lives in because people are playing monopoly........

I think rents should be controlled in some way that they are affordable and reasonable. I wouldn't support seizing empty properties but I don't think mass ownership of homes for rental should be encouraged any more than we'd want rampant profiteering from utility companies.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Feb 2006
Posts
9,570
Well pensions are taxed, although they don't pay NI. The argument is that, they have already paid "what was needed" in order to pay for their potential care post that point. Those that have property/assets, will be expected to use it to pay for social care, whereas others they don't will get it for free.

Yes things have moved on, things cost more money, but for me it is what it is.

And the reality is, people are being asked to pay more. Except not the people who need these services most?


In another note, I walked past my local hospital earlier and the queue for A and E was about 20 people long. That is the queue to be checked in. Not those waiting in a and e.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Jan 2009
Posts
6,554
any empty homes should be seized.
all those london homes no one lives in because people are playing monopoly........


There are plenty of good reasons for addresses to be unoccupied for periods of time.

For example the house I currently live in was unoccupied for six months whilst waiting for a building manager to be available and then unoccupied for a further 9 months whilst extensive (and in some cases quite pressing) works were being undertaken on it all whilst I lived in a rented property.

Relatively there are few addresses intentionally left vacant and in a habitable condition when they could easily be rented out.

A lot of unoccupied premises are the result of things like dealing with probate, people having gone into care homes and address awaiting/ undergoing renovation.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
1 Jul 2008
Posts
2,530
Location
Birmingham
And the reality is, people are being asked to pay more. Except not the people who need these services most?

Because they have already paid. When we are that age, im sure i will be saying the same...why should i pay more.

In another note, I walked past my local hospital earlier and the queue for A and E was about 20 people long. That is the queue to be checked in. Not those waiting in a and e.

Maybe if we stopped time wasters going down there by introducing a nominal fee at A&E, it wouldn't have a queue.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
29,074
Location
Ottakring, Vienna.
I especially love the comment, "There will always be winners and loser, just make sure you're on the winning team." It's literally "I'm alright Jack, and I'd rather not help those below me, because if everyone's doing OK then I'm not special. So *** em, I like that there's poor people beneath me. The world isn't fair, but I feel fine."
What's wrong with that?
 
Soldato
Joined
31 Jan 2004
Posts
11,292
Location
Matakana New Zealand
Where are these 500k empty homes?

I can assure you every home being built around me has people buying them and living in them.

Just because it's happening in London doesn't mean that problem exists elsewhere.

Therefore you cannot say it's a nationwide problem that people are buying property and then just sitting on it, doing nothing with it.

Try Auckland, there are literally THOUSANDS of empty $1m+ dollar homes here, owned by Chinese nationals that come over for a couple of weeks a year!

https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/...s-why-and-what-would-get-them-into-the-market
 
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,805
Where I am in the South West it happens to an extent but seems to have have eased off a bit since the pandemic - with more people looking to get out of London with the ability to remote work it seems some sold them at a high. The further into the South West you go the more common it seems to be.

I doubt it is a nationwide problem though.
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jun 2007
Posts
68,770
Location
Wales
And the reality is, people are being asked to pay more. Except not the people who need these services most?

.

Wel yeah that's kind of how a benefits system works.


Do did you think parents were paying for child benefit?

Children for schools and the sick for hospitals?
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Feb 2006
Posts
9,570
Wel yeah that's kind of how a benefits system works.


Do did you think parents were paying for child benefit?

Children for schools and the sick for hospitals?

The difference is they could but the government has chosen not to. There's no need to be facetious by saying 5 year olds should pay for their own schooling. :rolleyes:
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jun 2007
Posts
68,770
Location
Wales
The difference is they could but the government has chosen not to. There's no need to be facetious by saying 5 year olds should pay for their own schooling. :rolleyes:


How about their parents pay then?

And the reality is, people are being asked to pay more. Except not the people who need these services most?

Which benefit can you actually apply this sentence to? Really?

Healthcare?
Unemployment?
Schooling?
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
And the reality is, people are being asked to pay more. Except not the people who need these services most?


In another note, I walked past my local hospital earlier and the queue for A and E was about 20 people long. That is the queue to be checked in. Not those waiting in a and e.
Average A&E wait here is 4+ hours, unless your arm is literally hanging off.

But then the number of people who go to A&E for some cough syrup is insane. Source: people who work there.
 
Back
Top Bottom