Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

746 replies

LadyJos · 30/07/2026 13:34

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/

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
Valpolichella · 02/08/2026 19:36

Persephonia1966 · 02/08/2026 19:04

Everyone benefits exactly!!! It's not money that's being taken away from you by a thieving government.
I don't know what bias you are talking about? I own a home (or rather I am slowly paying back a massive mortgage on a home) and pay a lot in taxes also. I do not like paying taxes, however I also don't think I am being stolen from when I pay them.
I can also recognise, having struggled to get on the property ladder, the issues that constantly increasing house prices have. In particular parts of London will empty out if young families can no longer buy or rent homes there (in the way that the gentleman in the article was able to do so in the 60s). I'm a millennial, but it's even harder for generation Z and even if they work just as hard as you, or me, or the old man in the article did, it will be much harder for them to achieve home security because of the rise in property prices.
In addition, taxes may need to increase because we will need to spend more on our military and an aging population. Putting the tax burden solely on income tax reduces productivity and penalises the younger generations who need to save to get on the housing ladder but are hit with a double whammy of high property prices and more of their income going on tax. Younger low earners can't afford to rent or buy. Younger high earners are forced to shoulder the tax burden. Higher property values also discourage alternative investment in businesses/stocks/shares which further lowers productivity.
There are other ways to raise tax than income alone. And a land value tax (not council tax which as said before is not based on the values of homes) would be a fairer way of doing it. It might also have some positive side effects of discouraging land as an investment and slowing house price inflation. You can disagree with it. But you can't paint it as politics of envy/some radical left wing position. Even Milton Friend man wanted land tax and he was not a socialist fire brand. The mansion tax isn't a land value tax, but it goes a small way towards making the system better.

Fortunately, this isn’t a communist state so I’m free to disagree with you and you have zero remit to tell me what I can and can’t believe. And again, I have never referred to a “thieving government” or taxes being “stolen”.
I have merely questioned the fairness of my paying an additional tax on top of the vast whack of tax I already paid, for the simple privilege of being able to buy my home. Whether you like it or not, that isn’t unreasonable.
And I agree, we need a far better system. I just do not agree that increasing taxes on an ever decreasing segment of the population is the way to achieve that.

Tinnybinnylinny · 02/08/2026 19:38

BIossomtoes · 02/08/2026 19:35

I’d quite like to test that as your house no longer had running water or sewage disposal, the road outside crumbled, children roamed the streets because there were no schools. You wouldn’t get treated if you needed A&E. If you were inevitably burgled in the chaos there would be no police to attend or prisons on the off chance the offender was somehow apprehended by some unknown entity.

It all sounds positively utopian.

Mmmmm I can confirm I would be better off, if I paid for what I used. I don’t need you to test it for me.

Persephonia1966 · 02/08/2026 19:42

Valpolichella · 02/08/2026 19:36

Fortunately, this isn’t a communist state so I’m free to disagree with you and you have zero remit to tell me what I can and can’t believe. And again, I have never referred to a “thieving government” or taxes being “stolen”.
I have merely questioned the fairness of my paying an additional tax on top of the vast whack of tax I already paid, for the simple privilege of being able to buy my home. Whether you like it or not, that isn’t unreasonable.
And I agree, we need a far better system. I just do not agree that increasing taxes on an ever decreasing segment of the population is the way to achieve that.

Ok sorry

When I said you can't paint land tax "as the politics of envy or a super left wing position" I didn't mean that you aren't allowed to or are physically incapable of making that statement. I meant that it would be objectively and very obviously false. In the same way that you can claim pigs make excellent fighter pilots. You can claim Milton Friedman was a dangerous communist. But it's not a claim you can expect to be taken seriously. Plenty of economic conservatives have supported the idea of land tax. It doesn't fit neatly within any specific parts of the political spectrum.

It was a colloquial term and maybe confusing. Apologies.

BIossomtoes · 02/08/2026 19:43

Tinnybinnylinny · 02/08/2026 19:38

Mmmmm I can confirm I would be better off, if I paid for what I used. I don’t need you to test it for me.

We’re not talking about you paying for what you use. Taxation pays for those services to exist, they wouldn’t be available to you at all without it.

Tinnybinnylinny · 02/08/2026 19:45

BIossomtoes · 02/08/2026 18:39

We all pay tax on the same money time after time. Every time we fill our cars, every time we buy an item that incurs VAT, council tax is paid from taxed money. The mansion tax or whatever it might be called is no different. I honestly don’t understand the hostility to paying tax. It’s as if it’s some kind of personal insult.

In any case we’re not discussing paying income tax twice.

Edited

I am not sure if you have read my posts, I have mentioned several times I have no issue paying tax.

The issue is with the services, or lack thereof. I am one of the 1% or whatever it is…..paying a huge whack of tax - which I am happy to.

Am I wealthy? perhaps in relation to someone earning 50 k, but am I proper wealthy, no?

do I use NHS, state education? Social care? No, no and no. Do I give a lot of money to charity? Yes, and sit on charity boards - yes. Am I socially aware? Yes.

are there other ways, well there has to be. we don’t need an international health service…..the amount of wastage and health tourism is insane. Am I lucky that I can pay for proper medical care - you bet. Does that run into hundreds of thousands on top of the tax I pay - you bet.

Do we need to tax the wealthy more? Or do we need a better macro economic policy? Probably a bit of both.

Tinnybinnylinny · 02/08/2026 19:48

BIossomtoes · 02/08/2026 19:43

We’re not talking about you paying for what you use. Taxation pays for those services to exist, they wouldn’t be available to you at all without it.

I am not sure you understand, they would be avail able to me, I would be paying for them!

BIossomtoes · 02/08/2026 19:48

I am one of the 1% or whatever it is…..paying a huge whack of tax

Of course you are.

Tinnybinnylinny · 02/08/2026 19:52

BIossomtoes · 02/08/2026 19:48

I am one of the 1% or whatever it is…..paying a huge whack of tax

Of course you are.

Yes, I am and I have no issue with paying tax, it’s what happens in a civilised society. But this country cannot simply proceed in the same way it has been.

Our living standards have retracted (well not mine). Medical care is abysmal, state education is a lottery, policing - dire.

Hard decisions need to be made - but no one wants to make them.

Valpolichella · 02/08/2026 19:58

Persephonia1966 · 02/08/2026 19:42

Ok sorry

When I said you can't paint land tax "as the politics of envy or a super left wing position" I didn't mean that you aren't allowed to or are physically incapable of making that statement. I meant that it would be objectively and very obviously false. In the same way that you can claim pigs make excellent fighter pilots. You can claim Milton Friedman was a dangerous communist. But it's not a claim you can expect to be taken seriously. Plenty of economic conservatives have supported the idea of land tax. It doesn't fit neatly within any specific parts of the political spectrum.

It was a colloquial term and maybe confusing. Apologies.

Do you find being patronising helpful or that it actually achieves anything? I don’t.
I do not agree that your point of view is “objectively” correct or that mine is “objectively” false. We disagree, that does not make you automatically right.
And I could quote plenty of economists who agree with me.
I’m not sure why you’d think yours is the only possible “right” opinion, but it gives a good insight into your thought processes.

DdraigGoch · 02/08/2026 20:00

Molly499 · 02/08/2026 15:31

This makes no sense! We have an average sized 4 bed house with a very big garden, how can we be using more public services?

Because the road from your house to the next is longer, therefore it requires more maintenance. Same with the electric wires, the water pipes, the sewers etc.

Jeremy Clarkson has a pub in West Oxfordshire, a couple of miles from the nearest settlement. The electrical supply is insufficient and needs renewing, the cost to do so would be £200k which is obviously unaffordable so he has to use generators. If however there were two properties sharing the cost, it would be £100k each, four properties £50k each etc. Extreme example, but it does translate into the infrastructure on your street. Do you not see how you can more efficiently serve the 40k people per square mile in Hackney than the 9k people per square mile in Richmond? Obviously the more people you serve, the thicker the wire needs to be, but the other costs like the telegraph poles, utility cuts and labour are fixed and can be shared between households.

Services are more expensive too, it takes longer for the police/ambulance/fire brigade/school buses/social care/pizza delivery to get to you (assuming that your house is typical of the area), therefore there needs to be more provision for 10k people living in sprawling suburbia than for 10k people living in blocks of flats. Obviously in the case of pizza delivery, the less-populated areas just don't get served, but other services are essential. A community carer in Hackney can quickly walk from one client to the next, whereas one in an outer borough may need to drive, therefore social care costs in an outer borough (never mind a properly rural area) are higher per patient than in Hackney. This is one of the many reasons that council tax rates tend to be lower in cities than in the countryside.

Persephonia1966 · 02/08/2026 20:07

Valpolichella · 02/08/2026 19:58

Do you find being patronising helpful or that it actually achieves anything? I don’t.
I do not agree that your point of view is “objectively” correct or that mine is “objectively” false. We disagree, that does not make you automatically right.
And I could quote plenty of economists who agree with me.
I’m not sure why you’d think yours is the only possible “right” opinion, but it gives a good insight into your thought processes.

My point is some things are points of view. Eg land tax or mansion tax being a good/bad idea. We might disagree but I understand your point of view is valid. That's also why, as you said, many economists might agree with you and many with me.
But some statements are just wrong. If I said to back up my own argument that, I don't know, "80% of home owners got their homes by murdering the previous occupants" that's not a point of view. It's very clearly wrong, and very easy to prove it's wrong. Likeothe argument that land tax is a communist or left wing or extremist position is easy to demonstrate as false. You don't have to agree with the likes of Friedman (I don't on lots of things I think he caused a lot of trouble) my point is that his and people like him supporting land tax disproves any claim it's a far left idea.

Valpolichella · 02/08/2026 20:24

Persephonia1966 · 02/08/2026 20:07

My point is some things are points of view. Eg land tax or mansion tax being a good/bad idea. We might disagree but I understand your point of view is valid. That's also why, as you said, many economists might agree with you and many with me.
But some statements are just wrong. If I said to back up my own argument that, I don't know, "80% of home owners got their homes by murdering the previous occupants" that's not a point of view. It's very clearly wrong, and very easy to prove it's wrong. Likeothe argument that land tax is a communist or left wing or extremist position is easy to demonstrate as false. You don't have to agree with the likes of Friedman (I don't on lots of things I think he caused a lot of trouble) my point is that his and people like him supporting land tax disproves any claim it's a far left idea.

Edited

Why do you keep writing things that I never said? I never said anything about mansion tax being a “far left” or “extremist” idea. In the same way I never referred to “useless unemployed people” or “thieving governments” etc. Those are all you!
I simply do not think it’s fair and I do not think it will increase revenue for the government, which ultimately, will help no one.

DdraigGoch · 02/08/2026 20:45

Molly499 · 02/08/2026 15:36

1800 sq ft is not a big house at all, do you live in an attic or something? Our 4 bed house is 2440 sq ft and is a long way away from being huge.

No, I do not live in an attic. I live in a two-storey semi-detached house. Built 1835 so smaller than the homes being built in the inter-war and post-war housing booms, but not much smaller than many new builds. A family of three lived here before me.

The average dwelling in England has a floor area of about 1,000 sq ft. Scrolling through Zoopla listings I struggled to find one showing more than 1,300 sq ft. The only one I've found so far over 2,000 sq ft (and then only just) had been extended over the garage. Your house is nearly two-and-a-half times the size of the average home. Doesn't matter that it's not Highclere Castle. You live in a very big house as far as the rest of the population is concerned, accept it.

ChunkyMonkey36 · 02/08/2026 21:06

Tinnybinnylinny · 02/08/2026 19:52

Yes, I am and I have no issue with paying tax, it’s what happens in a civilised society. But this country cannot simply proceed in the same way it has been.

Our living standards have retracted (well not mine). Medical care is abysmal, state education is a lottery, policing - dire.

Hard decisions need to be made - but no one wants to make them.

“Well not mine”

Lovely humble brag.

Based on the video I’ve seen today, Rupert Lowe seems keen to make them. He seems perfectly happy to cut welfare, take benefits away from people and leave their completely innocent children starving.

So there is that option.

DdraigGoch · 02/08/2026 21:09

Tinnybinnylinny · 02/08/2026 15:41

Ah ok, I mean a 1000 sw ft flat in prime Chelsea is 2 million…..

There are a couple of properties like that currently listed, one described as being in a "boutique" development with a concierge, security, and a private gym; the other is a penthouse with two roof terraces in a Grade II listed riverfront building. Both of these are outliers, wouldn't you say?

You can easily find a 1,000 sq ft apartment in Chelsea for half of that budget. £2 million in Chelsea can also get you considerably more. 2,000+ sq ft looking at one of the other listings, but 1,500 sq ft seems to be the average size at that price point.

As I said before, I'd favour LVT anyway. This goes by the undeveloped value of the plot of land and therefore incentivises building up rather than sprawling out in areas where land is valuable.

Tinnybinnylinny · 02/08/2026 21:12

ChunkyMonkey36 · 02/08/2026 21:06

“Well not mine”

Lovely humble brag.

Based on the video I’ve seen today, Rupert Lowe seems keen to make them. He seems perfectly happy to cut welfare, take benefits away from people and leave their completely innocent children starving.

So there is that option.

There is no need for people to be starving. Sadly in some cases it’s the parents, other things are more important to them than adequately feeding their kids. I would definitely support food stamps rather than direct cash. 💰

Persephonia1966 · 02/08/2026 21:16

ChunkyMonkey36 · 02/08/2026 21:06

“Well not mine”

Lovely humble brag.

Based on the video I’ve seen today, Rupert Lowe seems keen to make them. He seems perfectly happy to cut welfare, take benefits away from people and leave their completely innocent children starving.

So there is that option.

Rupert Lowe is a major landowner. So he isn't going to be keen on pointing out the negative effect rocketing land prices and the concentration of said land in an increasingly small number if hands is he... Blame everything else except the very real and obvious phenomenon happening in front of our eyes
(I'm not in favour of land and house prices crashing. I really do not want a house price bust. But continuously inflating the bubble is not a good long term strategy and likely to lead to a very painful crash downl the line. If that happens all the people in expensive properties who worked very hard and paid income tax to buy them blah blah will lose everything. I really don't think it's in any normal (as in not 0.01%) interests to let the situation continue).

Tinnybinnylinny · 02/08/2026 21:21

DdraigGoch · 02/08/2026 21:09

There are a couple of properties like that currently listed, one described as being in a "boutique" development with a concierge, security, and a private gym; the other is a penthouse with two roof terraces in a Grade II listed riverfront building. Both of these are outliers, wouldn't you say?

You can easily find a 1,000 sq ft apartment in Chelsea for half of that budget. £2 million in Chelsea can also get you considerably more. 2,000+ sq ft looking at one of the other listings, but 1,500 sq ft seems to be the average size at that price point.

As I said before, I'd favour LVT anyway. This goes by the undeveloped value of the plot of land and therefore incentivises building up rather than sprawling out in areas where land is valuable.

1000 sq ft in Chelsea may be getting you a basement or something with a very short lease. I just had a look and am not sure what you are talking about. I know the area incredibly well, 1000 a sq foot, even with the price depression is not a typical Chelsea price. You are talking basement (even then a decent one will be more per square ft). Or a very short lease.

i don’t disagree with the principle of the tax but do question how much will be raised and how it will be used. It’s like VAT on school fees it’s not raised very much and a lot more kids taken out of fee paying school than forecast.

ChunkyMonkey36 · 02/08/2026 21:27

Tinnybinnylinny · 02/08/2026 21:12

There is no need for people to be starving. Sadly in some cases it’s the parents, other things are more important to them than adequately feeding their kids. I would definitely support food stamps rather than direct cash. 💰

There isn’t, and a lot of parents do make choices that leave their children without.

I’d just seriously question the impact on those children and other vulnerable people before I started welfare reform.

BIossomtoes · 02/08/2026 21:28

Tinnybinnylinny · 02/08/2026 21:21

1000 sq ft in Chelsea may be getting you a basement or something with a very short lease. I just had a look and am not sure what you are talking about. I know the area incredibly well, 1000 a sq foot, even with the price depression is not a typical Chelsea price. You are talking basement (even then a decent one will be more per square ft). Or a very short lease.

i don’t disagree with the principle of the tax but do question how much will be raised and how it will be used. It’s like VAT on school fees it’s not raised very much and a lot more kids taken out of fee paying school than forecast.

Fewer actually. And more than have moved to state schools leading to the conclusion that some had reached the end of their education and would have left anyway. The numbers of pupils in all schools are decreasing because the birth rate has fallen.

ChunkyMonkey36 · 02/08/2026 21:30

Persephonia1966 · 02/08/2026 21:16

Rupert Lowe is a major landowner. So he isn't going to be keen on pointing out the negative effect rocketing land prices and the concentration of said land in an increasingly small number if hands is he... Blame everything else except the very real and obvious phenomenon happening in front of our eyes
(I'm not in favour of land and house prices crashing. I really do not want a house price bust. But continuously inflating the bubble is not a good long term strategy and likely to lead to a very painful crash downl the line. If that happens all the people in expensive properties who worked very hard and paid income tax to buy them blah blah will lose everything. I really don't think it's in any normal (as in not 0.01%) interests to let the situation continue).

Definitely not. I think he’d likely encourage keeping the rich richer and the poor can do without.

But if you are of the opinion that the “haves” contribute too much so it’s time for the “have nots” to cut their limited cloth - there are options.

I’m not of that opinion, but I can see that it would obviously appeal to some.

Molly499 · 02/08/2026 21:34

DdraigGoch · 02/08/2026 20:45

No, I do not live in an attic. I live in a two-storey semi-detached house. Built 1835 so smaller than the homes being built in the inter-war and post-war housing booms, but not much smaller than many new builds. A family of three lived here before me.

The average dwelling in England has a floor area of about 1,000 sq ft. Scrolling through Zoopla listings I struggled to find one showing more than 1,300 sq ft. The only one I've found so far over 2,000 sq ft (and then only just) had been extended over the garage. Your house is nearly two-and-a-half times the size of the average home. Doesn't matter that it's not Highclere Castle. You live in a very big house as far as the rest of the population is concerned, accept it.

The houses that they are building now are tiny, 94m2 for a newish 3 bed, 2 bath, the rooms are very small, quite claustrophobic, so ultimately people will be living in smaller places.

My house was built in the 1800's and extended (not by me) so has larger rooms but really feels quite compact. I lived abroad for a long time, our house there was 750m2, now that was a big house, but council tax was split into two separate bills. The first based on number of livable rooms, the second on land size so this felt fairer. Re-working council tax would be a much better way of generating revenue, to do it on house value is so unfair due to regional differences, it should be based on house size and garden/land size. There should also be a per occupant charge too, including children so that it feels fairer. My Dad lives in a 3 bed house on his own, his neighbour in a same size house has 5 adults living in it, why should their council tax be the same? Yes his is reduced for a single person but the starting cost is the same and this just doesn't sit right with me, pay for what you use.

Tinnybinnylinny · 02/08/2026 22:05

BIossomtoes · 02/08/2026 21:28

Fewer actually. And more than have moved to state schools leading to the conclusion that some had reached the end of their education and would have left anyway. The numbers of pupils in all schools are decreasing because the birth rate has fallen.

Edited

You are hilarious, there was always going to be kids at the end of their education. Maybe we move in different circles, a lot of kids were taken out as parents could not afford 20% extra on say two sets of school fees. Of course it didn’t affect the seriously wealthy…….

LoudTealHare · 02/08/2026 22:14

Swiftie1878 · 30/07/2026 13:37

Do you want him to sell his home to pay?

His home will be taxed when dies, as party of his estate. Can you not wait that long?

It depends what financial and legal advice he’s taken! If he’s transferred it to his children and survives 7 years there is no inheritance tax to pay!

BIossomtoes · 02/08/2026 22:17

Tinnybinnylinny · 02/08/2026 22:05

You are hilarious, there was always going to be kids at the end of their education. Maybe we move in different circles, a lot of kids were taken out as parents could not afford 20% extra on say two sets of school fees. Of course it didn’t affect the seriously wealthy…….

Glad you find it so hilarious to prefer data to anecdote.