To think an annual property tax is incredibly unfair?

[Itchthescratch]

I come from an area with low house prices. It is great! My friends can generally afford houses even with lower salaries as the earnings:house prices ratio is better. Rents are also lower so they have proportionately more disposable income.

I have moved to a more expensive area where house prices are higher and people have really had to push themselves to buy a property. Salaries are higher but not high enough to make up the difference. They have had to pay more stamp duty , pay more interest and have less disposable income each month.

I am really struggling to understand why my friends in the South should also automatically be paying more property tax under the new proposals being suggested by Burnham supporters? What is the justification? They would love to buy a large detached house for £300k like my friends from home but this isn't possible. It feels like they are being double penalised.

Just to add house prices haven't risen in real terms in the area in live in now for 20 years so the value of my friend's houses is simply money they have paid in.

Did you put that in the Fairer Share website or just do the calc yourself,?

Then it's her choice to leave, she's not being made homeless. She's making herself homeless voluntarily. Bear in mind, we wouldn't be talking about a family in the breadline here but someone living in a million+ house who leaves either because she cant afford or isn't isn't prepared to defer £100 a month.

We pay nearly 4k council tax for a 3 bed in home counties. Previously lived outer London and was under 2k for same size property. I think as others have said its partly enconomies of scale - we live semi rural so take much longer to collect rubbish etc, there are many nore pensioners requiring social care.

I assume all this tax raised locally based on the notional value of homes will be pit in a central pot and distributed? Otherwise London would be flush and many other areas would come up short.

Quite the opposite of devolution I would think.

£100 a month? A million pound property would be 5k per year, so more like £400+ a month.

No, if she's living there already, the maximum increase compared with her current tax will be £1200 a year.

This is so true. I’ve never seen anything that looks so like the thin end of a wedge.

It can be acknowledged by the ignorant for eternity. It still isn’t true.

The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) is a ring-fenced accounting mechanism within the General Fund. The ring-fence ensures that the income from tenants’ rents is only spent on the upkeep and management of local authority tenants’ homes and protects them from funding services already paid for through Council Tax. The HRA can also contribute toward the building of new council housing. Councils are responsible for meeting their statutory responsibilities as a landlord within their HRA.

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-10-21/10194/

It is a home you live in it. Any price increase is on paper its not wealth that can be used by the person until they sell so tax it then upon sale...oh wait we already have that.

Property your only gouse shouldnt be seen as an asset whilst you are living in it, we all need a house ot simply put a roof over our heads.

My house price has doubled since I bought it but it's my forever home so what good is that equity when I cannot use it unless I sell up and move which isn't going to happen until I need care or die. But sure tax me cos apparently im wealthy.

"It can be acknowledged by the ignorant for eternity. It still isn’t true."

Chat GPT

Yes, there is also the Housing Revenue Account (HRA), which is an important part of how council housing is funded.
The HRA is a ring-fenced account that councils with their own housing stock must keep separate from their general finances. It is primarily funded by:

• Council-house rents.
• Service charges paid by tenants and leaseholders.
• Income from garages, parking, and other housing-related assets.
• Right to Buy receipts (subject to rules on how they can be spent).
• Borrowing for housing investment (within the HRA).

The HRA pays for:

• Repairs and maintenance.
• Housing management.
• Major improvements (such as new kitchens, roofs, and insulation).
• Building new council homes.
• Repaying housing debt and interest.

The HRA does not normally receive general council tax funding because it is intended to be self-financing through rental income and other housing revenues. However, there is still wider taxpayer support for council housing through:

• Central government grants for affordable housing.
• Funding for regeneration projects.
• Housing Benefit or the housing element of Universal Credit paid to eligible tenants.
• Occasionally, specific government programmes to improve housing quality or energy efficiency.

So if someone argues that council tenants receive no public subsidy because the HRA is self-financing, that would be incomplete. The day-to-day running of council housing is largely funded through the HRA, but the wider social housing system also benefits from substantial taxpayer-funded support through welfare payments, grants, and other government programmes.

Yes rewarding the people who have no business to be here and have not paid in

Then why does everyone want one rather than a private rental, the rents are cheaper?

Yes because the rents cover the actual cost, there’s no profit.

Security.

Its a no brainer, especially if you have a family. Until very recently you could be a good, reliable tenant for a decade and be given a month’s notice on a whim because the agents reckon they can get more rent by remarketing.

Its the curse of hobby landlording that became common place with the demise of social housing. Too many small landlords trying to get both capital growth and income from the same property. Good professional landlords struggle to compete.

Most of Europe has more stable rental markets by having distinct frameworks for long term, mid term and short term letting with clear responsibilities on each side for each type of rental. You can take out a rental on a long term tenancy knowing you won’t have to find a new school for the DC at a month’s notice or bear the costs of moving on an annual basis.

Social housing is the only form of housing we have which approaches European long term tenancies.

It’s not just security, it’s cheaper.

Social housing is significantly cheaper than private renting . According to national data, social rents are, on average, 50% to 64% cheaper than private rentals, which can save tenants hundreds of pounds per month . In areas with high housing costs like London, this difference can amount to over £1,400 per month in savings .

Yes and the explanation is right there Too many small landlords trying to get both capital growth and income from the same property. There’s no profit involved in social housing.

Security is the key need which is simply not available on the private market, even with the change in the law. If you are low enough income that HB kicks in then the slightly lower costs in most social housing will not be the key factor.

Its the biggest single difference between UK rental markets and countries where renting long term is the norm for much of the population. This also contributes to more stable housing markets overall.

I have never understood the refusal of successive governments to implement the type of long/mid/short term rental contract framework and the improved stability which follows.

Part of it is subsidised by taxpayers so there does not need to be profit.

It’s not subsidised by taxpayers as evidenced above. Social/council housing washes its own face.

From Chat GPT, because I have to get to work.

The Housing Revenue Account is largely self-financing for day-to-day management, but that does not mean government funding is absent. The government provides substantial financial support for both council housing and social housing through capital grants, low-interest loans, regeneration funding and housing benefit. Whether you choose to call these subsidies, public investment or financial support is largely semantic; they reduce the cost of providing social housing and are funded by taxpayers. The government's own publications describe grant funding for the development of social and affordable

My quote was from Hansard. Somewhat more reliable than Chat GPT. The biggest recipients of housing benefit are private landlords whose profits are subsidised by the taxpayer.

@BIossomtoes - but it is cheaper than private sector renting and, more importantly, secure. If you lose your job/don’t want a job then you’re not fretting about paying your mortgage, you can rest easy that it’s your home and no one can take it away. And someone fixes your toilet, and paints the outside, and provides fixtures and fittings (see interiors of new builds in Shropshire in the news).

Owners pay a mortgage, they pay for repairs, they buy a kitchen or bathroom, general upkeep. And then - oh no - you are hoarding wealth so let’s tax that. I’m happy to pay for local services but this new plan is immoral.

What new plan?

The government's own website itself sets out numerous taxpayer-funded programmes that support social housing. These include funding for new council and social housing, grants to improve the existing homes, and funding for regeneration,etc

As I've already said, whether you call these "subsidies"or "taxpayer-funded" support is largely a matter of semantics. The reality is that taxpayers' money is used to build, improve and maintain social housing. So it just not true to claim that council or social housing receives no taxpayer support.

In practice much social housing, certainly near me, is not well maintained. If you are landed with undesirable neighbours, you have no recourse: the bar for evicting them is very high. SH is far from a panacea.

LVT will do away with stamp duty, bring undeveloped land - such as the land builders are sitting on - into taxation - and rationalise taxes. We need to see the details, but as long as it is phased in carefully and the vulnerable are protected, I see it as very moral.