Second-home stealth tax is misplaced

GOVERNMENT is to allow council tax to double for second homes – yet another ‘stealth’ tax on the perceived wealthy, but a move that will cause financial grief to said owners of such properties and affect many depending on them for their livelihood.

Firstly, I must declare an interest, having bought a property on the Devon coast some 48 years ago. Blessed with three daughters, we couldn’t afford a hotel or overseas holidays, so a small bungalow seemed an ideal solution. It became our second home during the long school/university vacations and I commuted at weekends from Birmingham.

In those days, the local council welcomed us with a discount on our rates. Our children required no education there and we needed few other council services.

Fast forward to the present day and it appears that government wishes to bolster council income by penalising those who have invested in a long-term future, doubling the tax on their second homes. Of course, the chancellor will be delighted if these homes are sold, as he’ll immediately rake in a substantial increase in capital-gains tax.

Sadly, he will also devastate hundreds of small businesses that service second homes.

Painters and decorators, gardeners, cleaners, plumbers, electricians and the like, will see demand for their services plummet. Also suffering will be nearby town shops, for secondhome owners generally purchase locally. Cafes and restaurants will see a drop in trade, as people on holiday tend to dine out close by.

It is fairly predictable therefore that councils – money talking – will be quite willing to see people buy second homes, for this will increase their income without the extra costs that would be incurred by full-time dwellers.

Rather than levelling up, this is a policy of levelling down, penalising those who have invested for the future and who also contribute to commerce in areas of the country that can suffer quite high unemployment during the winter months, a time when second-home owners refurbish their properties.

This is not a popular move, creating unnecessary hardship to many. It should be rethought.