Why has no one suggested council tax based on the square footage of a home, rather than it's value? Much, much easier to implement, and also genuinely fairer, in an 'if you have more, you pay more' way.
AB complains that households in the North pay more council tax than bigger houses in the South - but with any kind of house-value based taxation, people in the South will pay more tax than someone with a much bigger house in the North. How is that fair?!
We already have to pay a much higher proportion of our salary for smaller/worse housing, and then because we've paid more money for a smaller house, we have to pay way more tax too?!?
And we've already paid tens of thousands more stamp duty (my MIL - not in the SE - couldn't get her head around how much we'd had to pay).
And then because all that money is tied up in the house we live in, we can't pass that money to our kids so easily, and we get hit again with IHT.
Whereas a household in the North can put the difference in mortgage payments into an ISA, and pay no tax on that, then give their kids a house deposit for a (much more affordable, lower stamp duty) home.
Sure, we southerners end up with a more expensive housing asset - but that's because we've paid more for it. Every month, for years. Instead of being able to invest that money in any other way.
It was hidden during the 2000s house price asset bubble, but London house prices are now static/decreasing. In real terms, they currently match 2015 prices. Anyone who has bought a house in the last 10 years has made nothing - we really are just paying much more (and much, much more tax) for less.
I don't think London is an OK place to be a young professional any more. Which is a huge problem given that 45% of the UKs income comes from London and the SE (from 26% of the population)
This also comes back to the point made above about the number of millionaires leaving. I don't think it's just the millionaires - although the bigger picture isn't being measured.
And I suspect AB is going to make it even worse...