The inconsistency of discounts on single occupancy and doubling of council tax on second homes - Yorkshire Post Letters

I do not take a position for or against the double council tax on second homes. I would, however, point out the glaring inconsistency between this measure and the 25 per cent council tax discount for homes with a single occupant.

As well as being to raise revenue, the double tax is a mechanism for rationing residential property. It is to discourage people from tying up more accommodation than they need. Applying the same principal to a house suitable for two people but occupied by one, we would charge double on the ‘empty’ half, giving a tax rate on the whole property of 150 per cent rather than 75 per cent.

Of course, it is unlikely that half of such a property is actually empty, but then the same may be said of most second homes.

Arguably, council tax should bear some relation to use of local services and so to number of residents. But a residence appropriate for a singleton is liable to be in a lower council tax band than one for a couple, so that person has already had their ‘single person discount’. There is no corresponding ‘no person discount’.

Pressure on second home owners might bring extra homes onto the market, to buy or to rent. But a lone resident of a medium sized or large house could similarly take in a lodger (freeing up small flats) or downsize. Much newbuild is of 3 or 4 bedroom houses. But we have no real shortage of these, only a problem of them being kept by people who no longer need them.

Alongside the irrational difference in treatment for council tax, we have a potentially greater one regarding Capital Gains Tax. Second homes take the full force of this (as do properties which, commendably, are let to another family).

A property with an owner in occupation is fully exempt, no matter how disproportionate the size of that property is to the number of occupants.