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

Well done on a comprehensive reply, you make some good points.

I've certainly no objection to abolishing the triple lock.

I'm rather dubious that the rest would save anything like the amounts claimed though. Take the GP charge, for example. There was a nursery that started charging parents for late pick-ups. They found that the number of tardy parents actually increased because instead of feeling guilty about running late, they now considered it just a service they could pay for.

This is the last I'm going to say about "idle money" when it comes to home ownership.

The irony of labelling owners who live in their single home as economically "inefficient", while supporting the extraction of ever more money from them to fund one of the largest and, in my view, most inefficient structures in Britain, is staggering. And that's before we even start talking about the Laffer Curve.
I am pretty sure that, in this country, we have the freedom to decide how we spend the money we earn, provided it is legal. I chose my home first, my pension second and everything else afterwards.

Of course, I want some of my money working for the wider economy. That's why I save, contribute to a pension and pay my taxes. My savings and pension help provide capital for businesses and investors to innovate and grow. They are not just sitting in a box gathering dust until I need to draw on them. Irrespective of that, surely some of my hard-earned, after-tax income should be mine to use in the way I believe is best for me and my family. Not every pound I spend should be judged solely on whether it generates the highest investment return, nor should I have to worry about market risk. Money exists to improve the quality of people's lives, not the other way round.

Any financial adviser will assess your attitude to risk. Mine is low - having almost all my savings wiped out in a market crash did that for me. If you have another five or ten years for the market to recover, it isn't such a big deal. But if, like me, you need access to that money, the loss is very real and very permanent. As you get older, you don't always have another ten or fifteen years to wait for markets to recover.

As people approach retirement, financial advisers generally recommend taking fewer risks with investments because there may not be enough time to recover from a major market fall. For many people, money tied up in a mortgage-free home is a perfectly legitimate form of prudent financial planning.
There is another inconsistency with the so-called "fair share" tax, or LVT. We accept that gains and losses on shares are only realised when the assets are sold. Yet when the same principle applies to housing, an unrealised increase in the value of someone's home is treated as real taxable wealth, even though the owner has received no cash and may have no intention of selling.

As I've said, I have no objection to taxing genuine income or realised gains - something fair and proportionate. But there is a fundamental difference between taxing money someone has actually earned or received and taxing them every year on an unrealised valuation of the roof over their head. There are, in my opinion, no legitimate circumstances in which someone should have to sell, or borrow against, their home to fund general public spending. Selling your home to support yourself, or to pay for your own long-term care, is one thing. Paying an annual "wealth" tax, based on something you have not received, simply because your home has risen in value, is another matter entirely.

IMO, the tax, in that form, only makes sense if someone has a mugger's mindset: "You have it, I want it, so I'm going to take it by force if I have to."
It helps explain why some right-on activists and their handmaidens either cheer it on or, even worse, stand by while the state engages in what I see as state-sponsored thuggery against citizens who have done nothing more than work hard, pay their way, become self reliant and plan for a retirement that reduces their burden on the state.

People are not economic units whose sole purpose is to maximise investment returns or tax receipts. We work to build secure lives for ourselves and our families. That is exactly what I did. I don't believe that should ever become the justification for treating the roof over my, or anyone else's, head as just another source of revenue for the state.

Sensible and educated post @NorthXNorthWest .

If you need any volunteers to help with your election campaign, say no more!

Yes, like communists did in Russia

we alway overpaid our mortgage towards the last ten years and went without other stuff, we have always been cautious and prudent and it’s morally wrong to introduce this.

And then there's the minor detail of the poorest parents not taking their children to the doctor because they can't afford it (yes, foreign as it may seem to MN there are plenty of people who don't have £20 left at the end of the month) and it looks like it's probably not necessary...

And then kid dies of a preventable illness.

Oh yes, in fantasy politics behaviours change. In the real world, not so much.

As I've said, I have no objection to taxing genuine income or realised gains - something fair and proportionate. But there is a fundamental difference between taxing money someone has actually earned or received and taxing them every year on an unrealised valuation of the roof over their head. There are, in my opinion, no legitimate circumstances in which someone should have to sell, or borrow against, their home to fund general public spending. Selling your home to support yourself, or to pay for your own long-term care, is one thing. Paying an annual "wealth" tax, based on something you have not received, simply because your home has risen in value, is another matter entirely.

See I actually see taxation of wealth as MORE morally justifiable than taxation of income derived from work. For one thing, the argument about the right of the individual to their fruits of their labour (which I think is often oversimplified, but does have merit) applies to the latter. Wealth on the other hand MAY have been derived originally from work, or may not - plenty of it is just derived from inheritance etc. where that argument doesn't apply.

Secondly, taxing people's earned income usually means taking away the first, initial money that they need to live on. For many people that will be the ONLY money they have to live on, so a lot of your tax revenue is then in conflict with the livelihoods of the most vulnerable, Whereas wealth taxes, as long as they are subject to decent allowances before they kick in (like IHT is for example) tax the money that SOME people are able to acquire ABOVE what they first acquire from work - so you're taxing a revenue stream that is less crucial to people's livelihoods. (I've explained upthread why I see the distinction between "money" in the bank and "money" in land or asset value as invalid).

Wealth tax actually predated income tax in the UK by about a century, and was the primary source of government revenue throughout the 18th century. Probably because the working class were already screwed to the point where no more could be extracted from them without them literally starving, so the exchequer had to get the funds from where they existed. As we return to those levels of inequality, the same will inevitably apply. (The historically high level of pre-tax allowance we have now is probably a tacit admission of this - that there's no point in the government trying to tax the lowest earners more because they simply don't have the money to pay after providing for essentials).

You have to be able to get an appointment before you can worry about paying for it. Anyone who has needed an appointment in the last couple of years will tell that you getting one is the biggest problem!

NHS England stats c.16 million GP appointments were missed in 2025. At c.£40 per appointment, that's approx £640 million of wasted GP time. Imagine what even three-quarters of that could do if it were put back into front-line care.

@concertinacornflake "behaviour changes are a fantasy". Are you sure about that? Plastic bag charges, the London Congestion Charge, my personal favourite airline baggage fees have all changed how people behave. Back in the day you got money for returning emply glass bottles, ask the shop owner how successful an incentive that was!

So why should missed appointments be any different? We don't have to charge everyone. Children, vulnerable people and those with genuine emergencies should be protected. But if an adult, or a parent on behalf of a child, continually misses appointments without cancelling, there should be some consequence.
Because the cost isn't just financial, every patient who can't get an appointment is also paying price. That could actually be a worried parent trying to get their child seen, or someone whose diagnosis is delayed because there wasn't an appointment available.

So I ask you: What about the children and other patients who are harmed because they couldn't get an appointment in time?

Yes, selling in areas with demand is just a simple case of getting the price down enough now, some other areas have seen demand fall off a cliff though?

Since the ME kicked off people are driving noticeably less? Since the cost of mortgage debt went up people are buying noticeably less houses? You can price people out of damaging behaviour IMO.

and pensioners and the long term ill

The value of property comes from a banker engineered (with a thick gullible public cheering it on) debt bubble though, there is no "hard work" involved on the part of the person sitting in a house they bought years ago for a pittance? It would be amusing now to see people being taxed on that "value" that they no doubt have brayed at dinner parties about over the years, they say people in the UK like their houses expensive, so now the mortgage debt AND the tax bill is getting expensive, what"s not to like?

A market crash
Negative equity
Mortgage companies reprocessing
A lack of houses to move to once you sell

and you say ‘what’s not to like’
I think it’s self evident myself and I’m one of the ones that would get a £1k reduction

A market crash is the one thing that would benefit working people in the UK the most, obviously not those with existing mortgage debt though. I always wonder if this is what they really want now to get the economy and borrowing moving again?

Exactly. It's bad enough that my kids are so disadvantaged in house buying, compared to when I bought decades ago. It would be hugely unfair for them to be paying a land tax far higher than mine, for homes a fraction of the size.

The homes would have to drop in price to compensate for the tax liability though, they would benefit from cheaper prices.

A housing market crash doesnt just affect the housing market

Of note
Lower priced properties will increase exponentially aswell

The fallout from such a policy is far reaching

You have stated that, in principle, you are comfortable with people being forced to sell or downsize because of an annual tax on the home they live in.

I am not.

The point you keep avoiding is the difference between market value and money someone has actually received and can actually spend.

A home is usually bought with earned income that has already been taxed and financed with a mortgage. Most people then spend 20–30 years paying interest to the bank before they own it outright. On top of that come years of maintenance and repairs, all paid for from taxed income. Unless you're renting it out, there is no income stream. If you are a landlord, that income is already taxed.

Any increase in value is only a potential gain until the property is sold. That's why I've said all along that I have no objection to taxing the profit when that gain is actually realised, just as we do with shares, other investments and, indeed, Inheritance Tax.

In fact, your inheritance example makes my point. Inheritance Tax only becomes due because you've actually received something. The same applies when you sell an investment or a property. Until then, the gain isn't available to spend.
Someone living in their own home hasn't received anything. They haven't generated any income from it either.

So the bit I really don't get is this. You describe this as "taxation of wealth" and "more morally justifiable" than taxing income from work. Why is it morally justifiable to tax someone every year on a paper valuation of the home they live in, bought with taxed income, rather than taxing the gain when it is actually realised?

"It's easy to sell a house that comes with a hefty annual tax bill," said no estate agent ever.

Especially when that annual bill is likely to keep rising, and households are already struggling with the cost of living.

People will go to great lengths to defend the indefensible.

Won’t this have a knock off effect on the economy as people will have to cut back so no eating out, theatre tickets, travel etc

stupid policy

Many have been saying this for a while but people still seem to be out spending like drunken sailors, or are they spending less and just walking about more? A proper bond market crisis is the only thing that will stop the rampant entitlement and financial stupidity that thrives in the UK.

Who are you in this fantasy, Robin Hood?

So some homeowners should pay a substantial annual tax on gains they haven't realised, based on a caricature of homeowners and a perceived slight you've conjured up in your mind, rather than on money they've actually received.

So this isn't really about fair and proportionate taxation. Because it reads more like revenge for an imaginary slight.

Many homeowners are ordinary taxpayers who bought a home with taxed income, spent decades paying the mortgage, and are far more worried about paying their bills and how they're going to afford retirement than boasting about paper gains they neither created nor can actually spend.

HPI wasn't created by homeowners. Successive governments actually encouraged people to buy homes. Cheap credit, financial deregulation, a failure to build enough homes, planning restrictions, an increased population and decades of political and regulatory decisions by successive administrations drove prices out of the reach of many, not homeowners.

As you said, "with a thick gullible public cheering it on". The more things change, the more they stay the same.

What it will probably do is start to reduce house prices as buyers cost in the tax liability, which is probably the plan all along, Plan B will be interest rate hikes and a bond market crisis which he has the power to create just by speaking, LOL.