To think an annual property tax is incredibly unfair?

Absolutely and I agree with you, it should be used locally like the CT is.

I do understand that - I wasn’t very clear - and that is what annoys me, as it just another revenue generating method for central government.

But if it WAS done so that it operated at a purely county/local level, there would be wealthy and deprived pockets in every area - so the wealthy in each area would only subsidising those in the same county.

I live in a posh part of Surrey. They may make a killing in revenue in the immediate area around me, but within a mile there are still council homes and areas where children are experiencing deprivation. If the property taxes on my street and adjacent ones, contributed to additional police support, community engagement projects for those people, additional support staff at schools/social services etc I’d be happy. I want services to be good for everyone, I want a better/richer/safer community. Ie, I feel my taxes should go to the borough/county to be used within that region and, like I say, this is how it operates in the US.

It galls me that this is not the way it has been set up though. I also think that while it currently only targets the properties over £2m, that threshold will be lowered in time so that, ultimately we will all be paying a charge. Those who are crowing now that the ‘rich’ are having to pay it, will soon find themselves similarly impacted.

There’s no need for personal insult just because you disagree with me. I know social housing isn’t subsidised and provided a Hansard link as evidence. I questioned whether Westminster is subsidising Blackpool, no evidence has been presented that it does, just “almost certainly” now amended to “certainly” with some figures apparently plucked out of thin air.

I live in London in a Victorian terrace house that we bought 20 years ago. We are absolutely brassic and can barely meet our bills every month. We are close to retirement age but still have mid-teen children living at home. This tax would destroy us and we'd have to move. It would be approximately double our existing Council Tax.

Almost certainly is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

In principle, if it replaces or offsets the council tax, and is applicable to all properties (as it is in countries like the US), I don’t really have an issue. Am fed up with only the south or people with properties over a certain value being targeted - so long as it is universal and the monies go to local services (again like the US - it set by the individual states and goes into state funds, not into central government coffers) I don’t think it’s unreasonable.

We are high income and therefore higher tax payers - but we really do not mind paying the taxes we do - we just want it to be properly spent and benefit the people it’s meant to, not fund DEI and unnecessarily management tiers at the expense of the services it is meant to provide or the people who really need it.

The only "straight" thing to get is that there is huge inequality in what people pay in council tax over the entire country, and how wealthy they are has little bearing on what they pay relative to other areas.

The idea that someone in Westminster in a £20 million house should pay far less than someone in the north in a £200000 house is just utterly bizarre.

When you read stuff like this you realise the question isn't with what Burnham may or may not propose to do with CT.

The real question is why it has gone on like this for over 30 years without someone actually doing something about it.

Well you could argue that the single person is more likely to need adult care, as they have no spouse and possibly no children to help them. I am single btw, but I pay full CT because I have an adult child in the house. Who isn't working, so can't afford to pay.

There are always people for whom changes to tax are not ‘fair’. Certainly, as someone in the process of moving house the idea of stamp duty disappearing just after I’ve paid it seems pretty unfair. But it’s not about me. It’s about the collective good.

we need house selling to be fairer. We need council tax to be fairer. We need people to be able to move more easily. It’s an idea that needs working through, but if it does that for the benefit of those worst off that’s a good thing. Even if it’s not great for you as an individual.

Exactly, council tax rises are mostly funding this. And i go back to my original example of where a single person household pays more CT then 2 working adults next door (per person). Yet all 3 will need adult care and the 2 adults will not have paid in as much.

I honestly would rather NI went up to cover adult social care like we have state pension or income tax this way every working adult pays in. I know in reality you are paying for generation above blha blah bit the principal is the same.

Reform adult social care itself should be reviewed as a priority. The bills are sky high and set to increase.

https://www.countycouncilsnetwork.org.uk/news/new-analysis-reveals-two-thirds-of-social-care-commissioning-budgets-are-spent-on-working-age-and-disabled-adults-as-councils-call-for-this-forgotten-group-not-to-be-overlooked

UK councils are spending vast amounts of money on outsourcing and intermediary services related to social housing, namely middlemen property outsourcing (securing temporary housing) and agency staff outsourcing (hiring temporary personnel). I would also add wasting money on rubbish job roles like community care officers.

. Councils are wasting tax payers money at an alarming rate
. Government is trying to put in place stealth taxes on an already stretched to breaking general public
. Social care providers often rely on charging private-paying clients higher rates to remain financially viable, with many losing their homes to pay for it.

You quoted me, I replied. HTH

Give it a rest @NorthXNorthWest. Go and hound someone else.

"I was merely pointing out that the poster is clearly getting poor financial advice."

So the idea that the only "good" financial advice is advice that minimises tax doesn't really stack up. Tax planning is legal but Pillar Two exists because governments around the world recognised that there is a distinction between sensible tax planning and aggressive tax planning. Whilst it only applies to very large multinational companies, the underlying principle has broader merit.

We have aggressive taxed to change behaviour as @Bellic mentioned. I believe that there should be distinction between sensible taxes and aggressive or punitive taxes when it is your sole home, which is an essential need not just simply another financial asset.

@Bellic

You don't need to live in any of the other asset you own.

A home is uniquely different from shares, bonds or other investments for that exact reason. That should matter when designing a tax system in a country where people have a legal right to own property.

Of course the Government needs to raise revenue and prices do need to fall. The real question isn't whether property should be taxed, but where the balance lies between covering reasonable costs and raising revenue. Using tax as tool to "discourage" some people from remaining in the homes they already own simply because they don't generate the level of tax revenue the Government feel it is entitled to like is just replacing one shit unfair system with another. The ripple effect will affect many of the people who think they will be winners in the new system.

I live in and Band F property in London zone 5 and pay £3672 CT (3rd most expensive in London).
In Westminster Band F charge in £1472, so I am paying 2.5 times as much.
Personally I favour a local income tax.
Also there are so many houses with extensions who are not paying any extra CT and that should be revisited because it increases the value.

I’ve worked in a range of financial institutions and each and every one of the employees in them pays taxes PAYE. Chief exec to cleaner. Financial institutions do not touch tax planning with a barge pole. None of them. Hugely risk averse! Not that the majority of the general public believes a word of this.