To think that the new tax on £2m will eventually be harmful to ordinary folk?

[IwishIcouldski]

I'm concerned that the new tax on properties over £2 million will push more buyers toward homes below that threshold. Increased demand at lower price points could intensify competition at £1.5 million, £1 million, £500,000, £300,000, and so on, as buyers adjust their expectations downward in response to pressure higher up the market but still below the £2 million mark.

It also raises the question of who will actually buy the £2 million-plus homes. I can imagine many sellers pricing their properties just under £2 million to attract buyers, which could drive prices down at each prove level across the market. Meanwhile, some of the remaining £2 million homes may end up being purchased by the very wealthy or by landlords who convert them into multiple flats. There may need to be big drops in prices because when you buy, you would not want to be dragged into the £2m mark after a couple of years because of inflation.

I feel it will eventually harm ordinary people over time but the wealthy will be able to weather the storm.

I think we can actually get data about that, or as good as. Ireland recently, relaxed planning laws to allow ppl to build "granny flats" or "cabins" in gardens. To do with their housing shortage.

Interesting because students at our school are struggling to find apprenticeships….

There are approx 1.8 million students in the two years classified as in16-18 education. So half are year 13. There were circa 50,000 degree apprenticeships started in 2024. A significant mismatch.

Most degree apprenticeships go to middle class kids in large cities where it's feasible for them to live at home, work and study. They are now ridiculously competitive. It's far easier to get into a top ranking university than it is to get onto a degree apprenticeship.

I would add that there are apprentiships that arent degree apprentiships. I know 3 people who secured apprentiships last year. They are good quality ones and enjoying it and paid fairly, but they are not degrees. So I think the 50,000 apprentiship number can be higher unless you are wedded to degrees are the only education to have.

But its also fair to say these are also competitive and a lot go to older people so not 18 year olds but 24 or 35 etc.

I also know lots of people who applied and got nowhere so the mismatch is huge.

Degree apprenticeships are a specific subset. The most recent data shows over 750,000 participants in apprenticeships.

https://standout-cv.com/stats/apprenticeship-statistics-uk

Yes of course but in most cases a sixth former isn't deciding between a degree at university or a standard apprenticeship. They are instead considering degree apprenticeships which in many cases offer them the best of both worlds. But these are highly sought after and very limited in number.

People of course do standard apprenticeships but this group tends to be the group that would not have gone to university anyway.

Savvy young people can see which way society is moving. Graduate recruitment is down and jobs which demand human input are the future. They see skilled tradesmen are never out of work and make a lot of money. Instead of getting into debt they can start earning straight after GCSE and put themselves several years ahead of graduates in financial terms.

We’re never going to return to the days when only 10% of the population were graduates but the combined reduction in graduate opportunities and extent of student debt will undoubtedly reduce numbers. The value of a degree has eroded massively in the last 30 years.

Republicans have never been good for the economy.

While £250k might seems long way from the new tax, in 2035 a £2m property will be the equivalent of only £1m today in real terms. By 2045 a £500k property will be the equivalent of £2m today - by which point one in four homes will be subject to this new tax. And if anyone believes that additional lower and higher bands aren’t going to be introduced then I admire your optimism :)

Your crystal ball is remarkably specific. I very much doubt there’s any possibility of a 400% increase in property value in the space of 20 years. Perhaps you’d like to reference the source of that prediction?

Of course it won't. That would be an extremely rapid increase in value.

By 2045 a £500k property will be the equivalent of £2m today - by which point one in four homes will be subject to this new ta

It depends. Current council tax valuations are based on 1991.
So they could continue to use 2026 valuation
But yeh who is saying a 400% increase in next 20 years?

Do you think that future governments will keep this tax? It doesn't seem likely Tory or Reform would support it.
Do you think salaries are going to increase enough to allow one in four people to pay two million for a house in 2045?

I know - their last attempt to impose punitive protectionist tariffs across the board caused the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression. Almost every recession in the last 50 years has been under a republican President.

For some reason though, many Americans labour under the delusion that the Republicans are good with the economy, in spite of all the evidence.

History shows that once introduced taxes tend to not be removed very quickly…

Salary and house price inflation means it’s entirely possible that in 20 years one in four houses is worth that, especially with the way inflation is going. It doesn’t mean everyone has to spend that though, because I think the average length of time in a house is around 9 years in the UK. So very roughly only 2.5% will buy a a house costing that much in any given year post 2045, which doesn’t seem unreasonable either. But, they are all back of an envelope estimates. The one certainty is that the tax will capture more people over time, a lot more people and houses. It’s an inevitability. After all, look at the numbers being dragged into the higher rate tax brackets. 10 years ago 4 million people paid income tax at 40%, today it’s nearly 7 million and it’s projected to be 8 million in a couple of years

cf the fiction that the Conservatives are the party of the economy here in the UK.

If a country has high energy costs due to a net zero policies, minimum wages, environmental measures, work health and safety standards then without protectionist tariffs that country will simply export industries and jobs to those countries that don't have such policies.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/commentary/2025/11/30/world/chinas-low-rights-model/

Continued house price inflation is anything but a certainty. Many London boroughs have stagnated for a decade.

No one wins in a trade war.

Given that the US has sod all in the way of environmental or employment regulations (those which existed are being bulldozed as we speak), why - according to your logic - would it need protectionist tariffs?

they are all back of an envelope estimates.

At least you’re honest.

The US may have lower environmental standards, lower energy costs and lower worker rights than say Europe but they are significantly higher than environmental standards and workers rights in say China or India.

Take the example of INEOS that produces petrochemical products with one eighth the carbon footprint of Chinese petrochemical products, with higher energy costs and higher salaries, higher workers rights and higher environmental standards.

Because of this Chinese petrochemical products even after being shipped half way round the world can undercut INEOS in the European markets. So as a result INEOS closes plants and people lose their jobs.

The choice is adopt Chinese environmental standards and workers rights to compete or place tariffs on Chinese imports or close factories and lose jobs in Europe/ the US.

So why impose punitive protectionist tariffs on Canada and European countries (not to mention some Australian penguins) rather than specifically targetting China?

Why tariff products that cannot be produced in the US (coffee, for example)? Who is Trump protecting by taxing bananas?

Not to mention that when he tariffed steel in his last term, it cost more jobs in manufacturing than it created in steelmaking.

The chances of being accepted onto a degree apprenticeship straight out of school is minuscule. Students would have a much greater chance of getting on a Level 3, and completing that. They’d then have a good chance of getting on a L4 and so on. The end result is the same.

Because people don’t understand Apprenticeship progression routes, they’re wedded to the idea that you need to secure an immediate degree Apprenticeship at 18, even though they’re like hen’s teeth.

Even schools don’t understand Apprenticeships.

Quite simply because there were protectionist tariffs and policies imposed by the EU and Canada against US imports. The counter tariffs by the US were in response to this.

As for coffee not being produced in the US, they do produce coffee in Puerto Rico which is a US territory.

Were they fuck. Trump came up with a list of trade deficits, labelled them "tariffs" and slapped arbitary tariffs on almost every country except Russia (funny that), even those countries the US had a trade surplus with.

Do you really think that the tiny amount of coffee produced by Puerto Rico is worth hiking consumer coffee prices by 20%?