To ask if you watched Andy Burnham’s bloody good speech?

[Househunt2026]

As in actually watched it and didn’t just doom scroll the commentary? It was bold and honest and pragmatic and actually made me hopeful that we have someone at the helm with a vision for a better tomorrow who has Britain’s best interests at heart.

The National Care Service is a masterstroke, paid for out of scrapping the triple lock and the very real savings of reducing NHS bills on A&E and hospital beds for elderly who should be in care but have nowhere to go.

Scrapping right to buy and increasing council control of housing, boosting the technical education track for young people, pushing renewables, nuclear and energy sovereignty, public control of key utilities for water to get bills down and reduce pollution, investing in people & getting them back to work, leasehold reform by Christmas and everyone’s energy bill will be reduced by fast tracking decoupling energy prices from global gas pricing and by having no VAT on energy bills by TOMORROW!

You can watch the whole thing here and be directly informed instead of getting your perspective filtered through all the bots and misinformation peddlers online m.youtube.com/watch?v=jyjTT_55Gi0

No, not as a crude policy that takes no account of means. But neither is the current system whereby your CT can be significantly higher in an ill resourced cheap area of the country with a low value home, than living in one of the most desirable areas of the country in a high value one. So the system is in need of an overhaul.
As I understand it, the tax can be deferred and payable on sale of the home, and relief schemes are in the pipeline that would protect those who genuinely cannot afford to pay?

Do you think it’s fair for those people to be paying less council tax than someone living in a £150k two bed semi in Hartlepool?

They are paying for their local service.
If their council managed to be more efficient than Hartlepool, then yes, they should be paying less.

It’s up the Hartlepool residents to take up their council tax levels with their council.

Also, the value of the house has no correlation to services used.

A couple in five bed house use fewer services than a family of five in a house that’s valued at a lot less than the five bed, if they are in the same area.

Taxing a home is not taxing income.

Why do you think it is fair to tax a person living in a two bed terrace in Notting Hill paying a million and more pound mortgage to pay more tax than a person living in a four bed detached in Gateshead paying a £300k mortgage, who may well have more disposable income?

Where does the £1m a day part come from? What’s that related to

More disposable income in Gateshead? Meanwhile here on planet earth …

No, it's taxing an asset. Doesn't that address the argument that taxing work isn't the right way to go as its a disincentive to productivity?
So, if we can't tax income, we can't tax assets, we can't tax billionaires, we can't tax business, we can't tax beneficiaries of inheritance, we can't tax the squeezed middle, we can't tax the dead, and we can't borrow, how are we to raise funds? Because so far from Badenoch we've had a proposal that would save 30p a week per tax payer, by cutting 30% off the benefits of a tiny group of claimants, and cost so much in administration, she'd have been better doing round with a cap doing a whip round. I'd have chucked in £3 quid if that's all it took to fund defence.

I am surprised to see so many people seemingly defending the current council tax system, because my understanding was that there was an increasing, pragmatic push from economists across the political spectrum to scrap council tax (alongside stamp duty) and replace it with a Proportional Property Tax (PPT) because taxing a flat, modest percentage of a property’s current value is ultimately just more efficient. And I thought there were free-market thinkers in favour too, because it could unlock the housing market, and make it easier for people to downsize or move for jobs…

But I guess the whole debate shows how hard real, transformative change is - because any change will undoubtedly disadvantage someone, and in cases like this, those someone’s have a lot of political sway.

But I do think if we want a more efficient, pragmatic tax code then at some point, politicians are going to have to be brave enough to take that hit for the long term good.

Council tax pays for local services. It’s not related to property price.

Although the US does have a local tax that links to property prices and the level of services are vastly different for those that are in wealthy areas.

Is that what you’re thinking of?

I think we're in a complete agreement.

And no, I don't have any faith in Burnham.

He will continue squeezing the same group of middle classes and SE.

Council tax is absolutely linked to property prices, albeit 1990 ones.

Council tax pays for local services, but the price you pay is determined by the value of your property - and in England and Scotland it is (ridiculously, to my mind) determined by your property value in 1991. That’s why it is regressive and inefficient and why many economists across the political spectrum want to see it scrapped and replaced with a proportional property tax. I would absolutely love to see the Chancellor and the Prime Minister make that change in the budget, because to my mind it is a much more efficient, pragmatic system. Some people are against it though - because for people whose house prices have risen since 1991, they’ll end up paying more.

It is and always has been related to property price.

It's taxing an asset that somebody lives in and can make no gain from until they sell it.

That is not a fair tax when you are living in a big standard family house in an expensive area because that's where your job is.

It's perfectly possible for a high paid manager in the north east to live in a much better house and have more disposable income than someone doing the same job in the south east.

How is that in any way fair taxation?

In 1991 London property was still more expensive than outside London.

It should stay linked to services provided, if it covers services in your area then that’s the fee.

But if people want to hit high property areas again (as always still wanting more) then it can be kept for those areas. You’ll see a disparity between services. The US has very high disparity.

What charge are you thinking of anyway? How high will it be for someone in a standard London terrace house for example

There really are very few serious economic arguments for keeping council tax as it is.

Here’s a couple of examples of the arguments in favour of reforming it (I’ve tried to include examples from both centre-left and centre-right think tanks, because their arguments make most sense to me, but there are also free-marketeers who advocate for it, to get the housing market moving):

https://ukonward.com/reports/a-fairer-property-tax/

https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/outputurlfiles/ESRI%252520conference%252520-%252520housing%252520tax%252520%252528Stuart%252520Adam%252529.pdf

https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/home-economics/

This is an issue where I really, really wish all political parties could put party political point scoring aside and listen to the growing economic consensus that a more pragmatic, efficient system is needed.

Yes ik political point scoring aside etc but it’s peoples lives you’ll impact. Some will lose family homes if they don’t have the disposable income.

What rate do you think is right for an average London terrace?

If the tax means that people are forced out of their homes, then it would not only be unfair, but impractical as certain roles are required in expensive areas. This is where I would expect to see exemptions and relief measures.
However, i think we do need to remember that the higher manager in the SE does have the choice of being a higher manager in a less expensive area to increase their disposable income if they wish.
Living in the most expensive area of the country is not a right. It's a choice for those who can afford it. A choice that is rewarded by far greater returns on property investment.
This is of course fundamentally unfair on people who have roots in these areas. But that's part of a wider issue of disparity in property value.
It's also unfair that someone who bought their council home in London is now sitting on an asset worth over a million an average, while in Gateshead its about £176k.

@EasternStandard

A proportional property tax (PPT) would mean a flat annual percentage fee based on the home's current, up-to-date market value: so, the rate would be the same for someone in a London terrace as it would be for everyone else. The rate I’ve seen most widely proposed by economic think tanks is around 0.48% of the property’s value per year, and I’ve no reason to think that isn’t based on sound economics.

You’re right, people who are asset rich but cash poor could be negatively impacted, but if you read the reports I’ve linked to, they suggest ways to mitigate that, for example by allowing cash-poor or elderly homeowners to defer their annual proportional property tax liability until the home is sold.

It is always real people’s lives that are affected by politic decisions. When parties talk about cuts to welfare, that’s people’s lives. When parties talk about saving money by “reducing the headcount in government agencies” they are talking about making real people with families and bills to pay unemployed.

Every political choice comes at a cost to someone, but the aim is to benefit society as a whole in a way that is compassionate but also pragmatic.

There’s always people wanting more. The tax burden is the highest for decades and still there’ll be posts demanding more. In fact Labour MPs go to every meeting with that in mind.

Will the extra money raised will be kept by the local councils to pay for their services?

If council tax and stamp duty were removed, and replaced with a proportional property tax it would actually mean most people would pay less tax. I think something like 77% of home owners would pay less than they do now. But it would make the tax system fairer and more efficient.

It isn’t currently Labour Party policy, as far as I’m aware, by the way. We’ll have to see what the budget actually brings.

It's been always based on property price relative to the area.

So you don't compare property price in Westminster with Burnley. You compare studio flat in Westminster with 5 bed detached in Westminster and set your tax bands accordingly.
Property tax will ignore enormous regional house price differences.

Thanks that makes more sense. Even in 1991 London properties were more expensive.

I agree it's a genuinely interesting time, but not necessarily in a good way. Burnham is better than anyone in Labour so far at explaining what our contributions are for, but I've not seen or heard anything else that says he'd be better for the country. I agree with the aim behind GB Energy, protecting us from energy price shocks, but whether it does what it says on the tin, time will tell. And to be fair, I'd go along with a lot of the rest of what he spoke about, getting young people back into work, better and free busest. I'd never turn my nose up at that, buses were a luxury when I was growing up. Universal social care though, that's a hard no from me.

On his offer. If he wants to lead everyone, why set North against South? He wants "a North Pole that balances the South Pole." Around a fifth of England lives north of Manchester, closer to a quarter of the UK if you include Scotland. For them Manchester is the South! And if a second office is so essential, why not the Midlands, which is actually the middle of England? I'm not against devolution in principle, but a lot of councils aren't well run, and more devolution without sorting that out just gives us another postcode lottery to add to the ones we've already got in health, education etc.

As for Kemi and the Conservatives, I'm still not sold on what they're offering either. But I don't think "more money in our bank accounts" is fair. What they're saying is working people should keep more of what they've already earned, and I agree with that. Even Beveridge said the state "should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility," and that the national minimum should leave room for people "to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family." Benefits should be a safety net, not something that just keeps growing.

Taxing the very wealthy? Most of that wealth is already locked away in trusts set up years ago. The Duke of Westminster will be fine. The self-employed electrician, the middle manager or the ordinary worker who's saved into their own pension won't be, especially when their pension pot gets caught by inheritance tax from 2027. Labour haven't said exactly what they're going to do re: wealth yet, but given the mood music I'm not convinced it'll be a fair offer.

And they haven't even touched what IMO is the biggest fairness issue of the lot. Public sector pensions, c. £1.2 trillion in liabilities and mostly unfunded. A teacher pays in on average 9.6% of their salary, the taxpayer currently puts in 28.68%, three times as much. A private employer only has to put in 3%! These pensions are guaranteed for life, risk free and can never run out. Add in the job security, holidays and flexible working in a lot of office based public sector jobs and "the public sector is paid less" looks a bit different. The private sector worker funds their own pension, carries all the risk, and pays for everyone else's guarantee on top. Then from 2027 whatever's left in their pot when they die is taxed a couple of times more. How is that fair?

So what's he offering the Reform voter? He says he understands why people are turning to Reform, but nothing in his policies deals with it. Look at Piddington. Up to 1,256 men put in a former military base half a mile from a village of a few hundred people. Take race out of it completely and it still doesn't work. When it was an army base there was a chain of command, limits on who could be on leave, and the army had its own police and prison system to deal with any trouble. None of that now. Just hundreds of men with no structure, nothing to do and next to no money, and any problems land on Thames Valley Police on top of everything else they're dealing with. Then add race and religion back in - any dangerous or misogynistic behaviour will be blamed on that, with bias on both sides making everything even worse. As the hotels close this will happen up and down the country. It's just kicking the can down the road, and local communities (especially women) and the migrants themselves will pay the price. Meanwhile the politicians go home to whichever of their homes they fancy and get a good night's sleep. I listened to Burnham bluster his way through a phone-in caller asking about exactly this, and he couldn't give a straight answer. It wasn't inspiring, considered or hopeful.

So yes, bring on the battle of ideas. But they need a credible "how", not just a good speech.

It's not compassionate to value someone's home every year as if they'd sold it, then tax them on a sale that never happened.