Owners of second homes in Wales are having to sell up. That’s no disaster: it’s a godsend | Will Hayward
www.theguardian.com
Council tax hikes on holiday homes aren’t ‘anti-English’ or detrimental to tourism. This is about preserving embattled communities, says Guardian columnist Will Hayward

geteilt von: https://sh.itjust.works/post/38301389

To try to tackle this, the Welsh Labour government, alongside Plaid Cymru, introduced measures to curb second-home ownership. This included giving councils the ability to push council tax on second homes to 300% the usual rate. They also closed a loophole whereby second-home owners could register as a business in order to pay the much lower business rates.

Gwynedd council used these powers to hike council tax to 150% in April 2023. By the end of 2024, house prices had fallen by 12.4% as second-home owners tried to sell up. In Pembrokeshire, house prices fell by 8.9% after the council increased the council tax to 200% on second homes (though this was reduced to 150% recently).

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2095·
    1 day ago

    Wow, look at that, turns out legislative action representing the people’s best interests has been proven infinitely more effective than empowering a dictator to execute everyone who initially refuses to redistribute.

    • Oniononon@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      391·
      16 hours ago

      Its as if the solution to capitalism isnt whitewashing regimes that have done some of the worst crimes against humanity possibly but rather government regulations brought upon by democratic action.

    • splendoruranium@infosec.pubEnglish
      6·
      15 hours ago

      Wow, look at that, turns out legislative action representing the people’s best interests has been proven infinitely more effective than empowering a dictator to execute everyone who initially refuses to redistribute.

      Er… I have to admit I’m not up to date on politics in Wales. To what is that referring?

      • Triasha@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        54 minutes ago

        This is a reference to communist revolutions in Cuba, China, and the Soviet Union, and to a lesser extent Venezuela.

        Dictators took power in violent revolutions and they did succeed in redistributing wealth but at the cost of thousands to millions of lives, most of whom were civilians.

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        6·
        5 hours ago

        Never engage with finitebanjo unless you enjoy talking to the human equivalent of a cork board with a bunch of red yarn connecting various unrelated pictures.

      • skisnow@lemmy.caEnglish
        17·
        14 hours ago

        I think they’re suggesting that it’s better to enact left-leaning legislation to curb unfettered capitalism, than it is to cheer on the free market and let pressure on the working class escalate to where we get a communist revolution, which in turn often results in a violent dictatorship. Probably.

        • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.worldEnglish
          410·
          8 hours ago

          Often? Try always. Revolutions are, by definition, change in leadership brought about by force of arms. Since violence was necessary to establish the regime, violence will be necessary to maintain it.

          Beyond that, Marxism is predicated on the division of the people into the “proletariat” and “bourgeoisie”, with one of the key aims of any Marxist regime being the oppression of the bourgeoisie (as well as any member of the proletariat determined to be a “class-traitor”.) Violent, oppressive dictatorships aren’t just an unfortunate side-effect of socialist revolutions, they’re the only possible outcome.