Anyone else in the South East worried about Andy Burnham bringing in a land tax?

[Beachbooks]

With it looking likely that Andy Burnhan will be the next PM, I was interested to see if anyone else in London / the south east were worried about potential tax raises specifically around the land tax rather than stamp duty ?

A lot of my friends who live locally are worrying that he will make the land tax for the South East so high in proportion to other areas of the UK that it will be financially very difficult to afford but then also extremely difficult to sell!!

BTW we have very standard house and garden but we live in an expensive area

Because she earns £10,000-20,000 for a speaking engagement, on top of close to £100,000 salary and wanted somewhere posh by the sea?

Not sure why we are focusing on Angela Rayner? What have her living arrangements got to do with LVT?

10-20k for speaking engagement? gosh, I'd imagine people paying that much not to hear her speaking

I’m rather hoping Agas will escape this. It’s frightfully worrying actually. How will I dry my tea towels?

It's fairly obvious that more expensive houses are under taxed relative to smaller ones.

Anything that is done to make the situation more progressive/equitable is a good thing.

I doubt whether any future government will be reversing it.

I posted this on another thread:

Andy Burnham in a bind over tax as he seeks to shelter middle-earners
"Andy Burnham has sought to reassure voters they will not face big tax rises if he becomes prime minister. But as the tax burden in the UK rises to record highs, economists have warned that the new Makerfield MP will find it hard to avoid hitting middle earners if he needs to raise substantial amounts of revenue.
..
But Dan Neidle, a tax lawyer and commentator, believes the longstanding policy of taxing “other people”, such as higher earners and financial services giants, has “run out of road” and that there are few ways left to raise revenue without affecting middle earners.
...
But the broader trend has been towards higher earners contributing a growing share of income tax. In 2022-23, the top 1 per cent of income taxpayers were responsible for 29 per cent of receipts, up from 21 per cent in 1999-2000, according to government statistics.
...
“It’s more risky to load more revenue-raising on a small group than on a broad base,” said Delestre.
...
There is little clarity over how tax policy will change with a new prime minister and chancellor. While there is no detailed manifesto, Burnham has hinted at a number of expensive policy ambitions, including easing the burden of student loans and increases to defence spending. At the same time he has pledged to leave the “triple lock” on the state pension in place; confirmed manifesto commitments not to raise the rate of income tax, national insurance and VAT; and said he would lower welfare spending by helping people into employment rather than cutting benefits. He has also pledged to cut business rates for pubs and certain family-owned businesses. All this has left open the prospect of further tax increases, on top of two rounds of rises under Reeves’ budgets, raising £66bn."

It's yet again great plans to hand over money like going out of fashion and finding another mug to tax.
There is nothing at all about growing economy really.

It won't grow the economy.

What it should hopefully do is reduce house prices.

If house prices get reduced, they will be more affordable. And maybe some of those who have given up work, or not even bothered to start might feel home ownership is now within their grasp if they work. This would grow the economy.

The problem in the UK is that people are sinking too much money into piles of bricks, where it is effectively doing nothing.

Agree, property shouldn't be the country's best performing asset!

Transport links to and from Westminster from Hove or Uxbridge are very similar," said nobody in London or the Home Counties, ever.

And that's before we even consider the purchase price, under-occupancy, and... ahem... stamp duty.

I don't disagree with this. LVT could be a good think if implemented properly, but I don't believe current government has capacity to do it properly.
The issue is that people will have to pay more to the state, otherwise there is no point to introduce this tax. And I think for the most it's very little left to give

Currently when a house is sold it’s assessed for Improvements based on
planning permissions
and building regs
and up to date satellite imagery
If works to increase the size have taken place the council tax band may go up ( if it’s deemed to have passed the threshold)

This is how they will assess up to date information on each property

Bregs and planning are already logged on LR for each property when they are approved.
Ready in waiting for the sale
It won’t be difficult.

It will be almost automatic

I would. CGT should be charged as if it were income earned over the duration of ownership of the asset. It shouldn't reset on inheritance. I wouldn't tax it on the point of inheritance, just when the asset gets sold. I'd replace the main hone exemption with a system that allows you to roll CGT forward when selling one property to buy another.

It has nothing to do with LVT though, it's re-banding for council tax purpose.

They might replace council tax with property value tax, which will have to be reviewed on a regular basis and very costly to implement. But the idea was to tax the land.

Again, assuming it's done properly and rates are considered in context of local area, it can be a good thing. But if the idea is to simply hit London and SE to fund the rest of the country, this will end up in disaster

That's about making perfect the enemy of the good though.

I'd rather the government tried to do something about it and failed rather than did nothing at all.

We've had so many years where appalling government policy has been directed towards boosting/maintaining house prices anyone who is willing to step up and actually try to make a difference in good faith would be welcome to me.

High house prices are a cancer on society. I think even estate agents are now beginning to realise the only way to clear the market and get back to some reasonable amount of turnover is to have prices reduce considerably.

If you look at info re how it’s calculated Burnham favours a straight 0.48% of the market value of a plot

If you only tax the land value nearly the entire country would get a massive reduction
I for example would be paying £3k a year less. We can’t afford just to tax the land

Therefore
The automated system would assess the current value along with improvements that are registered
and the LVT would be a % of that market value

I think an annual property/land tax is better than stamp duty but I think you get people would feel this.

council tax bands are ridiculously out of date

My home isn't "doing nothing." It is providing housing, independence and security both now and, hopefully, in retirement. If I ever need residential care, it is there to help fund that, reducing my reliance on other taxpayers. I know from experience that many people who fund their own care also pay higher fees than local authorities, effectively helping to cross-subsidise care for those without savings or assets to sell. I traded my labour for a PAYE salary and used that salary, over several decades, to pay down the debt I took on to buy my home. My money has been working hard, and so have I.

Given the costs associated with our ageing population and growing housing insecurity, both of which place considerable pressure on the state, I'd argue that's exactly what a home should be doing. If I don't own my home, someone else does, whether that's the state, a housing association or a private landlord. We do have a productivity issue in this country but the bricks don't suddenly become more productive simply because someone else owns the deeds. They just become an income generating asset for someone else and, increasingly, an income stream flowing overseas or into complex ownership and tax structures the government can't get at.

The real reason housing has become unaffordable is supply issues, planning and policy failures + rising demand. If you want lower house prices, build more homes and limit investment acquisitions / empty homes. I'm sorry but saying that that the sole home owned by someone is idle capital just feels a bit like newspeak.

If the state taxes away peoples ability to hold to onto homes that were intended to provide them with stability, security and help fund future care it increases the likelihood that those costs will ultimately land right back at taxpayers feet. That isn't creating wealth and stability it's bringing tomorrow's money forward to pay for today's spending.

@GasPanicyes high housing costs strangle the economy particularly for younger people. People wonder about our productivity, housing is a part of that puzzle.

The real reason housing has become unaffordable is supply issues, planning and policy failures + rising

Affordability/borrowing costs matter which is why the market is struggling now.

I agree with this. My council would suffer great losses under a land value tax. Tax at the rough rate of .48% the realistic sale value of our house is just under our CT, unless I am much mistaken. I think the LVT needs to be higher to work.

I live is a ‘naice’ village in a moderately high CoL region of the country, but prices here are far from crazy, for context. So if we need a higher rate of LVT to replace CT presumably so do other regions. I am for it.

But hang on, surely that means no-one would ever move house?

Could you please elaborate? how is housing a part of productivity puzzle?

Productivity is an economic output per hour worked. There's been some productivity rebound in Q1, but many economists believe that this is driven by job losses at a lower end of the market, e.g. retail and hospitality, where output per hour is lower.

How can housing influence it? do you mean more people getting jobs? this won't impact output per hour, but it will certainly grow economy.

Please come back, I genuinely want to understand.

It means that buyers are much wealthier than long time residents of some areas, particularly coastal. Much like London.

I think what @GasPanic mean is that high housing costs strangle the economy, particularly for younger people. An increasing share of income goes on housing instead of being spent in the wider economy or on investment or entrepreneurship etc . Happy to be corrected.

Housing isn't the only reason we have weak productivity but it is likely to be a big part of the puzzle.

I would argue that house prices are a symptom not the cause thought. I would also argue we need a root, tree and branch solution not just a sticking plaster for a gunshot wound which is will LVT will likely be.