Garden Tax on the cards?

[James6112]

TUS373 said:

Excuse me for putting this in the Lounge, but more people will see it if kept here rather than in the politics area.

I was not aware of this, but just told by my mother-in-law (who has far more time than me to listen to the news) that Labour are considering changing the way council tax is managed, by including a factor about how big a house's garden is. I think this must be a seed (excuse the pun) from the Corbyn days, but I gather that is already being used in Wales. It is said that councils will survey properties by drone, so if you have a sizeable garden (and I don't know what that means in real terms) you pay more tax.

There will be people way more aware than I about this on here, and no doubt those who may say "well, those that live in posh houses should pay more", but is this really likely to be a thing in the future, after a general election?

Where did your Mother in law get this from, source?

[98elise]

oyster said:

alscar said:

oyster said:

The problem is we have vast millions of non-working people milking the teat of the public purse. Most of these are retired. Whether it's double-digit pay rises. Tax breaks. Free social care. etc etc.
That group is getting bigger and bigger.

We simple can't afford to keep lumping the taxes onto those who work hard. Taxes need to be spread more fairly.

Seems a bit unfair on those that did work hard all their working life and paid their fair share of tax.

Define fair share of tax?

I've accumulated £1m in house equity through no effort of my own. Tax free.
What tax share have I paid as a result?

Unless you dispose of it before you die then it will be subject to IHT.

Not assets are taxed and some get different rates.just because something isn't taxed one particular way it doesn’t make it unfair.

I've accumulated a good amount in pensions and ISA's which have grown tax free, and the investment in my pensions avoided income tax It's not unfair, it's simply how the tax system works.

[alscar]

oyster said:

I do work. But here's the nub of the problem.

When I can 'earn' £100k a year tax free from asset inflation, why would I bust a gut to earn £100k by working and have the Treasury take a whole bunch of it?

The balance is wrong. Too much tax on work and investment. Not enough on personal assets.

That’s a different angle to what you said but no guarantee that your house price went up and you used nett of tax earnings to pay for some of it along the way including it’s original purchase presumably.
You can probably add car flippers gains to the equation about fairness or not.
I guess my point was simply if you have paid tax on earnings then you have paid your fair share.
Fwiw I had ( until I stopped ( I still dislike the word retirement ) a high annual earning which looking at the tax I paid always felt far more than my fair share !
All a bit off thread ( apologies ) and no doubt garden tax will simply find itself wrapped into a generally higher rated council tax system - at some point when Labour have actually worked out how to do it.
RR has ruled out a wealth tax so we know it will happen but it wear different names.

[NRS]

98elise said:

oyster said:

alscar said:

oyster said:

The problem is we have vast millions of non-working people milking the teat of the public purse. Most of these are retired. Whether it's double-digit pay rises. Tax breaks. Free social care. etc etc.
That group is getting bigger and bigger.

We simple can't afford to keep lumping the taxes onto those who work hard. Taxes need to be spread more fairly.

Seems a bit unfair on those that did work hard all their working life and paid their fair share of tax.

Define fair share of tax?

I've accumulated £1m in house equity through no effort of my own. Tax free.
What tax share have I paid as a result?

Unless you dispose of it before you die then it will be subject to IHT.

Not assets are taxed and some get different rates.just because something isn't taxed one particular way it doesn’t make it unfair.

I've accumulated a good amount in pensions and ISA's which have grown tax free, and the investment in my pensions avoided income tax It's not unfair, it's simply how the tax system works.

Only unlucky or stupid people pay IHT now, pretty much everyone knows to transfer a lot of your wealth to avoid the 7 year taper.

It's not "unfair", but it does probably need fixed, as we tax labour more than wealth, which is not a great thing for society as it kills the drive for people to work hard. There's a triple negative impact of it meaning people retire early (not worth working when so much will be taken in tax), asset prices grow and lock away money from circulating quickly in the economy, and people don't invest in growth stuff as it goes into assets instead so we stagnate. There almost certainly should be a rebalance in how we tax wages versus wealth/assets to actually start improving the economy again instead of the stagnation and falling productivity we face.

[simon_harris]

Taxing the few that already have more, even more is an ever decreasing circle. You want more people in the tax system paying in than we have currently, tax more people a little bit and it will add up to large numbers.

[markh1973]

Mr Whippy said:

It might be in inverted commas but then he goes on to make out it’s a problem and should be somehow assessed.

I said ~ 30%, isn’t it 28% currently for higher earners on resi property?

24% now

[NRS]

simon_harris said:

Taxing the few that already have more, even more is an ever decreasing circle. You want more people in the tax system paying in than we have currently, tax more people a little bit and it will add up to large numbers.

It doesn't have to be that - you can cut income tax or similar to increase economic activity (and so tax take too) and any shortfall filled in with some kind of tax on wealth to make that less interesting on just sitting on loads of money in assets doing nothing.

[98elise]

NRS said:

98elise said:

oyster said:

alscar said:

oyster said:

The problem is we have vast millions of non-working people milking the teat of the public purse. Most of these are retired. Whether it's double-digit pay rises. Tax breaks. Free social care. etc etc.
That group is getting bigger and bigger.

We simple can't afford to keep lumping the taxes onto those who work hard. Taxes need to be spread more fairly.

Seems a bit unfair on those that did work hard all their working life and paid their fair share of tax.

Define fair share of tax?

I've accumulated £1m in house equity through no effort of my own. Tax free.
What tax share have I paid as a result?

Unless you dispose of it before you die then it will be subject to IHT.

Not assets are taxed and some get different rates.just because something isn't taxed one particular way it doesn’t make it unfair.

I've accumulated a good amount in pensions and ISA's which have grown tax free, and the investment in my pensions avoided income tax It's not unfair, it's simply how the tax system works.

Only unlucky or stupid people pay IHT now, pretty much everyone knows to transfer a lot of your wealth to avoid the 7 year taper.

It's not "unfair", but it does probably need fixed, as we tax labour more than wealth, which is not a great thing for society as it kills the drive for people to work hard. There's a triple negative impact of it meaning people retire early (not worth working when so much will be taken in tax), asset prices grow and lock away money from circulating quickly in the economy, and people don't invest in growth stuff as it goes into assets instead so we stagnate. There almost certainly should be a rebalance in how we tax wages versus wealth/assets to actually start improving the economy again instead of the stagnation and falling productivity we face.

The data suggests otherwise. IHT tax receipts are increasing to record levels.

How much should wealth be taxed? If its taxed when you earn it, and taxed when you crystalise capital gains, why would it need to be taxed again when you save some of it?

If someone builds a business from scratch how much of the notional value should be taxed just for existing?

I have a lot of my "wealth" in ISA's and Pensions. What extra tax should that attract?

Edited by 98elise on Thursday 16th May 15:47

[alscar]

NRS said:

It doesn't have to be that - you can cut income tax or similar to increase economic activity (and so tax take too) and any shortfall filled in with some kind of tax on wealth to make that less interesting on just sitting on loads of money in assets doing nothing.

But assets that have already have been taxed on the way in many cases.
Unless you are referring to inherited wealth / houses which has also attracted IHT potentially.

[Wonderman]

Getragdogleg said:

How long before we get to the point where we are paid directly to the Govt and they dribble a little bit back to us and we say thanks ?

Pretty sure that's called the State Pension?

[alscar]

NRS said:

Only unlucky or stupid people pay IHT now, pretty much everyone knows to transfer a lot of your wealth to avoid the 7 year taper.

There are probably a few more categories that are neither unlucky nor stupid.
Some don’t know what money they may need for future living and once given away you cannot get it back.
Some like the thought that they have money and it’s not about necessarily acquiring money to then give it away before you die.
I’m currently acting as Executor for a relative who inherited a decent amount who then before the inheritance arrived then sadly also passed away.
The first estate is subject to IIHT and unfortunately so is hers so in effect on the impacted portion double IHT.
That doesn’t seem fair either.

[trickywoo]

I live in a band d end or terrace two up / two but with getting on for an acre of garden.

It’s on a separate title deed which could make things worse I guess.

It’s also full of diseased ash trees covered by a blanket tpo which nobody wants to do any work on unless it’s stupid money. £70k stupid if I did the lot in one go.

I wonder if I could put the tree area in some kind of carbon set aside scheme…..

[Hants PHer]

98elise said:

How much should wealth be taxed? If its taxed when you earn it, and taxed when you crystalise capital gains, why would it need to be taxed again when you save some of it?

If someone builds a business from scratch how much of the notional value should be taxed just for existing?

I have a lot of my "wealth" in ISA's and Pensions. What extra tax should that attract?

Some good points, I think, and they highlight the difficulty of taxing an uncrystallised gain. A friend of mine runs his own business; I wonder how that would be valued for wealth tax purposes and whether such a valuation would be needed annually. Or are businesses the 'wrong kind' of wealth?

You mention pension funds; how would you value a defined benefit (old style public sector) scheme? Then there's the issue of wealth decreases - would people get a refund from HMRC if their house/pension fund/business/classic car decreased in value?

And who, I wonder, would determine this wealth? Would some government bod come and snoop round my house: "Ah, Mr. Hants, I see you have bifold doors fitted at the rear, and a brand new kitchen too. Hmm, well that'll up the numbers, won't it? You can always appeal to the Valuation Tribunal you know." Yeah, along with a million others, no doubt.

Of course, my feckless neighbour (they're not, but just for argument's sake) hasn't repaid their mortgage, unlike me. So they'll pay less tax than I do, because I've worked hard and paid off my debt and they've spent their money on.....stuff. They don't even have bifold doors!

We tax income as it's earned, we tax expenditure as it happens (VAT, stamp duty etc.) and we tax asset wealth via IHT and/or CGT when it's crystallised. We can adjust all or any of those things meaning that an unworkable wealth tax is not needed.

[NerveAgent]

If someone to ask what NP&E was, I think “middle aged men getting worked up over something someones mother in law said” would be reasonably descriptive

[TUS373]

James6112 said:

TUS373 said:

Excuse me for putting this in the Lounge, but more people will see it if kept here rather than in the politics area.

I was not aware of this, but just told by my mother-in-law (who has far more time than me to listen to the news) that Labour are considering changing the way council tax is managed, by including a factor about how big a house's garden is. I think this must be a seed (excuse the pun) from the Corbyn days, but I gather that is already being used in Wales. It is said that councils will survey properties by drone, so if you have a sizeable garden (and I don't know what that means in real terms) you pay more tax.

There will be people way more aware than I about this on here, and no doubt those who may say "well, those that live in posh houses should pay more", but is this really likely to be a thing in the future, after a general election?

Where did your Mother in law get this from, source?

I don't know. She is my mother in law. I therefore don't listen; only hear!

I suspect the BBC radio.

[TUS373]

NerveAgent said:

If someone to ask what NP&E was, I think “middle aged men getting worked up over something someones mother in law said” would be reasonably descriptive

It's a pub without alcohol in here.

[Castrol for a knave]

It's a load of bolocx

I speak to the VO all the time and there is no plan to tax gardens

As Surveyor said, they are flat out and struggling to recruit enough staff to maintain the existing List.

[tangerine_sedge]

NerveAgent said:

If someone to ask what NP&E was, I think “middle aged men getting worked up over something someones mother in law said” would be reasonably descriptive

7 pages of doom-mongering and general sky-falling-in conjecture based on pretty much nothing...

[Mr Whippy]

Hants PHer said:

98elise said:

How much should wealth be taxed? If its taxed when you earn it, and taxed when you crystalise capital gains, why would it need to be taxed again when you save some of it?

If someone builds a business from scratch how much of the notional value should be taxed just for existing?

I have a lot of my "wealth" in ISA's and Pensions. What extra tax should that attract?

Some good points, I think, and they highlight the difficulty of taxing an uncrystallised gain. A friend of mine runs his own business; I wonder how that would be valued for wealth tax purposes and whether such a valuation would be needed annually. Or are businesses the 'wrong kind' of wealth?

You mention pension funds; how would you value a defined benefit (old style public sector) scheme? Then there's the issue of wealth decreases - would people get a refund from HMRC if their house/pension fund/business/classic car decreased in value?

And who, I wonder, would determine this wealth? Would some government bod come and snoop round my house: "Ah, Mr. Hants, I see you have bifold doors fitted at the rear, and a brand new kitchen too. Hmm, well that'll up the numbers, won't it? You can always appeal to the Valuation Tribunal you know." Yeah, along with a million others, no doubt.

Of course, my feckless neighbour (they're not, but just for argument's sake) hasn't repaid their mortgage, unlike me. So they'll pay less tax than I do, because I've worked hard and paid off my debt and they've spent their money on.....stuff. They don't even have bifold doors!

We tax income as it's earned, we tax expenditure as it happens (VAT, stamp duty etc.) and we tax asset wealth via IHT and/or CGT when it's crystallised. We can adjust all or any of those things meaning that an unworkable wealth tax is not needed.

Exactly. And ultimately if you spend it, 20% VAT.

If you save it forever as cash, 40% IHT.

Government get their grubby mits on it no matter what you do, it’s just at different times.

And if kids inherit a big chunk o cash, after paying IHT at 40pc or so, they’ll likely blow a load and get the VAT revenue up.



The issue is the gov waste and then stuff like APR for pretend farmers etc.

Then you have stuff like Tesco boss getting £10mn up from £5mn.
Tesco as a business clearly need to be taxed more.
As do Amazon and Microsoft etc…

[NerveAgent]

tangerine_sedge said:

NerveAgent said:

If someone to ask what NP&E was, I think “middle aged men getting worked up over something someones mother in law said” would be reasonably descriptive

7 pages of doom-mongering and general sky-falling-in conjecture based on pretty much nothing...

Seems to be the usual perma-victim crowd.