Potential proposals for a mansion tax would unfairly impact ordinary Londoners and risk further stalling the capital’s already slowing housing market, according to Dominic Agace, CEO of Winkworth.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves is reportedly considering introducing a mansion tax in next month’s Budget to help plug the multi-billion-pound gap in public finances.
However, Agace argues that introducing another wealth tax would place an additional burden on ordinary Londoners who are already grappling with high living costs and property taxes.
He said: “The government is driving away the wealth generators in our country. Speculation of this kind has already affected the market and it’s hard not to see how such a tax won’t cause wealth destruction. It is particularly unfair for those in London where it’s not all uber wealthy people who own these houses.
“Many families in these houses have significant mortgages and are already tackling mortgages that have more then doubled as interest rates have increased. They have already paid significant stamp duty too.”
If the government were to press ahead with changes to capital gains tax (CGT) on main residences, it would have significant implications for the UK housing market.
Recent research by Boon Brokers found that 97% of UK homeowners disagree that applying CGT to primary homes would be a fair way to balance public spending.
According to the findings, 73% of respondents said the proposed changes would be unfair, arguing that homeowners have already paid enough through existing taxes and rising living costs.
Gerard Boon, founder of Boon Brokers, warned: “Introducing CGT on main residences could have serious consequences for the housing market. When fewer homeowners are willing to sell, supply will naturally constrict, driving up competition and prices. This imbalance between supply and demand doesn’t just impact affordability, it would risk stagnating the market and placing greater pressure across all levels of the housing market.”
For estate agents, brokers, and developers, the prospect of dampened sales volumes and weakened seller sentiment represents a serious commercial concern.
Can this incompetent government get any worse by implementing such an unworkable tax by brushing all homeowners with the same brush when one would say the majority have mortgages etc.
One assumes the very top end of the market say £10m + might be a consideration applicable to non resident UK owners ~ but there again all in all a badly thought out idea.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The current government do seem to be incompetent, but I think that the task at hand is eye-wateringly difficult to deal with. I would love to hear any realistic solution to the HORRIFIC mess left behind by the Tories as their profligate “borrowing” must be paid back.
Where is the money going to come from? Remember, the bill currently stands at approximately £2.8 TRILLION, that’s roughly 105% of UK GDP.
And the current government had NOTHING to do with racking up the bill. They have the unenviable task of trying to deal with it.
The interest payments on the debt are roughly £111billion. As mentioned in an earlier post, for comparison, the NHS only costs £182billion a year to run.
What a complete waste of all of our money. And where did it go? It went to line the pockets of the friends and relatives of those in power at the time.
I WANT MY MONEY BACK from the previous government please; preferably with interest. Then prosecute the lot of them for theft from the Great British Public.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
And here we are again, the continuation of the billionaire/millionaire myth that they will leave if taxed more and their investment in the UK will be taken aware!
Why can’t these poor property owners live within their means? This is a simple strategy rolled out by the Daily Heil to working people and seems completely acceptable done so. A climate like this means adaption, but when the parties are wealthy with substantial assets, how dare this be suggested!
Just another out of touch, capitalist CEO who wouldn’t know hard work if it smacked him in the chops. He and his ilk are exactly what is wrong with housing today. Pull up the ladder and screw everyone else.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Daily Heil, I call it that too haha.
Totally agree. Tax wealth (assets) not work(ing people).
The solicitor and Dr idea is just silly, they’ll simply increase their fees and so the customer/working person still pays the tax.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Ah! The “trickle down economics” argument again. It has been resoundingly proven to be absolute b*llocks.
Don’t believe me? Do a quick internet search for: London School of Economics – Tax Cuts For The Wealthy Only Benefit The Rich – Debunking Trickle Down Economics. Have a read, it’s enlightening. You might also like to watch some YouTube shorts from a comedian called Chris Kohler (his channel is Chris Kohler News) which is enlightening, funny, and terrifying in roughly equal measures.
Allowing wealthy people to keep their money DOES NOT turn them into “wealth generators” for normal people, it just makes rich people even richer.
Incredibly we have all deluded ourselves that the opposite is true.
I suppose this could be because we hope that one day that we will be rich and we will be altruistic enough to trickle down the money. But guess what…? Other than a very few notable exceptions, this is not what really happens.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Please quit blaming Tories for Labour ******** you. Tories would never have gone for pensioners. The debt paid for businesses not to go under during COVID. Labour are the party of borrow and benefits. They had the chance to get 6B and quickly lost that followed by another 5B from higher borrowing costs due to this because Reeves didn’t want to upset backbenchers on cuts to benefits. Every time WORKING people tell her to appropriately adjust tax free threshold she ignores them stating it’s a good money earner. If you think Labour wouldn’t borrow money to keep businesses going under during lockdown you’re delusional.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register