How the Politics of Envy have taken over government strategy

The "Politics of Envy" have become increasingly prevalent in government strategy, as evidenced by recent policy decisions targeting certain segments of society. Two notable examples include the introduction of Value Added Tax (VAT) on private education and the doubling of Council Tax on empty homes and second homes.

The government would argue that the introduction of VAT on private education reflects a shift towards levelling the playing field in the education sector. By imposing VAT on private schools, the government claims that it aims to address perceived inequalities in access to quality education.

However, this move has sparked debates about the role of private education in society and the impact of such taxation on families who choose alternative educational paths for their children.

In the view of Aberdonian.com, the introduction of VAT on private education is abhorrent. Such a strategy fails to recognise that parents who pay for private school education are effectively turning down a state education placement that they have already paid for through their Council Tax, and are instead paying a second time for their child to be educated. In effect they are paying twice - once for their child to be educated at a private school and once again for someone else's child to be educated at a state school. For any government to fail to acknowledge the financial contribution these parents have already made to the state sector, and to seek to hammer them financially once again with the imposition of VAT on private education, is ridiculous.

Increasingly we are living in a society where governments are acting with hostility towards people who wish to spend their money as they see fit. In fact we are living with governments that wish to shape an increasingly communist/socialist society by extracting excessive amounts of money from those that have earned or saved their own money.

The doubling of Council tax on empty homes and second homes is another manifestation of the "Politics of Envy" in government policy.

The government would argue that by targeting individuals who own multiple properties or leave homes vacant, they are addressing housing shortages and affordability issues. But, this decision has raised concerns about the potential impact on property owners and the broader implications for the housing market.

In the view of Aberdonian.com, this policy is amateur, unfair, impractical, unenforceable and makes life extremely difficult for those trapped in such circumstances through no fault of their own.

Firstly, governments (both national and local) ought to acknowledge the difference between private housing and social housing. Private housing is no different to any other physical private asset that people own such as such as a car or jewellery. It is an asset that has been purchased with all applicable taxes (e.g. VAT, LBTT) paid at the time of purchase. No one who owns a second car pays more tax on the second car than on the first, so why does this way of thinking apply to homes? Cars cause environmental damage, so why not implement the same type of policy on car owners? I know why - it's because there are tens of millions of car owners but far less second home owners; so let's pick on the second home owners since the majority of the public will not complain. Give the public the red meat they crave.

Governments like to tell the lie that private housing in the form of empty or second homes is somehow depriving homeless people of a home. What utter poppycock. The blame for homelessness lies entirely with government who failed to build sufficient social housing and also failed to cease selling off existing Council housing, and who continue to exacerbate the housing shortage by allowing excessive migration into the country knowing full well that there aren't any homes for them. Homeless people do not have the money to buy a private house, so why do governments keep telling the lie that private properties can somehow home the homeless?

In the case of empty homes, whilst it is understandable that a house lying empty is wasteful and could be better repurposed to occupied housing, the truth of the matter is that here in Aberdeen, with the decline in property values over the past 8 years or so, no one is sitting on a property, deliberately keeping it empty to gain capital value (Aberdeen is not London or Manchester. Property prices have been declining here for years as the oil industry leaves town). Rather, empty homes are those left by the deceased or by couples upsizing or downsizing who have had to move before their previous property has sold, and which is failing to sell in a stagnant and declining market. Faced with the difficulty most owners have in selling such properties, it is simply obscene of Councils to double the rates of Council Tax for those trying desperately to sell such properties. These Councils have no shame. What are people to do in such circumstances? Constantly reduce the price until the property sells for a song? Leave the property on the market until the Council Tax erodes all value and puts them deep into debt? It would be nice if Councils could show some humanity.

In the case of second home ownership we have the obscene situation where most Scottish Councils made the decision to double Council Tax on second homes a mere 2 to 5 weeks before implementing from the 1st April 2024. Many did not even announce this change on the reverse side of the paper bills that they sent through the post, preferring instead to announce the change buried in the fine detail of the Council Tax section of their website. At least in England, second home owners are being given one year's notice before the same policy is introduced in England in 2025. Here in Scotland, 2 to 5 weeks notice was given, and was not, and still is not, widely publicised.

And it is surely fair to ask the question, how will Councils identify second home owners, because apart from an annual Census return where a question about voting is asked and includes the option to say a home is a second home, then I am not aware of any way that Councils can identify second home owners without a great deal of effort involving property registries, which I doubt they have the time or resource to implement.

So there you have it. Only the most honest of second home owners who own up to their ownership will pay the double Council Tax rate, and those that don't will simply get away with it. Which leads Aberdonian.com to conclude that if you cannot implement a tax policy fairly without relying on the honesty of people, then you shouldn't be implementing it at all.

And what about the argument that second home owners are depriving the homeless of a home? Well unless you can show me a homeless person with £100,000+ to spare, I don't see how they can buy a private property.

I have also heard the argument that second home owners should rent out their properties. This is completely unrealistic. If someone chose to buy a property for their own use, they are hardly likely to want to rent it out, deprive themselves of the convenience they bought the property for in the first place, and take on all the misery that being a landlord currently entails.

No, yet again in the case of doubling of Council Tax on second homes we have nothing more than a simple tax-grab sold to the public on a big, fat lie. Another example of picking on those who already give much more financially to the public pot than the whining majority. Let us not forget that those paying double Council Tax on a second home are also paying a full Council Tax on their main residence. Is it not sufficient for them to pay 2 full Council taxes on two homes? Is it not a little greedy to take 3 full Council taxes for only 2 properties? Let us not forget some people don't pay any Council Tax at all or receive Council Tax benefit. This is just more extracting of excessive amounts of money from those already paying over the odds. And giving the public the red meat they crave.

There is a real risk that this tax policy will fall flat on its face and leave local Councils with less, not more, tax coming in as those impacted sell up (assuming they are not deep in negative equity). Another example of a lack of understanding and humanity from Councils up and down the land.

I wonder how long it will take before the Court of Human Rights or the Supreme Court consider these two policies illegal? The Labour government is facing examination for not doing an impact assessment before withdrawing the Winter Fuel Payment from most pensioners. Was an impact assessment done before these two policies were implemented?

In both cases, the implementation of these policies reflects a broader trend towards using fiscal measures to address imagined social and economic disparities. While proponents argue that such actions promote fairness and equity, Aberdonian.com sees this issue differently. It is the opposite of fairness; it is persecution, and it is already fostering resentment amongst those impacted.

The politics of envy have no place in a civilised society.

The baying mob wants blood. "Cripple the better off. Put VAT on private education. Double Council Tax on empty and second homes". Who are these people? They are the public mob, aided and abetted by Councils up and down the length of Scotland.