Burnahm Land Tax Replacing SDLT

[maureenponderosa]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/andy-burnham-tax-london-land-value-council-stamp-duty-b1286586.html

While I think this is overall a very sensible approach, and do think Stamp Duty is a tax that discourages market movement, I’m a bit worried about this.

We moved recently. Paid £30,000 in SDLT. It will be so galling to have to then pay a stamp duty replacement tax when we’ve already paid so much in stamp duty.

I wonder how this would be rolled out. Would it apply to all purchases after a certain date or to everyone whether they’ve already paid the tax or not.

Hoping it would be the former.

Any speculations?

Headline mentions London but we’re nowhere near. Very rural. No London salaries.

They can't possibly be. After all, everyone knows resentment only ever flows downwards, never upwards...

So true.

Look how that worked out for income tax and student loans...

There are some crazy posts on that thread. So much jealousy and ignorance.

Thanks North
I’m jumping over for a nose as I’m SouthEast
but Nothing would surprise me anyway

There is a fair bit of North v South nonsense and very little critical thinking.

This would make a lot of sense. UK is the only country in Europe where it's considered normal to own/live in a house rather than in a flat. European urban population live almost exclusively in flats. If we could manage to change culture so people move to flats we'd resolve housing crisis pretty quickly. Planning laws would need to change so flats would be suitable for long term family life, but until we stop aiming for a house for each family our housing costs will continue to be a killer, we live on a island after all.

I guess the issue comes when you have listed buildings etc that you can’t knock down to build on

i don’t object to flats and have lived in a few in my time but there are constant issues with developers wanting to put up really high blocks in areas without quite that height already. There’s also an issue with high end blocks being built with expensive amenities and the outrageous service charges to go with them.

and I don’t think the tax system should prefer one type of living to another

And that’s not quite true - in France people want houses and will have a holiday house if they live in a flat in the city

all my relatives in Germany are desperate to move to a house once they have a family.

If flats are so desirable, why do so many Europeans aspire to houses when their finances allow it? The issue is not culture alone. Many people simply value space, privacy, gardens and flexibility, whether they live in the UK, Norway or elsewhere in Europe.

The quality of the accommodation also matters. Many flats in the UK are considerably smaller and of a lower standard than those found in parts of continental Europe. European flats are often designed for long-term family living, with more space, better soundproofing and better facilities.

Also in some European countries, owning a second home, holiday cottage or cabin in the mountains or countryside is also a cultural norm. So the desire for a lifestyle outside of living in a flat and with access to nature is hardly unique to the UK.

No I don’t think flats are the answer either. I see it a lot on here but most people prefer to live in a house if they can.

Of course people want houses, gardens and privacy. But we can't build enough of houses in areas with jobs and infrastructure due to land constraints. We could build quality flats though so people who can afford it can buy a house, but there would be sufficient property to buy on lower budget and this wouldn't be a stop gap to a house. Imagine if you could buy a flat on 2-3 annual salaries vs 8? how much money would be released into economy? how much less welfare support in terms of housing benefit would be needed? Not even talking about commuting time and cost.

And yes, if we're talking about LVT replacing council tax then flats would be a much better option.

I guess my question is why it always has to be one or the other. Too often in the UK the debate is framed as a binary choice: tax or benefits, those in need or those with assets, the wealthy or everyone else. It is very rare to hear a discussion about a third or fourth option.

If the problem is the quality and affordability of UK flats, then the solution should be to build better-quality, affordable flats, not to convince people that they shouldn't want houses. The issue is not just a lack of space; it is a lack of the right housing for the right groups. Young professionals, families with children, retirees and people with disabilities all have different housing needs, so a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to work. We are also likely to need more multi-generational housing in future, given the spiralling costs associated with an ageing population and private equity's expanding interest in the care sector.

My concern is not what LVT starts as, but what it becomes. It's a familiar story with the party of the workers. Student loans were presented as a reasonable way to fund higher education, yet many graduates now effectively pay an additional 9% charge on part of their income for decades. Had that been presented upfront as a long-term surcharge on earnings, I suspect many people would have made different choices. Labour didn't introduce student loans, but they did pursue a target of getting 50% of young people into higher education. That's a large proportion of young people they were happy to see carrying an additional 9% weight around their necks at the point in their lives when they are trying to establish their careers, save for a home and start families.

Electric vehicles went the same way. Be ethical, they said. Cue grants, tax advantages and other inducements. Yesterday's act of being a considerate citizen quickly became today's new revenue stream once enough people had bought in, installed chargers and organised their lives around it.

LVT might start as a modest tax with allegedly good intentions, sensible exemptions and protections, but once it has been accepted and people have organised their lives around it, the goalposts will be moved. As the saying goes, when somebody shows you who they are, believe them.

Politicians like to create a divide - Farage is obvious

burnham is going to do the same but it will be north vs south and ‘wealthy’ vs non- wealthy (I don’t think they understand what wealthy means in this col crisis though so he’ll end up hurting ‘working people’)

if you keep the electorate angry at someone you can try and make sure they’re not angry at you as you have someone to blame (be it farage ‘they’re taking your jobs’ or Labour ‘they’re not paying enough tax’)

same with all the parties

100%

I think most are missing the point in this thread. The benefit of land value tax (Georgism) is that companies and people sitting on big tracts of ultra-valuable land, mainly in cities, with good access to transport and everything else, will have to put up or get out.

There are tons of vacant, boarded up massive grand buildings in and around the centre of our cities that have been closed for many years. The owners are hoarding land in hope that it increases in value over time, while paying almost nothing in tax, and are meanwhile blighting our cities with once great buildings that are rotting and causing us all to suffer, while taking up space that we need badly.

Land value tax will make them pay a vast sum to keep that land, forcing them to get on with developing it into useful money generating something, or force them to sell it to someone who can.

And also force them to pay something of their share of the tax burden rather than leaving all our cities woefully underfunded.

Except it isn't and Labour are not to be trusted.

Yes, if they're in the exact same place with equally valuable land - that's the whole point.

The land's value is being hampered by having a single house on it, when 10s or even 100 households could live there. The same tax being due will encourage efficient, productive use of the land.

Care to guess what proportion of the population live in flats in those countries vs the UK? We have street after street of crappy terraced houses that are uninsulated, falling apart and expensive to even keep watertight.

European countries like Spain & France & Germany have low rise (5 storey ish) apartment buildings as their standard housing type in cities, which is way way more efficient. We can do the same.

The key to being able to do this is to have a tax like this that might make it viable to buy out entire streets of bad terraced housing in great locations and build more efficiently on the land.

I think we need to re-instate the minimum housing standards we used to have in the 60s (room size, ceiling height etc), add to them and require all new builds to follow them.

This sounds like yet another attack on farmers! If they try taxing land rather than just residential property it will be a complete disaster for food production.

not at all. Different rates can be applied to different types of use.
Productive farm - zero (or close to zero) rate. Mansion house with acres of garden - another rate.

No
because the proposal by Burnham is that it’s a % of the market value

A % of the land value wouldn't bring in any where near the current income.

With the exception of hoarded empty land

It’s more to stop developers to hoard land
A mansion with acres will already have a market value that takes that into account

We have to consider the cost to the Govn of working this out. They aren’t going to be measuring on LR as LR is a guide only and they haven’t got thousands of surveyors ready to pace the land.

They will use ctax info, LR info, bregs, planning and satelite. And base it on Local market values

And then make an almighty Henry Halls of the whole thing

🤣🤣

Ok, a poster on another similar thread shared this link. This explains it:
Proportional Property Tax - Fairer Share Campaign

It's not LVT, it's a tax on property value, with annual revaluation.

So basically tax grab on London and redistribution, as expected

If you live outside London…

• Your community will benefit from an overall £6.5 billion reduction in property taxes, representing a huge boost to local economies.

They'd be very stupid to introduce it - London is one of the Labour strongholds still, so to carnage it like this.