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.