logo
Now Rachel Reeves plans a 'mansion tax' as Chancellor 'seeks to hit owners of high-value properties' with capital gains raid when they sell up

Now Rachel Reeves plans a 'mansion tax' as Chancellor 'seeks to hit owners of high-value properties' with capital gains raid when they sell up

Daily Mail​11 hours ago
is eyeing a 'mansion tax' on the owners of high-value properties as she scrambles to plug a £50billion hole in the public finances, it has emerged.
The Chancellor is reportedly drawing up plans to end the current exemption from capital gains tax when some people sell their main home.
This would see those on the higher rate of income tax pay 24 per cent of the value of any 'gain' they make from the increase in the value of their property.
And those on the basic rate of income tax would pay 18 per cent.
According to The Times, Ms Reeves' plans would see the 'private residence relief' from capital gains currently enjoyed by homeowners scrapped for some properties.
The threshold at which the relief would end is currently being discussed within the Treasury, the newspaper added.
It is estimated a threshold of £1.5million would hit around 120,000 homeowners who are higher-rate taxpayers with capital gains tax bills of £199,973.
The Chancellor is said to be considering using her autumn Budget to unveil the capital gains tax raid.
She is estimated by economists to be facing a £50billion black hole ahead of her next fiscal statement, which is widely expected to see Ms Reeves hike taxes once again.
The Chancellor is reportedly drawing up plans to end the current exemption from capital gains tax when some people sell their main home
It has also been claimed that the Chancellor is eyeing a radical shake-up of stamp duty and council tax, as well as a fresh inheritance tax raid.
Property experts warned Ms Reeves' imposition of a 'mansion tax' could merely discourage the owners of expensive properties from selling up.
This would gum up the property market and limit the amount of money the Treasury might raise.
They also expressed concerns that pensioners who have seen property values rocket since buying their homes might be left unable to downsize.
What is private residence relief?
You do not pay capital gains tax when you sell your home if all of the following apply:
you have one home and you've lived in it as your main home for all the time you've owned it
you have not let part of it out - this does not include having a lodger
you have not used a part of your home exclusively for business purposes (using a room as a temporary or occasional office does not count as exclusive business use)
the grounds, including all buildings, are less than 5,000 square metres (just over an acre) in total
you did not buy it just to make a gain
If all these apply you will automatically get a tax relief called 'private residence relief and will have no tax to pay.
If any of them apply, you may have some tax to pay.
Aneisha Beveridge, head of research at Hamptons, said: 'It's a big change that would hit long-term owners hardest and create a cliff-edge at £1.5million, distorting behaviour around that point.
'While the headline gains look substantial, they're often the result of decades of ownership and, in some cases, house prices haven't even kept pace with inflation.
'For households who don't need to move, this could act as a strong disincentive to sell, dampening transactions and potentially weighing on house price growth and Treasury revenues alike.'
Tom Bill, from Knight Frank, suggested the capital gains tax raid might not raise much money for Ms Reeves.
He said: 'I'd be surprised if there are any gains to tax at the top end of the property market, given that prices in prime central London are down 20 per cent over the last decade.
'If there was anything that reduced demand further, then the prospect of gains in the short-term would pretty much vanish.'
Simon Brown, of property data company Landmark Information Group, said: 'Any tax that rises with property value risks slowing the housing market even further.
'If downsizing becomes less attractive, larger family homes stay off the market and transaction volumes fall.
'This reduces overall movement in the market upwards and downwards, and not only reduces choice for families and first-time buyers, but also hits the Treasury by shrinking the tax base.'
Ms Reeves was already facing a furious backlash over a possible and highly controversial shake-up of property levies.
The Chancellor was warned that proposals to replace stamp duty with an annual charge on homes worth more than £500,000 would damage the market as well as punish people who have worked hard to own their houses.
One of her Treasury ministers refused to rule out the possibility of her introducing the radical change in the Budget.
The Guardian reported that owners of houses worth more than £500,000 could have to pay a 'proportional property tax' based on the value of their properties when they sell up.
However, sources played down the claims that Treasury officials are looking at this proposal or threshold.
Sources also moved away from suggestions that civil servants are drawing on the findings of a report published last year by think-tank Onward, which proposed that only future owners could pay an annual tax based on the value of the property instead of stamp duty.
Under the plan put forward by economist Professor Tim Leunig, current homeowners would not be hit by the charge, but if they do sell up in future their buyers would pay the levy each year instead of stamp duty at the point of purchase.
It is intended to open up the property market by making it less expensive to move and encouraging those in large homes to downsize.
TV presenter Kirstie Allsopp warned the Chancellor not to risk destabilising the market by 'flying kites' about potential new property taxes, telling Times Radio: 'It's not Rachel's to go after because it's their homes.
'It's the roof over their head. And this Government seems to want to punish people for making the sacrifices they've made to buy their own homes.'
The Treasury declined to comment on 'speculation' about future changes to tax policy.
A spokesperson said: 'As set out in the Plan for Change, the best way to strengthen public finances is by growing the economy – which is our focus.
'Changes to tax and spend policy are not the only ways of doing this, as seen with our planning reforms, which are expected to grow the economy by £6.8billion and cut borrowing by £3.4billion
'We are committed to keeping taxes for working people as low as possible, which is why at last autumn's Budget, we protected working people's payslips and kept our promise not to raise the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, employee National Insurance, or VAT.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Fulham 'gear up for contract talks with first-team star' after rejecting Champions League side's opening bid for striker
Fulham 'gear up for contract talks with first-team star' after rejecting Champions League side's opening bid for striker

Daily Mail​

time3 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Fulham 'gear up for contract talks with first-team star' after rejecting Champions League side's opening bid for striker

Fulham are preparing new contract terms for Rodrigo Muniz after turning down offers for the striker's services during the summer transfer window. The west London club have had a challenging few months during the break between seasons, having failed to tempt more than a back-up goalkeeper in the form of Benjamin Lecomte to Craven Cottage. Head coach Marco Silva has bemoaned his club's 'passive' activity in the window, and will be keen to swell his ranks if Fulham are expected to match or even exceed their 11th-place finish in the Premier League after the last campaign. The side will be keen to get a deal for Shakhtar Donetsk striker Kevin over the line before deadline day in an attempt to boost his front line, after having their opening bid knocked back. But Fulham will also look to strengthen up relations closer to home, after seeing off an approach for Rodrigo Muniz. The Brazilian star joined the club in 2021 and has been a stalwart in the side since coming back from his early loan move to Middlesborough. Make your 7 picks by 12.30pm every Saturday to win £1,000* Man City Fri Aug 2211:30 V Tottenham Muniz started this season in pitch-perfect form, scoring his club's only goal to share points with Brighton in their 1-1 draw on Saturday afternoon. As per the Evening Standard, the club are now increasingly keen to offer the star new terms on his current deal, after rebuffing an opening £34million bid from Serie A side Atalanta. Atalanta had pursued Muniz in a bid to replace the departed Marco Retegui, who was top scorer in the Italian top division last term. But interest from Italy is thought to have cooled in the wake of the rejection of their first bid. Despite this, however, Fulham remain focused on tying down their star, having come close to losing him, and are confident that they can when the window closes. Silva had been tight-lipped on speculation that Muniz was preparing to leave the Premier League side ahead of their club with Bournemouth, only interested in confirming that he would be in contention to play. 'I speak with him like any other player,' Silva added. 'He knows what I think about him, how important he is for our club. 'We will decide what is best for the club and Rodrigo.'

Solving the asylum question is suddenly even more urgent
Solving the asylum question is suddenly even more urgent

The Independent

time5 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Solving the asylum question is suddenly even more urgent

What next? As ministers digest the High Court ruling on the use of a hotel in Epping to house asylum seekers, they have very limited options in front of them, none of them good ones. The High Court should not be attacked for making a ruling that takes no account of politics or even practicalities, for that is not its job. It has, though, made a bad situation very much worse. It is hardly helpful to anyone, in such circumstances, for Nigel Farage to exploit a delicate and sometimes combustible situation by calling for more peaceful protests. From bitter experience, we know how such demonstrations can degenerate into minor disorder, or worse. In fact, given the force of the High Court judgment, there is even less need for such protests now. Instead, Mr Farage and his deputy, Richard Tice, as usual, are playing on the fears of people and behaving in a way that is irresponsible at best and dangerous at worst. Mr Farage's interventions in the riots last year only added to the campaign of disinformation underway, and most recently was made to apologise for claiming that the Essex police had 'bussed in' counter-demonstrators in Epping. The Conservatives, mesmerised by the rise of Reform UK, are in a constant losing battle to out-Farage Farage, and they should know better than to propagate myths about asylum seekers living in 'offensively luxurious' conditions, which was today's unhelpful sideswipe from former Tory MP Damian Green. The shadow home secretary Chris Philp and the shadow communities secretary James Cleverly should bear their share of the blame for the mess the asylum system is in, and offer some constructive alternatives and call for calm. They will not recover as a serious alternative party of government until they too come up with a plan for the asylum system. The leader of the opposition, Kemi Badenoch, often talks of such a thing, but it is yet to be seen. Meanwhile, her undeclared rival, Robert Jenrick, appears to be constantly dialling up tensions. The position is serious. Were the Bell Hotel the only place to be affected by the ruling, then it would not be such a challenge to relocate its 140 residents by the date set by the court of 12 September. However, the judgment also sets a clear precedent, albeit largely based in planning law, for the end of the use of hotels to provide emergency housing. It does so with near-immediate effect. That means some 32,000 individuals will need to be rehoused, at absurdly short notice. Already, local authorities controlled by Reform UK and the Conservatives are expected to bring their own cases, which, as the Home Office lawyers warned the High Court, will make the dilemma of finding shelter for them even more acute. In practice, too, it will encourage many more local protests and increase the pressure on police forces to maintain order. One other immediate effect will be to increase the pressure in areas where Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green councils may still try to stick to a 'refugees welcome' policy. This only creates a sense of unfairness that the task of finding shelter for the immigrants is not being properly shared across the country. And, in any case, all, including the refugees and other migrants affected, agree that using hotels is a far from ideal solution in any case. Contrary to some of the anti-refugee propaganda, these hotels, whatever their nominal star ratings, are unsuitable for long-term residence, and are not the lap of luxury. Concierge is not available. Asylum seekers are not allowed to work, they are given shelter and a minimal allowance to stave off destitution, some medical attention and, courtesy of some councils, access to some recreational activities. They are not cosseted in the way some seem to imagine. There is talk of the migrants being placed in flats, which would be relatively expensive, student accommodation, and houses of multiple occupation (HMOs). These create their own problems, particularly because the tendency will be for the irregular immigrants to be moved in disproportionate numbers to parts of the country where rentals are relatively low. The effect there will be to push rents up for the locals, and create more friction in host communities. It may also prompt more action by some local councils to frustrate the strategy, such as using their powers to block the conversion of houses across large areas into HMOs under Article 4 of the town and country planning acts. Even where HMO accommodation is found for families or smaller groups of asylum seekers, they will be more vulnerable to any aggressive demonstrations organised by neighbours alarmed by extremist misinformation about them. Such incidents will be much harder for the police to control. It may be that some form of emergency legislation will be required to delay the implementation of such High Court orders, although that in itself may not be constitutional. The only course then open to government is to redouble its efforts to process the backlog bequeathed to them by the previous administration, speeding up the grant of leave to remain for genuine refugees, or issuing deportation orders in expedited fashion for rejected claimants. It will take too long to build vast detention centres, while the old army barracks that have been commandeered in the past have been found to be completely unsuitable. The High Court has listened to the representatives of the people of Epping Forest and made its decision, and it is right that the judges should do so. Citizens have a right to have their cases heard impartially and have their grievances aired. The courts will no doubt soon be issuing many similar orders. Yet there are other people with a stake in these cases. Perhaps the most lamentable aspect of this latest episode in the migration crisis is that the voices of the immigrants themselves have been so rarely heard, and their plight disregarded. They have their human rights, too, enforceable by law – though many would cheerfully seek to deny them that. Indeed, the tendency in the media has been to demonise these fellow human beings as malevolent monsters determined to wreak crime and havoc in whatever neighbourhood they find themselves bussed to. Whether refugee or economic migrant, they are entitled to be treated properly in a civilised society, and not portrayed, as cynical politicians pretend, as an 'invasion' of 'fighting-age' men. They are not an alien army, but individuals who want a better life. Many would have preferred to stay put, were it not for war, persecution, famine and poverty. In a land such as Britain, with severe labour shortages, they have much to contribute, as have previous waves of immigrants. They could help to fix the 'Broken Britain' we hear so much about, and do the jobs that need doing. Yet they are all too often regarded as terrorists, rapists and murderers. The police at the hotel demos fare hardly any better, berated as 'paedo-defenders' and verbally and physically abused for doing their duty and preserving the King's Peace. The wider challenge for ministers now is to persuade the public that they are doing all they can to restore order to the asylum system – and to rebuild confidence in it. That task just got a lot more urgent.

BBC ‘not institutionally antisemitic', editor says after row over Gaza coverage
BBC ‘not institutionally antisemitic', editor says after row over Gaza coverage

The Independent

time5 minutes ago

  • The Independent

BBC ‘not institutionally antisemitic', editor says after row over Gaza coverage

The BBC is 'not institutionally antisemitic', a newspaper editor has said following a row over the broadcaster's coverage of the conflict in Gaza. James Harding, The Observer 's editor-in-chief said the perception of a 'political presence looming over the BBC' is a problem and the broadcaster needs to be 'beyond the reach of politicians'. The BBC has been criticised for a number of incidents in recent months which include breaching its own accuracy editorial guidelines and livestreaming the Bob Vylan Glastonbury set, where there were chants of 'Death, death to the IDF (Israel Defence Forces)'. Following the incident, UK Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said ministers expect 'accountability at the highest levels' for the BBC's decision to screen the performance. Mr Harding discussed the difficulties of covering the Gaza conflict when he delivered this year's James MacTaggart Memorial Lecture at the Edinburgh TV Festival on Wednesday. He described how 'newsrooms are in a furious argument with ourselves over the coverage of Israel and Gaza', with the situation 'very hard to view dispassionately'. The Observer chief said this is true for all media organisations, particularly the BBC, and it is 'about as difficult as it gets in news'. Mr Harding said: 'This summer, Lisa Nandy has weighed in.' He said the Culture Secretary's office insists she did not explicitly ask Samir Shah, the BBC chairman, to 'deliver up' director-general Tim Davie 's resignation following the Bob Vylan incident, but 'people inside the BBC were left in no doubt that was the message'. Mr Harding said: 'The place became paranoid about how the BBC itself would cover the story; people around him thought the political pressure would be too much. 'Whatever your view of the hate speech vs freedom of speech issues, an overbearing government minister doesn't help anyone. 'The hiring and firing of the editor-in-chief of the country's leading newsroom and cultural organisation should not be the job of a politician. It's chilling. 'Political interference – and the perception of a political presence looming over the BBC – is a problem, one that we've got too accustomed to. 'It looks likely to get worse. We need to get on with putting the country's most important editorial and creative organisation beyond the reach of politicians now.' The broadcaster is also facing an Ofcom investigation into its documentary Gaza: How To Survive A Warzone after a review found it had breached the corporation's editorial guidelines on accuracy. The programme was removed from BBC iPlayer in February after it emerged the child narrator, Abdullah, is the son of Ayman Alyazouri, who has worked as Hamas's deputy minister of agriculture. Mr Harding said the BBC is not antisemitic. 'I am Jewish, proudly so,' he said. 'I'm proud, too, to have worked for the most important news organisation in the world. 'The BBC is not institutionally antisemitic. It's untrue to say it is. 'It's also unhelpful – much better to correct the mistakes and address the judgment calls that have been wrong, than smear the institution, impugn the character of all the people who work there and, potentially, undermine journalists in the field working in the most difficult and dangerous of conditions.' The UK Government and the BBC have been asked for comment. Mr Harding is co-founder of Tortoise Media, which acquired broadsheet newspaper The Observer in April. Before he co-founded Tortoise Media, Mr Harding was editor of The Times from 2007 to 2012 and was in charge of the BBC's news and current affairs programming from 2013 up until the beginning of 2018. He also co-presented On Background on the BBC World Service and wrote the book Alpha Dogs: How Political Spin Became A Global Business. A spokesperson for the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport said: 'The Culture Secretary has been repeatedly clear that the role of the director-general is a matter for the BBC board. Any suggestion to the contrary is untrue. 'The BBC has itself acknowledged a number of serious failings in recent months, including the broadcasting of the Bob Vylan set at Glastonbury. 'It is entirely right that the Culture Secretary raised these issues with the BBC leadership on behalf of licence fee payers.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store