Why I like the 'mansion tax'

Ed Bowsher
by Lovemoney Staff Ed Bowsher on 23 September 2009  |  Comments 18 comments

I support Vince Cable's plan to tax homes worth more than £1m.

Vince Cable's plan to introduce an annual 0.5% tax on expensive homes makes a lot of sense to me.

In fact, I very nearly suggested an increased property tax in my blog post last week: Which taxes should go up?  I held back because I thought it just wouldn't be politically feasible, but Vince Cable's courage has emboldened me to say my piece.

So here's why I support a mansion tax:

  • A tax on property is hard to avoid. High-earners can employ fancy accountants who are good at keeping tax bills down, but there's not a lot accountants can do about property taxes. OK, rich folk could always leave the UK to avoid the tax, but I suspect that a 0.5% tax isn't going to trigger a big migration of talent. And plenty of other countries have property taxes anyway.
     
  • Taxes on income are a disincentive for hard work and enterprise. The harder you work, the more tax you pay. Property taxes are different.
     
  • A property tax might make a small dent in the British obsession with property. Too many people think that property is the best way to build a fortune. It's worked for some people, but if we are to build a successful economy for the long-term, we need to shift some of our talent - and our capital - to other areas.
     
  • The government needs to boost its tax revenues. A property tax can help with this.
     
  • Yes, some people who live in expensive homes but have low incomes might be forced to move. Especially some pensioners. You could get round this by saying there's an exemption for people over 70. Or you could be brutal and introduce the tax across the board. It might force some people to sell their homes, but that would help to stop a new house price boom from taking off. 

Do I think a mansion tax will be introduced in the near future? 

No. 

I suspect it would be an extremely unpopular move. Even amongst Brits who will never be able to buy a £1m house. 

I also think the Lib Dems haven't done much joined-up thinking on this. Since the party's inception in the late 80s, its policy has been to introduce a local income tax and not have any local property tax. I oppose that shift away from property taxation, but it does seem strange that the Lib Dems want to abolish local property tax at the same time as introducing a national property tax.

Valuation would also be a challenge. A new national property valuation would probably make the tax even more unpopular. 

Moving away from property tax, I'm conscious that I said last week I'd write a post on public expenditure cuts. I haven't written it as quickly as I intended, but it will appear eventually. 

More: Good Guardian post on mansion tax

Read more of my blog posts here.

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (18)

  • alucarDrM
    Love rating 1
    alucarDrM said

    Any particular reason you favour yet another tax, instead of modifying the current one i.e. council tax?

    For example introducing new upper bands, or raising/removing the cap on the top band?

    A new tax would require more red tape than changing the old one, thus would be cheaper to administer.

    It would take into account second, third, fourth homes in this country.

    Those who are not in a position to pay council tax at the moment would still remain in the same position, instead of having to apply for yet another exemption.

    Report on 23 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Ed Bowsher
    Love rating 79
    Ed Bowsher said

    Hi alucar,

    Yes, that's a fair point. Modifying council tax might well be simpler.

    Regards,

    Ed

    Report on 24 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • lilmonkey
    Love rating 1
    lilmonkey said

    Personally i am kind of in favour, but certainly see the problem with people who may have ended up in an expensive home and do not have the income to supprt it.

    Personally i would prefer to see a MASSIVE tax on 2nd homes or multiple homes in order to deter the rich from buying up all of the houses to rent to the poor (in fact the masses these days). Maybe if the tax cost on owning a buy-to-let or 2nd home was significant, then these homes would come to the common market, prices would fall, and more 1st time buyer would stand a chance of buying a home.

    I was lucky that i just bought my 1st house before prices went loopy, even now, i would not be able to afford to get onto the property market if i had not managed to get in early.

    Stop people profiting from these stupid prices and the misery of the people unfortunat enough to be forced to rent, saving up to buy a property only to be repeatedly knocked out of the game buy some fat cat.

    Rant over ;)

    Report on 24 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • dealtn
    Love rating 1
    dealtn said

    Such a tax is merely a means of wealth redistribution, which you can argue may or may not be a good thing socially. it is unlikely to be a good thing economically. (All) taxes are inefficient and have a cost in terms of administration, collection but most importantly introducing an economic wedge between the markets ability to match supply and demand.

    We already have one of the most complicated tax systems (hence least efficient) in the developed world - although bizarrely this creates lots of (uneconomic?) work for accountants, tax collectors etc all of which add to our GDP.

    On the workings of wealth redistribution consider someone with a large income already pays absolutely more tax, even on a flat rate tax system. The UK, like most other administrations has a progressive tax rate system which considerably adds to the tax burden on the income rich - the marginal rate of tax on such individuals is already set to rise to 50+% next year. Now if you add further taxes it's not too difficult to imagine the disincentive to work harder, stay in the country etc for some of these individuals. Wealth redistribution may ensure the less well off result in a larger slice of the pie but consider the impact of the policies achieving this and the impact on the size of the pie being sliced up. In a one man one vote democracy its easy to sell the idea on its popularity - the poor exceed the rich in numbers but some cost is felt by all not just the "affected" rich.

    An 0.5% tax doesn't sound significant, but on a £1m property thats £5,000 each year to be paid out of already taxed income, say approx £10,000. Over a period of 10 plus years this is significant money (disincentive) to attract wealth creators to the country or home grown talent to stay.

    Report on 24 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • SevenPillars
    Love rating 70
    SevenPillars said

    As the most likely alternative Government, the Conservatives are never likely to introduce something like this as it will largely effect their support. Nick Clegg was right in his speech yesterday when he said that as house prices and the debt burden rose over the 10 years up to the bubble bursting in 2007, the Tories said nothing. They were too busy on the same gravy train as NuLabour.

    Another point is that as house prices rose, the vested interests of the industry were always very good at getting thresholds raised ever higher, like stamp duty. No sooner was this raised then house prices usually went up again, and the VI's were back with the begging bowl for it to be lifted further.

    Of course, we are some way from the average price of a house reaching £1million, but all it might take is another loose lending binge coupled with a good dose of Government/Central Bank sponsored inflation, a mantra of it's different this time and within 10-15 years we could be there! Everyone would be living in a mansion, what a privilege.

    Report on 24 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LAWR3NC3
    Love rating 9
    LAWR3NC3 said

    I agree with dealtn & others who opose this idea; from the standpoint that all tax is bad (as it acts as a disincentive to hard work & enterprise - first in its immediate impact &, second, it enables the funding of an increasingly dependent society) while wealth distribution taxes are morally questionable.

    There are 2 old (& increasingly ignored) principles of 'honest taxation'.

    (1) Do not make it retrospective - where is the moral justification in imposing financial penalties on someone AFTER they have spent their money? Example: forcing people to fix catalytic converters to their old cars. Of course they could sell the car & buy a bike, so they still have a choice! If a new tax is imposed on your house again the owner always has the option to sell up & rent! (Both the car & the house will of course have lost value as the new costs will need to be covered by the next owners - doesn't look very fair to me.)

    (2)  Do not tax a person more than once on either income or their possessions. Why? because it is dishonest! Why is it dishonest? Because you are trying to hide the real extent of the tax. Why would you do that? Because it would seem unfair if you applied the tax openly.  Example: What is the basic rate of tax on taxable income? 20% (I do not think so) - try 31% with NI Conts! Now I wonder why those 2 taxes are not combined?

    How many taxes are already applied to home ownership? Stamp duty; Council tax; CGT on sale of second homes; IHT on death ... the list goes on. How about a bit of honesty in the tax system? And one more point: Does anyone really believe that the 'smart people' are not going to get around this 'wrecking ball tax'? Do I see the advent of a plethora of short term, renewable leases on expensive properties coming to the market, instead of outright ownership? Of course the elderly widow who has lived most of her life in some rambling & decrepit 'mansion' won't think of that; but the yuppy couple who buy her out certainly will.

    Report on 24 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • alucarDrM
    Love rating 1
    alucarDrM said

    dealtn:

    "An 0.5% tax doesn't sound significant, but on a £1m property thats

    £5,000 each year to be paid out of already taxed income, say approx

    £10,000."

    Erm - as proposed, the tax on a £1m propertery would be zero.

    Report on 24 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LAWR3NC3
    Love rating 9
    LAWR3NC3 said

    I would really like to hear the tax man agree not to collect £5k of tax on a property because it was worth 1p under the threshold, alucarDrM.

    I think it would be dangerously naive to assume that anyone owning a property 'worth' over £950k wont end up paying this 'nonsense tax'.

    HstG

    Report on 25 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • hsymonds
    Love rating 2
    hsymonds said

    How much would it take to administer?

    It is another tax!

    We are already overtaxed. The emphasis should be on radically reducing unnecessary expenditure first before raising more taxes.

    Finding ever more complex and ingenious methods of taxing us is poltically lazy.

    Apart from these objections any party introducing this kind of tax would find themselves voted out of office for a very long time.

    Report on 26 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • aa
    Love rating 0
    aa said

    I think a tax on home valued over £1m is a great idea. 

    I also think and would prefer to see a MASSIVE tax on 2nd or homes or multiple homes in order to deter the rich from buying up all of the houses to rent to the poor (in fact the masses these days). Maybe if the tax cost on owning a buy-to-let or 2nd home was significant, then these homes would become availabe to the common market, prices would fall or stablize, and more 1st time buyer would stand a chance of buying a home.

    Report on 27 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • aa
    Love rating 0
    aa said

    Contrary to what "hsymonds" said earlier, the majority of people in the UK do not live in homes over £1m or more so the idea of the Mansion Tax is a good idea and any sensible political party should consider introducing this kind of tax on home valued above £1m and the multiple homes as soon as.

    Report on 27 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • aa
    Love rating 0
    aa said

    I also agree with both "alucarDrM" and "Ed Bowsher" that the "Mansion Tax" or tax for homes valued over £1m can be incorporated into a newly modified Council Tax specially taking into account second, third, and multiple homes under single or joint ownership when the beneficiary is one or joint parties. In time even if this becomes law, there are individuals who manage to avoid paying the Mansion tax as they would create loopholes to bypass this form of Mansion Tax.

    Report on 27 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • alucarDrM
    Love rating 1
    alucarDrM said

    LAWR3NC3:"I would really like to hear the tax man agree not to collect £5k of tax on a property because it was worth 1p under the threshold, alucarDrM."

    Well since the tax, as proposed by the LD's, is going to be on the amount over £1M, and not the whole amount, they're not going to collect very much on a property worth near £1M.

    It's like the 40% tax band - it's not taken on all your income, just the bit that's over the 40% limit.

    Report on 27 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • SiGl26
    Love rating 26
    SiGl26 said

    How about cutting dependency on the state, encourage self-reliance and responsibility and cutting tax for EVERYONE? Of course, if one works for the state (centrally and locally, one is unlikely to vote out of office the administration that put you there.

    Report on 27 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • UpHillAllTheWay
    Love rating 38
    UpHillAllTheWay said

    One way or another, unlike the German economy, the New Labour government did not "fix the roof while the sun was shining", so we have a colossal national debt to service. The money has to come from somewhere.

    I would like to see a referendum laying out all the sources it could come from, with the request to everybody to decide what percentage of the money should be collected from each source - then take the average. I really think the current situation is 'big' enough to warrant a referendum.

    Report on 28 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LAWR3NC3
    Love rating 9
    LAWR3NC3 said

    Woops alucarDrM your post prompted me to go & read what Cable is proposing (- which I clearly should have done before making my comment). Even so, this tax is still palpably unjust - 'tho not to the same extent as I had originally thought.

    It is always wise to take every new tax to its natural conclusion: generally speaking these expensive properties (250k of them aperently) do not generate income, but can be categorised as being high in maintenance. Hence (1) this tax cannot be passed on or offset. So eventually these properties will only be owned by people who have high incomes - this is social engineering via tax & historical precedent shows these almost always fail! (2) The owners in question already pay more tax than every one else. If they are to pay more tax, then increase their income tax rate or reduce their allowances - don't go 'round the houses' to concoct a new obscure tax. (3) This seems to be a 'voluntary tax' & would this not be a disincentive to people building extensions, swimming pools, tennis courts etc... if they were going to end up paying 1/2% of the increased value for ever & a day?

    HstG. 

    Report on 28 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Ed Bowsher
    Love rating 79
    Ed Bowsher said

    Hi Lawr3nc3,

    The owners in question already pay more tax than every one else. If they are to pay more tax, then increase their income tax rate or reduce their allowances.

    I disagree. The point is that some wealthy people are good at avoiding income tax and property tax is a better way of making sure they pay up.

    The other point is that an increase in income tax doesn't encourage people to work hard. Property tax isn't so damaging in that respect.

    In my view, it's perfectly reasonable to tax property more. Brits don't like it because we have this ridiculous obsession with bricks and mortar. But that obsession is not in the national interest. 

    Yes, there are plenty of people who have made good money from property, but our obsession means it's hard for younger folk to own their home and it also means that too many people see property as the way to make cash instead of focusing on areas of the economy that are more productive for all of us.

    Ed

    Report on 29 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • polly5
    Love rating 0
    polly5 said

    I think a fairer council tax would be based on the square metres a person has.Why should someone pay a high band if they dont have a garden or garage ,for example.The Uk has the most expensive council tax in Europe,it fsvours the rich.if someone lives in a small flat why should they pay 1000k in council tax,thats crippling.There has to be a fairer system.

    Report on 14 March 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Provider & account name Credit rate (AER)
Based on £1
Overdraft
rate

Based on £1
Apply
now

first direct 1st Account

N/A 0% Apply

Nationwide BS FlexPlus

3.0% 0% plus £0.50 per day usage fee Apply

Santander 123 Current Account

0.0% 0% plus £1.00 per day usage fee Apply
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV2