89
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 May 2025
89 points (100.0% liked)
United Kingdom
4773 readers
60 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Why should someone be allowed a 2nd home without penalty in a country with housing scarcity?
I'd say at least a 50% value tax on that as unnecessary consumption
Because it's not unreasonable to have a primary home and maybe a vacation home, or a family home, or a rental. More than that is absurd.
The scarcity would decrease pretty fast, coupled with a situation where private companies can't own houses and apartments, that would pretty much solve it
Of course it's not unreasonable, but if you want that luxury, you should pay from taking that supply from someone who needs it
It's not unreasonable, but if after taxing 3rd and 4th homes (etc.) to oblivion the issue persists, then also second homes should be taxed high. I truly believe that extreme would not be needed once it's made humanely forbidden to own multiple homes without intention of ever living in them.
Worth adding that it should not be the number of homes what should be taxed, but based on the market value of those properties.
Why not just tax based on the number of homes, isn't that a better idea?
If someone owns three £10M mansions, they're potentially depriving two families of homes by way of scarsity, but frankly if you can afford a £10M mansion is it really an issue, as you're not being deprived of a home?
If they instead own one £10M mansion and forty £200k flats/terraces, they're potentially depriving forty families of homes and so should probably be charged twenty times as much to dissuade people from buying up the cheapest homes.
I think you possibly intended to reply to a different comment
My comment was talking about heavily taxing 2nd properties (and implicitly any more after that)
I did mean to reply to your comment. Just trying to say that I don't need 2nd homes to be taxed much more higher that 1st homes if the issue can be fixed without getting to that point. Although it shouldn't be off the table if it's necessary to guarantee people can have access to homes.