If you can manage financially - would you pay more tax, for better public services?

100% yes.

SporeRB

^Katie590
You can’t expect a nation to prosper when 1/3 of its assets are unproductive, at least residential rental properties are producing income for the government through taxation, owner occupied provide very little.^

Owner occupied properties raised a huge amount of tax for the local government in the form of council tax. Estimated 46.9 billion in 2024 equivalent to £1620 per household.

IMHO, British people are already up to their eyeballs in taxation and should not be paying anymore.

Yes, but we are paying for the services that council provides, its only 1% of the capital value and inflation is always much more, that’s why councils just can’t keep up with the services we all want.

Renters also pay council tax and don’t have the house price inflation to offset the council tax, they have a really bad deal.

^Katie590
You can’t expect a nation to prosper when 1/3 of its assets are unproductive, at least residential rental properties are producing income for the government through taxation, owner occupied provide very little.^

Owner occupied properties raised a huge amount of tax for the local government in the form of council tax. Estimated 46.9 billion in 2024 equivalent to £1620 per household.

IMHO, British people are already up to their eyeballs in taxation and should not be paying anymore.

When you buy a freehold property you are investing in the land. As far as the law is concerned, whatever buildings are on it might enhance the value but are otherwise totally irrelevant,

Joseann

If you look at it another way it's the real estate - the land under your house - that appreciates in value faster than the building itself. That isn't a tangible asset as such, but you can't have a house without it.

Thank you.

Land is the real tangible value.

It’s so true. I have recounted many times the work and sacrifice I put in in order to obtain my professional qualification and the very long hours I worked. It may sound like a cliche, but I will never forget driving to the station early each morning past the social housing development with all curtains closed.

Joseann

^They envy those with money and want to get their hands on it^. Do you think they have any understanding of how much effort and personal sacrifice and discipline goes into becoming wealthy? And in some cases, how much risk is undertaken.

The older I get, the more I realise this is true.

I do think, in years gone by, there were some landed gentry types. But even those seem to sometimes "struggle" nowadays. I did put struggle in inverted commas though.

They envy those with money and want to get their hands on it. Do you think they have any understanding of how much effort and personal sacrifice and discipline goes into becoming wealthy? And in some cases, how much risk is undertaken.

If you look at it another way it's the real estate - the land under your house - that appreciates in value faster than the building itself. That isn't a tangible asset as such, but you can't have a house without it.

Casdon

Is it likely that the high proportion of Tory voters with no qualifications all work then, whist the high proportion of Labour and Lib Dem voters with degree level qualifications don’t? Could you talk us through your rationale on that?

We know that many older people vote for the Conservatives. The older they are, the less likely they are to have formal qualifications (obviously there are exceptions before anyone jumps on that) and the less likely they are to be economically active. However, possession of qualifications is not an indicator of economic activity. Many well-qualified people (on paper) are unemployed as we surely all know. My position remains that those who support Labour are more likely to have little in the way of assets and to have low incomes - thus what Labour say appeals to them. They envy those with money and want to get their hands on it.

I completely agree GG13, that's what I more or less said in my previous post

Katie590

Of course it’s a UK asset it can be bought and sold as can be land and factories, the value of the UK is the security the government borrows against. Whatever cash we invest in our homes cannot be used or spent for other productive activities.

whatever cash invested in our homes cannot be used or spent or used on other productive activities

We invest in our home of 36 years, we have spent more on renovations than the original price paid.

All have been carried out by local tradesman, using locally sourced products. All of which we have paid VAT on, the tradesman pay their employees who all pay tax, NI and keep the money door revolving.

Katie590 your continued assertions that homes do not contribute to the Governments tax coffers are completely wrong.

Is it likely that the high proportion of Tory voters with no qualifications all work then, whist the high proportion of Labour and Lib Dem voters with degree level qualifications don’t? Could you talk us through your rationale on that?

I’m afraid that doesn’t contradict what I said. And btw, if you read my post again, you will see that I talked of those I see interviewed. Qualifications don’t mean that their holder is economically active or has any assets; furthermore, anyone can claim to have a qualification - where’s the proof?

Of course it’s a UK asset it can be bought and sold as can be land and factories, the value of the UK is the security the government borrows against. Whatever cash we invest in our homes cannot be used or spent for other productive activities.

Germanshepherdsmum

You and me both. Too many of Labour’s supporters seem to be economically inactive and have little or nothing, if those I see interviewed on tv are representative. I can well see those of us who have worked our backsides off for what we have being taxed to the eyeballs in whatever way Labour haven’t so far said they will turn the screw. Plenty of scope I reckon.

You don’t check your facts. I wish you would.
ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/images/Education-01_Dk3ZiDf.format-webp.webp

I agree sue. Home owners contribute a great deal to the economy by using tradespeople, which also keeps those people in work and, as their businesses become more successful, creates extra jobs. That is particularly the case with people who don’t have time to do things around the house and older people who are no longer able to do so much themselves.

I agree with GSM and GG and suep.
The homes we have bought and paid for are ours and do not belong to the country. They are not part of the country’s assets. I’m afraid describing them thus sounds rather like sour grapes to me. One of the reasons that I don’t want to move from our present home, apart from the simple fact that I like it and am comfortable here, is that I do not want to give the government a big chunk of money in the form of stamp duty on the next property we would buy.

To quote Katie today at 12.46pm she says 'your home just sits there, not contributing to the economy'.

I agree with you GSM as I don't consider my home a UK asset, but I was making the point that our homes do contribute to the economy, not just council Tax and stamp duty but in the home improvement sector as well.

You and me both. Too many of Labour’s supporters seem to be economically inactive and have little or nothing, if those I see interviewed on tv are representative. I can well see those of us who have worked our backsides off for what we have being taxed to the eyeballs in whatever way Labour haven’t so far said they will turn the screw. Plenty of scope I reckon.

Where does it stop if you view everyone’s assets as U.K. assets?

A country I would not wish to live in GSM , a country were there is no incentive to better oneself as the Government of the day will confiscate all that you have accrued…

I don’t view people’s privately owned homes as UK assets Katie, but when they are sold the buyer will pay stamp duty on so much of the price as is above £250k (at present) in the case of their main home, or on the whole price if buying a second home. I wouldn’t trust Labour not to increase stamp duty rates.

If you sell a second home you will pay CGT. It’s not beyond the bounds of possibility that at some point VAT will be charged on residential sales - Thatcher set the rate at 0% and there it has remained. And of course all private homes are subject to payment of council tax.

Where does it stop if you view everyone’s assets as UK assets?

www.electricaltimes.co.uk/50-billion-spent-on-home-improvements-in-last-12-months-despite-cost-of-living/

Homeowners may not pay tax on the increased value of their property bit they contribute to the economy by employing builders, plumbers
electricians etc. They in turn pay VAT, wages to their employees who in turn pay tax and NI and spend their money on goods and services. Sorry but it is not as simple as you say Katie590

Still a no from me Katie590 on our current system of IHT, and no to paying more direct tax.

Like I posted upthread U.K. has the fourth highest IHT in the world , not a table we should aim to top…

My contention is that residential property is too large a proportion of the UK assets and pays very little tax, so I checked a few figures

From ONS
15.5 million owner occupied homes, median value £300,000
Total value £4.6 Trillion - total asset value of UK £14 Trillion

That’s around 33% of the UK assets contributing little tax income

You can’t expect a nation to prosper when 1/3 of its assets are unproductive, at least residential rental properties are producing income for the government through taxation, owner occupied provide very little.

Thatcher was correct that home ownership was a good vote winner but too much investment is being made for little return.