to think mansion tax is an unfair tax on London and the South East?

[goodnessgracious]

I disagree with mansion tax but regardless it seems to me to be unfair on Londoners.

Aibu to think that it may also force some people to sell their properties who are income poor but property rich?

I agree that some property rich and cash poor people will not be able to pay the tax, I think this will mostly be those who bought property for a song 40 years ago and have gained hugely in the intervening decades. Surely they can sell up, release the cash and still buy a comfortable home in London under the threshold. My FiL wants to do exactly that. But my MIL still thinks it's a massive hardship to move out of their 6 bed detached where they use about 10% of the house. FIL thinks it's time to downsize and free up a family home back into the market. I tend to agree with him.

Taxes and spending are not 'fairly' distributed if that were the case then the spending on transport infrastructure wouldn't be £2500 per head in London and only £5 per head in the NE.
Generally the boroughs most affected also have historically low council tax compared with other parts of the country, so the 'hardship' will not be as great as many make out.

I've thought for a long time that it would be a good idea to hike up stamp duty and council tax for any property, whatever the cost, not declared as the owner's primary residence. Where I live, for example, people are being priced out of both owning and renting because a tiny handful of very rich btl landlords are buying up everything in sight (that isn't being bought by East Asian investors) and are then able to charge whatever they feel like in rent because there's no alternative. This creates problems (and costs) for the local economy, and for the council who have to deal with a housing crisis; I'd like to see a policy that reclaimed those costs from the people with 200 houses. A mansion tax would do bugger all to address the real problems in the housing market - it's just a distraction mechanism imo, because no-one wants to tackle the real issue.

A much fairer option would be taxing profits from house sales. If you bought for £500k and sell for £2million (which I know someone who has done, I remember thinking that £500k was an insane amount to pay! 2 dentists, quite clear about the fact if they had left it another 2-3 years they wouldn't have been able to buy at all in that area), then that profit of £1.5m should be taxed.

We already double tax other transactions, the purchaser of a dress paying VAT then the shop owner paying tax on their profits, so the principle is there, I don't think this would be any worse. It might mean you get less people moving, but putting a few estate agents out of work wouldn't be the end of the world...

So, this is a mansion?

www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-48098360.html

Haven't they just voted for a change so that disabled people can still get the spare room subsidy?

You can be concerned about more than one government policy at a time you know.

This is different to people who rent because of the principle that they aren't moving house to pay a tax bill. They are moving because of a variety of circumstances, so might which be in their favour, and some which might not be, but they were all known risks. People who bought homes many years ago had no way of knowing that their home might rise in value so drastically, or that they would get unfairly taxed because of something they had no control over.

If you pay 2.5m for that house you deserve any taxes you have to pay in order to purchase it. Anyone spending that money on that house has something wrong with them.

But that's just the asking price grovel - if people were taxed on the asking price not what their houses actually sold for, I'm sure the government would have cleared the deficit by now!

No one is asking anyone to weep for these people, it is simply asking if it is fair?

I wonder if the people on here saying "their heart bleeds" would feel the same if the tax threshold much lower. If people had to move from their, say, £400,000 property because they couldn't afford the tax. The would also be very unlikely to be using a food bank but may not earn much.

The idea that someone should be taxed out of earnings for something that doesn't earn them anything seems ludicrous.

Why not add the tax as a charge on the property's deeds to be paid when the property is sold or by the estate? That way all those ordinary people who happened to have bought a very valuable property can carry on living there as long as they wish?

There are people on our road who live in million pound houses. They bought 15 or so years ago when it was quite a rough area and it's since regenerated. They wouldn't call themselves "rich" by any stretch of the imagination - they are on low incomes and don't go on holidays etc. They can't remortgage as they can't afford to pay a mortgage.

Oh yes, I suppose they could sell to pay the "mansion tax" and then move out, away from their jobs and family and friends and support network they've spend the last 15 years building up. And then be a drain on the system as they won't have jobs.

The "mansion tax" is a very unfair. You can't compare it to people having to move or pay "bedroom tax" while living in LA accommodation - that is designed to help free up the houses that are needed due to lack of space. Who will buy the million pound houses that my friend has lived in and become part of the community for 15 years? Possibly foreign investors with no links to the local community that's who. How does that help?

So as an example, my elderly relative owns her little 3 bed, having bought in the year dot.

her next door-but one neighbour lives in an identical property (row of terraces), but it is council owned.

So. Should the occupiers of both these houses pay mansion tax? They both live in identical properties....Would the council be liable for mansion tax as the owners of the property?

As a follow on, surely it will drive rent in the city to unaffordable limits. If a landlord owns a building divided into 3 flats, is the building liable for mansion tax if worth over 2k as a whole?

I take it the posters who agree with the 'Mansion Tax' don't own £2million plus properties?

Then you may agree with it but only out of selfish reasons. Just because you can't afford to live in a £2million plus home doesn't mean those that do should have to pay extra tax. We already contribute enough.

It smacks of taking from the rich and giving to the poor and please do not compare the bedroom tax with the mansion tax it's not the same. We own our homes we aren't taking state handouts whilst living in a subsidised local authority homes that are bigger than we need.

"Private and LA renters have to move home all the time. Why is this different? I can't really weep into my beer about people who have a £1 million asset being taxed on it."

Tondelayo, people are already taxed on their asset. The pay tax when they buy it at a higher rate and they pay tax on it if they die and pass it on to their children. This is a tax to be paid from their income on a yearly basis, when it should only be an asset tax. Fair enough to pay tax on it if they rent it out or receive an income for it.

Hell yes, that's a mansion compared to my tiny 2 bed semi in Yorkshire.
I don't know much about the mansion tax tbh, it's not something I've needed to pay attention to. Maybe it is unfair and needs looking at in more detail. But I do agree that there are many many more unfair taxes and cuts going on atm that need our attention first. I don't see our current government allowing the rich people in the south east to struggle too much whilst we concentrate on trying to make them stop punishing the poorer people in society.

The Mansion Tax is utterly unfair.

I would have no objection to paying a higher rate of income tax; but I bought my house (in London, so that I can be near enough my relatively long hours job to ensure that I can do my bit at home as well) out of money which I earned and which had already been taxed at 40%. Almost the whole thing will be taxed again at 40% when I die, and now I face in addition a bill of £15-20,000 every year for the privilege of living in my home. When I retire I will have to leave. It is my home.

Almost worse than the money is the sheer envious nastiness of its being labelled a "mansion tax". My house is nice; but it is a four bedroom terraced house with damp and a dodgy heating system. I do not have that house by luck. I have worked, paid my taxes and never sought to avoid doing so. I don't even particularly like my job; but I have always been determined to be independent and to make sure that my family is secure. This is not a tax which will even be noticed by the sort of stereotypical "bastard billionaires" who are assumed to be the target; but it will bite hard on those of us who have done moderately well out of sheer hard work.

There will be much sneering at this post, on the basis that other people have things harder. Sure, of course they do; but that does not make triple taxation of a single asset fair. Nor does it make the average member of the middle class in London grasping and evil. The idea that the proceeds of the tax will somehow "save" the NHS is also laughable

No grovel not a mansion, but still a big posh house, and would probably cost £750,000 at least around here. In the Midlands.

Mary

"A much fairer option would be taxing profits from house sales. If you bought for £500k and sell for £2million (which I know someone who has done, I remember thinking that £500k was an insane amount to pay! 2 dentists, quite clear about the fact if they had left it another 2-3 years they wouldn't have been able to buy at all in that area), then that profit of £1.5m should be taxed."

But then more people would not be able to move. If the price has gone up and you got slammed with a large tax bill when you sold but you need to buy in an area with similar house prices you'd effectively have to down size just to move.

And to play the flip side of the right move game - this wouldn't attract the tax

We bought this house 5 years ago (3 beds, outside M25) we intend to stay here for another 10 years at least. If it went up in value in the interim to be worth enough to pay the mansion tax, that doesn't mean we could afford to pay it. It's already gone up £100 - 150k in 5 years. I'm not £150k richer - I own a house that officially is worth that but I don't have £150k, it's only on paper. I can't access that without remortgaging and we'd struggle to pay an extra £150k on the mortgage.

I don't live in an area that's likely to ever boom like parts of London have, but few of those people buying in what was once rough areas that have gentrified and are now obsenely expensive thought they would end up with a house worth £2m. They havent planned for it and ulness they sell, can't get at the money.

They pay stamp duty when they purchase the property and that's it. The beneficiaries of their estate may pay inheritance tax. You can't pay tax if you're dead.

At present, approximately 50% of new builds in London are being bought up and left empty by rich foreign investors. They pay no tax in this country. The government should be targeting these people as a priority.

Maybe the mansion tax will help stop the outrageous increases in London House prices. It could be a good thing? However who is going to value these houses? I would imagine that people would do a lot for them to be valued at £1.99 million to avoid paying.

There's a lot of talk on here about the unfairness of taxing people who are asset rich and cash poor and how income tax is fairer. I don't agree with that. There are many people who are in the 40% tax bracket who can't afford to buy one house to live in as they are taxed so highly on their incomes. We do not need higher income tax.

It's Unfair, if you earn a high amount you are taxed more on your income, taxed extra in council tax, pay more in stamp duty, pay more in death duties.

Taxed extra for working hard and being successful. Not right.

Ihategeorgeosborne - but what about those people who are asset rich but cash poor - they can't afford to pay either?

To be honest I actually disagree with the tax but only because it would be ineffective and a weak source of revenue. Not because I sit around crying for those who would be affected by it.

I would much prefer a focus on restricting overseas ownership of property, tighter taxation implemented for corporations and regulation of private landlords.