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

Land value or property tax is a percentage of value. Value reflects desirability and these prices reflect that living in Westminster is extremely desirable, whereas Blackpool is the most deprived LA in England.

The first property is worth 50% more than the second, reflecting its much greater desirability. Why shouldn’t the owner be paying roughly 50% more in CT?

For perspective, when I lived in a lovely US university town with superb services, we paid roughly 2.25% the values of our houses each year in property tax. But we got a great quality of life in return.

So you’re saying this £6.7M 4 bed in Belgravia, should be paying a similar amount as the 22 times cheaper house in Blackpool? Really? Multimillionaires should pay the same as a warehouseman or taxi driver?

www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/172581869

This is a terrible policy! It just transfers money from the young, to the old. This is despite the fact that old people are much wealthier!

Mostly agree. My understanding is that there was a small amount of genuine hardship for the elderly. That could have been mitigated less drastically. When I lived in America and have followed the story since moving here, California has suffered badly from Prop 13.

Maybe because some people have to live in Westminster? you know, your teachers, nurses, MPs?

Just think about the law of unintended consequences - what if those who are unable to afford property in London anymore but still have London level of savings move to your areas? you know what it's going to do to your house prices, right?

Again, as always with Labour, it's all about "who else we can tax to pay benefits to others". It's all about redistribution, nothing about wealth creation.

How is that a good thing?

No able bodied person needs to live in Westminster. Most MPs do not. London has some of the best public transport in the world.

But they won't be - RR took care of this with her mansion tax. What we're talking about is land value tax which will disproportionally affect the ordinary folk in London and SE

are you ok? you decided who needs to live where?

Anyone in other countries already trying to scupper the guy before he's even been made PM?!

It is absolutely terrifying to have a prime minister from above Watford Gap. Better turn on captions for Prime Ministers Questions too :S

Nobody has to live in Westminster. Other commutable parts of London and the commuter belt are available.

I live in a fairly expensive area anyway, @nearlylovemyusername

If people leave London in significant numbers it will be a good thing overall. They will create opportunities. We will cope with the consequences for house prices as a rising tide lifts all boats.

Claiming that nurses, teachers, MPs need to live in Westminster, presumably because they work there, was not realistic. Everyone who knows any reasonable number of Londoners knows a good proportion who commute.

Those with disabilities do sadly face extra challenges everywhere but at least there are some supports for them. Not enough, but some.

So thanks for your heartfelt concern but I sm fine and happy to risk an exodus of Londoners to boot

No, but I'm genuinely terrified about how is setting the stage for reform and the potential chaos that will follow.

Thank you!

This was said to be a risk in Makerfield, but it did not materialise

Yes, and Larry the Cat, had better beware when Andy and his entourage rock up with their whippets.

Makerfield was quite different though - read about his campaign, he knocked on almost every door of undecided voters and used his charm. He promised everyone what they wanted. And don't forget about the split of the right.
To win GE he needs to introduce policies actually generating some growth.

If people leave London in significant numbers it will be a good thing overall. They will create opportunities.

😂😂😂gosh, it's exactly the same point as with private schools VAT. Are you basically saying that you are uncapable of creating opportunities and need Londoners to do it for you?

The 'split of the right' is irrelevant as Burnham got 55% of the vote.
Reform have had three bad by elections in a row now.

The split of the right is irrelevant. Burnham got more votes than all the other parties combined.

If he wasn't voted in - why not? he used an interesting campaign trying to separate himself from Labour.

How Andy Burnham won Makerfield

"Burnham’s team set about distinguishing itself from the national Labour Party, which, in a nod to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s unpopularity, he promised to “change”.

Look, he's been trying to get the job for a while, he's now got it. He will have some honeymoon thanks to personal charm. His policies though? let's see

Yup - the banks etc generate the money and that can only be in one place - the capital city.
@MrsPapillonam SO excited to see your evidence that London/SE doesn’t subsidise the rest of the country and pay more than it takes (unlike rest of the uk). Just stand down

Regional and subregional labour productivity, UK - Office for National Statistics

Labour productivity, whether measured by output per hour worked or by output per job, was higher in London and the South East than the UK average in the latest 2023 figures; in London, output per hour worked was 28.5% above that of the UK average (represented by 0.0%), and output per job was 35.3% above that of the UK average.

ETA: @MrsPapillon London makes so much money because it’s bigger and so many banks, financial services, big tech etc have their head offices there, not because you’re all working harder. GDP per capita is £69,000 in London vs. £65,000 in Manchester. Don't you see a bit of inconsistency here? London population is only 13% of UK, yet generates 25% of tax. Then you compare GDP per capita - so you're making a point it's not about size?