To think an annual property tax is incredibly unfair?

They pay VAT on their paintings etc. should we pay VAT on house purchases?

Wealth taxes pay no heed to income. They’re not about income. They’re about the opposite of income - they’re about assets. So say you have investments and a £2m house that you live in. You live off the investment gains - £20k a year - which are subject to income tax. Would it not be fair - if we’re looking for things to tax that the house is taxed too? If we purely had income taxes it wouldn’t.

What would happen to renters under this idea. Would they have 0 council tax or property fee to pay?

Tfl doesn't get an operating subsidy. It does get roughly £500m a year from central government for capital projects

This why I have said all along before inteosucing a lvt they need to tackle adult social care and remove it from council tax.

During covid and beyond there was no government subsidy for TfL they were purely funded by fares. It was only last yr I believe they managed to get something from the government but pretty much the majority of their spending is funded by fares. So no TfL is not massively funded by the government.

So when are Londoner retires to Dorset and requires adult social care, why should Dorset Council tax payers, pay for an incomer?

Londoners get massive central government subsidies for very expensive public transport like the Underground. Roads in Dorset cost far less.

Council tax covers an arbitrary set of services and exclude others that city dwellers rely on.

They pay VAT on their paintings etc. should we pay VAT on house purchases?

You still haven't answered why your only home should be taxed every year based on a theoretical value, when taxes on dividends, savings and capital gains are generally paid only when you actually receive income or realise a gain. "Would it not be fair" to be consistent?

I have one property: my home - which I pay to maintain. I don’t own much else.

Meanwhile people send vast sums of money abroad every year, people own a great deal of jewellery, of cars or paintings, wine… I know property is visible, a great big sitting duck ripe for a tax raid - but focusing on the main home is not simply unfair but very unsettling.

Wealth taxes pay no heed to income. They’re not about income. They’re about the opposite of income - they’re about assets. So say you have investments and a £2m house that you live in. You live off the investment gains - £20k a year - which are subject to income tax. Would it not be fair - if we’re looking for things to tax that the house is taxed too? If we purely had income taxes it wouldn’t.

Wealth taxes pay no heed to income. They’re not about income. They’re about the opposite of income - they’re about assets. So say you have investments and a £2m house that you live in. You live off the investment gains - £20k a year - which are subject to income tax. Would it not be fair - if we’re looking for things to tax that the house is taxed too? If we purely had income taxes it wouldn’t.

I come from an area with low house prices. It is great! My friends can generally afford houses even with lower salaries as the earnings:house prices ratio is better. Rents are also lower so they have proportionately more disposable income.

I have moved to a more expensive area where house prices are higher and people have really had to push themselves to buy a property. Salaries are higher but not high enough to make up the difference. They have had to pay more stamp duty , pay more interest and have less disposable income each month.

I am really struggling to understand why my friends in the South should also automatically be paying more property tax under the new proposals being suggested by Burnham supporters? What is the justification? They would love to buy a large detached house for £300k like my friends from home but this isn't possible. It feels like they are being double penalised.

Just to add house prices haven't risen in real terms in the area in live in now for 20 years so the value of my friend's houses is simply money they have paid in.

Under the policy, people in their existing homes would pay no more than £1200 a year more per household. So £100 a month maximum.

The full 0.48% is is someone moves, and it'll be a lot cheaper for you than stamp duty.

As Op has said time and time again but I'll say it once more:

It's not my fault my Council Tax is lower than Dorsets.

Rural counties like Dorset have very different costs. They have far more rural roads to maintain, bin collections have to travel much further between properties, and services like adult social care and transport are more expensive to deliver because people are spread out. In a densely populated borough in London many services can be delivered more efficiently because of economies of scale.

Different Council Tax bills reflect different local costs and spending decisions, not whether one resident "should" pay more than another. The fact you pay more in Dorset doesn't mean people in London ought to be paying the same.

Kent Council went bankrupt hence why their residents pay more CT, Croydon Council in London also mismanaged funds went bankrupt and again those residents end up paying more CT.

So you see its not comparable.

Don't live in a rural area if you can't suck it up, isnt that your line to me. Thats the trade odd between living in a rural area vs more densely populated areas like cities.

If you Council is wasting money and not being efficient than vote in someone that will do better.

Wealth taxes pay no heed to income. They’re not about income. They’re about the opposite of income - they’re about assets. So say you have investments and a £2m house that you live in. You live off the investment gains - £20k a year - which are subject to income tax. Would it not be fair - if we’re looking for things to tax that the house is taxed too? If we purely had income taxes it wouldn’t.

It isn't fairer for the taxpayer in the long term though for the reasons you outlined in the post and:

• redistribution of local funds nationally to fund local services run by local councils would be a case of taxation without representation. Those paying the tax have absolutely no say in how the money is spent as they don't get to vote in these areas elections. This is fundamentally undemocratic.
• To tax primary residences as if they are an investment represents a significant change of approach and absolutely should be put to the people. The 2024 manifesto promised not to tax working people, yet we know that working people will be disproportionately impacted by this. The Labour government does not have a democratic mandate to start making such major changes only two years since they were elected. This sets a terrifying precedent that anyone who cares about democracy should be against.
• the policy basically exempts private renters and SH renters from paying for the local services they use and in the case of SH tenants are more likely to use more expensive local services. We know that there are over 100,000 households in the UK that enjoy subsidised SH and will now be completely exempt from paying for local services whilst the rest of us pay their share. This isn't fair!
• this isn't a wealth tax if it isn't looking at actual wealth or even income. It's looking narrowly at one asset, ignoring the fact that many people are highly leveraged and pretending that this is a shortcut to determining wealth. It's bonkers. Property isn't even the biggest source of private wealth for people. Why is the state turning a blind eye to investments and more importantly pensions?.
• Areas with lower house prices benefit from this when it comes to affordability and the subsequent quality of life. The earnings to house value ratio is better in lots of areas and this leads to more disposable income and more people being able to get on to the housing ladder. Why doesn't the government see those who live in high priced areas are often already stretched trying to fund housing and don't then want to be hit again with a property tax when they already have paid huge amounts of stamp duty and huge mortgage payments.