x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.

Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls added to the pre-released text of his speech at the Labour conference yesterday by reiterating the party's pledge to introduce a mansion tax on homes valued at £2m and above.

We will levy a tax on the highest value properties over £2m - a mansion tax. We'll do it in a fair, sensible and proportionate way, raising the limit each year in line with average house prices and putting in place protections for those who are asset-rich and cash poor he said.

We'll make sure that properties worth tens of millions of pounds make significantly bigger contributions than those houses that are just above the [£2m] limit.

Because how can it be right that a billionaire overseas buyer this year of a £140m penthouse in Westminster will pay just £26 a week in property tax - the same as the average property tax in that area. We will make different choices he told the party's conference in Manchester.

There will be four levels of mansion tax if Labour wins power next year, used to raise revenue to boost funding for the NHS.

The lowest of the four bands would be for homes valued at £2m to £5m. In a bid to deflect criticism that this would include modest homes owned by people who were not rich - but who had just lived in the same home for a long period, during which it appreciated extensively - Balls says some asset rich, cash poor' may be able to defer payment of the mansion tax until they sell the property, while others may possibly be eligible for tax relief.

Comments

  • icon

    Yet more State Control with money collected to be wasted on daft government schemes (It's for the NHS LOL!)
    Brilliant way to cap house prices though, but be prepared to see lots of 'mansions' valued or for sale at 1 under the lower level of 2m
    The administration could cost more than the tax collected

    • 23 September 2014 11:37 AM
  • icon

    Seriously Surely, if you live in a house that costs over 2m, you have more than a little bit of money to spare. Of course people who live in more expensive houses should pay more - redistribution of wealth, you know. It's not like they are being asked to spend obscene amounts of money - just more than 26 a week. Seems fair to me.

    • 23 September 2014 09:50 AM
  • icon

    What a ridiculous idea!

    Why should people pay more because they happen to live in a more expensive property

    Labour are going for easy targets as usual!

    • 23 September 2014 09:08 AM
  • icon

    Sounds good in theory, but will they stick to their guns if they get in power

    • 23 September 2014 08:40 AM
MovePal MovePal MovePal