Anyone else in the South East worried about Andy Burnham bringing in a land tax?

Well if a house is hard to sell then they'll need to reduce the asking price. Hey presto, house price deflation!

"It's easy to sell a house that comes with a hefty annual tax bill," said no estate agent ever.

Especially when that annual bill is likely to keep rising, and households are already struggling with the cost of living.

People will go to great lengths to defend the indefensible.

Families are not going to buy flats, whatever tax nonsense he comes up with, flats are a loss maker now, no one wants them, the idea that "prices are going to be pushed up" because of this or that is fantasy, people no longer have the debt available to push up prices.

Yes, "we shouldn't be in hock to the bond markets".

Something in me actually want this crash to happen rather than death by thousand cuts

It isn't rocket science.

From the various bits of housing data and research I've seen, three-bedroom homes are already among the most sought-after properties for first-time buyers, second-time buyers and young families. That has hardly changed since I bought my first home many years ago. Although many first-time buyers end up buying a two-bedroom home because that's all they can afford.

Downsizers most commonly move into two-bedroom homes, with three-bedroom homes the next most common. They are often in a different position from many first and second time buyers. By selling their existing home, they can often release enough equity, to buy their next home outright. That can give them more choice or wiggle room on price.

In that situation why would many people who have spent decades planning for retirement voluntarily choose a leasehold flat with uncertain future service charges, management fees and less space if a two or three bedroom freehold house, or ideally a bungalow, were available within their budget?

First time buyers, second time buyers, young families and downsizers all looking at the same houses is not to going to improve affordability, especially when there still aren't enough of those houses.

This is the last I'm going to say about "idle money" when it comes to home ownership.

The irony of labelling owners who live in their single home as economically "inefficient", while supporting the extraction of ever more money from them to fund one of the largest and, in my view, most inefficient structures in Britain, is staggering. And that's before we even start talking about the Laffer Curve.
I am pretty sure that, in this country, we have the freedom to decide how we spend the money we earn, provided it is legal. I chose my home first, my pension second and everything else afterwards.

Of course, I want some of my money working for the wider economy. That's why I save, contribute to a pension and pay my taxes. My savings and pension help provide capital for businesses and investors to innovate and grow. They are not just sitting in a box gathering dust until I need to draw on them. Irrespective of that, surely some of my hard-earned, after-tax income should be mine to use in the way I believe is best for me and my family. Not every pound I spend should be judged solely on whether it generates the highest investment return, nor should I have to worry about market risk. Money exists to improve the quality of people's lives, not the other way round.

Any financial adviser will assess your attitude to risk. Mine is low - having almost all my savings wiped out in a market crash did that for me. If you have another five or ten years for the market to recover, it isn't such a big deal. But if, like me, you need access to that money, the loss is very real and very permanent. As you get older, you don't always have another ten or fifteen years to wait for markets to recover.

As people approach retirement, financial advisers generally recommend taking fewer risks with investments because there may not be enough time to recover from a major market fall. For many people, money tied up in a mortgage-free home is a perfectly legitimate form of prudent financial planning.
There is another inconsistency with the so-called "fair share" tax, or LVT. We accept that gains and losses on shares are only realised when the assets are sold. Yet when the same principle applies to housing, an unrealised increase in the value of someone's home is treated as real taxable wealth, even though the owner has received no cash and may have no intention of selling.

As I've said, I have no objection to taxing genuine income or realised gains - something fair and proportionate. But there is a fundamental difference between taxing money someone has actually earned or received and taxing them every year on an unrealised valuation of the roof over their head. There are, in my opinion, no legitimate circumstances in which someone should have to sell, or borrow against, their home to fund general public spending. Selling your home to support yourself, or to pay for your own long-term care, is one thing. Paying an annual "wealth" tax, based on something you have not received, simply because your home has risen in value, is another matter entirely.

IMO, the tax, in that form, only makes sense if someone has a mugger's mindset: "You have it, I want it, so I'm going to take it by force if I have to."
It helps explain why some right-on activists and their handmaidens either cheer it on or, even worse, stand by while the state engages in what I see as state-sponsored thuggery against citizens who have done nothing more than work hard, pay their way, become self reliant and plan for a retirement that reduces their burden on the state.

People are not economic units whose sole purpose is to maximise investment returns or tax receipts. We work to build secure lives for ourselves and our families. That is exactly what I did. I don't believe that should ever become the justification for treating the roof over my, or anyone else's, head as just another source of revenue for the state.

Yes, that was the "bond markets don"t matter" interview? He is a walking crisis waiting to happen, I am loading the money market funds and buying popcorn.

Families are not going to buy flats, whatever tax nonsense he comes up with, flats are a loss maker now, no one wants them, the idea that "prices are going to be pushed up" because of this or that is fantasy, people no longer have the debt available to push up prices.

His mind works in the same way as any other Labour - ideology with no understanding or economic reality and behaviors. He gave an interview about bond markets (I bet with no idea what they are, probably thinking they are some meanies who try to cut his magic money trees) and gilts jumped to the level making Truss pale.

Another potential benefit as he sees it is forcing people to downsize and as house prices fall families can buy up the big houses, who knows how his mind works?

I have California based relatives and I like their land tax system. Its based on the sale price of your house when you bought it. So a house bought in 1970 has a low tax compared to a recent sale i a rising market. Much better than random bands or land prices.

I don't know if you are being ironic.

The tax may reduce purchase prices, but it will also increase the cost of owning a home. It's also likely to push up prices in lower-tax areas as buyers gravitate towards homes with lower ongoing costs - even families.

That tax is only likely to move in one direction. Ultimately, people will just be swapping part of their mortgage for an ever-increasing annual tax bill, which is likely to end up exceeding what they would otherwise have paid in Council Tax.

Forcing people to downsize downsizers to compete with first and second time buyers for the limited housing stock available? That'll be good for prices.

So hefty annual taxes make larger homes more attractive to families?
That's an interesting theory. I mean we definitely saw that with VAT on private school fees. That up-lift definitely made those schools places more attractive.

Another potential benefit as he sees it is forcing people to downsize and as house prices fall families can buy up the big houses, who knows how his mind works?

Another potential benefit as he sees it is forcing people to downsize and as house prices fall families can buy up the big houses, who knows how his mind works?

I suspect his mind works looking for the greater Good of the masses as opposed to the benefit of the few. Thank goodness, hopefully.

Another potential benefit as he sees it is forcing people to downsize and as house prices fall families can buy up the big houses, who knows how his mind works?

I’m paying £4000+ a year CT in the north for a 4 bed and receiving practically nothing in way of services in return. It’s about time London paid its fair share for all the wonderful things on offer there like excellent transport, museums and parks instead of owning a £2m house and paying £1200 a year. I’d welcome a land tax.

Who are you in this fantasy, Robin Hood?

So some homeowners should pay a substantial annual tax on gains they haven't realised, based on a caricature of homeowners and a perceived slight you've conjured up in your mind, rather than on money they've actually received.

So this isn't really about fair and proportionate taxation. Because it reads more like revenge for an imaginary slight.

Many homeowners are ordinary taxpayers who bought a home with taxed income, spent decades paying the mortgage, and are far more worried about paying their bills and how they're going to afford retirement than boasting about paper gains they neither created nor can actually spend.

HPI wasn't created by homeowners. Successive governments actually encouraged people to buy homes. Cheap credit, financial deregulation, a failure to build enough homes, planning restrictions, an increased population and decades of political and regulatory decisions by successive administrations drove prices out of the reach of many, not homeowners.

As you said, "with a thick gullible public cheering it on". The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Who are you in this fantasy, Robin Hood?

So some homeowners should pay a substantial annual tax on gains they haven't realised, based on a caricature of homeowners and a perceived slight you've conjured up in your mind, rather than on money they've actually received.

So this isn't really about fair and proportionate taxation. Because it reads more like revenge for an imaginary slight.

Many homeowners are ordinary taxpayers who bought a home with taxed income, spent decades paying the mortgage, and are far more worried about paying their bills and how they're going to afford retirement than boasting about paper gains they neither created nor can actually spend.

HPI wasn't created by homeowners. Successive governments actually encouraged people to buy homes. Cheap credit, financial deregulation, a failure to build enough homes, planning restrictions, an increased population and decades of political and regulatory decisions by successive administrations drove prices out of the reach of many, not homeowners.

As you said, "with a thick gullible public cheering it on". The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The value of property comes from a banker engineered (with a thick gullible public cheering it on) debt bubble though, there is no "hard work" involved on the part of the person sitting in a house they bought years ago for a pittance? It would be amusing now to see people being taxed on that "value" that they no doubt have brayed at dinner parties about over the years, they say people in the UK like their houses expensive, so now the mortgage debt AND the tax bill is getting expensive, what"s not to like?

Won’t this have a knock off effect on the economy as people will have to cut back so no eating out, theatre tickets, travel etc

stupid policy

Yes, selling in areas with demand is just a simple case of getting the price down enough now, some other areas have seen demand fall off a cliff though?

As I've said, I have no objection to taxing genuine income or realised gains - something fair and proportionate. But there is a fundamental difference between taxing money someone has actually earned or received and taxing them every year on an unrealised valuation of the roof over their head. There are, in my opinion, no legitimate circumstances in which someone should have to sell, or borrow against, their home to fund general public spending. Selling your home to support yourself, or to pay for your own long-term care, is one thing. Paying an annual "wealth" tax, based on something you have not received, simply because your home has risen in value, is another matter entirely.

See I actually see taxation of wealth as MORE morally justifiable than taxation of income derived from work. For one thing, the argument about the right of the individual to their fruits of their labour (which I think is often oversimplified, but does have merit) applies to the latter. Wealth on the other hand MAY have been derived originally from work, or may not - plenty of it is just derived from inheritance etc. where that argument doesn't apply.

Secondly, taxing people's earned income usually means taking away the first, initial money that they need to live on. For many people that will be the ONLY money they have to live on, so a lot of your tax revenue is then in conflict with the livelihoods of the most vulnerable, Whereas wealth taxes, as long as they are subject to decent allowances before they kick in (like IHT is for example) tax the money that SOME people are able to acquire ABOVE what they first acquire from work - so you're taxing a revenue stream that is less crucial to people's livelihoods. (I've explained upthread why I see the distinction between "money" in the bank and "money" in land or asset value as invalid).

Wealth tax actually predated income tax in the UK by about a century, and was the primary source of government revenue throughout the 18th century. Probably because the working class were already screwed to the point where no more could be extracted from them without them literally starving, so the exchequer had to get the funds from where they existed. As we return to those levels of inequality, the same will inevitably apply. (The historically high level of pre-tax allowance we have now is probably a tacit admission of this - that there's no point in the government trying to tax the lowest earners more because they simply don't have the money to pay after providing for essentials).