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

Gaspanic

Ive been asking a poster for ages who says ‘most can pay it’ for proof

Ive already posted logic behind my comment ( I think someone else has aswell )
Ive already posted what payments will look like under Burnham idea
Ive already posted numbers that will be affected
Ive already posted stats on areas that will be affected

Im waiting for the wing and a prayer policy poster to respond

Just as you can see that the current tax policy has a real impact on the poorer 75% of society that will benefit from the changes and don't mind that they have to pay a disproportionate amount of tax relative to their house value.

Is it important to you that starter homes that are mainly low value and bought by young people across the country are innaccessible because of current unfair tax policy means they have to pay higher CT than they should ? This policy allows their CT to be lowered.

If a house goes up in value the average worker in London doesn’t actually have more money to spend. Why would they?

Why make London even more inaccessible? It’s already getting harder for average earners to be here. Especially younger.

Why keep the rest of the country more inaccessible just to keep London more accessible ?

Especially for younger people.

Well don’t moan when London is inaccessible to many with normal jobs.

And young people choose other countries more and more. You’ll be picking up the tab.

It’s not just London

That’s newspaper hype

Selling your home to pay for your own care, including care in the home is reasonable.

Paying tax on genuine profits when you sell your home is also reasonable.

But effectively forcing people to sell their their homes or go into debt to the government simply to contribute more to the general tax pot is not.

I do think we need to focus on keeping our young in the country and also
keeping the higher net earners in the country too
A recent study ( a pp posted on a MN thread) showed we had reached a cliff edge and we need to take the focus off
taxing the same people who already pay in the most

That’s not Labour though and unfortunately a lot of the country ( I won’t say most because I don’t know ) can’t see past their own situation. The long term effect of Thatchers me me mentality has a lot to answer for.

This is not a slight on any posters here btw. Just an observation already widely observed as a change in the moral compass of the country

I won't.

Markets have a habit of rebalancing themselves if they are left free of meddling. It's just that successive governments like to mess around to benefit their support base.

The fact that we are left will a mess of a system from 1992 (which as you might suspect being from the Tories disproportionately benefits the owners of larger houses) when the housing market and the countries needs have changed immeasurably since then is crazy. Why haven't Labour actually done something about this in the decade they were in power ?

That's the price you pay when you get almost 50 years of Tory government.

The reality of Labour is already kicking in. You’ve lost a PM so far he was that bad.

There’s no way people with normal jobs even more priced out of the capital is good.

Who makes the rest of the country more inaccessible? There is no proposal for the rest of the country to pay higher taxes. When Londoners move to the rest of the country though it is likely to become less accessible to the locals.

You've ?

I'm not pro Labour.

What I am pro is good policy and balance over society that leads to growth. If Labour, the Tories or anyone else wants to come up with good policy I'm all for it.

For me good policy means progressive taxation, and increasing tax on assets and decreasing it on productivity to stop us blowing asset bubbles in things like property.

We move our country forwards by doing that. If we don't we just end up at some point in the future with an asset bust and no productive economy.

I understand the argument that many households would pay less under the Fair Share proposal and that you consider that a worthwhile trade-off.

However, it still doesn't answer the question I asked.

Yesterday you argued that increases in house values are largely paper gains and that "the wealth never existed in the first place." If that's the case, why should those same unrealised paper gains become the basis for a very real and potentially destructive annual tax?

You are supporting a proposal under which around 25% of households would pay more. So, are you saying it's fair for around a quarter of the country to pay a real annual tax based on wealth that you argue doesn't actually exist? Sure 75% of households benefit. I'm asking why it's fair for those households to benefit by taxing 25% of home owners, many of whom are PAYE workers, on wealth that you say doesn't actually exist.

It misses who can afford to live in London, such a shame you’ll price out many more.

A young person with a normal job will increasingly be shut out from opportunities in a great city. I feel for them.

If London needs to attract more young people to jobs then it needs to implement good policy to do that. There are more ways of doing that than preserving existing poor policy.

The wealthy using the young as an excuse for not revising regressive taxation systems isn't a good look for me ... I mean, it does not even make any sense. But that is another discussion.

I am really hoping Burnham actually has the bottle to go through with this policy, especially after Reeves gutless performance when she had the chance. So disappointing. It's exactly the kind of change in policy the country needs to move forwards. It wouldn't surprise me if he bails out on it though.

People in London aren’t all rolling in money, many are already stretched with bills and higher childcare costs.

Idk if you know many people in London on various jobs.

The reality is the money isn’t there. But perhaps you can answer @NorthXNorthWest

I will add there’s a few older widowed pensioners here who rely on community contact to not be lonely and who won’t be able to pay more. No doubt you’ll rub your hands at it but seeing them having to move will be on you.

I doubt he’ll bail out
Hes been talking about it for at least 16 years
I think he’ll be shown the facts re fallout and the effect it will have on the economy when the housing market crashes. He’ll be shown the figures on the numbers adversely affected and basically

He’ll be shown it’s not a good policy

That’s not to say council tax needs to be updated and stamp duty abolished just that he needs to get the maths right

Hopefully this thread won’t run to 40 pages and we can all come back and discuss whatever happens to happen

I'm sure they aren't. No one is at the moment. I do know quite a few people in London. They are all Labour supporters. So I presume they support Burham and his policy. But like many people I know they are capable of a bit more nuance than simple party allegiance. I don't think the people I know in London are representative of London as a whole and any group of people I did know would be vanishingly small and statistically unrepresentative of the actual population.

The country isn't just London. No matter how much you want to make the discussion London centric. Policy has to be looked at in the context of the country as a whole and the benefits it brings to everyone.

Re questions, I waste enough time on here without answering the same stuff over and over again.

@NorthXNorthWesthas asked the most relevant question. If you could consider that it shows you are capable of understanding the issue.

I think it's a policy that has been fairly carefully looked at.

The 0.48% number doesn't feel like something that someone has plucked out of nowhere.

They have access to all the data so presumably the calculations are correct.

Will it crash the housing market ? I don't know and I don't think anyone will be able to answer that question. I think the housing market in the UK teeters on the brink all the time. When and if the herd goes it will go big time though.

I think more of a danger is that changes to stamp duty are actually going to freeze the market while everyone waits on what is going to happen. So if they are going to do something they need to do it quick. That might not be compatible with a careful revaluation of prices across the country for example.

Helpful people of Mumsnet, please lend me your 👀

Could somebody point me in the direction of the answer to this question?

Apparently @GasPanic is tired of repeating themselves, so perhaps someone else remembers where they addressed it. I would genuinely appreciate it.

Yesterday they argued that increases in house values are largely paper gains and that "the wealth never existed in the first place." If that's the case, why should those same unrealised paper gains become the basis for a very real, and potentially significant, annual tax?

They support a proposal under which around 25% of households would pay more. So are they saying it's fair for around a quarter of the country to pay a real annual tax based on wealth that they argue doesn't actually exist?

I understand the argument that 75% of households would benefit. My question is different. Why is it fair for those households to benefit by taxing 25% of homeowners, many of whom are ordinary PAYE workers, on wealth that, according to the argument being made, doesn't actually exist?

Well I’ll have a stab @NorthXNorthWest as you’ve added do much to the thread and irrespective of where I stand on this I’ll consider your questions with a logical mind putting to the forefront the entire country

‘ increases in house values are largely paper gains and that "the wealth never existed in the first place”
-agree

‘ why should those same unrealised paper gains become the basis for a very real, and potentially significant, annual tax’
-you can’t pay out with something that doesn’t exist

‘So are they saying it's fair for around a quarter of the country to pay a real annual tax based on wealth that they argue doesn't actually exist?’
-that does seem to be the case

‘Why is it fair for those households to benefit by taxing 25% of homeowners, many of whom are ordinary PAYE workers, on wealth that, according to the argument being made, doesn't actually exist?
-it isn’t but
I’m all right Jack

Worth noting North
It’s worth noting Fairer havent concidered all areas and all improvements to properties. All those extensions since 1992 are up for a tax grab and that 25% will go up up up
It’ll be a shit show just like the education tax

This was written at the start of the year so some things may have changed. But taxing unrealised gains seems to be gaining popularity worldwide.

https://www.emeraldfinancial.com.au/the-countries-taxing-or-moving-toward-taxing-unrealised-capital-gains/

I could see an exit tax like Canada’s also being popular here, to incentivise people staying.

There will have to be a massive exit tax to keep the wealthy here
🤣🤣

@NorthXNorthWest
i can’t believe how apt your username for this thread is
🤣