-
It seems quite odd to tax people just for ownership of something that is really just a functional object for your everyday life
Most of the value of my home isn't the bricks and mortar, it's the land it is built on. There is a finite supply of the later and I believe it should be taxed which would encourage people to use as little as possible, use it well etc.
you're already taxed on the income you use to pay for it
The wealthy aren't in many situations. They also tend to own more than typical amounts of property so would pay more tax.
jellybaby-
Most of the value of my home isn't the bricks and mortar, it's the land it is built on. There is a finite supply of the later and I believe it should be taxed which would encourage people to use as little as possible, use it well etc.
I think the question is "taxed how"? If you make it expensive to buy or own land then it becomes something that only the really rich can do, which plays right into the hands of rentier capitalism, which I think is exactly what we would like to avoid. I agree though that land ownership is a real problem in this country and most people don't realise how few people/organisations own just how much land. There have been various excellent bits of journalism on the subject (Monbiot probably) and campaigns to rectify this.
The wealthy aren't in many situations. They also tend to own more than typical amounts of property so would pay more tax.
Yes, again it would be about developing a tax that has sufficiently laser-like focus to hit that group while leaving owners of normal family homes untouched.
ffm
I think the increase in the value of a house is a bit of a red herring. Averaged out across the whole country a 3-bed family home has the exact value of a 3-bed family home i.e., if you buy a house then the value you realise from selling it will allow you to buy only a house of exactly the same size (actually slightly less because of SDLT and various other costs associated with selling, buying and moving). You could sell it in order to get another property that you want more, for example by moving to an area where prices are proportionally lower and getting a bigger place, or moving to a more desirable area and getting a smaller place, but a house is always just worth (in and of itself) a house.
It seems quite odd to tax people just for ownership of something that is really just a functional object for your everyday life (it would be a bit like taxing shoes or a bed), not least because you're already taxed on the income you use to pay for it and quite often have to take on significant debt to own that asset.
The real value of a house is not the gain in its value, but the fact that the money you put into paying off your mortgage is still, in effect, yours (i.e., embedded in the value of the house you can then sell) rather than spaffed away in rent. There are other intangible benefits like peace of mind, but also some tangible losses (SDLT, maintenance etc.). I don't know what the solution is, but the huge disparity in the personal financial impact of owning vs. renting might be better addressed by reducing the latter.