Madam,

I am astonished at the statement by the Welsh Local Government Association that the premium is justified when making second-home owners pay a “fair contribution to local services”. Poppycock!

These owners already pay full council tax as determined by councils – and do not make full use of services provided, notably the most expensive, education!

Indeed, one of the gripes of councils about second homes is that they are occupied for ‘only a few weeks of the year’ so, I ask, how on earth can additional council tax be justified when by councils’ own admissions these homes are relatively rarely occupied and thus do not make normal, let alone excessive, use of council services? As stated by a previous correspondent these proposals are discriminatory and unfair.

I am sure that the premium is, in many cases, supported for purely political reasons. And no doubt councils, probably including Gwynedd, will, as a show of ‘democracy’, have public consultations to see if their electors think a premium should be charged.

Such consultations are facile and meaningless as they will, perfectly predictably, deliver the result desired simply because the vast majority taking part will not be second-home owners and will no doubt have no reasons for rejecting such proposals, if only because they think a premium may reduce the risk of an increase in basic council tax for them.

When Thatcher’s discriminatory ‘poll tax’ was introduced, there was widespread opposition to this unfair system and thousands, many in organised groups, refused to pay – giving councils an impossible and very expensive task trying to make defaulters pay.

Maybe this latest vicious tax should be attacked in the same way – by refusal to be so unfairly treated!

Yours etc,

Name and address supplied.

Have your say on the local issues affecting you - email [email protected] or join in the conversation on our Facebook page