Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
fru-gal

Labour's Mansion Tax Is "unnecessarily Complicated" And Imply £16,000 Charge On Properties Over £3M, Says Ifs

Recommended Posts

They should rebase council tax as the article says with more bands. The danger is that after HPC too much will be in the lower bands. :D

Why? Tenants pay council tax. Why should a tenant have to pay more because their landlord's property has gone up in value?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think they would pay more? I'm talking about scrapping the current bands/values and revaluing on current prices so current bands would map roughly to their equivalent 2015 valuation. If you have a larger number of bands some might pay more, some might pay less.

Probably won't happen anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

£16,000 on £3,000,000.

So barely 0.5% of its value.

Meanwhile, if you have a £25,000 back to back terrace in Burnley, you still pay £1,000, ie 4%.

Have a flat 1% rate for everyone.

£250.00 for the Burnley terrace, £30,000 for the London thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Window tax. Mansions will have more windows - so more tax.

Brick them up, and the value will fall.

Brick tax. Someone will find a way to build a house with 4 very large bricks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

winging idiots. Seriously.

got a 3m pad, that goes up in value automatically because bricks do that in this country...even by 1% thats 30k. Just for sitting in a field. Houses cant even sing or play the piano.

They're probably right now at the boot sales too, haggling the 50p book man down to 45p.

Happily pay the Apple tax on overpirced goods, happily pay the range rover/mercedes tax..because "theyre worth it"...but god forbid half of the automatic rise in price is actually handed over.

It takes the good citizens around 10 years to save 30k for a deposit. Their house will make it in 1yr at a 1% property price increase. Am I meant to feel any sorrow for these folks? I feel more for a beggar or a rat with a sore leg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think they would pay more? I'm talking about scrapping the current bands/values and revaluing on current prices so current bands would map roughly to their equivalent 2015 valuation. If you have a larger number of bands some might pay more, some might pay less.

Probably won't happen anyway.

Why not base council tax on, say, property size rather than value? i.e. per square metre floor space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not base council tax on, say, property size rather than value? i.e. per square metre floor space.

Because a property in an area buoyed by greater taxpayer investment, subsidies and opportunity (and say next to a new everybody-funded crossrail station) is not the same as one in nowhereville with little work or infrastructure spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not base council tax on, say, property size rather than value? i.e. per square metre floor space.

Because it means a £5 million pound 80 sq metre "mansion flat" in Kensington pays less than a 100 sq metre terrace house in Grimsby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because a property in an area buoyed by greater taxpayer investment, subsidies and opportunity (and say next to a new everybody-funded crossrail station) is not the same as one in nowhereville with little work or infrastructure spending.

Because it means a £5 million pound 80 sq metre "mansion flat" in Kensington pays less than a 100 sq metre terrace house in Grimsby.

Good points. I guess the idea sounded good when typing it :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

£16,000 on £3,000,000.

So barely 0.5% of its value.

Meanwhile, if you have a £25,000 back to back terrace in Burnley, you still pay £1,000, ie 4%.

Have a flat 1% rate for everyone.

£250.00 for the Burnley terrace, £30,000 for the London thing.

That would mean me paying £4k per year for the luxury of paying to rent my landlord's property :huh: (or do you mean Mansion Tax for all)?

Edited by fru-gal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would mean me paying £4k per year for the luxury of paying to rent my landlord's property :huh: (or do you mean Mansion Tax for all)?

Except it wouldn't because assuming you don't have an extra £3k p/a lying about and neither does anyone else in that bracket the rent would have to fall by £3k (and thus the price) to offset. Alternatively nobody could afford to rent, so landlords couldn't afford to let, and sell/prices fall for the same result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not base council tax on, say, property size rather than value? i.e. per square metre floor space.

I think there is a case to be made that there should be a value weighting, and a LVT weighting...as they effectively have in the US.

Obviously its dumb to have a an X-LA house in Bradford pay the same as one in Harrow, just because they both occupy 1/6th of an acre...given the value difference and land shortage caused by Greenbelt in and around London.

Some of these land hungry mansions in Surrey should be paying six figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would mean me paying £4k per year for the luxury of paying to rent my landlord's property :huh: (or do you mean Mansion Tax for all)?

Well...admittedly I would have such a tax for reasons different to labour. I'd tax to assist a fall in property prices and to encourage more equitable use of land within the greenbelt...Labour taxes just because they think it will get revenues. I couldnt really care less about revenues...revenue neutral would be fine. Smaller houses pay less, bigger more.

What is your current council tax bill and is it a house or a flat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...admittedly I would have such a tax for reasons different to labour. I'd tax to assist a fall in property prices and to encourage more equitable use of land within the greenbelt...Labour taxes just because they think it will get revenues. I couldnt really care less about revenues...revenue neutral would be fine. Smaller houses pay less, bigger more.

What is your current council tax bill and is it a house or a flat?

It's a flat and current bill is about £1,300 per year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a flat and current bill is about £1,300 per year.

Under my proposals a flat, due to its low usage of development land, would almost certainly attract a lower bill (unless its in a few very select boroughs in London)

So if its a 2000sq ft flat in Kensington, sorry, you might pay more. :)

I did try and work out the rates that would be paid for every property in small village close to me...added up all bills and all bands to get a total revenue figure. Used the councils GIS system to estimate the space for development and then looked at the sale prices...gave up though. Taking too long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a flat and current bill is about £1,300 per year.

Council tax is paid by the landlord.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence

In economics, tax incidence is the analysis of the effect of a particular tax on the distribution of economic welfare. Tax incidence is said to "fall" upon the group that ultimately bears the burden of, or ultimately has to pay, the tax. The key concept is that the tax incidence or tax burden does not depend on where the revenue is collected, but on the price elasticity of demand and price elasticity of supply. The concept was brought to attention by the French Physiocrats and in particular François Quesnay who argued that the incidence of all taxation falls ultimately on landowners and is at the expense of land rent. For this reason they advocated the replacement of the multiplicity of contemporary taxes by the Impôt Unique, which is similar to what would later be known by Georgists as a 'Single-Tax' on land value. A leading advocate of this tax was Turgot. Physiocrats were correct in their analysis of the tax incidence of land value tax, that it benefits society and falls entirely on landlords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. I have to pay the council tax. It is in my AST. I have never rented a place where the landlord pays the council tax.

You're missing the nuance of that text. Ultimately, though you physically pay the council tax, it comes at the cost of reduced rent to the landlord.

Eg.

You take home £1000pm.

Your living expenses excluding rent comes to £300

Council tax is £100

That leaves £600 that you can spend on rent, which goes to the landlord.

Eg (rise in council tax):

You take home £1000pm.

Your living expenses excluding rent comes to £300

Council tax is £300

That leaves £400 that you can spend on rent, which goes to the landlord.

You don't lose out, the landlord loses out on £200 rent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Council tax goes to councils.

Mansion tax goes to the treasury.

Should do both, but I doubt Kensington council is short of funds and wont be financing nhs in, say, Newcastle.

Anyway, Mad Dave will make raising taxes illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're missing the nuance of that text. Ultimately, though you physically pay the council tax, it comes at the cost of reduced rent to the landlord.

Eg.

You take home £1000pm.

Your living expenses excluding rent comes to £300

Council tax is £100

That leaves £600 that you can spend on rent, which goes to the landlord.

Eg (rise in council tax):

You take home £1000pm.

Your living expenses excluding rent comes to £300

Council tax is £300

That leaves £400 that you can spend on rent, which goes to the landlord.

You don't lose out, the landlord loses out on £200 rent.

I didn't miss the nuance. I think it's the opposite. All us mugs paying council tax get to pay for improvements to our local area which increase the value of our landlords assets. So what my landlord has potentially lost out in rent (although in London I am not sure this is the case), he has been compensated for in terms of an increase in the value of his property because council tax is also spent improving the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't miss the nuance. I think it's the opposite. All us mugs paying council tax get to pay for improvements to our local area which increase the value of our landlords assets. So what my landlord has potentially lost out in rent (although in London I am not sure this is the case), he has been compensated for in terms of an increase in the value of his property because council tax is also spent improving the area.

But if the landlord paid the council tax directly, your rent would be higher. And he'd get the rise in value anyway.

But never mind, I've just elaborated on what BuyToLeech meant, up to you to use the information or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   41 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.