To think an annual property tax is incredibly unfair?

I don’t think SH tenants pay for the maintenance of their home.

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the council or housing association is entirely responsible for paying for and fixing:

• The Structure and Exterior: The roof, external walls, windows, drains, gutters, and outside doors.
• Essential Utilities: Water pipes, gas pipes, electrical wiring, and electrical sockets.
• Sanitation: Toilets, baths, basins, and sinks.
• Heating and Hot Water: Boilers, radiators, and fitted heaters.
• Health and Safety: Treating severe damp and mould.

Smaller repairs they do pay for though, eg. accidental damage or neglect.

I also understand they can pass on
their SH property to a dependent when they die.

Surely SH needs to be means tested/ reviewed? As taxpayers, we are being asked to pay more tax, but meanwhile once on the SH ladder, the rent is cheap & repairs are free for life (& your offspring’s).

I'm in the south east. That amount works out lower than my current council tax.

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 it might not be implemented but this thread is about whether the concept is fair in itself

The biggest thing this country needs is a massive SH building programme. The little quibbles are meaningless,

The divides and resentments created by the reliance on the inflated private market which is ultimately subsidised by 'state benefits' which are claimed by working people who should have no need to rely on state cash handouts but have to because of the current reliance on the 'market'.

That 'tie' needs to be broken. Our people need to be housed in properties they can afford to pay for out of their wages, the rest will follow.

I live in the US, where property tax pays for local services and there's a good deal more devolution both at state and municipal level than there is in the UK.

Property taxes are calculated based on an estimated valuation of the property. There are exemptions based on age. You pay more for properties that are not your primary residence.

Services funded include the libraries, park district, police, and local schools. There are many more.

If you are living in a property valued at $1million, your taxes will be higher than properties of lower valuation, on a sliding scale. Higher valuation will result in higher annual taxes.

When you buy a house, the current annual taxes are included in the description so you know what you're getting yourself in for.

As property values rise, taxes do too, with different towns and cities in the county assessed at rotating intervals. You can file for a correction if you think your assessment has risen too much or of you think your valuation is based on incorrect information (like four bedrooms instead of three, more bathrooms than you actually have, etc).

Nobody is thrilled about property taxes, but everyone realizes that the quality of local amenities, especially schools, and crime stats, are big factors in maintaining or improving property prices, so you have to weigh what's important to you when you're buying.

Obviously, local control over spending, and local referenda over proposed increases to benefit various local agencies make property taxes more palatable.

I live in the US, where property tax pays for local services and there's a good deal more devolution both at state and municipal level than there is in the UK.

Property taxes are calculated based on an estimated valuation of the property. There are exemptions based on age. You pay more for properties that are not your primary residence.

Services funded include the libraries, park district, police, and local schools. There are many more.

If you are living in a property valued at $1million, your taxes will be higher than properties of lower valuation, on a sliding scale. Higher valuation will result in higher annual taxes.

When you buy a house, the current annual taxes are included in the description so you know what you're getting yourself in for.

As property values rise, taxes do too, with different towns and cities in the county assessed at rotating intervals. You can file for a correction if you think your assessment has risen too much or of you think your valuation is based on incorrect information (like four bedrooms instead of three, more bathrooms than you actually have, etc).

Nobody is thrilled about property taxes, but everyone realizes that the quality of local amenities, especially schools, and crime stats, are big factors in maintaining or improving property prices, so you have to weigh what's important to you when you're buying.

Obviously, local control over spending, and local referenda over proposed increases to benefit various local agencies make property taxes more palatable.

I don’t think SH tenants pay for the maintenance of their home.

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the council or housing association is entirely responsible for paying for and fixing:

• The Structure and Exterior: The roof, external walls, windows, drains, gutters, and outside doors.
• Essential Utilities: Water pipes, gas pipes, electrical wiring, and electrical sockets.
• Sanitation: Toilets, baths, basins, and sinks.
• Heating and Hot Water: Boilers, radiators, and fitted heaters.
• Health and Safety: Treating severe damp and mould.

Smaller repairs they do pay for though, eg. accidental damage or neglect.

I also understand they can pass on
their SH property to a dependent when they die.

Surely SH needs to be means tested/ reviewed? As taxpayers, we are being asked to pay more tax, but meanwhile once on the SH ladder, the rent is cheap & repairs are free for life (& your offspring’s).

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 it might not be implemented but this thread is about whether the concept is fair in itself

Because people like you seem unable to accept that social housing is subsidised when it is fact. For the individuals that are lucky enough to be able to access it this is a huge advantage. Shelter estimate that it saves the average SH tenant between £400-500k over a 50 year adult lifespan. The fact that there isn't enough of it to go around is relevant as is the fact that the state has to pump billions of pounds into building SH over the next ten years.

So we end up with a situation where the lucky people that can access SH are often adamant they aren't being subsidised, though factually they are, and those who can't access SH get penalised over and over again. They pay higher rents, have less secure tenancies and now will potentially have a new property tax passed on to them through rent increases that SH tenants will once again avoid. We are creating a weird two tier system where being a SH tenant is preferential to being a home owner or a private renter.

But if she had bought it, she would have paid less in mortgage than she has now in rent.
But it is still somehow "subsidised".
Why do people keep using "oh, but your SH is subsidised" as some sort of punch down?

My point is why do people keep going on about SH being subsidised.
We need more of it... it would save money in the long run, and give people housing security.

My point is why do people keep going on about SH being subsidised.
We need more of it... it would save money in the long run, and give people housing security.

But you need a certain level of income to get the higher mortgage and to service it, the larger the mortgage, the higher the income needs to be so while it may not be a wealth tax, it’s progressive in that those with higher income pay more.

My point is why do people keep going on about SH being subsidised.
We need more of it... it would save money in the long run, and give people housing security.

That will almost always be the case with renting for long periods of time. Your point is?