Labour plans and house prices

Innys1

padington wrote: »

Do you think it might be possible that cheaper properties well under 2 million might become more sort after and increase in price whilst properties anywhere near 2 million and over will become much less sort after and crash in price ?

Absolutely. Plus, as someone else has said, large houses may well be split into flats.

Thrugelmir

Innys1 wrote: »

You think HMRC will wait another 40 odd years? Dream on.

That's the Labour plan. :eek:

padington

The proposed tax looks like it's only 1% tax over 2 million a year. So a 2k property pays nothing & a 2.5k property pays 5k a year.
This 2 million threshold will also be increased by the rate of 'inflation' every year so there is no slippage and the money only paid in your lifetime if you can afford it.

I think it's a pretty good way of paying back the national debt myself. It's quite easy to police and it's proportionally fair.

Also I doubt it will result in homes split into flats because the tax will be served on your entire property portfolio, regardless of how it is split up.

I guess it's possible this will push up rent for tenants living in 2 million plus property's but it won't for tenants living less than 2 million properties (or portfolio's) giving the small buy to let person, an upper hand.

Perhaps just a case of sour grapes by those rich enough to know better ?

Graham_Devon

Innys1 wrote: »

All the houses in the immediate area are likely to be affected so the market rent will go up.

I, along with the other local landlords, will simply put the rent up at the end of the fixed term contract. As it happens, the tenancy is currently a periodic one anyway which I will let run until I know the result of the GE.

I don't think many landlords will simply wear this tax. I certainly won't as I'm already paying income tax on the rent as, indeed, will most landlords be of properties worth £2m.

BTL - The easiest business in the land, apparently!

Thrugelmir

padington wrote: »

It's quite easy to police and it's proportionally fair.

Will the cost of policing be financially economic?

padington

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Will the cost of policing be financially economic?

Would imagine so yeah, it could be fairly retrospective, when the property sells, if it sells for much more than was claimed all those years, you simply owe a shed load more and you won't get the money until you pay the tax.

... And if the difference is staggeringly different, you pay a fine on top.

yertiz_2

IronWolf wrote: »

I'd agree with this.

Why should a pensioner with little income but a house worth £2m because they bought it 40 years ago, have to pay such huge taxes?

And this will be just the start, mark my words, soon everyone will be paying the 'house tax'. ** Income tax was a 'temporary' tax to pay for the war with France, 200 years later this temporary tax is still in force.**

** Income tax 1799 introduced by William Pitt the Younger (Tory)
PAYE 1944 introduced by Winston Churchill (Tory)

For further information see 'A Brief History of Income Tax'
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/history/index.htm

CLAPTON

padington wrote: »

Would imagine so yeah, it could be fairly retrospective, when the property sells, if it sells for much more than was claimed all those years, you simply owe a shed load more and you won't get the money until you pay the tax.

... And if the difference is staggeringly different, you pay a fine on top.

is 100% of this stuff a fantasy or is there a little that based on some actual proposals?

padington

CLAPTON wrote: »

is 100% of this stuff a fantasy or is there a little that based on some actual proposals?

We'll it's such a concrete tax in that it can be determined when the property sells with accuracy, it's obvious that this tax could be policed quite easily.

CLAPTON

padington wrote: »

We'll it's such a concrete tax in that it can be determined when the property sells with accuracy, it's obvious that this tax could be policed quite easily.

so basically, it's all made up