MPs Spared from Second Homes Council Tax Surcharge as Taxpayer Picks Up Bill
MPs will be spared from a new council tax premium on second homes that they voted to allow, leaving taxpayers on the hook for five-figure bills. The Telegraph has the story.
Town halls will be able to charge 100% council tax on additional properties from this month, a move that has left homeowners facing crippling bills, including on inherited homes.
However, the allowance for MPs, funded by the taxpayer, will rise to cover the surcharge, allowing them to pass the whole bill on to the public.
In an email leaked to the Telegraph, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) told MPs that their accommodation budget had been “uplifted by a significant amount” to mitigate the additional charge.
It comes as households across the country have received bills as high as £10,000.
The email said: “Local councils have recently been given the power to charge council tax for secondary homes, and many are doing so. MPs have not been included on the list of exemptions.
“The accommodation budget has been uplifted by a significant amount for the 2025-26 financial year which will mitigate the additional charge, but IPSA would be happy to discuss contingency if this cannot be covered by the new increased budget.”
Over two thirds of authorities in England have introduced the levy in an attempt to plug budget shortfalls.
Telegraph Money has heard from dozens of readers who have been hit with crippling bills and feel they are being “extorted” by councils. …
John O’Connell, of campaign group the Taxpayers’ Alliance, said: “This will only pour salt in the wounds of those homeowners now facing 100% premiums just for having the temerity to own a second home.
“It is beyond contempt that many of the same MPs who voted through the policy to allow these additional charges will now be completely shielded from the financial impact of it.”
Earlier this year, it was revealed that Rachel Reeves had charged taxpayers £10,800 for her second home council tax bill over the past five years.
The Chancellor was one of 41 Labour Ministers to claim back the expense, including Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, and Business Secretary, Jonathan Reynolds.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Let them eat cake comes to mind!
Let them eat lead…
I like you Jack.
We need a nationalist revolution to restore democracy, the accountability of politicians, and free speech.
Politicians giving themselves a pay rise to ensure that they’ll be immune from tax hikes targetting people who aren’t ought to be regarded as a scandal. OTOH, my sympathy for people who are wealthy enough to own two ‘homes’ is very limited. I don’t even own one, yet, I have to pay ever increasing amounts of both council tax and rent (and utilities, obviously). But “inflation” doesn’t magically cause my income to grow.
Owning a second home is no different to someone who likes to own / collect vintage furniture, art, or second, third, fourth cars, or fine jewellery, wine, cameras and so on. Why should these be subject to arbitrary tax charges?
I didn’t say they should. But council tax is charged based on dwellings/ premises and hence, there’s a certain logic to it.
ATM, I’m paying £166/ month, rate raised because of “inflation”. And I obviously also have a rent rise every year, also because of “inflation” aka “changing market rates.” Why am I liable for covering other people’s or institution’s exposure to “inflation”? The obvious answer is “because they have the power to charge me for it.” But I can’t exactly regard this as law of nature, just as an asymmetrical relation which is good for them and bad for me.
I agree with you my council tax is 470 per month, which is becoming increasingly difficult to pay combined with other ever increasing costs of living. The service provided is frankly pathetic. Governments drive inflation through the choices it makes, Money printing to stop people going to work, Net zero forcing us to pay ever higher premiums for their own religion, increased taxes on employers and employees, extra regulatory burden on business which helps neither employee or employer, all this drives inflation, and is of Governments doing. It seems everything they do is good for them, in relation to their feelings of virtue in terms of climate, multiculturism, which has driven wages down, whilst the Government increases costs as set out, It is good for their income, pay increases, Gold plated Pensions, expenses and second homes, in fact their entire lifestyles paid for by us, then of course is the focus on their next move up the ladder making sure that what they do fits in with their next career move bosses ideal, be it in Europe, the U.N, the WEF etc. We are the host, they are the parasites and they are sucking our blood, and growing fat on… Read more »
Quite right. I am sick of these f@ckers jumping on any excuse to tax people more to pay for their batshit crazy policies, trying to buy votes, despite policies they’ve never had the moral courage or the intellectual honesty to describe in their manifesto.
Expletives as usual deleted.
I believe Council Tax is charged on occupation not ownership. The big point is the elites make one set of rules for us and another one for themselves.
Let me get this straight. MPs want to be exempt from the laws they introduce. i wonder where this is going?
Scumbags.
Very restrained, if I may say so.
Look at her grinning, riding roughshod over the peasants!
It won’t be The New World Order, but The New Feudal Order, and the elites can’t wait to get back to the good old days of Lords & Serfs, where meat is reserved for the rich, and the peasants eat gruel, unless they want to be executed for poaching a rabbit.
Do as I say, not as I do – mantra of parasites down the ages.
Who will be the first to test this one in court?
Surely it can’t be right that the ‘lawmakers’ can exempt themselves from a law which they impose on the plebs?
Oh……I see…the law courts have been…..
Judiciary bought and paid for, no chance there
My partner and I own two properties between us. A three and a five bed house. If we were single nothing would be said and if we were single in a ten bed home would get a 25 percent discount. This is anti human rights a fine on property ownership but more an attack on couples.
Which is why the Poll tax made sense, people use council provided facilities not property….
It is frankly theft by Councils. I am not a second home owner, I pay the top rate of council tax,not because my house is large but because it was built after the last evaluation in the early 2000’s and since then every home valued at over 375k is charged the full whack. The only service I receive for one of the top rates of council tax is a 3 weekly bin collection. literally, I live in a rural area, there are no buses, roads full of pot holes, no street lighting, my children are grown up, and our nearest Police station is 20 miles away. On to the second home owners, they use even less of the so called services than full time dwellers, wherever in the country they are, they contribute to the economy by using Pubs, shops, Restaurants etc when they visit. They spend on local builders, plumbers etc when they renovate the homes. The excuse that they are blocking homes for locals is a pile of rot, the locals if they can pull together enough money after tax etc, for any house, do not generally want to buy pretty cottages in a rural location where there… Read more »
An excellent summary of the situation. If they are charging double without providing extra services compared to a similar property then it is a fine on second home ownership , and there is no law against second home ownership, so effectively against the human rights act part about possessions . I’m surprised there has not been a court case.