Food poverty-the way out

[pwa]

Lets be clear - the person getting the money is the person paying the utility bills. It's not a cash gift rather a rebate on the bill i.e. the bill will be reduced by 400 quid. In rented properties the tenant is almost always the bill payer so will get the reduction. If someone is paying the energy bill on more than one domestic property they will get the discount on each bill. That's the way universal, non means-tested benefits work.

There's been a lot of publicity about second home owners avoiding council tax by registering the properties for business rates, the business being renting it out when they're not using. The rebate is on bills for domestic premises only, so those with the property registered for business rates won't get it.

That's a good point.

[reohn2]

Cugel
Spot on!
As second house owners hollow out communities,so the Tories are hollowing out the country for their own ends,it began with Thatcher and has continued since with present government only continuing the process.

[simonineaston]

Considering the very visible way that the current bunch of ghastly bloodsuckers are reducing the country, I'm disappointed by the failure of the opposition to sparkle. Does not bode well for us all, post Jan '24...

[Cugel]

Regarding holiday homes, I was listening to someone on the radio a few days ago who may be facing punitive taxes in Wales on his holiday lets as part of measures to combat homes being bought up to rent out, but his own lets are converted farmyard buildings on his own farm and were never real homes in the first place. He converted them to diversify his income stream. There are fine distinctions to be made here.

One might have some sympathy - but the fact is that those holiday homes are now habitable abodes that stand empty for a large portion of the year. By all means provide the owner with the means to sell them as homes, for use as such rather than as just his income generators. By all means let (indeed force) him to rent all year and/or to locals - but to pay a penalty to the community if he is, in effect, degrading the community by creating empty and unaffordable (to buy or rent) or unavailable houses rather than the proper sort.

In short, regulate property provision to the benefit of more than just a rentier or other speculator.

The problem is that we've got used to tolerating the notion of free capital as the be-all and end-all. But this style of being a rentier seems to come with no responsibilities to anyone but the property owner and his bank balance. It destroys communities and the lives of people who are trying to live and work in them.

Some will say that the sometime holiday makers renting such places in the summer months provide the community with income. That can be true - although if the community has become so degraded by a surfeit of holiday homes that there are no local services that can be maintained all year, those holidaymakers will be off in their cars to somewhere 20 miles down the road where there is an icecream van and a playpark for the little darlins.

I've personally seen a dozen now dead villages that have been holiday-homed to death. It started a couple of decades ago in Pembrokeshire but has spread to many, many more villages. In Cwm-yr-Eglwys there is only now one house lived in all year. with all the others just empty holiday "homes" for most of the year.

"Market forces", the neolibs will cry. But even that Keef Joseph came to realise (eventually) that this force is one of destruction not construction.

Cugel

[reohn2]

What is the definition of a "second home"? How about landlords who own several homes and rent them out? Are they all "second homes"? Or landlords who rent out homes in holiday hotspots at astronomical sums per week? Or are "second homes" just those inhabited by the owner on a part-time basis, their main residence being elsewhere?

In the first instance it should be the tenant who should receive the help,in the second instance there should be no payment made,in fact quite the oposite such owners should be taxed out of existence in favour of local people ownership.

Regarding holiday homes, I was listening to someone on the radio a few days ago who may be facing punitive taxes in Wales on his holiday lets as part of measures to combat homes being bought up to rent out, but his own lets are converted farmyard buildings on his own farm and were never real homes in the first place. He converted them to diversify his income stream. There are fine distinctions to be made here.

If they function as homes but used as second homes they should be taxed heavily IMHO,but as you say there are fine distinctions in some cases.
AFAICS some communities as Cugel and others point out,communities are being hollowed out by allowing second homes to exist,and in some cases such as is happening in London,Manchester and other large UK cities properties,in some cases whole apartment blocks are bought by investors,sometime foreigners who've never set foot in the country,left to stand empty until enough profit is made by the rise in property prices!

[pwa]

Regarding holiday homes, I was listening to someone on the radio a few days ago who may be facing punitive taxes in Wales on his holiday lets as part of measures to combat homes being bought up to rent out, but his own lets are converted farmyard buildings on his own farm and were never real homes in the first place. He converted them to diversify his income stream. There are fine distinctions to be made here.

One might have some sympathy - but the fact is that those holiday homes are now habitable abodes that stand empty for a large portion of the year. By all means provide the owner with the means to sell them as homes, for use as such rather than as just his income generators. By all means let (indeed force) him to rent all year and/or to locals - but to pay a penalty to the community if he is, in effect, degrading the community by creating empty and unaffordable (to buy or rent) or unavailable houses rather than the proper sort.

In short, regulate property provision to the benefit of more than just a rentier or other speculator.

The problem is that we've got used to tolerating the notion of free capital as the be-all and end-all. But this style of being a rentier seems to come with no responsibilities to anyone but the property owner and his bank balance. It destroys communities and the lives of people who are trying to live and work in them.

Some will say that the sometime holiday makers renting such places in the summer months provide the community with income. That can be true - although if the community has become so degraded by a surfeit of holiday homes that there are no local services that can be maintained all year, those holidaymakers will be off in their cars to somewhere 20 miles down the road where there is an icecream van and a playpark for the little darlins.

I've personally seen a dozen now dead villages that have been holiday-homed to death. It started a couple of decades ago in Pembrokeshire but has spread to many, many more villages. In Cwm-yr-Eglwys there is only now one house lived in all year. with all the others just empty holiday "homes" for most of the year.

"Market forces", the neolibs will cry. But even that Keef Joseph came to realise (eventually) that this force is one of destruction not construction.

Cugel

That particular owner was a farmer who had underused old farm structures around his farmyard, beside his house, and wanted to make better use of them. He got builders in and converted the old structures into holiday chalets for guests. As he pointed out, he didn't remove any existing housing from the local housing stock. And he didn't want permanent neighbours so close to his own home. I don't think he did anything to add to the local housing problems, so I don't think his business should be punished with measures intended to discourage hoovering up of housing by holiday accommodation letters. Indeed, by creating purpose-made holiday accommodation he has provided an alternative to snatching existing local housing. As it is, he is considering shutting up shop to avoid going bankrupt.

[pete75]

In the first instance it should be the tenant who should receive the help,in the second instance there should be no payment made,in fact quite the oposite such owners should be taxed out of existence in favour of local people ownership.

Regarding holiday homes, I was listening to someone on the radio a few days ago who may be facing punitive taxes in Wales on his holiday lets as part of measures to combat homes being bought up to rent out, but his own lets are converted farmyard buildings on his own farm and were never real homes in the first place. He converted them to diversify his income stream. There are fine distinctions to be made here.

If they function as homes but used as second homes they should be taxed heavily IMHO,but as you say there are fine distinctions in some cases.
AFAICS some communities as Cugel and others point out,communities are being hollowed out by allowing second homes to exist,and in some cases such as is happening in London,Manchester and other large UK cities properties,in some cases whole apartment blocks are bought by investors,sometime foreigners who've never set foot in the country,left to stand empty until enough profit is made by the rise in property prices!

You really don't like foreigners buying stuff here do you? You've mentioned it in several posts.

[pwa]

Regarding holiday homes, I was listening to someone on the radio a few days ago who may be facing punitive taxes in Wales on his holiday lets as part of measures to combat homes being bought up to rent out, but his own lets are converted farmyard buildings on his own farm and were never real homes in the first place. He converted them to diversify his income stream. There are fine distinctions to be made here.

If they function as homes but used as second homes they should be taxed heavily IMHO,but as you say there are fine distinctions in some cases.
AFAICS some communities as Cugel and others point out,communities are being hollowed out by allowing second homes to exist,and in some cases such as is happening in London,Manchester and other large UK cities properties,in some cases whole apartment blocks are bought by investors,sometime foreigners who've never set foot in the country,left to stand empty until enough profit is made by the rise in property prices!

You really don't like foreigners buying stuff here do you? You've mentioned it in several posts.

I'd refine that down. There is a problem with landlords who do not live locally and are not interested in the community. We have an instance nearby where an old building is subdivided into flats, one of which is owned by people living in London. Nobody in the building has ever seen them. They are nowhere to be seen when the building's management issues are discussed. They are never there to help when builders are due to do some work and need dealing with. They just rent out the flat as a holiday let and have no dealings with those who live in the building as their only home. To them it is just an asset, an investment.

[pete75]

If they function as homes but used as second homes they should be taxed heavily IMHO,but as you say there are fine distinctions in some cases.
AFAICS some communities as Cugel and others point out,communities are being hollowed out by allowing second homes to exist,and in some cases such as is happening in London,Manchester and other large UK cities properties,in some cases whole apartment blocks are bought by investors,sometime foreigners who've never set foot in the country,left to stand empty until enough profit is made by the rise in property prices!

You really don't like foreigners buying stuff here do you? You've mentioned it in several posts.

I'd refine that down. There is a problem with landlords who do not live locally and are not interested in the community. We have an instance nearby where an old building is subdivided into flats, one of which is owned by people living in London. Nobody in the building has ever seen them. They are nowhere to be seen when the building's management issues are discussed. They are never there to help when builders are due to do some work and need dealing with. They just rent out the flat as a holiday let and have no dealings with those who live in the building as their only home. To them it is just an asset, an investment.

There's a whole load of houses round here rented out by a rich widow living in London. She's never seen them and will likely not give a damn about those who live in them. She's of German extraction. Strangely on this Thursday and Friday a lot of people will be celebrating the fact she inherited the properties 70 years ago.

[Cugel]

That particular owner was a farmer who had underused old farm structures around his farmyard, beside his house, and wanted to make better use of them. He got builders in and converted the old structures into holiday chalets for guests. As he pointed out, he didn't remove any existing housing from the local housing stock. And he didn't want permanent neighbours so close to his own home. I don't think he did anything to add to the local housing problems, so I don't think his business should be punished with measures intended to discourage hoovering up of housing by holiday accommodation letters. Indeed, by creating purpose-made holiday accommodation he has provided an alternative to snatching existing local housing. As it is, he is considering shutting up shop to avoid going bankrupt.

That is a difficult situation to judge, it's true. If the new holiday "homes" don't inflate the local housing market by attracting others who want to buy there to use 6 weeks a year, you could make a case for an exception in the new rules for such a farmer. Maybe. But .....

On the other hand, suppose the renovations had been carried out by an absent owner and then let for just part of a year, as the farmer is doing. That is, remove the "local farmer" element from the case. Is it still acceptable for homes to be kept out of the housing market for a good part of the year (and permanently, from the point of local would-be buyers or renters) because the owner "didn't want permanent neighbours [or tenants]"? It does seem a legitimate complaint about lots of foreign-owned housing standing mostly empty because the buyers are treating those houses as an investment rather than as homes. Their unavailability to local people as homes decreases the housing supply and so ups the price of what is available.

Perhaps it should be a duty of all house builders and rentiers to make their product freely available to all, not just to non-locals, for part of a year, at inflated rents?

Personally I feel that certain elements of any civilisation of the modern kind ought to be seen as more than just someone's investment. Housing is one of those elements, along with health, food, education, fuel, transport and some other elements that are easily degraded, or become divisive, if allowed to be entirely private. I'm not against them being private but rather against unregulated private use that is damaging to others. A similar principle to that which supposedly prevents water suppliers tipping effluent into the rivers because it saves them money.

The underlying principle is a simple one: maximize everyone's rights by accepting and enforcing the many duties necessary to support and enable those rights. We seem to have fallen into habits in which we're only concerned about our rights and rarely understand that to have as many rights as we demand, others must perform duties; or lose rights of their own.

Cugel

[pwa]

That particular owner was a farmer who had underused old farm structures around his farmyard, beside his house, and wanted to make better use of them. He got builders in and converted the old structures into holiday chalets for guests. As he pointed out, he didn't remove any existing housing from the local housing stock. And he didn't want permanent neighbours so close to his own home. I don't think he did anything to add to the local housing problems, so I don't think his business should be punished with measures intended to discourage hoovering up of housing by holiday accommodation letters. Indeed, by creating purpose-made holiday accommodation he has provided an alternative to snatching existing local housing. As it is, he is considering shutting up shop to avoid going bankrupt.

That is a difficult situation to judge, it's true. If the new holiday "homes" don't inflate the local housing market by attracting others who want to buy there to use 6 weeks a year, you could make a case for an exception in the new rules for such a farmer. Maybe. But .....

On the other hand, suppose the renovations had been carried out by an absent owner and then let for just part of a year, as the farmer is doing. That is, remove the "local farmer" element from the case. Is it still acceptable for homes to be kept out of the housing market for a good part of the year (and permanently, from the point of local would-be buyers or renters) because the owner "didn't want permanent neighbours [or tenants]"? It does seem a legitimate complaint about lots of foreign-owned housing standing mostly empty because the buyers are treating those houses as an investment rather than as homes. Their unavailability to local people as homes decreases the housing supply and so ups the price of what is available.

Perhaps it should be a duty of all house builders and rentiers to make their product freely available to all, not just to non-locals, for part of a year, at inflated rents?

Personally I feel that certain elements of any civilisation of the modern kind ought to be seen as more than just someone's investment. Housing is one of those elements, along with health, food, education, fuel, transport and some other elements that are easily degraded, or become divisive, if allowed to be entirely private. I'm not against them being private but rather against unregulated private use that is damaging to others. A similar principle to that which supposedly prevents water suppliers tipping effluent into the rivers because it saves them money.

The underlying principle is a simple one: maximize everyone's rights by accepting and enforcing the many duties necessary to support and enable those rights. We seem to have fallen into habits in which we're only concerned about our rights and rarely understand that to have as many rights as we demand, others must perform duties; or lose rights of their own.

Cugel

I expect that the farmer in question went through the proper planning procedures at the time, and as he only added to local accommodation, whilst making his business more secure, I can't see why anyone would go after him as if he were the cause of problems. Making him vulnerable to punitive measures designed to hit those who had taken existing housing stock and used it for holiday lets is simply missing the target. His development is part of the solution, not part of the problem. How many other farmers will re-purpose old farm buildings in that way if they think they will end up having to sell the resulting accommodation as private housing? We should be encouraging that sort of development whilst taking steps to retain permanent homes as permanent homes. And tourist areas like West Wales do need housing for locals and accommodation for visitors. Not either/or. Both.

Thinking about it, I have a friend who retired to Pembrokeshire, to a house inherited by his wife from her mother. They live there full time but they did up an out-building as a holiday let to supplement their pensions.

[al_yrpal]

Its not only holiday or second homes that make home ownership difficult or impossible for truly local people. Well off retirees moving out from more expensive cities have always been a problem and work from homers lately flooding into rural areas are now making things worse.
I can see the day coming when attractive areas have to have a a two tier housing market like in Jersey.
Taxing people double or treble isnt a big enough disincentive.
When I had a second home in Cornwall between 1997 and 2007 we got a 25% reduction in council tax and water rates. At first there were dire times with no one wanting run down property in areas of high unemployment but in 1999 that began to change when the well off began to take their savings out of banks which paid paltry interest and invest in property to rent out and speculate with. Every man and his dog joined in...

Al

[Carlton green]

There’s a shortage of housing. Does anyone really wonder why:
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/

If the UK was a bus or a ferry then the doors would be shut to extra passengers, there’s just a limit to what they can legally carry and likewise extra people in the UK go beyond and continue to challenge what the country can support. Second homes might be a problem but it is far from the only problem. It’s a pity that our political classes are all so bent and detached from the real world ‘cause the problems that they’re causing aren’t going to be solved easily.

Data from the migration watch site suggests to me that nett migration over the last twenty years is in the order of five million people. So in that time a group of people equal to half the population of London have come to stay in the UK. That’s a lot of houses, or rather competition for housing.
https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/londons-population.
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statis ... statistics

[reohn2]

You really don't like foreigners buying stuff here do you? You've mentioned it in several posts.

It's not that they're foreigners,it's their absence and that they don't give a damn about the local community their ownership is just a means of making money at a huge cost to the those locals.
I make no apologies for that POV.
See Cugel's post above for a longer explanation why.

[reohn2]

There's a whole load of houses round here rented out by a rich widow living in London. She's never seen them and will likely not give a damn about those who live in them. She's of German extraction. Strangely on this Thursday and Friday a lot of people will be celebrating the fact she inherited the properties 70 years ago.

I won't.