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

Thank you.

100% agree it is shit show, just like the education tax,

If this is where we are as a society, I think it's a damning indictment of the values we now seem prepared to accept.

It took two years for the education tax to oust the people responsible from their jobs. That had similar tax em high appeal.

😂

This has always been one of my favourites! BBC Two on a Sunday afternoon... the good old days!

The problem heads have rolled but the tax still exists.

Britain was once an island of inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs. Today, it sometimes feels as though our greatest innovation is finding new ways to tax the very behaviours we once encouraged: hard work, saving, home ownership and self reliance

Andy will make a speech about his vision of economy on Monday. Let's see.

There might be a legal case against government and unelected PM if departure from manifesto is too significant.

I remember there were rumors before previous budget and mansion tax and the threshold was supposed to start at 1.5m, but London MP managed to convince RR to make it higher, 2m. No idea if it's true or not, sounds plausible. The same might happen with this tax.

I can't wait for 2029 and see the back of this clowns.

Agree
Mansion tax plus Burnhams tax
this is Labour
I Cant wait for them to go !

So the Valuation Office, which would presumably be responsible for all the revaluations, now comes under HMRC https://www.gov.uk/government/news/valuation-office-joins-hm-revenue-and-customs

I’m surprised it wasn’t always part of Hmrc
Better that it’s central I think irrespective of what ctax system is in place
The move happened in 2025

Taxing asset gains that are based on investment and taking a risk and entrepreneurship is plain stupidity.
Taxing real asset gains based on passive income and luck is another matter.
Million dollar question? How to differentiate between the two?

Right now a lot of people with cash is buying/investing in care homes - guess why? But if the Government overregulate that sector people just won’t invest. And as the opportunity only arose because of Government failure, guess what?
The housing market is the same. They failed to plan enough social housing and regulate the property boom in the past. Smart people always find opportunities that are one step ahead of Government.
I do not currently know a single rich smart person who has not managed to get themselves a second nationality somehow.

I think I'd prefer it to be more like the OBR.

But I suppose it doesn't really matter where it sits if it's valuations are going to be used in such a punitive manner.

I would hope they consult with the OBR as they will actually be able to give better advice on affordability but I very much doubt it

They don’t seem to care about affordability. People can just get into debt and pay 27% interest which in their view is just fine 😵‍💫

Where would housing, more specifically a person's only home, sit for you?

“Where would housing, more specifically a person's only home, sit for you?”

@NorthXNorthWest - I think sitting on an expensive asset and not making it work and not paying a proportional tax on it, is inefficient for society. I think if you sit on a million pound home or you sit on shares worth a lot because you happened to be lucky and born a certain year or you happen to have worked somewhere an be given equity, then yes, you should pay a quasi wealth tax. I do not think it should be high, but I think it should be taxed. The opportunity cost of sitting on sth of high value is 4% currently cash in bank plus whatever tax rate on that.
So I think there should be an exemption up to a certain amount per person in the household, but above that, I do not see a problem with having to pay, in line with your income tax rate and overall wealth. That is philosophically speaking.

The problem in this country is that most people aren’t sophisticated enough to fill in a complex tax form every year and there aren’t enough people at HMRC checking. But maybe they hope that AI will resolve that.
It is actually good for people themselves to keep a careful track on their assets and income once a year, all people that is.

Agree. To me, it's simply a cold, hard cash grab, sold through the politics of envy by Whitehall fat cats.

The people promoting these policies don't have to worry about the standard of living they will enjoy in retirement, given that both their state and generous "work place" pensions will be funded by taxpayers. Nor are they likely to be held to account for the harm these policies will cause if they are implemented.

Share income is taxed

ISAs aren’t. Perhaps they will be now if stamp is no longer needed.

So what benefits exactly do you propose to cut, and exactly how much will you save by doing so?

Manifestos are not contracts, they are not legally-binding. No legal case would succeed.

Who exactly do you want to take over in 2029?

Thanks.

Well I'd start with abolishing the triple lock. It sort of made sense when introduced as the state pension had lagged behind earnings growth. It is now outstripping it. I'd link the state pension to average earnings growth only.

Next I'd introduce a fee for going to see the GP (like everyone pays in Ireland). I'd also impose financial penalties (enforced through PAYE or benefit or pension adjustments) for missing hospital appointments.

Cutting benefits must go hand in hand with making public services more efficient. To that end I would remove employment protection for public sector workers so that they are easier to dismiss for incompetence and laziness. The quid pro quo for this being that their gold plated pensions offset the reduced employment protection. I'd expect a lot of jobs to go.

I'd then tackle housing benefit. There is a huge amount of housing fraud. Illegal subletting, partners moving in etc. I'd require everyone in subsidised housing to re-apply every three years to ensure continued eligibility and suitability of accommodation.

I'd also radically ramp up CMS enforcement which as far as I can see is non existent. Again by digitalisation CMS debts would get collected through PAYE (as now) but also through benefit deductions.

Finally I'd apply a taper to benefits paid to people not in work and deemed fit to work. Those benefits would be time limited and simply stop if work has not been found with that period.

And yes and this gets the screams here, I would be much tougher on disability assessments. Not for those genuinely unable to work but benefits cannot be allowed to be a choice and too much (not all) mental health disability assessment has! become in effect self assessed by the claimant.

That is week 1's work.

So how much do you expect to save?

The OBR along with the left leaning Resolution Foundation and the right leaning IFS calculate that abolishing the triple lock in this way would save around £20 billion a year over the cost of not abolishing it.

The Policy Exchange think tank calculated that the NHS would raise £7.6 billion from a £20 charge to visit a GP. This ignores the savings from time wasters being reduced.

The Institute for Government think tank suggests savings of around £2.25 billion a year per 50,000 reduction in public sector employee numbers. I'd want to go further than that.

Limiting the time that non working able claimants could claim for would create savings of around £1.4bn a year based on there being 175k people in this position.

These are not crazy ideas. And they would create huge savings.

My other suggestions would also create big additional savings.

Right wing think tanks favour a reduced tax rate with a corresponding higher individual spend for the majority.

That's a legitimate position, they just need to be clear about both sides of the equation.

If needs don't evaporate (they won't magically evaporate!) then costs will move somewhere else in the system. Either individuals pay personally, or businesses add it to their prices, or some other part of the state picks it up anyway.

Or people adjust their behaviours.

And eliminating frictional waste in the system and abuses of the system represent genuine savings.

That's where my little manifesto is mainly directed.

You get my vote.

Just please add taxes reduction as well to stimulate economy. And reinstate 2 child cap

I know this. It's very unfortunate. But I can anticipate a multimillion petition which will make it very awkward for Labour.

Re who to take over - Tory, most definitely. The far right brunch of them moved to Reform luckily. Again, I know this won't happen, but I'd be very happy with hung parliament with Tory or Labour having most seats but not enough for majority or coalition so they'd have to work together on a centrist ground.

ETA: If Andy presser through with this tax on London then Labour unlikely to see power in another 30 years. I'm sure true influencers will take care of this

I agree especially about the housing and subletting