Government allows councils to double council tax on second homes - expicately "to end the scourge of empty second homes" Data shows that this prompted some owners to sell up. But @thetimes.com somehow concluds that this means it "fell flat" www.thetimes.com/business-mon...
It’s right there in the first sentence. They think the goal of the tax was to “raise revenue” and since some people sold their second homes to avoid the tax they raised less than expected.
It is increasing revenue for the 80% of properties that aren't being sold (or exempt for some other reason). Councils aren't saying it's raised less than they expected - it's just the Times that has worked out what was "expected" assuming no exemptions or sales.
I wonder what effect it has had on those empty second homes. The outcome that actually matters.
According to the data in the article, about 80% are still empty/second homes and are paying the double council tax, about 10% are getting an exemption (eg because going through probate or up for sale) and 10% are no longer empty/second homes, presumably sold /occupied.
The "loss"of council tax revenue reported is only relative to what councils might have thought they'd get if they assumed no change of behaviour at all from second home owners. But is all gain compared to when they weren't charging double on second/empty homes.
The policy "was hoped [it] would free up homes for priced-out locals". Since about 20% of those house have been placed back on the market... this goal of the policy has been, to some extent, achieved. It's not that difficult to understand. Why cannot Imogen Tew and George Nixon do it?
I agree, it's a real issue in a lot of popular holiday areas