According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
What do you think of adding extra council tax bands, Band I and Band J?
I'd rather that govt stop spaffing money up the wall and talk about tax cuts, rather than rises.
Grow the economy, increase the pie. That is the Conservative way.
Tax rises are coming one way or another. The size of the hole we're in is ginormous.
Declinist....
Objective number one for me, as a Conservative, is a stable and content society. This is so the status quo is broadly maintained, and the economy can continue to grow and we can be prosperous long-term.
The generational gap in politics and wealth is vast, and we must address it. This overrides my proclivity for no wealth or land taxes whatsoever in principle. I think the facts have changed.
Young people have very little asset wealth or savings, whilst older people have a huge amount. It's all in assets and property. We need to find a way of more fairly taxing the nation's wealth base, just a tad more, and cutting taxes on income for working people. I'd even revisit going back to child trust accounts so that those without wealthy parents get, say, £10k to help them start out when they hit 18 or 19.
Otherwise, I fear we'll get full-blown socialism one day, and a completely fragmented society.
Your argument in bold is true, on average, but people like you, and me, and MaxPB are probably a few exceptions I can immediately think of - so is it true for Tory voters? I am not so sure.
Many of my generation are already wealthier than their parents in asset terms (whilst at the same time many are not, and I'll grant you the variation seems much bigger than it did for our parents) - but often stretched. They also have far, far greater outgoings.
Those who are stretched will often have worked hard, foregone luxuries, to secure a home. Any party that screws homeowners as a pure function of the value of their home, more of which is likely to be mortgaged amongst younger voters, is not going to be a party that forms the government.
I understand where you're coming from, but think the key is going to be the tax recoup from boomer estates. By simply failing to increase the threshold on IHT the govt are going to clean up through fiscal drag.
Homeowners won't be screwed, they will just have a small percentage attached. If it was a large percentage then fair enough, but we're talking a very small percentage.
Homeowners here can pay 0.8% to 1% currently but you find it unthinkable that 0.48% could be found in the future elsewhere? Why?
How many times do I need to make this point? Because people's capacity to pay is not a function of the value of their property. Its fine and dandy talking in abstract economic terms in %, but not when it would fundamentally upturn the apple cart of our current economic settlement.
I don't get generate profits from my business as a % of the value of property. Nor to those who get paid PAYE get paid as a % of their property value. And this is before we get into the logistics of valuation, which are often the downfall of socialist asset taxation.
Introducing this policy would lead to immediate recession (if not depression), a house price collapse and a Labour government. Well done for implementing the triple whammy of things you don't want to do immediately after a pandemic which has screwed government finances....
But people have to pay their rent or their mortgage as a percentage.
Why would it lead to a recession? And if it led to a house price collapse then that would mean tax cuts for everyone!
Which leads to a revenue shortfall and the rate having to be increased. It's a completely stupid idea. Property taxes are good for forcing behavioural change because markets are rational.
Markets are rational yes, by and large. Currently the market is distorted with a regressive tax and a planning system that is designed to price people out of owning their own home by design.
A flat tax is a simple free market move.
A flat fee for provision of council services would make more sense that what you are suggesting. But we tried that, it wasn't very popular. So we stick with the compromise we have.
Property tax, if it's at 0.5% will be immensely popular in the north, as almost everyone will have a saving on their council tax and go down like cold sick in the south.
Well, yes. Like @dixiedean it would cut my council tax bill by around half.
However, I can foresee a small snag. If it’s nationally raised, the South East will go apeshit. If it’s locally raised, every county north of Hertford will be instantly bankrupted.
Neither would be popular.
So - which is it to be?
I think the proponent has suggested 2/3 (0.32%) national and redistributed, 1/3 (0.16%) local.
Which would, amazingly, cause the SouthEast to go apeshit *and* bankrupt every council north of Hertford.
A proposal worth exploring ruined by clearly being the work of a total fuckwit.
Wouldn't the 2/3rd component easily make up for the lost revenue from the other third?
It depends on how much the total raised is, doesn’t it? But it seems very unlikely to me. 0.16% would mean around an 80% drop in income for councils in the north, while the rates being bandied about here suggest it would only around double the take in the south.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
What do you think of adding extra council tax bands, Band I and Band J?
I'd rather that govt stop spaffing money up the wall and talk about tax cuts, rather than rises.
Grow the economy, increase the pie. That is the Conservative way.
Tax rises are coming one way or another. The size of the hole we're in is ginormous.
Declinist....
Objective number one for me, as a Conservative, is a stable and content society. This is so the status quo is broadly maintained, and the economy can continue to grow and we can be prosperous long-term.
The generational gap in politics and wealth is vast, and we must address it. This overrides my proclivity for no wealth or land taxes whatsoever in principle. I think the facts have changed.
Young people have very little asset wealth or savings, whilst older people have a huge amount. It's all in assets and property. We need to find a way of more fairly taxing the nation's wealth base, just a tad more, and cutting taxes on income for working people. I'd even revisit going back to child trust accounts so that those without wealthy parents get, say, £10k to help them start out when they hit 18 or 19.
Otherwise, I fear we'll get full-blown socialism one day, and a completely fragmented society.
Your argument in bold is true, on average, but people like you, and me, and MaxPB are probably a few exceptions I can immediately think of - so is it true for Tory voters? I am not so sure.
Many of my generation are already wealthier than their parents in asset terms (whilst at the same time many are not, and I'll grant you the variation seems much bigger than it did for our parents) - but often stretched. They also have far, far greater outgoings.
Those who are stretched will often have worked hard, foregone luxuries, to secure a home. Any party that screws homeowners as a pure function of the value of their home, more of which is likely to be mortgaged amongst younger voters, is not going to be a party that forms the government.
I understand where you're coming from, but think the key is going to be the tax recoup from boomer estates. By simply failing to increase the threshold on IHT the govt are going to clean up through fiscal drag.
Homeowners won't be screwed, they will just have a small percentage attached. If it was a large percentage then fair enough, but we're talking a very small percentage.
Homeowners here can pay 0.8% to 1% currently but you find it unthinkable that 0.48% could be found in the future elsewhere? Why?
How many times do I need to make this point? Because people's capacity to pay is not a function of the value of their property. Its fine and dandy talking in abstract economic terms in %, but not when it would fundamentally upturn the apple cart of our current economic settlement.
I don't get generate profits from my business as a % of the value of property. Nor to those who get paid PAYE get paid as a % of their property value. And this is before we get into the logistics of valuation, which are often the downfall of socialist asset taxation.
Introducing this policy would lead to immediate recession (if not depression), a house price collapse and a Labour government. Well done for implementing the triple whammy of things you don't want to do immediately after a pandemic which has screwed government finances....
(1)But people have to pay their rent or their mortgage as a percentage.
(2)Why would it lead to a recession? And if it led to a house price collapse then that would mean tax cuts for everyone!
1) When people take on a rental or a mortgage they know what the costs are going to be (albeit with some mild fluctuation due to interests rates, something never experienced by an increasing number of homeowners). So fundamentally changing the basis of charges on where people live on a governmental whim like this would be immoral. And any govt introducing it would rightfully be turfed out.
2) a)Reducing the amount of spending money that people expect to have will lead to a reduction in spending. b) The house price crash combined with huge tax hikes will lead to associated foreclosures and bankruptcies.
(1) I think above everyone supporting this agreed it should have a lead time to introduce it. But taxes do change.
(2) It would be revenue neutral. So people gaining money from not being overtaxed as much would increase spending, wouldn't that bring about economic growth?
Plus if existing owner occupiers choose to downsize then they can do so without stamp duty. They would be massive winners.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
What do you think of adding extra council tax bands, Band I and Band J?
I'd rather that govt stop spaffing money up the wall and talk about tax cuts, rather than rises.
Grow the economy, increase the pie. That is the Conservative way.
Tax rises are coming one way or another. The size of the hole we're in is ginormous.
Declinist....
Objective number one for me, as a Conservative, is a stable and content society. This is so the status quo is broadly maintained, and the economy can continue to grow and we can be prosperous long-term.
The generational gap in politics and wealth is vast, and we must address it. This overrides my proclivity for no wealth or land taxes whatsoever in principle. I think the facts have changed.
Young people have very little asset wealth or savings, whilst older people have a huge amount. It's all in assets and property. We need to find a way of more fairly taxing the nation's wealth base, just a tad more, and cutting taxes on income for working people. I'd even revisit going back to child trust accounts so that those without wealthy parents get, say, £10k to help them start out when they hit 18 or 19.
Otherwise, I fear we'll get full-blown socialism one day, and a completely fragmented society.
Your argument in bold is true, on average, but people like you, and me, and MaxPB are probably a few exceptions I can immediately think of - so is it true for Tory voters? I am not so sure.
Many of my generation are already wealthier than their parents in asset terms (whilst at the same time many are not, and I'll grant you the variation seems much bigger than it did for our parents) - but often stretched. They also have far, far greater outgoings.
Those who are stretched will often have worked hard, foregone luxuries, to secure a home. Any party that screws homeowners as a pure function of the value of their home, more of which is likely to be mortgaged amongst younger voters, is not going to be a party that forms the government.
I understand where you're coming from, but think the key is going to be the tax recoup from boomer estates. By simply failing to increase the threshold on IHT the govt are going to clean up through fiscal drag.
Homeowners won't be screwed, they will just have a small percentage attached. If it was a large percentage then fair enough, but we're talking a very small percentage.
Homeowners here can pay 0.8% to 1% currently but you find it unthinkable that 0.48% could be found in the future elsewhere? Why?
How many times do I need to make this point? Because people's capacity to pay is not a function of the value of their property. Its fine and dandy talking in abstract economic terms in %, but not when it would fundamentally upturn the apple cart of our current economic settlement.
I don't get generate profits from my business as a % of the value of property. Nor to those who get paid PAYE get paid as a % of their property value. And this is before we get into the logistics of valuation, which are often the downfall of socialist asset taxation.
Introducing this policy would lead to immediate recession (if not depression), a house price collapse and a Labour government. Well done for implementing the triple whammy of things you don't want to do immediately after a pandemic which has screwed government finances....
But people have to pay their rent or their mortgage as a percentage.
Why would it lead to a recession? And if it led to a house price collapse then that would mean tax cuts for everyone!
Which leads to a revenue shortfall and the rate having to be increased. It's a completely stupid idea. Property taxes are good for forcing behavioural change because markets are rational.
Markets are rational yes, by and large. Currently the market is distorted with a regressive tax and a planning system that is designed to price people out of owning their own home by design.
A flat tax is a simple free market move.
No it isn't. The market is "distorted" by desirability. No one lives in Westminster or Camden because council tax is low as a percentage of property prices. What you're doing is penalising success. It's the politics of envy, and something I expect from Jez, not from Rishi.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
What do you think of adding extra council tax bands, Band I and Band J?
I'd rather that govt stop spaffing money up the wall and talk about tax cuts, rather than rises.
Grow the economy, increase the pie. That is the Conservative way.
Tax rises are coming one way or another. The size of the hole we're in is ginormous.
Declinist....
Objective number one for me, as a Conservative, is a stable and content society. This is so the status quo is broadly maintained, and the economy can continue to grow and we can be prosperous long-term.
The generational gap in politics and wealth is vast, and we must address it. This overrides my proclivity for no wealth or land taxes whatsoever in principle. I think the facts have changed.
Young people have very little asset wealth or savings, whilst older people have a huge amount. It's all in assets and property. We need to find a way of more fairly taxing the nation's wealth base, just a tad more, and cutting taxes on income for working people. I'd even revisit going back to child trust accounts so that those without wealthy parents get, say, £10k to help them start out when they hit 18 or 19.
Otherwise, I fear we'll get full-blown socialism one day, and a completely fragmented society.
Your argument in bold is true, on average, but people like you, and me, and MaxPB are probably a few exceptions I can immediately think of - so is it true for Tory voters? I am not so sure.
Many of my generation are already wealthier than their parents in asset terms (whilst at the same time many are not, and I'll grant you the variation seems much bigger than it did for our parents) - but often stretched. They also have far, far greater outgoings.
Those who are stretched will often have worked hard, foregone luxuries, to secure a home. Any party that screws homeowners as a pure function of the value of their home, more of which is likely to be mortgaged amongst younger voters, is not going to be a party that forms the government.
I understand where you're coming from, but think the key is going to be the tax recoup from boomer estates. By simply failing to increase the threshold on IHT the govt are going to clean up through fiscal drag.
Homeowners won't be screwed, they will just have a small percentage attached. If it was a large percentage then fair enough, but we're talking a very small percentage.
Homeowners here can pay 0.8% to 1% currently but you find it unthinkable that 0.48% could be found in the future elsewhere? Why?
How many times do I need to make this point? Because people's capacity to pay is not a function of the value of their property. Its fine and dandy talking in abstract economic terms in %, but not when it would fundamentally upturn the apple cart of our current economic settlement.
I don't get generate profits from my business as a % of the value of property. Nor to those who get paid PAYE get paid as a % of their property value. And this is before we get into the logistics of valuation, which are often the downfall of socialist asset taxation.
Introducing this policy would lead to immediate recession (if not depression), a house price collapse and a Labour government. Well done for implementing the triple whammy of things you don't want to do immediately after a pandemic which has screwed government finances....
(1)But people have to pay their rent or their mortgage as a percentage.
(2)Why would it lead to a recession? And if it led to a house price collapse then that would mean tax cuts for everyone!
1) When people take on a rental or a mortgage they know what the costs are going to be (albeit with some mild fluctuation due to interests rates, something never experienced by an increasing number of homeowners). So fundamentally changing the basis of charges on where people live on a governmental whim like this would be immoral. And any govt introducing it would rightfully be turfed out.
2) a)Reducing the amount of spending money that people expect to have will lead to a reduction in spending. b) The house price crash combined with huge tax hikes will lead to associated foreclosures and bankruptcies.
(1) I think above everyone supporting this agreed it should have a lead time to introduce it. But taxes do change.
(2) It would be revenue neutral. So people gaining money from not being overtaxed as much would increase spending, wouldn't that bring about economic growth?
Plus if existing owner occupiers choose to downsize then they can do so without stamp duty. They would be massive winners.
Err, SDLT is paid by buyers. Downsizers already benefit
As I thought, Carlotta's dubious numbers from earlier were indeed dodgy...........only time she loves Scotland
How exactly does that prove the numbers she posted were dodgy?
She did not have UK at 7th and only used it as it did not split the countries, her hatred of Scotland ensured she could not show them down the park. If they had been highest in UK , she would have ensured she highlighted it big time.
Whilst not a believer in high government taxation , the bit it should raise should come a lot more from wealth type taxes including this proposal. It is based on assets people own and hence no disincentive to work and levels the playing field for inheritance in that fewer people inherit big sums of cash when others dont get anything at all
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
What do you think of adding extra council tax bands, Band I and Band J?
I'd rather that govt stop spaffing money up the wall and talk about tax cuts, rather than rises.
Grow the economy, increase the pie. That is the Conservative way.
Tax rises are coming one way or another. The size of the hole we're in is ginormous.
Declinist....
Objective number one for me, as a Conservative, is a stable and content society. This is so the status quo is broadly maintained, and the economy can continue to grow and we can be prosperous long-term.
The generational gap in politics and wealth is vast, and we must address it. This overrides my proclivity for no wealth or land taxes whatsoever in principle. I think the facts have changed.
Young people have very little asset wealth or savings, whilst older people have a huge amount. It's all in assets and property. We need to find a way of more fairly taxing the nation's wealth base, just a tad more, and cutting taxes on income for working people. I'd even revisit going back to child trust accounts so that those without wealthy parents get, say, £10k to help them start out when they hit 18 or 19.
Otherwise, I fear we'll get full-blown socialism one day, and a completely fragmented society.
Your argument in bold is true, on average, but people like you, and me, and MaxPB are probably a few exceptions I can immediately think of - so is it true for Tory voters? I am not so sure.
Many of my generation are already wealthier than their parents in asset terms (whilst at the same time many are not, and I'll grant you the variation seems much bigger than it did for our parents) - but often stretched. They also have far, far greater outgoings.
Those who are stretched will often have worked hard, foregone luxuries, to secure a home. Any party that screws homeowners as a pure function of the value of their home, more of which is likely to be mortgaged amongst younger voters, is not going to be a party that forms the government.
I understand where you're coming from, but think the key is going to be the tax recoup from boomer estates. By simply failing to increase the threshold on IHT the govt are going to clean up through fiscal drag.
Homeowners won't be screwed, they will just have a small percentage attached. If it was a large percentage then fair enough, but we're talking a very small percentage.
Homeowners here can pay 0.8% to 1% currently but you find it unthinkable that 0.48% could be found in the future elsewhere? Why?
How many times do I need to make this point? Because people's capacity to pay is not a function of the value of their property. Its fine and dandy talking in abstract economic terms in %, but not when it would fundamentally upturn the apple cart of our current economic settlement.
I don't get generate profits from my business as a % of the value of property. Nor to those who get paid PAYE get paid as a % of their property value. And this is before we get into the logistics of valuation, which are often the downfall of socialist asset taxation.
Introducing this policy would lead to immediate recession (if not depression), a house price collapse and a Labour government. Well done for implementing the triple whammy of things you don't want to do immediately after a pandemic which has screwed government finances....
But people have to pay their rent or their mortgage as a percentage.
Why would it lead to a recession? And if it led to a house price collapse then that would mean tax cuts for everyone!
Which leads to a revenue shortfall and the rate having to be increased. It's a completely stupid idea. Property taxes are good for forcing behavioural change because markets are rational.
Markets are rational yes, by and large. Currently the market is distorted with a regressive tax and a planning system that is designed to price people out of owning their own home by design.
A flat tax is a simple free market move.
Indeed.
Keep fighting the good fight, Phillip. I’m impressed there are some free thinkers in the Tory party.
Property tax, if it's at 0.5% will be immensely popular in the north, as almost everyone will have a saving on their council tax and go down like cold sick in the south.
Well, yes. Like @dixiedean it would cut my council tax bill by around half.
However, I can foresee a small snag. If it’s nationally raised, the South East will go apeshit. If it’s locally raised, every county north of Hertford will be instantly bankrupted.
Neither would be popular.
So - which is it to be?
I think the proponent has suggested 2/3 (0.32%) national and redistributed, 1/3 (0.16%) local.
Which would, amazingly, cause the SouthEast to go apeshit *and* bankrupt every council north of Hertford.
A proposal worth exploring ruined by clearly being the work of a total fuckwit.
Wouldn't the 2/3rd component easily make up for the lost revenue from the other third?
It depends on how much the total raised is, doesn’t it? But it seems very unlikely to me. 0.16% would mean around an 80% drop in income for councils in the north, while the rates being bandied about here suggest it would only around double the take in the south.
They'd lose a percentage of smaller values in the North but gain a percentage of larger values in the South.
Should be possible to design to be roughly neutral.
The % house price tax sounds like an excellent idea.
Almost certainly won’t happen tho
It’s a completely stupid idea as it would screw everyone down here. Given that London and the South East is the driver for the whole UK economy it would be utter madness.
As the good doctor fox pointed out, it’s called levelling up.
‘Swot we voted for.
I think you mean levelling down, crippling aggregate demand down here is complete insanity.
Thanks. Wish they’d just post the daily numbers rather than daft bar charts.
We have gone down on yesterday then? Not good if so.
Pleasure. If you hover on the bar chart it will show you the number.
Saturday I guess - today's numbers (published tomorrow) will also be down, I suspect. Need to be up to 400k on weekdays soon, and try and get away from the weekend lull. War footing and all that.
But don't worry, no-one will care massively about the vaccine numbers when Phil T crashes the economy and house prices at the same time....
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
The losers will certainly be far more unhappy than the winners are happy. Close to an iron rule of politics.
Not having to pay Council Tax could certainly be very popular up here. It is the right thing to do, to make the policy fair and flat for all, and if the Tories don't do it then Labour certainly could offer it at the next election and sweep back to win back the North with policies like that.
You've literally lost the 2024 election for the Tories. Attacking owner occupancy is electoral suicide. I doubt Labour would do it either, I expect them to go after holiday homes and second homes.
Not attacking owner occupancy, just making it fair and flat rather than regressive as it is at the minute.
If people stop following NIMBY policies trying to artificially inflate their house prices to make a paper profit but a very real loss for those trying to get on the ladder, because doing so results in a tax rise, then so much the better. Good and fair for everyone then.
I have not thought through all the implications yet.
My CT is something like £1800-2000 I think, and .48% of the house value is slightly lower, and Stamp Duty would apply but is only 6k or so.
That makes it neutral as near as dammit, and we have the trends in place to solve the Stuck Granny problem over a number of years.
My relatives who live in a half-millions 30s semi in London suburbia get an extra few hundred of Council Tax, and escape 20k of Stamp Duty.
Generally I like as the vast majority would be not too worse off, and lower cost houses would be less targeted.
It is going to take some analysis to show that Birmingham E and W will be worse off. Not sure that I believe it.
Red Wall should like it. Ultra-rich London may not (though I have not calculated the balance .. and since they have the highest Stamp Duty rates of all, I am not sure if they suffer badly.) What is the seat balance for Boris between Central London and the Red Wall?
However the devil is in the detail.
Qute a good tax on overseas owners too.
Plus an incentive to downsize in retirement could do wonders for the housing shortage. Downward pressure on prices too.
Property tax, if it's at 0.5% will be immensely popular in the north, as almost everyone will have a saving on their council tax and go down like cold sick in the south.
Well, yes. Like @dixiedean it would cut my council tax bill by around half.
However, I can foresee a small snag. If it’s nationally raised, the South East will go apeshit. If it’s locally raised, every county north of Hertford will be instantly bankrupted.
Neither would be popular.
So - which is it to be?
I think the proponent has suggested 2/3 (0.32%) national and redistributed, 1/3 (0.16%) local.
Which would, amazingly, cause the SouthEast to go apeshit *and* bankrupt every council north of Hertford.
A proposal worth exploring ruined by clearly being the work of a total fuckwit.
Wouldn't the 2/3rd component easily make up for the lost revenue from the other third?
It depends on how much the total raised is, doesn’t it? But it seems very unlikely to me. 0.16% would mean around an 80% drop in income for councils in the north, while the rates being bandied about here suggest it would only around double the take in the south.
They'd lose a percentage of smaller values in the North but gain a percentage of larger values in the South.
Should be possible to design to be roughly neutral.
Yes, but not on the terms offered. Would need to be about 0.6% with 75% being redistributed, on a very rough calculation indeed.
The % house price tax sounds like an excellent idea.
Almost certainly won’t happen tho
It’s a completely stupid idea as it would screw everyone down here. Given that London and the South East is the driver for the whole UK economy it would be utter madness.
Its called levelling up, and was a government promise in the recent GE.
As I thought, Carlotta's dubious numbers from earlier were indeed dodgy...........only time she loves Scotland
How exactly does that prove the numbers she posted were dodgy?
She did not have UK at 7th and only used it as it did not split the countries, her hatred of Scotland ensured she could not show them down the park. If they had been highest in UK , she would have ensured she highlighted it big time.
Get a job and take your monomaniacal obsessions somewhere useful. You’ve clearly never worked a day in your life.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
What do you think of adding extra council tax bands, Band I and Band J?
I'd rather that govt stop spaffing money up the wall and talk about tax cuts, rather than rises.
Grow the economy, increase the pie. That is the Conservative way.
Tax rises are coming one way or another. The size of the hole we're in is ginormous.
Declinist....
Objective number one for me, as a Conservative, is a stable and content society. This is so the status quo is broadly maintained, and the economy can continue to grow and we can be prosperous long-term.
The generational gap in politics and wealth is vast, and we must address it. This overrides my proclivity for no wealth or land taxes whatsoever in principle. I think the facts have changed.
Young people have very little asset wealth or savings, whilst older people have a huge amount. It's all in assets and property. We need to find a way of more fairly taxing the nation's wealth base, just a tad more, and cutting taxes on income for working people. I'd even revisit going back to child trust accounts so that those without wealthy parents get, say, £10k to help them start out when they hit 18 or 19.
Otherwise, I fear we'll get full-blown socialism one day, and a completely fragmented society.
Your argument in bold is true, on average, but people like you, and me, and MaxPB are probably a few exceptions I can immediately think of - so is it true for Tory voters? I am not so sure.
Many of my generation are already wealthier than their parents in asset terms (whilst at the same time many are not, and I'll grant you the variation seems much bigger than it did for our parents) - but often stretched. They also have far, far greater outgoings.
Those who are stretched will often have worked hard, foregone luxuries, to secure a home. Any party that screws homeowners as a pure function of the value of their home, more of which is likely to be mortgaged amongst younger voters, is not going to be a party that forms the government.
I understand where you're coming from, but think the key is going to be the tax recoup from boomer estates. By simply failing to increase the threshold on IHT the govt are going to clean up through fiscal drag.
Homeowners won't be screwed, they will just have a small percentage attached. If it was a large percentage then fair enough, but we're talking a very small percentage.
Homeowners here can pay 0.8% to 1% currently but you find it unthinkable that 0.48% could be found in the future elsewhere? Why?
How many times do I need to make this point? Because people's capacity to pay is not a function of the value of their property. Its fine and dandy talking in abstract economic terms in %, but not when it would fundamentally upturn the apple cart of our current economic settlement.
I don't get generate profits from my business as a % of the value of property. Nor to those who get paid PAYE get paid as a % of their property value. And this is before we get into the logistics of valuation, which are often the downfall of socialist asset taxation.
Introducing this policy would lead to immediate recession (if not depression), a house price collapse and a Labour government. Well done for implementing the triple whammy of things you don't want to do immediately after a pandemic which has screwed government finances....
But people have to pay their rent or their mortgage as a percentage.
Why would it lead to a recession? And if it led to a house price collapse then that would mean tax cuts for everyone!
Which leads to a revenue shortfall and the rate having to be increased. It's a completely stupid idea. Property taxes are good for forcing behavioural change because markets are rational.
Markets are rational yes, by and large. Currently the market is distorted with a regressive tax and a planning system that is designed to price people out of owning their own home by design.
A flat tax is a simple free market move.
No it isn't. The market is "distorted" by desirability. No one lives in Westminster or Camden because council tax is low as a percentage of property prices. What you're doing is penalising success. It's the politics of envy, and something I expect from Jez, not from Rishi.
If "desirability" were the only factor then why do leafy suburbs with expensive houses and a green belt around them not just build more houses to fill the desire? Why is the supply of houses constrained to artificially inflate house prices and burden those who need to pay to live there?
Thanks. Wish they’d just post the daily numbers rather than daft bar charts.
We have gone down on yesterday then? Not good if so.
Pleasure. If you hover on the bar chart it will show you the number.
Saturday I guess - today's numbers (published tomorrow) will also be down, I suspect. Need to be up to 400k on weekdays soon, and try and get away from the weekend lull. War footing and all that.
But don't worry, no-one will care massively about the vaccine numbers when Phil T crashes the economy and house prices at the same time....
10 new mass hubs open tomorrow in England should be a decent boost straight off the bat.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
The losers will certainly be far more unhappy than the winners are happy. Close to an iron rule of politics.
Not having to pay Council Tax could certainly be very popular up here. It is the right thing to do, to make the policy fair and flat for all, and if the Tories don't do it then Labour certainly could offer it at the next election and sweep back to win back the North with policies like that.
You've literally lost the 2024 election for the Tories. Attacking owner occupancy is electoral suicide. I doubt Labour would do it either, I expect them to go after holiday homes and second homes.
Not attacking owner occupancy, just making it fair and flat rather than regressive as it is at the minute.
If people stop following NIMBY policies trying to artificially inflate their house prices to make a paper profit but a very real loss for those trying to get on the ladder, because doing so results in a tax rise, then so much the better. Good and fair for everyone then.
I don't want to defend property prices, nothing would make me happier than to see them fall as someone who is trying to buy a house right now.
What I'm saying is that I have already paid ca. 40% tax on the income to buy said property and it generates zero return, in fact it will end up being a money black hole which generates VAT and income tax for construction.
I'm all for taxing property, but only property which either sits empty (second homes, holiday homes) or is generating a return (rental property) and making that 2-3% per year.
Taxing something that it is inherently impossible to generate a return from is morally wrong. I have bought my flat to live in, not because I want to stare at the value.
This is entirely correct and is in line with my view that we should not put additional taxes on the home you live in (with the exception that we should consider more council tax bands at the top end). However I strongly support proper tax on investment/second property which is primarily held for investment - 3% capital value per year sounds reasonable.
Congratulations you just hit the poorer people in even harder. As a renter I know that investment tax is getting passed on to me in my rent and under your scheme I will also pay council tax for the home I live in. Talk about the double whammy
Thanks. Wish they’d just post the daily numbers rather than daft bar charts.
We have gone down on yesterday then? Not good if so.
Pleasure. If you hover on the bar chart it will show you the number.
Saturday I guess - today's numbers (published tomorrow) will also be down, I suspect. Need to be up to 400k on weekdays soon, and try and get away from the weekend lull. War footing and all that.
But don't worry, no-one will care massively about the vaccine numbers when Phil T crashes the economy and house prices at the same time....
Ha ha, ain’t gonna happen thankfully. Although on one fantasy island policy proposed by our northern contingent I would be paying £35,000 a year in property taxes if my fag packet calculations are correct!!
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
If a large large and valuable houseowner cannot immediately pay, a charge payable on death could levied and government could still get the cash by using that charge to raise of the financial markets
Whilst not a believer in high government taxation , the bit it should raise should come a lot more from wealth type taxes including this proposal. It is based on assets people own and hence no disincentive to work and levels the playing field for inheritance in that fewer people inherit big sums of cash when others dont get anything at all
Wealth creation doesn't happen in a vacuum.
I have created a successful business and generated significant assets for myself. In the meantime I have paid a shed load of tax, contributed to the BoP and employed people. In addition to the personal tax I have paid.
Wealth taxes are a further grab on the those who already bear the greatest burden. I am staggered to see people in the Conservative party entertain them....
Property tax, if it's at 0.5% will be immensely popular in the north, as almost everyone will have a saving on their council tax and go down like cold sick in the south.
Well, yes. Like @dixiedean it would cut my council tax bill by around half.
However, I can foresee a small snag. If it’s nationally raised, the South East will go apeshit. If it’s locally raised, every county north of Hertford will be instantly bankrupted.
Neither would be popular.
So - which is it to be?
I think the proponent has suggested 2/3 (0.32%) national and redistributed, 1/3 (0.16%) local.
Which would, amazingly, cause the SouthEast to go apeshit *and* bankrupt every council north of Hertford.
A proposal worth exploring ruined by clearly being the work of a total fuckwit.
Wouldn't the 2/3rd component easily make up for the lost revenue from the other third?
It depends on how much the total raised is, doesn’t it? But it seems very unlikely to me. 0.16% would mean around an 80% drop in income for councils in the north, while the rates being bandied about here suggest it would only around double the take in the south.
But council tax isn't flat, so the 2/3rds will be much larger in the areas where the effective rate has gone up. I think I'd need to see some numbers before I'm convinced by your assertion that every council north of Hertford would go bust.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
The losers will certainly be far more unhappy than the winners are happy. Close to an iron rule of politics.
Not having to pay Council Tax could certainly be very popular up here. It is the right thing to do, to make the policy fair and flat for all, and if the Tories don't do it then Labour certainly could offer it at the next election and sweep back to win back the North with policies like that.
You've literally lost the 2024 election for the Tories. Attacking owner occupancy is electoral suicide. I doubt Labour would do it either, I expect them to go after holiday homes and second homes.
Not attacking owner occupancy, just making it fair and flat rather than regressive as it is at the minute.
If people stop following NIMBY policies trying to artificially inflate their house prices to make a paper profit but a very real loss for those trying to get on the ladder, because doing so results in a tax rise, then so much the better. Good and fair for everyone then.
I don't want to defend property prices, nothing would make me happier than to see them fall as someone who is trying to buy a house right now.
What I'm saying is that I have already paid ca. 40% tax on the income to buy said property and it generates zero return, in fact it will end up being a money black hole which generates VAT and income tax for construction.
I'm all for taxing property, but only property which either sits empty (second homes, holiday homes) or is generating a return (rental property) and making that 2-3% per year.
Taxing something that it is inherently impossible to generate a return from is morally wrong. I have bought my flat to live in, not because I want to stare at the value.
That's a better argument.
It sounds like you don't object in principle to an asset tax, just one that targets the primary residence that people live in.
Thanks. Wish they’d just post the daily numbers rather than daft bar charts.
We have gone down on yesterday then? Not good if so.
Pleasure. If you hover on the bar chart it will show you the number.
Saturday I guess - today's numbers (published tomorrow) will also be down, I suspect. Need to be up to 400k on weekdays soon, and try and get away from the weekend lull. War footing and all that.
But don't worry, no-one will care massively about the vaccine numbers when Phil T crashes the economy and house prices at the same time....
Ha ha, ain’t gonna happen thankfully. Although on one fantasy island policy proposed by our northern contingent I would be paying £35,000 a year in property taxes if my fag packet calculations are correct!!
Thanks. Wish they’d just post the daily numbers rather than daft bar charts.
We have gone down on yesterday then? Not good if so.
Use the link i posted and click data tab.
Yes down a bit. But still probably doing 330k across UK. It will be 500k/day this time next week.
Cheers Francis.
Looking on a phone so not ideal. Happy to accept a slight decline at weekends but also share @Mortimer ‘s view that we should start letting this be “a thing”. The virus doesn’t stop for roast beef and a good Malbec.
Whilst not a believer in high government taxation , the bit it should raise should come a lot more from wealth type taxes including this proposal. It is based on assets people own and hence no disincentive to work and levels the playing field for inheritance in that fewer people inherit big sums of cash when others dont get anything at all
Wealth creation doesn't happen in a vacuum.
I have created a successful business and generated significant assets for myself. In the meantime I have paid a shed load of tax, contributed to the BoP and employed people. In addition to the personal tax I have paid.
Wealth taxes are a further grab on the those who already bear the greatest burden. I am staggered to see people in the Conservative party entertain them....
i am not in the tory party but think the immoral thing that is also nothing to do with a meritocracy is the unfair inheritance we allow where chosen few get a lot and others nothing. Big house prices over the recent 30 years have made this problem worse
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
What do you think of adding extra council tax bands, Band I and Band J?
I'd rather that govt stop spaffing money up the wall and talk about tax cuts, rather than rises.
Grow the economy, increase the pie. That is the Conservative way.
Tax rises are coming one way or another. The size of the hole we're in is ginormous.
Declinist....
Objective number one for me, as a Conservative, is a stable and content society. This is so the status quo is broadly maintained, and the economy can continue to grow and we can be prosperous long-term.
The generational gap in politics and wealth is vast, and we must address it. This overrides my proclivity for no wealth or land taxes whatsoever in principle. I think the facts have changed.
Young people have very little asset wealth or savings, whilst older people have a huge amount. It's all in assets and property. We need to find a way of more fairly taxing the nation's wealth base, just a tad more, and cutting taxes on income for working people. I'd even revisit going back to child trust accounts so that those without wealthy parents get, say, £10k to help them start out when they hit 18 or 19.
Otherwise, I fear we'll get full-blown socialism one day, and a completely fragmented society.
Your argument in bold is true, on average, but people like you, and me, and MaxPB are probably a few exceptions I can immediately think of - so is it true for Tory voters? I am not so sure.
Many of my generation are already wealthier than their parents in asset terms (whilst at the same time many are not, and I'll grant you the variation seems much bigger than it did for our parents) - but often stretched. They also have far, far greater outgoings.
Those who are stretched will often have worked hard, foregone luxuries, to secure a home. Any party that screws homeowners as a pure function of the value of their home, more of which is likely to be mortgaged amongst younger voters, is not going to be a party that forms the government.
I understand where you're coming from, but think the key is going to be the tax recoup from boomer estates. By simply failing to increase the threshold on IHT the govt are going to clean up through fiscal drag.
Homeowners won't be screwed, they will just have a small percentage attached. If it was a large percentage then fair enough, but we're talking a very small percentage.
Homeowners here can pay 0.8% to 1% currently but you find it unthinkable that 0.48% could be found in the future elsewhere? Why?
How many times do I need to make this point? Because people's capacity to pay is not a function of the value of their property. Its fine and dandy talking in abstract economic terms in %, but not when it would fundamentally upturn the apple cart of our current economic settlement.
I don't get generate profits from my business as a % of the value of property. Nor to those who get paid PAYE get paid as a % of their property value. And this is before we get into the logistics of valuation, which are often the downfall of socialist asset taxation.
Introducing this policy would lead to immediate recession (if not depression), a house price collapse and a Labour government. Well done for implementing the triple whammy of things you don't want to do immediately after a pandemic which has screwed government finances....
But people have to pay their rent or their mortgage as a percentage.
Why would it lead to a recession? And if it led to a house price collapse then that would mean tax cuts for everyone!
Which leads to a revenue shortfall and the rate having to be increased. It's a completely stupid idea. Property taxes are good for forcing behavioural change because markets are rational.
Markets are rational yes, by and large. Currently the market is distorted with a regressive tax and a planning system that is designed to price people out of owning their own home by design.
A flat tax is a simple free market move.
No it isn't. The market is "distorted" by desirability. No one lives in Westminster or Camden because council tax is low as a percentage of property prices. What you're doing is penalising success. It's the politics of envy, and something I expect from Jez, not from Rishi.
If "desirability" were the only factor then why do leafy suburbs with expensive houses and a green belt around them not just build more houses to fill the desire? Why is the supply of houses constrained to artificially inflate house prices and burden those who need to pay to live there?
You've clearly not been to any of these places. There is an insane amount of development in the outer London boroughs and Hertfordshire. You can't walk around without seeing a building site every couple of minutes putting up flats and houses.
House prices are high because lots of people want to live here and because owner occupiers are having to compete with landlords who have interest allowable at the basic rate.
Fuck the landlords off with your taxes, leave my home in peace or your party will face a reckoning at the ballot box just as Mrs May did.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
You could argue it's not fair how people who happen to live in London have experienced such a big bonus in terms of the value of their property over the last 40 years or so compared to elsewhere in the UK.
I have to live in my house, how do I profit from something going up in paper value terms?
you move house or suck it up
Maybe move to Ayrshire where the property is cheaper but you may encounter some odd, unfriendly people!
Ayrshire is beautiful, and certainly cheaper than down south. I have a modern 4 bedroom house at about 230-250K and an old Victorian quarter villa that is very spacious which is about 110K. If you go to Ayr you can get beautiful houses near beach around 300k+ for very big 4 beds, mind you they do have them in the millions there as well. I can be in Highlands, Borders, Edinburgh , etc all within a couple of hours. No need to be stuck in madding crowds like packs of seals, hard to beat.
As I thought, Carlotta's dubious numbers from earlier were indeed dodgy...........only time she loves Scotland
How exactly does that prove the numbers she posted were dodgy?
She did not have UK at 7th and only used it as it did not split the countries, her hatred of Scotland ensured she could not show them down the park. If they had been highest in UK , she would have ensured she highlighted it big time.
No, they had the UK at 6th simply because San Marino wasn't included. But the claim she was refuting was that the "UK was worst in Europe". Nothing about England or Scotland, so quite why the constituent parts need to be split when other countries are reported together is beyond me.
In fact, the list you have posted is identical to the one she posted, excluding San Marino. How does that shows her numbers are dodgy and your's aren't?
The % house price tax sounds like an excellent idea.
Almost certainly won’t happen tho
It’s a completely stupid idea as it would screw everyone down here. Given that London and the South East is the driver for the whole UK economy it would be utter madness.
Its called levelling up, and was a government promise in the recent GE.
The problem is, because the Tories have encouraged structural regional imbalances for so long, affecting all sorts of people, there would also be a number of averagely-off pensioners, in terms of income, in the South who would experience it purely as a levelling down. There are other sources of possible tax revenue for levelling up that aren't so regionally biased, but this kind of policy would have its merits and demerits - and maybe most juicily for the Tories, would be particularly popular in the anti-metropolitan parts of the north.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
The losers will certainly be far more unhappy than the winners are happy. Close to an iron rule of politics.
Not having to pay Council Tax could certainly be very popular up here. It is the right thing to do, to make the policy fair and flat for all, and if the Tories don't do it then Labour certainly could offer it at the next election and sweep back to win back the North with policies like that.
You've literally lost the 2024 election for the Tories. Attacking owner occupancy is electoral suicide. I doubt Labour would do it either, I expect them to go after holiday homes and second homes.
Not attacking owner occupancy, just making it fair and flat rather than regressive as it is at the minute.
If people stop following NIMBY policies trying to artificially inflate their house prices to make a paper profit but a very real loss for those trying to get on the ladder, because doing so results in a tax rise, then so much the better. Good and fair for everyone then.
I have not thought through all the implications yet.
My CT is something like £1800-2000 I think, and .48% of the house value is slightly lower, and Stamp Duty would apply but is only 6k or so.
That makes it neutral as near as dammit, and we have the trends in place to solve the Stuck Granny problem over a number of years.
My relatives who live in a half-millions 30s semi in London suburbia get an extra few hundred of Council Tax, and escape 20k of Stamp Duty.
Generally I like as the vast majority would be not too worse off, and lower cost houses would be less targeted.
It is going to take some analysis to show that Birmingham E and W will be worse off. Not sure that I believe it.
Red Wall should like it. Ultra-rich London may not (though I have not calculated the balance .. and since they have the highest Stamp Duty rates of all, I am not sure if they suffer badly.) What is the seat balance for Boris between Central London and the Red Wall?
However the devil is in the detail.
Qute a good tax on overseas owners too.
Plus an incentive to downsize in retirement could do wonders for the housing shortage. Downward pressure on prices too.
If the Tories don't do it, then Labour should.
It’s completely idiotic, unless you want to cripple aggregate demand in the most productive regions of the UK economy?
Whilst not a believer in high government taxation , the bit it should raise should come a lot more from wealth type taxes including this proposal. It is based on assets people own and hence no disincentive to work and levels the playing field for inheritance in that fewer people inherit big sums of cash when others dont get anything at all
Wealth creation doesn't happen in a vacuum.
I have created a successful business and generated significant assets for myself. In the meantime I have paid a shed load of tax, contributed to the BoP and employed people. In addition to the personal tax I have paid.
Wealth taxes are a further grab on the those who already bear the greatest burden. I am staggered to see people in the Conservative party entertain them....
i am not in the tory party but think the immoral thing that is also nothing to do with a meritocracy is the unfair inheritance we allow where chosen few get a lot and others nothing. Big house prices over the recent 30 years have made this problem worse
IHT is one area that I think is morally ripe for reform. Or possibly not even reform, just not moving the thresholds will fiscally drag a lot of boomer estates into paying more tax.
However, General HYUFD will probably order a tank battalion down to Dorset for my even conceding that notion....
Property tax, if it's at 0.5% will be immensely popular in the north, as almost everyone will have a saving on their council tax and go down like cold sick in the south.
Well, yes. Like @dixiedean it would cut my council tax bill by around half.
However, I can foresee a small snag. If it’s nationally raised, the South East will go apeshit. If it’s locally raised, every county north of Hertford will be instantly bankrupted.
Neither would be popular.
So - which is it to be?
I think the proponent has suggested 2/3 (0.32%) national and redistributed, 1/3 (0.16%) local.
Which would, amazingly, cause the SouthEast to go apeshit *and* bankrupt every council north of Hertford.
A proposal worth exploring ruined by clearly being the work of a total fuckwit.
Wouldn't the 2/3rd component easily make up for the lost revenue from the other third?
It depends on how much the total raised is, doesn’t it? But it seems very unlikely to me. 0.16% would mean around an 80% drop in income for councils in the north, while the rates being bandied about here suggest it would only around double the take in the south.
They'd lose a percentage of smaller values in the North but gain a percentage of larger values in the South.
Should be possible to design to be roughly neutral.
Yes, but not on the terms offered. Would need to be about 0.6% with 75% being redistributed, on a very rough calculation indeed.
Why?
So currently eg £1200 off a £150k home, 0.8%.
That home then goes down to £720 of which £240 is local and £480 goes to a national pot.
Million pound home elsewhere pays £4,800k per annum of which £3,200k goes to the national pot.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
One Tory strategist I know is of the belief the moment young people start becoming Tories is the moment they become homeowners.
Don't mess with their homes.
Well, that's true. But you have to get them to being a homeowner first.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
What do you think of adding extra council tax bands, Band I and Band J?
I'd rather that govt stop spaffing money up the wall and talk about tax cuts, rather than rises.
Grow the economy, increase the pie. That is the Conservative way.
Tax rises are coming one way or another. The size of the hole we're in is ginormous.
Declinist....
Objective number one for me, as a Conservative, is a stable and content society. This is so the status quo is broadly maintained, and the economy can continue to grow and we can be prosperous long-term.
The generational gap in politics and wealth is vast, and we must address it. This overrides my proclivity for no wealth or land taxes whatsoever in principle. I think the facts have changed.
Young people have very little asset wealth or savings, whilst older people have a huge amount. It's all in assets and property. We need to find a way of more fairly taxing the nation's wealth base, just a tad more, and cutting taxes on income for working people. I'd even revisit going back to child trust accounts so that those without wealthy parents get, say, £10k to help them start out when they hit 18 or 19.
Otherwise, I fear we'll get full-blown socialism one day, and a completely fragmented society.
Your argument in bold is true, on average, but people like you, and me, and MaxPB are probably a few exceptions I can immediately think of - so is it true for Tory voters? I am not so sure.
Many of my generation are already wealthier than their parents in asset terms (whilst at the same time many are not, and I'll grant you the variation seems much bigger than it did for our parents) - but often stretched. They also have far, far greater outgoings.
Those who are stretched will often have worked hard, foregone luxuries, to secure a home. Any party that screws homeowners as a pure function of the value of their home, more of which is likely to be mortgaged amongst younger voters, is not going to be a party that forms the government.
I understand where you're coming from, but think the key is going to be the tax recoup from boomer estates. By simply failing to increase the threshold on IHT the govt are going to clean up through fiscal drag.
Homeowners won't be screwed, they will just have a small percentage attached. If it was a large percentage then fair enough, but we're talking a very small percentage.
Homeowners here can pay 0.8% to 1% currently but you find it unthinkable that 0.48% could be found in the future elsewhere? Why?
How many times do I need to make this point? Because people's capacity to pay is not a function of the value of their property. Its fine and dandy talking in abstract economic terms in %, but not when it would fundamentally upturn the apple cart of our current economic settlement.
I don't get generate profits from my business as a % of the value of property. Nor to those who get paid PAYE get paid as a % of their property value. And this is before we get into the logistics of valuation, which are often the downfall of socialist asset taxation.
Introducing this policy would lead to immediate recession (if not depression), a house price collapse and a Labour government. Well done for implementing the triple whammy of things you don't want to do immediately after a pandemic which has screwed government finances....
(1)But people have to pay their rent or their mortgage as a percentage.
(2)Why would it lead to a recession? And if it led to a house price collapse then that would mean tax cuts for everyone!
1) When people take on a rental or a mortgage they know what the costs are going to be (albeit with some mild fluctuation due to interests rates, something never experienced by an increasing number of homeowners). So fundamentally changing the basis of charges on where people live on a governmental whim like this would be immoral. And any govt introducing it would rightfully be turfed out.
2) a)Reducing the amount of spending money that people expect to have will lead to a reduction in spending. b) The house price crash combined with huge tax hikes will lead to associated foreclosures and bankruptcies.
(1) I think above everyone supporting this agreed it should have a lead time to introduce it. But taxes do change.
(2) It would be revenue neutral. So people gaining money from not being overtaxed as much would increase spending, wouldn't that bring about economic growth?
Plus if existing owner occupiers choose to downsize then they can do so without stamp duty. They would be massive winners.
Err, SDLT is paid by buyers. Downsizers already benefit
That last assumes no balancing adjustment in prices.
We also need to see how the current COVID changes will help or hinder adjustments.
Rich people in London will perhaps pay less as their house prices are about to adjust down (!)
I can see "SDLT IS NEVER COMING BACK" being a good political slogan.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
This is absolutely true.
Having said that, mild reforms are possible, as your hero George Osborne showed.
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
What do you think of adding extra council tax bands, Band I and Band J?
I'd rather that govt stop spaffing money up the wall and talk about tax cuts, rather than rises.
Grow the economy, increase the pie. That is the Conservative way.
Tax rises are coming one way or another. The size of the hole we're in is ginormous.
Declinist....
Objective number one for me, as a Conservative, is a stable and content society. This is so the status quo is broadly maintained, and the economy can continue to grow and we can be prosperous long-term.
The generational gap in politics and wealth is vast, and we must address it. This overrides my proclivity for no wealth or land taxes whatsoever in principle. I think the facts have changed.
Young people have very little asset wealth or savings, whilst older people have a huge amount. It's all in assets and property. We need to find a way of more fairly taxing the nation's wealth base, just a tad more, and cutting taxes on income for working people. I'd even revisit going back to child trust accounts so that those without wealthy parents get, say, £10k to help them start out when they hit 18 or 19.
Otherwise, I fear we'll get full-blown socialism one day, and a completely fragmented society.
This is really quite on the money. I would have thought that more people would have taken a look at the near miss we had with Corbyn and thought a little more about where all that came from. People who vote for radical change aren't (always) stupid, they're just not sufficiently invested in the status quo. You can play a game of brinksmanship with it and say we're ok to continue on this course, but do acknowledge the risks please.
Thanks. Wish they’d just post the daily numbers rather than daft bar charts.
We have gone down on yesterday then? Not good if so.
Pleasure. If you hover on the bar chart it will show you the number.
Saturday I guess - today's numbers (published tomorrow) will also be down, I suspect. Need to be up to 400k on weekdays soon, and try and get away from the weekend lull. War footing and all that.
But don't worry, no-one will care massively about the vaccine numbers when Phil T crashes the economy and house prices at the same time....
Ha ha, ain’t gonna happen thankfully. Although on one fantasy island policy proposed by our northern contingent I would be paying £35,000 a year in property taxes if my fag packet calculations are correct!!
Nah, its only a % - don't worry....!!!
My calculations are probably wrong, I’m late to the debate and just reading snippets.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
One Tory strategist I know is of the belief the moment young people start becoming Tories is the moment they become homeowners.
Don't mess with their homes.
Well, that's true. But you have to get them to being a homeowner first.
I'm pretty sure existing government policy is increasing the number of homeowners....
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
One Tory strategist I know is of the belief the moment young people start becoming Tories is the moment they become homeowners.
Don't mess with their homes.
Well, that's true. But you have to get them to being a homeowner first.
Plenty of new homeowners in the North and Midlands, which is where the Tories made their gains at the 2019GE.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
What do you think of adding extra council tax bands, Band I and Band J?
I'd rather that govt stop spaffing money up the wall and talk about tax cuts, rather than rises.
Grow the economy, increase the pie. That is the Conservative way.
Tax rises are coming one way or another. The size of the hole we're in is ginormous.
Declinist....
Objective number one for me, as a Conservative, is a stable and content society. This is so the status quo is broadly maintained, and the economy can continue to grow and we can be prosperous long-term.
The generational gap in politics and wealth is vast, and we must address it. This overrides my proclivity for no wealth or land taxes whatsoever in principle. I think the facts have changed.
Young people have very little asset wealth or savings, whilst older people have a huge amount. It's all in assets and property. We need to find a way of more fairly taxing the nation's wealth base, just a tad more, and cutting taxes on income for working people. I'd even revisit going back to child trust accounts so that those without wealthy parents get, say, £10k to help them start out when they hit 18 or 19.
Otherwise, I fear we'll get full-blown socialism one day, and a completely fragmented society.
Your argument in bold is true, on average, but people like you, and me, and MaxPB are probably a few exceptions I can immediately think of - so is it true for Tory voters? I am not so sure.
Many of my generation are already wealthier than their parents in asset terms (whilst at the same time many are not, and I'll grant you the variation seems much bigger than it did for our parents) - but often stretched. They also have far, far greater outgoings.
Those who are stretched will often have worked hard, foregone luxuries, to secure a home. Any party that screws homeowners as a pure function of the value of their home, more of which is likely to be mortgaged amongst younger voters, is not going to be a party that forms the government.
I understand where you're coming from, but think the key is going to be the tax recoup from boomer estates. By simply failing to increase the threshold on IHT the govt are going to clean up through fiscal drag.
What do you mean by tax recoup from boomer estates?
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
Yep. It is a stored up problem.
One to be slowly unwound. Not by Phil T upturning the apple cart.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
One Tory strategist I know is of the belief the moment young people start becoming Tories is the moment they become homeowners.
Don't mess with their homes.
Well, that's true. But you have to get them to being a homeowner first.
Indeed. This is why the North is swinging Tory and the South is swinging Labour. Decades of I'm alright Jack NIMBYism keeps people off the ladder.
Under this proposal if a Council constrains planning permission it keeps house prices high but everyone pays extra tax for that. If a Council grants extra planning permission it reduces house prices, increasing affordability, and everyone in the area gets a tax cut.
Allowing more houses to be built and giving everyone a tax cut as a result and getting more onto the ladder should be a good thing.
As I thought, Carlotta's dubious numbers from earlier were indeed dodgy...........only time she loves Scotland
How exactly does that prove the numbers she posted were dodgy?
She did not have UK at 7th and only used it as it did not split the countries, her hatred of Scotland ensured she could not show them down the park. If they had been highest in UK , she would have ensured she highlighted it big time.
No, they had the UK at 6th simply because San Marino wasn't included. But the claim she was refuting was that the "UK was worst in Europe". Nothing about England or Scotland, so quite why the constituent parts need to be split when other countries are reported together is beyond me.
In fact, the list you have posted is identical to the one she posted, excluding San Marino. How does that shows her numbers are dodgy and your's aren't?
Anything that includes Scotland in the UK is, by Malc's definition, dodgy.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
What do you think of adding extra council tax bands, Band I and Band J?
I'd rather that govt stop spaffing money up the wall and talk about tax cuts, rather than rises.
Grow the economy, increase the pie. That is the Conservative way.
Tax rises are coming one way or another. The size of the hole we're in is ginormous.
Declinist....
Objective number one for me, as a Conservative, is a stable and content society. This is so the status quo is broadly maintained, and the economy can continue to grow and we can be prosperous long-term.
The generational gap in politics and wealth is vast, and we must address it. This overrides my proclivity for no wealth or land taxes whatsoever in principle. I think the facts have changed.
Young people have very little asset wealth or savings, whilst older people have a huge amount. It's all in assets and property. We need to find a way of more fairly taxing the nation's wealth base, just a tad more, and cutting taxes on income for working people. I'd even revisit going back to child trust accounts so that those without wealthy parents get, say, £10k to help them start out when they hit 18 or 19.
Otherwise, I fear we'll get full-blown socialism one day, and a completely fragmented society.
Your argument in bold is true, on average, but people like you, and me, and MaxPB are probably a few exceptions I can immediately think of - so is it true for Tory voters? I am not so sure.
Many of my generation are already wealthier than their parents in asset terms (whilst at the same time many are not, and I'll grant you the variation seems much bigger than it did for our parents) - but often stretched. They also have far, far greater outgoings.
Those who are stretched will often have worked hard, foregone luxuries, to secure a home. Any party that screws homeowners as a pure function of the value of their home, more of which is likely to be mortgaged amongst younger voters, is not going to be a party that forms the government.
I understand where you're coming from, but think the key is going to be the tax recoup from boomer estates. By simply failing to increase the threshold on IHT the govt are going to clean up through fiscal drag.
What do you mean by tax recoup from boomer estates?
I wouldn't touch IHT, I agree.
Lots of boomer estates are going to yuuuuugge, and so tax recoup will increase.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
What do you think of adding extra council tax bands, Band I and Band J?
I'd rather that govt stop spaffing money up the wall and talk about tax cuts, rather than rises.
Grow the economy, increase the pie. That is the Conservative way.
Tax rises are coming one way or another. The size of the hole we're in is ginormous.
Declinist....
Objective number one for me, as a Conservative, is a stable and content society. This is so the status quo is broadly maintained, and the economy can continue to grow and we can be prosperous long-term.
The generational gap in politics and wealth is vast, and we must address it. This overrides my proclivity for no wealth or land taxes whatsoever in principle. I think the facts have changed.
Young people have very little asset wealth or savings, whilst older people have a huge amount. It's all in assets and property. We need to find a way of more fairly taxing the nation's wealth base, just a tad more, and cutting taxes on income for working people. I'd even revisit going back to child trust accounts so that those without wealthy parents get, say, £10k to help them start out when they hit 18 or 19.
Otherwise, I fear we'll get full-blown socialism one day, and a completely fragmented society.
Your argument in bold is true, on average, but people like you, and me, and MaxPB are probably a few exceptions I can immediately think of - so is it true for Tory voters? I am not so sure.
Many of my generation are already wealthier than their parents in asset terms (whilst at the same time many are not, and I'll grant you the variation seems much bigger than it did for our parents) - but often stretched. They also have far, far greater outgoings.
Those who are stretched will often have worked hard, foregone luxuries, to secure a home. Any party that screws homeowners as a pure function of the value of their home, more of which is likely to be mortgaged amongst younger voters, is not going to be a party that forms the government.
I understand where you're coming from, but think the key is going to be the tax recoup from boomer estates. By simply failing to increase the threshold on IHT the govt are going to clean up through fiscal drag.
Homeowners won't be screwed, they will just have a small percentage attached. If it was a large percentage then fair enough, but we're talking a very small percentage.
Homeowners here can pay 0.8% to 1% currently but you find it unthinkable that 0.48% could be found in the future elsewhere? Why?
How many times do I need to make this point? Because people's capacity to pay is not a function of the value of their property. Its fine and dandy talking in abstract economic terms in %, but not when it would fundamentally upturn the apple cart of our current economic settlement.
I don't get generate profits from my business as a % of the value of property. Nor to those who get paid PAYE get paid as a % of their property value. And this is before we get into the logistics of valuation, which are often the downfall of socialist asset taxation.
Introducing this policy would lead to immediate recession (if not depression), a house price collapse and a Labour government. Well done for implementing the triple whammy of things you don't want to do immediately after a pandemic which has screwed government finances....
But people have to pay their rent or their mortgage as a percentage.
Why would it lead to a recession? And if it led to a house price collapse then that would mean tax cuts for everyone!
Which leads to a revenue shortfall and the rate having to be increased. It's a completely stupid idea. Property taxes are good for forcing behavioural change because markets are rational.
Markets are rational yes, by and large. Currently the market is distorted with a regressive tax and a planning system that is designed to price people out of owning their own home by design.
A flat tax is a simple free market move.
No it isn't. The market is "distorted" by desirability. No one lives in Westminster or Camden because council tax is low as a percentage of property prices. What you're doing is penalising success. It's the politics of envy, and something I expect from Jez, not from Rishi.
If "desirability" were the only factor then why do leafy suburbs with expensive houses and a green belt around them not just build more houses to fill the desire? Why is the supply of houses constrained to artificially inflate house prices and burden those who need to pay to live there?
You've clearly not been to any of these places. There is an insane amount of development in the outer London boroughs and Hertfordshire. You can't walk around without seeing a building site every couple of minutes putting up flats and houses.
House prices are high because lots of people want to live here and because owner occupiers are having to compete with landlords who have interest allowable at the basic rate.
Fuck the landlords off with your taxes, leave my home in peace or your party will face a reckoning at the ballot box just as Mrs May did.
Lots on PB can’t understand why so many people want to live in and around the South East and London, the greatest city in the world and the region with by far the best climate in the UK.
The Liverpool - Man Utd game is always hyped by the media but is pretty much always mediocre/shit.
Two teams scared of losing to each other.
especially with no fans - I like derby and big rival games but find this season no interest in them because of the lack of atmosphere. Its not as if the players are local born or really have any affinity to the clubs they play for anyway
Thanks. Wish they’d just post the daily numbers rather than daft bar charts.
We have gone down on yesterday then? Not good if so.
Pleasure. If you hover on the bar chart it will show you the number.
Saturday I guess - today's numbers (published tomorrow) will also be down, I suspect. Need to be up to 400k on weekdays soon, and try and get away from the weekend lull. War footing and all that.
But don't worry, no-one will care massively about the vaccine numbers when Phil T crashes the economy and house prices at the same time....
Ha ha, ain’t gonna happen thankfully. Although on one fantasy island policy proposed by our northern contingent I would be paying £35,000 a year in property taxes if my fag packet calculations are correct!!
Nah, its only a % - don't worry....!!!
My calculations are probably wrong, I’m late to the debate and just reading snippets.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
One Tory strategist I know is of the belief the moment young people start becoming Tories is the moment they become homeowners.
Don't mess with their homes.
Well, that's true. But you have to get them to being a homeowner first.
Then target private landlords, 1.2m of them own 4.5m houses and flats according to the last report I read. That's where the Tory party has failed since 2010, we didn't do anything to address private rentals that grew under Labour. Now you have to do something about it, Osborne made a great start and the government needs to continue along those lines by making it impossible to make a profit from buying an existing property and renting it out to someone who would otherwise like to own it but for the price.
As I thought, Carlotta's dubious numbers from earlier were indeed dodgy...........only time she loves Scotland
How exactly does that prove the numbers she posted were dodgy?
She did not have UK at 7th and only used it as it did not split the countries, her hatred of Scotland ensured she could not show them down the park. If they had been highest in UK , she would have ensured she highlighted it big time.
Get a job and take your monomaniacal obsessions somewhere useful. You’ve clearly never worked a day in your life.
Away you halfwitted moron, I have worked for 50 years and I bet I make a lot more money than you do and have paid many times the tax you will ever pay as well. You are a whining creepy pompous self opinionated clown who knows little.
The Liverpool - Man Utd game is always hyped by the media but is pretty much always mediocre/shit.
Two teams scared of losing to each other.
especially with no fans - I like derby and big rival games but find this season no interest in them because of the lack of atmosphere. Its not as if the players are local born or really have any affinity to the clubs they play for anyway
Yeah derbies have completely lost their venom. Can’t wait to get fans back again,
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
One Tory strategist I know is of the belief the moment young people start becoming Tories is the moment they become homeowners.
Don't mess with their homes.
Well, that's true. But you have to get them to being a homeowner first.
Then target private landlords, 1.2m of them own 4.5m houses and flats according to the last report I read. That's where the Tory party has failed since 2010, we didn't do anything to address private rentals that grew under Labour. Now you have to do something about it, Osborne made a great start and the government needs to continue along those lines by making it impossible to make a profit from buying an existing property and renting it out to someone who would otherwise like to own it but for the price.
+1
Edit to add:
Plus it would lead to a net growth in the number of homeowners.
Luckily, more people in the Tory party think like Max than Phil.....
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
You could argue it's not fair how people who happen to live in London have experienced such a big bonus in terms of the value of their property over the last 40 years or so compared to elsewhere in the UK.
I have to live in my house, how do I profit from something going up in paper value terms?
you move house or suck it up
Maybe move to Ayrshire where the property is cheaper but you may encounter some odd, unfriendly people!
Ayrshire is beautiful, and certainly cheaper than down south. I have a modern 4 bedroom house at about 230-250K and an old Victorian quarter villa that is very spacious which is about 110K. If you go to Ayr you can get beautiful houses near beach around 300k+ for very big 4 beds, mind you they do have them in the millions there as well. I can be in Highlands, Borders, Edinburgh , etc all within a couple of hours. No need to be stuck in madding crowds like packs of seals, hard to beat.
You stand to gain more from abolition of the Scottish SDLT tax version if they follow suit in a manner slightly different (obviously), as they hiked it up a bit before.
Numbers of friends building houses in Scotlandshire tell me that selling anything large and highlands has been a bit of a bloodbath for the last few years.
As I thought, Carlotta's dubious numbers from earlier were indeed dodgy...........only time she loves Scotland
How exactly does that prove the numbers she posted were dodgy?
She did not have UK at 7th and only used it as it did not split the countries, her hatred of Scotland ensured she could not show them down the park. If they had been highest in UK , she would have ensured she highlighted it big time.
No, they had the UK at 6th simply because San Marino wasn't included. But the claim she was refuting was that the "UK was worst in Europe". Nothing about England or Scotland, so quite why the constituent parts need to be split when other countries are reported together is beyond me.
In fact, the list you have posted is identical to the one she posted, excluding San Marino. How does that shows her numbers are dodgy and your's aren't?
Name me any other multiple countries rolled up into one.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
One Tory strategist I know is of the belief the moment young people start becoming Tories is the moment they become homeowners.
Don't mess with their homes.
Well, that's true. But you have to get them to being a homeowner first.
Then target private landlords, 1.2m of them own 4.5m houses and flats according to the last report I read. That's where the Tory party has failed since 2010, we didn't do anything to address private rentals that grew under Labour. Now you have to do something about it, Osborne made a great start and the government needs to continue along those lines by making it impossible to make a profit from buying an existing property and renting it out to someone who would otherwise like to own it but for the price.
I always wonder why this isn't a problem in European countries. They must have an enormous number of landlords given everyone there rents.
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
They looked at it, realised it was a disaster and then looked elsewhere. Target landlords, most of them are scumbags anyway.
The % house price tax sounds like an excellent idea.
Almost certainly won’t happen tho
It’s a completely stupid idea as it would screw everyone down here. Given that London and the South East is the driver for the whole UK economy it would be utter madness.
Its called levelling up, and was a government promise in the recent GE.
And you can't "level up" without, in some way, screwing the affluent places and people. To pretend otherwise is cakeism. But that's the bit of the equation the Tories didn't emphasise. So, if not this, what?
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
I think your parents house would need to be worth over £2.8 million to pay that much.
Don't you think it's fair you pay a little more given Band H in Sheffield tops out at £3,788?
Would they get any better services for paying thousands more?
If entirely local, it would be accompanied by a cut in the lower bands. If partly local and partly national, it would contribute to the Exchequer, so other taxes could be reduced elsewhere.
I'm arguing for fiscal rectitude and fair conservatism here, not more spending.
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
I think your parents house would need to be worth over £2.8 million to pay that much.
Don't you think it's fair you pay a little more given Band H in Sheffield tops out at £3,788?
My parents, as am I, are ok with paying extra taxes, but I'm worried about the older folk who do not have the retirement income to pay such taxes. There's someone who lives close to us, and wouldn't be able to afford such a change, she really can't downsize because she's had the house adapted for her disability.
There's plenty of things the government could change that would be affordable to those with decent incomes.
As I thought, Carlotta's dubious numbers from earlier were indeed dodgy...........only time she loves Scotland
How exactly does that prove the numbers she posted were dodgy?
She did not have UK at 7th and only used it as it did not split the countries, her hatred of Scotland ensured she could not show them down the park. If they had been highest in UK , she would have ensured she highlighted it big time.
No, they had the UK at 6th simply because San Marino wasn't included. But the claim she was refuting was that the "UK was worst in Europe". Nothing about England or Scotland, so quite why the constituent parts need to be split when other countries are reported together is beyond me.
In fact, the list you have posted is identical to the one she posted, excluding San Marino. How does that shows her numbers are dodgy and your's aren't?
Name me any other multiple countries rolled up into one.
The claim was regarding the UK's numbers, not those of the constituent parts. Much the same way we aren't looking at Bavaria's numbers, or Catalonia's.
As an aside, this smacks of being one of those policy ploys which happens in advance of the budget every year.
Suggest a morally indefensible tax rise, and then don't do it. Everyone is relieved and no one notices some change that affects 0.9m people, so long as those 0.9m include no journalists or union members.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
One Tory strategist I know is of the belief the moment young people start becoming Tories is the moment they become homeowners.
Don't mess with their homes.
Well, that's true. But you have to get them to being a homeowner first.
Then target private landlords, 1.2m of them own 4.5m houses and flats according to the last report I read. That's where the Tory party has failed since 2010, we didn't do anything to address private rentals that grew under Labour. Now you have to do something about it, Osborne made a great start and the government needs to continue along those lines by making it impossible to make a profit from buying an existing property and renting it out to someone who would otherwise like to own it but for the price.
I always wonder why this isn't a problem in European countries. They must have an enormous number of landlords given everyone there rents.
Home ownership rates are higher in most European countries. It's only the Germanic and Nordic part of Europe that has less home ownership than we do.
One thing that should definitely be taxed off the earth is Russian oligarchs and dodgy Sheiks using empty London flats as a personal bank account, and for thinly-veiled money laundering.
The one ethical argument I can see against equalising the taxes is that there's no liquidity in the house to pay for it. But people already have to pay Council Tax without any liquidity for it already today.
If it were possible to say that those who don't want to or can't pay the tax see a charge placed on the property for when it is next sold instead, then would that answer concerns? An option that doesn't exist for Council Tax.
So people who own a home but don't have an income would gain from an immediate abolition of Council Tax and instead when the house is sold and the equity is released then the charge is realised only at that point?
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
One Tory strategist I know is of the belief the moment young people start becoming Tories is the moment they become homeowners.
Don't mess with their homes.
Well, that's true. But you have to get them to being a homeowner first.
Then target private landlords, 1.2m of them own 4.5m houses and flats according to the last report I read. That's where the Tory party has failed since 2010, we didn't do anything to address private rentals that grew under Labour. Now you have to do something about it, Osborne made a great start and the government needs to continue along those lines by making it impossible to make a profit from buying an existing property and renting it out to someone who would otherwise like to own it but for the price.
I always wonder why this isn't a problem in European countries. They must have an enormous number of landlords given everyone there rents.
Home ownership rates are higher in most European countries. It's only the Germanic and Nordic part of Europe that has less home ownership than we do.
The Liverpool - Man Utd game is always hyped by the media but is pretty much always mediocre/shit.
Two teams scared of losing to each other.
especially with no fans - I like derby and big rival games but find this season no interest in them because of the lack of atmosphere. Its not as if the players are local born or really have any affinity to the clubs they play for anyway
Yeah derbies have completely lost their venom. Can’t wait to get fans back again,
yes derby football is about the coming out to Z cars by the Everton players against Liverpool or (vice versa) them singing You'll never walk alone (which is truly spinetingling at a big match) or the theme from local heroes at the Georgie derbies involving Newcastle. it is now entirely possible to have a derby game where none of the people in the stadium are actually from the cities involved. the below link is not actually a derby but what a rendition!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weec_jzudc8
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
One Tory strategist I know is of the belief the moment young people start becoming Tories is the moment they become homeowners.
Don't mess with their homes.
Well, that's true. But you have to get them to being a homeowner first.
Then target private landlords, 1.2m of them own 4.5m houses and flats according to the last report I read. That's where the Tory party has failed since 2010, we didn't do anything to address private rentals that grew under Labour. Now you have to do something about it, Osborne made a great start and the government needs to continue along those lines by making it impossible to make a profit from buying an existing property and renting it out to someone who would otherwise like to own it but for the price.
I always wonder why this isn't a problem in European countries. They must have an enormous number of landlords given everyone there rents.
It is in lots of Europe, we just don't hear about it. When I first went to live in Zurich they were all bitching about how impossible it was to get on the housing ladder, and this is a bunch of Swiss and international investment bankers.
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
The problem is that if you were to revalue the properties then every property in London - even the most humble - would probably be in the highest band. Revaluing is not sufficient. What would need to happen is a change in the system so that the same property in different parts of the country was put into a different band based on its location and the overall value of property in the region.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
One Tory strategist I know is of the belief the moment young people start becoming Tories is the moment they become homeowners.
Don't mess with their homes.
Well, that's true. But you have to get them to being a homeowner first.
Plenty of new homeowners in the North and Midlands, which is where the Tories made their gains at the 2019GE.
Yes, and look at the challenge, on the flip-side, the Tories face in certain parts of the South.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
One Tory strategist I know is of the belief the moment young people start becoming Tories is the moment they become homeowners.
Don't mess with their homes.
Well, that's true. But you have to get them to being a homeowner first.
Then target private landlords, 1.2m of them own 4.5m houses and flats according to the last report I read. That's where the Tory party has failed since 2010, we didn't do anything to address private rentals that grew under Labour. Now you have to do something about it, Osborne made a great start and the government needs to continue along those lines by making it impossible to make a profit from buying an existing property and renting it out to someone who would otherwise like to own it but for the price.
I always wonder why this isn't a problem in European countries. They must have an enormous number of landlords given everyone there rents.
It is in lots of Europe, we just don't hear about it. When I first went to live in Zurich they were all bitching about how impossible it was to get on the housing ladder, and this is a bunch of Swiss and international investment bankers.
Property tax, if it's at 0.5% will be immensely popular in the north, as almost everyone will have a saving on their council tax and go down like cold sick in the south.
Well, yes. Like @dixiedean it would cut my council tax bill by around half.
However, I can foresee a small snag. If it’s nationally raised, the South East will go apeshit. If it’s locally raised, every county north of Hertford will be instantly bankrupted.
Neither would be popular.
So - which is it to be?
I think the proponent has suggested 2/3 (0.32%) national and redistributed, 1/3 (0.16%) local.
Which would, amazingly, cause the SouthEast to go apeshit *and* bankrupt every council north of Hertford.
A proposal worth exploring ruined by clearly being the work of a total fuckwit.
Wouldn't the 2/3rd component easily make up for the lost revenue from the other third?
It depends on how much the total raised is, doesn’t it? But it seems very unlikely to me. 0.16% would mean around an 80% drop in income for councils in the north, while the rates being bandied about here suggest it would only around double the take in the south.
But council tax isn't flat, so the 2/3rds will be much larger in the areas where the effective rate has gone up. I think I'd need to see some numbers before I'm convinced by your assertion that every council north of Hertford would go bust.
Although interestingly the most recent council to go bust was in London.
Tampering with local government finance at this moment would require great care and an undertaking to raise overall revenue. This proposal doesn’t meet this criteria.
As I thought, Carlotta's dubious numbers from earlier were indeed dodgy...........only time she loves Scotland
How exactly does that prove the numbers she posted were dodgy?
She did not have UK at 7th and only used it as it did not split the countries, her hatred of Scotland ensured she could not show them down the park. If they had been highest in UK , she would have ensured she highlighted it big time.
No, they had the UK at 6th simply because San Marino wasn't included. But the claim she was refuting was that the "UK was worst in Europe". Nothing about England or Scotland, so quite why the constituent parts need to be split when other countries are reported together is beyond me.
In fact, the list you have posted is identical to the one she posted, excluding San Marino. How does that shows her numbers are dodgy and your's aren't?
Name me any other multiple countries rolled up into one.
Flanders and Wallonia. They even have different languages.
The one ethical argument I can see against equalising the taxes is that there's no liquidity in the house to pay for it. But people already have to pay Council Tax without any liquidity for it already today.
If it were possible to say that those who don't want to or can't pay the tax see a charge placed on the property for when it is next sold instead, then would that answer concerns? An option that doesn't exist for Council Tax.
So people who own a home but don't have an income would gain from an immediate abolition of Council Tax and instead when the house is sold and the equity is released then the charge is realised only at that point?
Yes, next sale or roll-up and defer them to death.
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
I think your parents house would need to be worth over £2.8 million to pay that much.
Don't you think it's fair you pay a little more given Band H in Sheffield tops out at £3,788?
My parents, as am I, are ok with paying extra taxes, but I'm worried about the older folk who do not have the retirement income to pay such taxes. There's someone who lives close to us, and wouldn't be able to afford such a change, she really can't downsize because she's had the house adapted for her disability.
There's plenty of things the government could change that would be affordable to those with decent incomes.
Yes, exemptions or discounts for those disabled or unable to move would be needed.
I don't want anyone taxed out of their home, and that's a redline for me.
Property tax, if it's at 0.5% will be immensely popular in the north, as almost everyone will have a saving on their council tax and go down like cold sick in the south.
Well, yes. Like @dixiedean it would cut my council tax bill by around half.
However, I can foresee a small snag. If it’s nationally raised, the South East will go apeshit. If it’s locally raised, every county north of Hertford will be instantly bankrupted.
Neither would be popular.
So - which is it to be?
I think the proponent has suggested 2/3 (0.32%) national and redistributed, 1/3 (0.16%) local.
Which would, amazingly, cause the SouthEast to go apeshit *and* bankrupt every council north of Hertford.
A proposal worth exploring ruined by clearly being the work of a total fuckwit.
Wouldn't the 2/3rd component easily make up for the lost revenue from the other third?
It depends on how much the total raised is, doesn’t it? But it seems very unlikely to me. 0.16% would mean around an 80% drop in income for councils in the north, while the rates being bandied about here suggest it would only around double the take in the south.
But council tax isn't flat, so the 2/3rds will be much larger in the areas where the effective rate has gone up. I think I'd need to see some numbers before I'm convinced by your assertion that every council north of Hertford would go bust.
Although interestingly the most recent council to go bust was in London.
Tampering with local government finance at this moment would require great care and an undertaking to raise overall revenue. This proposal doesn’t meet this criteria.
I'm just saying I'd like to see an actual analysis of the proposal on the finances of various councils. You are the one making the claim they'd all go bust, so it would have been nice to see some quantitative analysis on that.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
One Tory strategist I know is of the belief the moment young people start becoming Tories is the moment they become homeowners.
Don't mess with their homes.
Well, that's true. But you have to get them to being a homeowner first.
Then target private landlords, 1.2m of them own 4.5m houses and flats according to the last report I read. That's where the Tory party has failed since 2010, we didn't do anything to address private rentals that grew under Labour. Now you have to do something about it, Osborne made a great start and the government needs to continue along those lines by making it impossible to make a profit from buying an existing property and renting it out to someone who would otherwise like to own it but for the price.
I always wonder why this isn't a problem in European countries. They must have an enormous number of landlords given everyone there rents.
It is in lots of Europe, we just don't hear about it. When I first went to live in Zurich they were all bitching about how impossible it was to get on the housing ladder, and this is a bunch of Swiss and international investment bankers.
World's smallest violin on standby.
More a comment on people with very high incomes also being locked out of the market because of stratospheric prices and lack of property for sale. I can imagine on lower incomes it's actually impossible to buy a property in Zurich.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
What do you think of adding extra council tax bands, Band I and Band J?
I'd rather that govt stop spaffing money up the wall and talk about tax cuts, rather than rises.
Grow the economy, increase the pie. That is the Conservative way.
Tax rises are coming one way or another. The size of the hole we're in is ginormous.
Declinist....
Objective number one for me, as a Conservative, is a stable and content society. This is so the status quo is broadly maintained, and the economy can continue to grow and we can be prosperous long-term.
The generational gap in politics and wealth is vast, and we must address it. This overrides my proclivity for no wealth or land taxes whatsoever in principle. I think the facts have changed.
Young people have very little asset wealth or savings, whilst older people have a huge amount. It's all in assets and property. We need to find a way of more fairly taxing the nation's wealth base, just a tad more, and cutting taxes on income for working people. I'd even revisit going back to child trust accounts so that those without wealthy parents get, say, £10k to help them start out when they hit 18 or 19.
Otherwise, I fear we'll get full-blown socialism one day, and a completely fragmented society.
Your argument in bold is true, on average, but people like you, and me, and MaxPB are probably a few exceptions I can immediately think of - so is it true for Tory voters? I am not so sure.
Many of my generation are already wealthier than their parents in asset terms (whilst at the same time many are not, and I'll grant you the variation seems much bigger than it did for our parents) - but often stretched. They also have far, far greater outgoings.
Those who are stretched will often have worked hard, foregone luxuries, to secure a home. Any party that screws homeowners as a pure function of the value of their home, more of which is likely to be mortgaged amongst younger voters, is not going to be a party that forms the government.
I understand where you're coming from, but think the key is going to be the tax recoup from boomer estates. By simply failing to increase the threshold on IHT the govt are going to clean up through fiscal drag.
Homeowners won't be screwed, they will just have a small percentage attached. If it was a large percentage then fair enough, but we're talking a very small percentage.
Homeowners here can pay 0.8% to 1% currently but you find it unthinkable that 0.48% could be found in the future elsewhere? Why?
How many times do I need to make this point? Because people's capacity to pay is not a function of the value of their property. Its fine and dandy talking in abstract economic terms in %, but not when it would fundamentally upturn the apple cart of our current economic settlement.
I don't get generate profits from my business as a % of the value of property. Nor to those who get paid PAYE get paid as a % of their property value. And this is before we get into the logistics of valuation, which are often the downfall of socialist asset taxation.
Introducing this policy would lead to immediate recession (if not depression), a house price collapse and a Labour government. Well done for implementing the triple whammy of things you don't want to do immediately after a pandemic which has screwed government finances....
But people have to pay their rent or their mortgage as a percentage.
Why would it lead to a recession? And if it led to a house price collapse then that would mean tax cuts for everyone!
Which leads to a revenue shortfall and the rate having to be increased. It's a completely stupid idea. Property taxes are good for forcing behavioural change because markets are rational.
Markets are rational yes, by and large. Currently the market is distorted with a regressive tax and a planning system that is designed to price people out of owning their own home by design.
A flat tax is a simple free market move.
No it isn't. The market is "distorted" by desirability. No one lives in Westminster or Camden because council tax is low as a percentage of property prices. What you're doing is penalising success. It's the politics of envy, and something I expect from Jez, not from Rishi.
If "desirability" were the only factor then why do leafy suburbs with expensive houses and a green belt around them not just build more houses to fill the desire? Why is the supply of houses constrained to artificially inflate house prices and burden those who need to pay to live there?
You've clearly not been to any of these places. There is an insane amount of development in the outer London boroughs and Hertfordshire. You can't walk around without seeing a building site every couple of minutes putting up flats and houses.
House prices are high because lots of people want to live here and because owner occupiers are having to compete with landlords who have interest allowable at the basic rate.
Fuck the landlords off with your taxes, leave my home in peace or your party will face a reckoning at the ballot box just as Mrs May did.
The amount of personal LLs investing in London plummeted since the Osborne attacks.
The thing that mainly matters when deciding LL tax is the impact on Ts.
For me up here, the proposed change of liability from T to LL is a movement equivalent to approx 20% of the entire revenue, but I think all my Ts would agree to a near-identical rent increase, as they would be no worse off.
As it is across the piece I would expect an across-market adjustment for the large majority of the change - perhaps subject to unwinding of current anomalous CT values.
The rub would be if they tried to do the Osborne thing and pretend that business expenses are not business expenses.
But precedents exist for occupied rented properties not being double taxed.
Comments
Two teams scared of losing to each other.
(2) It would be revenue neutral. So people gaining money from not being overtaxed as much would increase spending, wouldn't that bring about economic growth?
Plus if existing owner occupiers choose to downsize then they can do so without stamp duty. They would be massive winners.
Thanks. Wish they’d just post the daily numbers rather than daft bar charts.
We have gone down on yesterday then? Not good if so.
It's expected as it's a weekend, the WoW growth will be quite impressive and we've still got numbers to come from Scotland and Wales.
Or at least I bloody well hope so.
15 Conservative
32 Labour
3 Lib Dem
Top 100
47 Conservative
48 Labour
5 Lib Dem
Keep fighting the good fight, Phillip. I’m impressed there are some free thinkers in the Tory party.
Should be possible to design to be roughly neutral.
Yes down a bit. But still probably doing 330k across UK. It will be 500k/day this time next week.
So at normal Stamp Duty rates, someone would save £258,750 in Stamp Duty, and presumably the price would adjust in some manner.
Saturday I guess - today's numbers (published tomorrow) will also be down, I suspect. Need to be up to 400k on weekdays soon, and try and get away from the weekend lull. War footing and all that.
But don't worry, no-one will care massively about the vaccine numbers when Phil T crashes the economy and house prices at the same time....
Plus an incentive to downsize in retirement could do wonders for the housing shortage. Downward pressure on prices too.
If the Tories don't do it, then Labour should.
Plan is to get 50 open asap.
I have created a successful business and generated significant assets for myself. In the meantime I have paid a shed load of tax, contributed to the BoP and employed people. In addition to the personal tax I have paid.
Wealth taxes are a further grab on the those who already bear the greatest burden. I am staggered to see people in the Conservative party entertain them....
It sounds like you don't object in principle to an asset tax, just one that targets the primary residence that people live in.
I have sympathy with that.
Looking on a phone so not ideal. Happy to accept a slight decline at weekends but also share @Mortimer ‘s view that we should start letting this be “a thing”. The virus doesn’t stop for roast beef and a good Malbec.
edit, see you say it was £1.2m.
0.48 of 1,200,000 id £5,760
So it'd take them 3 and a bit years to pay £18k
House prices are high because lots of people want to live here and because owner occupiers are having to compete with landlords who have interest allowable at the basic rate.
Fuck the landlords off with your taxes, leave my home in peace or your party will face a reckoning at the ballot box just as Mrs May did.
I can be in Highlands, Borders, Edinburgh , etc all within a couple of hours. No need to be stuck in madding crowds like packs of seals, hard to beat.
In fact, the list you have posted is identical to the one she posted, excluding San Marino. How does that shows her numbers are dodgy and your's aren't?
Don't you think it's fair you pay a little more given Band H in Sheffield tops out at £3,788?
However, General HYUFD will probably order a tank battalion down to Dorset for my even conceding that notion....
So currently eg £1200 off a £150k home, 0.8%.
That home then goes down to £720 of which £240 is local and £480 goes to a national pot.
Million pound home elsewhere pays £4,800k per annum of which £3,200k goes to the national pot.
Should be possible to balance those numbers.
We also need to see how the current COVID changes will help or hinder adjustments.
Rich people in London will perhaps pay less as their house prices are about to adjust down (!)
I can see "SDLT IS NEVER COMING BACK" being a good political slogan.
And the original tax proposals from the Fairer Shares Campaign included a possibility of rolling up tax until you sell if necessary.
https://fairershare.org.uk/faq/#how-will-the-ppt-affect-a-pensioner-living-in-an-expensive-home-with-little-or-no-income
Having said that, mild reforms are possible, as your hero George Osborne showed.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
I wouldn't touch IHT, I agree.
One to be slowly unwound. Not by Phil T upturning the apple cart.
Under this proposal if a Council constrains planning permission it keeps house prices high but everyone pays extra tax for that. If a Council grants extra planning permission it reduces house prices, increasing affordability, and everyone in the area gets a tax cut.
Allowing more houses to be built and giving everyone a tax cut as a result and getting more onto the ladder should be a good thing.
It seems quite obvious to me.
You are a whining creepy pompous self opinionated clown who knows little.
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
Edit to add:
Plus it would lead to a net growth in the number of homeowners.
Luckily, more people in the Tory party think like Max than Phil.....
Numbers of friends building houses in Scotlandshire tell me that selling anything large and highlands has been a bit of a bloodbath for the last few years.
But that is anecdata.
To pretend otherwise is cakeism.
But that's the bit of the equation the Tories didn't emphasise.
So, if not this, what?
I'm arguing for fiscal rectitude and fair conservatism here, not more spending.
That's why I'm not a socialist.
There's plenty of things the government could change that would be affordable to those with decent incomes.
Suggest a morally indefensible tax rise, and then don't do it. Everyone is relieved and no one notices some change that affects 0.9m people, so long as those 0.9m include no journalists or union members.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/246355/home-ownership-rate-in-europe/
If it were possible to say that those who don't want to or can't pay the tax see a charge placed on the property for when it is next sold instead, then would that answer concerns? An option that doesn't exist for Council Tax.
So people who own a home but don't have an income would gain from an immediate abolition of Council Tax and instead when the house is sold and the equity is released then the charge is realised only at that point?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54907185
Although interestingly the most recent council to go bust was in London.
Tampering with local government finance at this moment would require great care and an undertaking to raise overall revenue. This proposal doesn’t meet this criteria.
I don't want anyone taxed out of their home, and that's a redline for me.
The thing that mainly matters when deciding LL tax is the impact on Ts.
For me up here, the proposed change of liability from T to LL is a movement equivalent to approx 20% of the entire revenue, but I think all my Ts would agree to a near-identical rent increase, as they would be no worse off.
As it is across the piece I would expect an across-market adjustment for the large majority of the change - perhaps subject to unwinding of current anomalous CT values.
The rub would be if they tried to do the Osborne thing and pretend that business expenses are not business expenses.
But precedents exist for occupied rented properties not being double taxed.