Mansion Tax at £1.5m - what will this mean?

[MaureenOHara]

Does anyone have any idea what this might mean for an individual and what it might do to the market. What happened to the £2m market and will that be replicated or is it different?

I don't disagree that it is a Ponzi scheme. However, I still disagree that the people who fall for it are mugs and deserve your scorn. Many people believe in this government and will see this as further evidence that it is doing the right thing. Quite a obvious clever move by Labour: encourage a certain behaviour then stick it to those that adopt it. Better still it's a change to get young /people you didn't snag with the student loan Ponzi scheme? They might even get lucky and catch people with both a student loan too. We all know how much this government loves to make as many passes over each £ person earns as they possibly can. You know the broad shouldered doing their bit.

Well there is definitely a crash happening as regards to flats especially in London and the SE. So whether helping first time buyers buy flats or not is to help housebuilders primarily or the first time buyers is up for discussion. Presumably one can help both.
We need young people to be able to move out and have families and we need housebuilders to build. So overall, I think it is a good idea as long as it is fairly and transparently implemented. Now if you do not have faith with regards to the system doing anything transparently or fairly that is another matter.

Ok, people who would fall into this trap need more financial education, is that better?

What free ride?

They're already paying for their council services via Council Tax.

It seems you consider it to be a 'free ride' if they're not also paying for other people's council services - i.e. not providing yet another free ride to everybody else.

There are a lot of young people living at home with their parents to try and save, way beyond what used to be the norm age wise. I wonder whether that is causing a shortfall in council tax take? I won’t be encouraging my lot to move out until they can afford a more long term property. Who exactly wants to be forking out multiple lots of stamp duty which is a sunk cost entirely in a stagnant property market.

You must admit it would help some.

Although the government not behaving like a snake-oil salesman would go some way towards helping too.

It seems to be taking some people a remarkably long time to work out that No. 10 and No. 11 are little more than revolving doors for charlatans - or that the strings of the current occupants are being pulled by backbenchers so blinded by the gravy train that they have decided workers are the problem.

Personally I am most concerned about the exodus of very young professionals from this country as we witness it all the time in London. So many have links abroad and aren’t scared to leave and they are literally the bedrock of tax payers. If other countries offer them a better quality of life and less of a tax burden/something back that is where plenty are heading. Governments are forgetting that a lot of young people have parents born abroad, have other visa rights or nationalities and simply don’t have to stick around to please the „tax others/I paid my way“ demographic who seem to be in the majority numbers wise but intent on destroying the country with their selfishness and entitlement.

I have personally seen lots of professional black and brown people leave Britain after Brexit and with the rise in anti immigrant speech and racism. They go to more welcoming countries.

Can you explain the free ride?

I am not affected by mansion tax but can see where this is going.

Which countries?

People have been saying this for ever, unless the person has serious skills no one is going to notice, the 50k degree brigade of recent years certainly won"t make much difference because degree entry standards probably couldn"t get much lower. However much it annoys people who don"t like the indigenous GB News lovers the UK is a top choice for people to move to, as is Germany and the U.S, all major economies who are moving further to the right on immigration, they don"t want just anyone rocking up any more so a few people spitting the dummy and going elsewhere (where?) won"t bother anyone too much.

The strings are pulled by developers, bankers and offshore interests. Read that book I mentioned, I knew some of it but the well of darkness goes very deep, the writer is obviously heavily biased against "offshore" but still it is fucked up the stuff that goes on and has done for many decades.

That is not what I said. You know very well what I said.

I already did, @NorthXNorthWest

Here you are.

The State in organising security should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility, in establishing a national minimum it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than the minimum for himself and his family.

William Beveridge father of the welfare state.

Differentiated council tax based on house value is already more than the minimum. Services don't cost more because a house is expensive. Some are getting a cheaper or free ride, but as usual, you are looking at the wrong people.

But you are.

Preaching to the converted.

But why would you expect that based on the size of the home? Surely it should be based on occupancy as the more people living there, the more services they use.

Hey, if you don't think there should be a tax on buildings, that's an opinion you can hold. But there is one. Argue against it if you want.

If you don't think the tax on buildings should be somewhat proportional to their value, that's an opinion you can hold. But it is. Argue against it if you want.

If you think that proportionality should only apply to ordinary people, and not to the residents of the most expensive buildings, I will disagree with you strongly. That is the anomaly the supplementary tax seeks to address.

It is a tax. It is not a service charge. Maybe you think we shouldn't have a tax on buildings. But we do. Argue that we should put up income tax, or capital gains tax, or some other tax instead, if you want, maybe we should.

@PigletJohn

People trading their labour for wages and choosing how they spend their money is not an anomaly.

People expecting more than the minimum for not working are an anomaly
Parents who cannot parent their disruptive/ antisocial children are an anomaly.
People who don't keep as healthy as they can are the anomaly
People expecting to have the same as people who work when they do not work is the anomaly.
Absent parents who do not contribute adequately to the cost their children are an anomaly

and so on.

That's great, you want to avoid the issue of proportionality in the property tax that does not apply to the most expensive properties.

Which actually, is what the tax is all about.

Divert onto all your other complaints about how unfair life is if you want.

You are the one who cannot articulate a single good reason why a worker who buys an expensive home (the only home they own and the one they actually live in) should automatically pay more tax because property is worth more.

They bought it with income that had already been taxed, paid Stamp Duty when they bought it, and may have spent decades paying a mortgage and mortgage interest. Take for example a person taking out a mortgage of £500k over 25 years at todays rate. They will pay a c.£500k on top of that, in interest, over the life of the mortgage. Jusr for the privilege of being able to get a mortgage. Is c£1m paid for a £500k house what we are calling a free ride?

And it doesn't matter how many times you say “proportionality” it doesn't actually answer the question: Proportional to what? Council Tax pays towards local services. A person living in a £2 million house does not necessarily consume ten times the local services of somebody living in a £200,000 house.

As for my other examples, they were not a diversion. You brought "easy ride" to the table. I spoke to your your claim about who is getting an “easy ride”.

If you really believe owning a more expensive home should create an additional tax liability, why don't you actually make the case for why. "Just because" the house is worth more is just regurgitating the current policy, it doesn't justify it or even make sense on the grounds you are arguing for it.

I think we broadly agree on a lot of the issues, I just think people should do more research before taking the plunge into mortgage debt, Gawd knows YT etc. is full of discussion on how the financial system is designed to feed the top levels.

I thing you are right. We do broad agree on a lot of the issues and how frustrating it is. It's like ground hog day!