Meanwhile the likes of Lord Irvine rake in more than the average wage in expenses. The very rich do not pay inheritance tax either, as they put things into trust. By the time everyone realises they’ve been had, Blair and Co will be long gone.
You say wealthy town dwellers are to be prevented from buying second homes in the country because country folk are unable to buy in their own areas. So who is selling these properties to the townies?
Stephanie Calman
London SE21
Advertisement
BE ADVISED: While I am flattered by the suggestion, I am not an adviser to David Blunkett as you reported, and I never have been.
The Institute for Public Policy Research is not looking at ways to “force people to sell their homes to fund retirement”. Our research is examining ways to make the release of housing wealth easier and cheaper, to respond to the fact that there are ever more people living on a low income while owning a large asset.
Dominic Maxwell
Research Fellow, IPPR
Advertisement
UNFAIR BURDEN: I live in London and have a second home in Scotland formerly belonging to my late mother. The council tax rebate has decreased from 50% to 10%.
Now Blunkett is planning to impose a punitive extra tax which will ensure that I am taxed well above the rate of the permanent residents in the area, despite only being there for six out of 52 weeks in the year.
Advertisement
Robert Culbertson
London N20
DOUBLE NANNY: While I would be unaffected by the double whammy threat to second homes or a smoking ban, it raises the question of just how far government should be permitted to intrude into the individual’s affairs or lifestyle.
Advertisement
Clearly, targeting smokers is the easy option but proposals to do the same for drinkers have been diluted by political expediency because of the powerful brewers’ and distillers’ lobby, despite the fact that the cost to society of alcohol is very much greater than that of tobacco.
For many, the purchase of a second home is a form of investment for retirement. In view of the pensions shambles, it seems that the government is now going to penalise any prudent activity that would, in time, reduce the burden on the state. We are led to believe that new Labour fully supports the three Rs. Could this mean: rules, regulations and restrictions?
John Baillot
Stoke on Trent
Advertisement
SMOKE AND FIRE: If the government were serious about stopping smoking it would reclassify tobacco as a Class A drug, criminalise its use, and forgo the £9-£10 billion it receives in revenue from those who choose to shorten their lives by smoking.
However, the horrifying cost of the increased longevity of a larger section of the population in terms of medical care, domiciliary care and pensions, plus the loss of tax revenue and the certain involvement of organised crime, makes that option a non-starter in economic terms.
Dr Stewart Daniell
London N10