Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 26/11/2025 at 17:23, CPR Dave said:

What do we think?

There's a couple of not very big ordinary family homes for sale on my street that will fall foul of this. 

Seems totally arbitrary to tax these people more than others imo. J hope the treasury will pay the cost of collection too, rather than burdening the council who won't benefit at all from this tax.

They should have just increased income tax.

 

Admin note: Post removed to avoid derailing the thread. Removed subsequent posts quoting this one. 

Edited by Administrator
2 hours ago, Sephiroth said:

Every person complaining about a small amount of tax on homes above £2million is the direct enemy of every voter/government/plan to build affordable housing 

I don't really see the linkage between the two factors tbh

4 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

I don't really see the linkage between the two factors tbh

Fair enough. Perhaps I’m wrong 

but the country can either have rising house prices or affordable housing. Which means falling house prices right?

or is there a scenario where all of the existing housing stock rises in value while the hundreds of thousands of new, affordable  homes are somehow immune to the same market forces?

How do we build enough affordable houses for our children yet insist on our own houses going up in value? Both can’t be true. Enough new housing stock has to lower existing housing prices 

if  not , where am I wrong?

  • Confused 1

I wonder if the tax will cause the £2 million plus market to stall but boost the sub £2 million market as houses sell for just below the threshold. 

Will a house that then sells for less than its £2 million value, say at £1,95 million  then drop out of the tax or will the goverment still tax it as though it was worth over £2 million?  

As the tax will obly raise 1/2 a billion, will the threshold creep downwards or will more houses go into it as property values increase ? 

So many questions that may need to be understood better before it is inplemented otherwise there may be potential legal cleans post implementation. 

 

  • Agree 1
16 hours ago, Sephiroth said:

is there a scenario where all of the existing housing stock rises in value while the hundreds of thousands of new, affordable  homes are somehow immune to the same market forces?

I don't think we need to worry too much about that. There would have to be a massive amount of new construction very quickly to keep housing costs level, let alone depressing existing house prices.

It is. It's just not gonna happen.

London is supposed to get 440,000 new homes by 2030. Just 10,000 were completed in 2024-2025 so housing supply is barely growing.

Meanwhile, housing demand continues to increase. Net migration to the UK was +204,000 in 2024-2025 (and that's a big drop from the previous year). Of those people, about 25% will come to London ie 51,000 people. The average occupancy of a home in London is 2.5 persons i.e. we should have built 21,250 new homes in London just to keep the current supply equalised with current demand. But we didn't - we built half as much.

We're not even keeping things steady with new housing, let alone improving the structural long term shortage. That's not helped by NIMBYs and politicians like @James Barber opposing new housing on infill sites like the old Jewsons yard.

But I don't see how people complaining about more tax on £2m homes affects any of that one way or the other. Perhaps I'm being dense.

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/press/net-migration-falls-78-in-two-years-returning-to-pre-brexit-levels-every-major-immigration-category-except-asylum-declines/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1ldgqvypqpo

https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/urgent-government-action-needed-to-prevent-london-housing-delivery-collapse-warns-hbf/

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/householdcharacteristics/homeinternetandsocialmediausage/bulletins/householdandresidentcharacteristicsenglandandwales/census2021

 

I think it’s directly related because a major factor in so few houses actually being built despite the demand is 

a) financial incentives for builders isn’t there. Longer they wait to build the more prices go up. Because too many people want prices to go up 

 

b) nimbys. In expensive houses.  Don’t build here it will devalue my property   Because my property price has to go up 

7 hours ago, Sephiroth said:

nimbys. In expensive houses.  Don’t build here it will devalue my property   Because my property price has to go up 

It’s not NIMBYism to say I don’t want high-rises in ED ... it’s just not what the area is. Liking the character of where you live isn’t a crime.

I think “high rises” and “crime” might be your words not mine 

“liking the character of an area” is something I imagine mos people feel.  But it is subjective.  What year was your home built? Should it not have been? To preserve the character of the area at that time? 
 

I don’t think building is the only solution.  Investment landlords and multiple property owners could also be tackled

but simply saying “no. Because character of area” isn’t going to help anyone growing up in the area get a place to live 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Looks like Rachael is getting close to the toaster again! The media is out to  get her after they got duped.
    • I think “high rises” and “crime” might be your words not mine  “liking the character of an area” is something I imagine mos people feel.  But it is subjective.  What year was your home built? Should it not have been? To preserve the character of the area at that time?    I don’t think building is the only solution.  Investment landlords and multiple property owners could also be tackled but simply saying “no. Because character of area” isn’t going to help anyone growing up in the area get a place to live 
    • I had a frustrating (non) delivery experience with Yodel recently who I believe are now part of InPost. Fortunately the supplying company had some kind of customer service so got a refund Totally agree with last paragraph, one of the excuses I was given for non delivery was bizarre. Delivery companies and suppliers offer delivery on a certain day and when they're unable to fulfil this they lay a false tracking trail. Think Amazon may also do this.
    • I called InPost when I saw the first parcel had been refused twice, they said it was because the shop didn't have capacity / space. I went to the shop and they basically said that was BS, that they had plenty of space and showed me the parcels from that day's InPost delivery - they even went through all the parcels to see if mine was there. I called them again a couple of days later after the tracking showed the first parcel had been refused twice more, and two others had also been refused. They said they'd investigate and would send me an email (nope) and to contact Vinted. I called them again today after further refusals, again they said they'd investigate and for me to contact Vinted - they seemed to intimate that they could only do something if Vinted contacted them, despite me trying to explain that it is impossible to contact anyone at Vinted, let alone get them to chase up parcels. Tbh I don't believe the tracking updates are based on actual events, it stinks of lost parcels that they just don't want to admit to, so just keep pretending they're trying to deliver them and update the tracking info. I can't think of any other reason this would happen. Although very odd if it is this, as all the parcels were sent from different places and at different times.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...