AIBU to think a £2m homeowner should pay mansion tax?

[LadyJos]

Anyone read the Telegraph Article about the 93 year-old man paying mansion tax on his £2m Richmond Home he bought for £15,000? AIBU but isn't £15,000 to £2m a fairly good return over 60 years, and shouldn't he pay some tax at the end? I can't help thinking since the home is mortgage-free, he has options here to pay the £2500 a year...
‘I’m a 91-year-old veteran about to be dragged into mansion tax. This is wrong’
www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/91-year-old-about-dragged-into-mansion-tax/

What happens if there’s a house price crash?

So I’m in my (sadly imaginary) £2m house which has been assessed as a mansion. It’s now worth £1.75m, I’ve paid stamp duty, I’m in negative equity - but I still have to pay the mansion tax? Because surely the authorities will not be reassessing every year.

There's a reason my very high earning DH wants to move to UAE. This sort of nonsense isn't there. You actually keep what you earn and can leave things to your kids.

There are loads of people in this country who don't work who could, including rich people's children.

But yes, I hate the idea of an elderly person having to leave the family home and all those memories.

Not sure great for women though.

It's more like £250,000 today.

But 60 years ago the average house price was about £3k and the average salary was under £900. The signs all point to this guy being really well off.

Tax isn’t theft.

Fwiw my home isn't worth even a quarter of the £2mil cap BUT no I don't think the mansion tax is fair.

Firstly I would have thought the vast majority of people in those homes a paid enough: a hell of a lot of income tax to have enough money to buy a house like that, then they will have paid loads of stamp duty, continue to pay lots of council tax and then when they die the government will take 40% of the value of the house in inheritance tax. Requesting any more is grabby.

But also I think it's not fundamentally not fair, houses are the least liquid type of asset around, they aren't quick, easy or cheap things to dispose of. When you buy one you know what you sign up to: the one off stamp duty and the regular council tax. Requiring people to play yet another regular tax that wasn't part of the original agreement when the bought is unfair, given they can't easily choose to sell.

Lastly, how long before the 'mansion tax' becomes the 'property ownership tax' and we all have to pay it. Much like every other bloody tax, or starts with the rich until eventually everyone pays.

Very great for women. I've been loved it. Female family members there love it and have built great careers. And they feel so safe and secure.

Hmmm. It depends on the society you want. I believe that we should contribute to help society’s poorest or unfortunate, as one day too we could be unfortunate. We will definitely be old and ill.

Some people don’t believe this - which I think is your camp.

So that’s me explaining why I think the relatively richer contribute, proportionally.

Are you challenging me for feeling less sorry for one party over another? Or preferring to raise a tax debate?

Are you a high earner, or would you just prefer to keep more of the money your husband earns?

Why not? Loads of people have to sell their homes because they can’t afford them. What makes him special?

YABU only because government should be doing something about the council tax system that isn't fit for purpose, rather than creating more tax cliff edges & distortion in the existing system. And you can bet the property value at which a house is a 'mansion' will become sticky just like income tax bands have over time, given successive governments' enthusiasm for fiscal drag.

Of course another option to increase inter-generational fairness would be to build more houses, take some of the house price inflation out of the market and allow younger people to get on the property ladder earlier.

Also on a technical point, comparing nominal values 60 years ago vs today is not like for like. The gentleman's asset has appreciated considerably, but perhaps by 5-6 times in real terms, not 130 odd.

That’s not what taxes are. The fact that you feel the need to be so dramatic demonstrates your lack of argument.

And what about you, are you high-earning? Do you have an income of your own?

No one should have to sell the home they have paid for, with income that has already been taxed, because someone decide to penalise with adding another random tax.

Why don't we reintroduce the Window tax, on all owned and rented property too? But making it fair, and removing the cap.

What make everyone special? If everyone should contribute fairly, let's. We are all equal, then what can be fairer than the Window Tax?

Dubai doesn't have the same taxes as the UK. Income tax and inheritance tax are very different. But there absolutely are taxes connected to housing and municipality taxes. https://www.thetraveler.org/hidden-costs-of-living-in-the-uae-that-new-expats-miss/
Plus, if you are living in a compound or apartment complex there will likely be costs for the sorts of services that UK councils provide charged as part of the rental fee or a separate service charge on top. Eg rubbish collection. Either you pay the council to do it as in the UK, or you pay someone else to take it away as in Dubai. It's cheaper in Dubai but that's because labour is cheaper (hmmm) and it's put in a big pile in the desert.

Plus, while I would be happy to buy a house to live in if I lived in Dubai I wouldn't personally want to as an investment. Especially not for 2 million. I would be worried about the property investment market crashing as it did in 2008 (it crashed in the UK too but it was worse in Dubai), and not all of the real estate is safe long term (the Palm). Also, through no fault of it's own Dubai is being affected by the Iran situation.

Not saying people shouldn't move to Dubai. But I do worry about people with rose tinted glasses about saving on taxes. Especially given that if anything does go wrong financially they are quite unforgiving to people who don't pay their debts and being an old pensioner probably won't garner much sympathy. Essentially, it's tempting to imagine a place where you get all the amenities of a well developed country for free (in terms of tax) but there's no such thing as a free lunch. It's lovely and sunny though

The same thing that makes social
tenants special when they won’t have to leave their housing after their children have left the home and after they start earning more then when they were first allocated - it’s their home, it’s his home.

It takes a special kind of cold heart to wish someone loses their home.

Yes but fortunately in the case of the mansion tax they won't have to because

1. The man interviewed says they can afford to pay it without being "destitute"
2. Where people don't have the money they can defer paying until the house is sold anyway (or I guess until death and someone else sells the house if it's a house for life).

This. Pisses me right off.

That and the usual:

1. “government should pay” forgetting government = everyone else
2. “those with the broadest shoulders should pay” when they already generally do a substantial amount more under our “progressive” tax system and when “broadest shoulders” tends to be defined as anyone earning more than said individual demanding they should pay

The day folk learn the concept of self accountability and contributing to society rather than expecting society to wipe their backsides the better

When you say “we should contribute” do you mean you or other people op? Will you be paying this tax?
And yes, I think most people, myself included understand and agree the need for that contribution. But I also think a growing number of people are feeling increasingly aggrieved about having done all the “right” things and being penalised for those decisions.

There are a lot of very obvious differences between owners and renters.

No asset, nothing to leave anyone…. no authority over how many windows it has.

It’s not an equal and fair tax, but then life isn’t fair. Though I struggle to see how owning a 2m property in itself makes your life more unfair than basically anyone who doesn’t.

Taxing houses in this way wasn't proposed until recently. It's a slippery slope as they say.

Shame is an interesting word and emotion. I grew up as poor as the friends you have now and I remember feeling intense shame for being poor. Now I have more money and pay a good amount tax. I would not like to be taxed on the home I live in. I feel absolutely no shame about that. I have more than I used to have but that doesn't mean I should be shamed into paying infinite tax. We need to draw the line somewhere and for me this is where the line should be. People shouldn't be taxed for simply only nice things. Tax them at the point of purchase, tax them when they die but no continual taxes just for owning them. None of us can securely own anything once this is introduced.

I agree, helping the poor, elderly, sick and unfortunate is a must and a mark of a good society. Not everyone can be a CEO of a company and on big money, fair enough and we don't value many jobs in the UK enough, the ones who keep us ticking along.

But surely we can plan better with our lives too and take some responsibility? For example, next door neighbour. 4 year old daughter, mum and dad both don't work (no, there's nothing wrong with them at all), in a council house, living off benefits. Why can't at least one of the parents work? Kid goes to school in Sept. Why can't mum at least get a part time job in school hours and dad at work full time? They are taking out of the public purse and putting little back in.

Taxing the very rich, good. The likes of Amazon, ebay, youtube, facebook, whatever make money here, good money here so they need to pay back to our society. Stop tax dodgers, havens. Billions of tax are lost every year, far more than mansion tax raises.

Yes, my parents bought a bungalow in 1961 for just over £2k, so £15K for mid 60s was loads and not your average house