I suppose the naive answer is that housing costs are a function of a market which is driven by ability of occupants to pay, so you would expect higher housing costs to have some material correlation to higher incomes (not in all cases - I mean Cornwall is a prime counter-example).
Daniel in Cornwall
@danielincornwall.bsky.social
150 Followers
366 Following
Chilli growing, photography, cooking stuff, rugby watching, paddle boarding, occasional Land Rovers and general Cornwall things. Also tax. Mostly in Penzance, sometimes London. Not Cornish.
-
-
“Chancellor pioneers world-first inverse land value tax” would be quite the headline - imagine all the other policies you could slip under the radar in that context.
-
Thank you. I’d seen that thread but not had time to read it - glad I have now (it’s a lot clearer than the original report I think). It’s not a bad idea except that multi decade transitions tend to be challenging in a tax system where most innovations last 2-3 parliaments at most.
-
sure, that’s a reasonable debate (taking into account relative salaries in public sector etc) but surely shouldn’t drive IHT policy?
-
because it’s rolled up and paid when you sell (at least that’s how i read it - presumably because it is too difficult to impose a year by year cash liability on asset rich but cash poor pensioners etc). If paid annually obvs no issue.
-
I think it’s a bad idea. It reads like a complicated way of synthesising some of the outcomes of removing PPR while trying to avoid the unpopularity of removing PPR.
-
Funny how the English version of the inaccurate term isn't holistay.
-
as I understand it, it imposes an annual charge on expensive homes which is paid at the point of sale and replaces the "primary" component of SDLT rather than the "additional home" component which would stay unchanged. So the longer you are there, the bigger the disincentive to sell. No forcing out.
-
yes, because they think they will achieve greater value (higher income and retained surplus) through this route - if they "win" that bet, then the surplus forms part of their estate for IHT purposes.
-
Yeah that was the conclusion I reached in some other discussions too (tbf I did not think the Onward proposal is very clear on the tricky bits about when the high value property tax is paid, how you deal with seller cash deficits/value decrease etc but I may be being unfair based on a quick read)