-
I haven't thought very deeply about it, but surely it would help with generational inequality of boomers living in town houses that they bought for £5k in 1975 and are now valued at £2.5m, while generation rent fork out £2k a month for a shoe box? If they are going to live in relative luxury compared to others, surely fair that they take on a higher tax load to pay for public services that are to the benefit of all?
Is it fair? I suspect most of them just wanted somewhere to live that wouldn't cost them rent. I don't care if my house stalls in value as long as the rest of the housing market does the same.
I agree about generational inequality, but I'm not sure how to get round the basic Catch-22 of tax on primary dwellings, which is that it would tax people on the ownership of an asset that they might have to sell in order to afford the tax that is being levied on it. Essentially (unlike any other asset that I can think of) you're basically telling people "you're not allowed to own that unless you're rich enough to pay an arbitrary cost that the state will impose on you." That's not a complaint against state intervention at some level, I'm just not convinced a primary property tax is it.
You are reading a single comment by @ffm and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
ffm
I haven't thought very deeply about it, but surely it would help with generational inequality of boomers living in town houses that they bought for £5k in 1975 and are now valued at £2.5m, while generation rent fork out £2k a month for a shoe box? If they are going to live in relative luxury compared to others, surely fair that they take on a higher tax load to pay for public services that are to the benefit of all?