To think an annual property tax is incredibly unfair?

Yes, I also believe that this is part of a wider agenda. People get so sidetracked by the considerable market value of houses that they often overlook the basic security that having your own home brings to you.

Some people then invariably bang on about the 'ridiculous obsession about owning your own home' - often comparing our position to that of much of Europe; but the fact is that SOMEBODY has to own it.

I could sort of see their point if those homes were all owned by and then rented from the local authorities/the state (and if you don't care about the personal security angle for you and your family); but this bizarre argument very often turns into berating people for selfishly and greedily wanting to own one home whilst leaving those who would thus own potentially dozens or even hundreds of homes completely free of criticism.

But you do have more wealth to be able to have the bigger house, etc. You just don’t have as much disposable income as you are paying for your life in a more affluent part of the country which has better infrastructure and job prospects.

When will people stop moaning? Move back up north if you don’t like it.

What I do think is a stupid part of this policy is that wealthy areas would then rake in far more council tax, allowing local services there to improve

Not a chance, @WhatAMarvelousTune; they'd simply reduce the central government grant paid to such areas and spend it on vanity projects the less affluent ones instead

You didn't really think they'd tolerate those paying the most tax actually expecting to see something for it did you?

If that’s true and I’m not saying it isn’t why would the government make this change? Will the difference from the other 25% of the population make up the shortfall?

I do feel sorry for anyone who has recently moved, paid stamp duty and maybe really stretched themselves for a more expensive house to find their council tax is going to be replaced by something even more expensive.

personally if it’s 0.48% of house value I will be better off.

I get so frustrated by the definitions of wealth.

I live in a house in London by virtue of the fact that i was raised where I live and bought when it was possible to buy in London (I am mid-fifties). Our council tax is almost £4k a year, we pay all the subsidies that go with living in Lonodn nad on our modest joint income of around £70K, this means we are penny pinching are struggling every month. We have no savings because we can't afford to save. We literally can't afford to move and have ties to where we live in terms of work, education, caring duties and so on.

But we live in a house in London, so come on - fleece me some more.

Pensioners will end up in HMOs.

Yes but the government won’t run it, it will be run and financed along the PFI model (financed by private equity, leased back), so we’ll all end up renting from The Man/Big Property Inc.

But this isn't instead of council tax (which goes to fund local councils). This is an additional tax for central government coffers.

Not sure this argument makes much sense.

The current 0.48% is rated to keep the overall tax take the same as from council tax and stamp duty I think. So no increase overall in taxes. But a redistribution from the richer to the poorer.

Yes I suppose in future they could up the % charges to increase the tax take.

It's not as if I haven't seen my council tax rise year on year as well though.

I suppose it does ask the question how they will manage yearly increases for inflation etc.

No, it’s instead of council tax.

But this isn't instead of council tax (which goes to fund local councils). This is an additional tax for central government coffers.

It will be less than council tax for 75% of the population.

Stamp duty disincentivises people from downsizing into those bungalows and also therefore reduces the pool of larger homes. It's daft.

People are buying bungalows to convert because they can't afford the larger homes. Land duty would help rebalance this in theory.

Private firms coming in to buy the places up, @smallglassbottle?

Unless such companies have some really good bungs to offer I'd have thought it more likely the Burnham types would want the properties compulsorily purchased at knockdown prices by the state, thus sticking it to "the rich" and increasing housing stock at the same time

its not going to be less than the C T and plus if you’ve already paid out SD recently

We bought our house last year and 0.48% of the value is basically what we pay in council tax now.

What I do think is a stupid part of this policy is that wealthy areas would then rake in far more council tax, allowing local services there to improve. And in poor areas with lower house prices, the councils would get less, leading to further loss of services.

I completely agree. I've never seen anything in my life that's so clearly the thin end of a wedge than this 0.48% thing.

Ever booming house prices are widely considered a great thing for all property-owners, but it's actually a negative thing for almost everybody apart from the bankers and mass landlords, who can cash in on people not being able to afford to get on the property ladder.

If you own a home worth £100K and rocketing prices nationwide mean that your home is worth £1million before long, you still own the same: one identical home. Unless you're in a position to release that equity, you're no better off if you only own one home that you need to live in.

Yes, you can potentially downsize or move to a cheaper area - to a point - but those areas and cheaper houses will also be ever increasing in price too. Even if you remove your need for a home by dying, it just kicks the can down the road and your and everybody else's children will eventually end up in the same boat - albeit a better boat than those who can never manage to buy or who are forced to sell up for financial reasons and rent from one of the very few people who have their own mega-boats.

Even if it’s less than the council tax you’re currently paying?

The annual property tax being suggested is that everyone pays 0.48% if their property value each year. Do you think that's fair?

Of course not. I was taxed on my earnings, paid stamp duty on my house and then to be taxed more to live in a nice house that I worked for is the most left wing thing since the idea of having as many kids as you like that other people will pay for.

It’s also very unfair if you have already paid stamps duty recently.

Then you've got a lot of money compared to the average person. Burnham will be after it one way or another.

Spot on. We’re amenable to downsizing, despite the stamp duty we’d currently incur, but suitable properties round here are like hens’ teeth. There are virtually no bungalows and houses that would have been suitable have been extended so they’re unaffordable.

CPI over the last 20 years has been about 55-60% so the SE house prices have beaten that by about 25%- 30% unless I am missing something?

Either way, like I said, it is not relevant.

Fairness is not well defined in this context so arguing over fairness is pointless.

Governments tax what they can get away with. Many 'unfairnesses' exist in the system (from my perspective), others will have different ideas of fairness.

If the idea is to get pensioners to downsize, they need to increase the stock of bungalows, either by imposing a quota on developers or by preventing buyers from converting bungalows to two story houses (as a believe one council had already done/tried to do) In this area, as soon as a bungalow is sold it is extended upwards.