Best Of

Yet another vanilla duplicate

Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.

The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.

But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.

IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.

Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.

It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).

That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.

The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.

The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.

The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.

For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.

Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.

That’s what levelling looks like, I’m afraid. If a 1% flat rate looks mad then it’s not the tax that is the problem. House values will respond, mitigating that impact - setting up in the NE of England would suddenly look much more attractive.

Indeed, to invert this complaint - why does someone in Middlesbrough pay 4% while a millionaire in London can pay 0.4%?

Well, if it is about local services then the Millionaire in London is using no more of them than the Millionaire in Middlesborough (they do have them you know)

But more importantly this is a classic case of ideology trying to trump reality. In reality the only way you are going to see those house prices in London collapse to a point where people can affford the 1% a year LVT is if everyone leaves. So no schools, no services, no one working in the shops.

It is yet another example of infantile, simplistic ideology crashing headlong into real life.

Stanislaw Lem once wrote a great Sci-Fi short story - a veiled critique of Soviet Poland - about an absolute ruler who decided he wanted his people to adapt to an amphibious existence. He did it by raising the water level on the planet by 1cm every year in the belief that the people would adapt to the new environment. Of course they all just drowned.

London has incredibly low property tax and massive public transport/cycling investment.

Mysteriously has brilliant GDP per capita and madly high property prices.

The problem is that whilst many do benefit from the extremely good wages and property values, the hundreds of thousands of people they rely on to keep the place actually running do not. And the proposal is to tax them out of existence.

It has been suggested Burnham will introduce a 10% IHT care levy on all estates

Seems a sensible suggestion but the entitled children of estates may kick and scream

Taxes on death are famously popular with voters.

A universal 10% inheritance tax would raise many billions more pounds than the current 40% inheritance tax, that most people with actual money do an awful lot to avoid.

Arthur Laffer was right.

You’re describing tax avoidance, not the Laffer effect. Common mistake.

Unless you’re suggesting rich people aren’t dying as a result of IHT?

Aren't you both possibly labouring under the misapprehension that the 10% wouldn't be in addition to the existing 40% rate?

Yet another vanilla duplicate

Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.

The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.

But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.

IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.

Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.

It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).

That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.

The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.

The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.

The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.

For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.

Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.

That’s what levelling looks like, I’m afraid. If a 1% flat rate looks mad then it’s not the tax that is the problem. House values will respond, mitigating that impact - setting up in the NE of England would suddenly look much more attractive.

Indeed, to invert this complaint - why does someone in Middlesbrough pay 4% while a millionaire in London can pay 0.4%?

I can’t remember what @dixiedean said he was paying for council tax relative to the value of where he was living but I think it was well above 4%

Yes, because the cost of providing council services isn’t related to house prices nationally.

Any property tax to fund local services needs to be determined and collected locally.

Exactly the point!

Yet another vanilla duplicate

Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.

The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.

But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.

IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.

Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.

It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).

That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.

The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.

The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.

The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.

For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.

Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.

I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.

To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.

Plunging younger people, who bought their homes in the last couple of decades, into negative equity would be popular, I’m sure.

Yet another vanilla duplicate

Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.

The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.

But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.

IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.

Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.

It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).

That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.

The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.

The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.

The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.

For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.

Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.

That’s what levelling looks like, I’m afraid. If a 1% flat rate looks mad then it’s not the tax that is the problem. House values will respond, mitigating that impact - setting up in the NE of England would suddenly look much more attractive.

Indeed, to invert this complaint - why does someone in Middlesbrough pay 4% while a millionaire in London can pay 0.4%?

I can’t remember what @dixiedean said he was paying for council tax relative to the value of where he was living but I think it was well above 4%

Yes, because the cost of providing council services isn’t related to house prices nationally.

Any property tax to fund local services needs to be determined and collected locally.

Yet another vanilla duplicate

Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.

The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.

But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.

IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.

Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.

It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).

That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.

The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.

The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.

The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.

For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.

Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.

I think with a phased introduction over a period of time you could give people a chance to react and house prices to adjust.

To make it viable you would need something like a 50% crash in the house prices. That is way beyond an 'adjustment'.

An alternative is to use the additional £50 billion to cut the top rate of income tax. That would help.

And/or forgive student loans

lol.

No way

Change the punitive interest rates on some for sure but that is all.

Yet another vanilla duplicate

Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.

The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.

But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.

IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.

Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.

It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).

That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.

The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.

The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.

The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.

For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.

Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.

That’s what levelling looks like, I’m afraid. If a 1% flat rate looks mad then it’s not the tax that is the problem. House values will respond, mitigating that impact - setting up in the NE of England would suddenly look much more attractive.

Indeed, to invert this complaint - why does someone in Middlesbrough pay 4% while a millionaire in London can pay 0.4%?

Well, if it is about local services then the Millionaire in London is using no more of them than the Millionaire in Middlesborough (they do have them you know)

But more importantly this is a classic case of ideology trying to trump reality. In reality the only way you are going to see those house prices in London collapse to a point where people can affford the 1% a year LVT is if everyone leaves. So no schools, no services, no one working in the shops.

It is yet another example of infantile, simplistic ideology crashing headlong into real life.

Stanislaw Lem once wrote a great Sci-Fi short story - a veiled critique of Soviet Poland - about an absolute ruler who decided he wanted his people to adapt to an amphibious existence. He did it by raising the water level on the planet by 1cm every year in the belief that the people would adapt to the new environment. Of course they all just drowned.

London has incredibly low property tax and massive public transport/cycling investment.

Mysteriously has brilliant GDP per capita and madly high property prices.

I wonder why the financial capital of Europe and one of the top two in the world with thousands of very well paid jobs and a huge service industry attached would have a higher GDP per capita than the rest of the country. Must be the property taxes and public transport.