The Economist appears to have cut through the arguments over mansion tax - and its conclusion may upset those who think London is unfairly targeted by the measure.
The publication says that between around 91,000 English and Welsh properties would incur the levy if the threshold were set at £2m, as suggested by the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. This figure is slightly lower than the figures put out by some high-end estate agents and by Zoopla.
About 74,000 or 81 per cent of these are in London, with a further 11,000 elsewhere in the south east. However, The Economist says there are fewer than 100 properties in the north east and just 12 in Wales which are valued at more than £2m.
The parliamentary constituency with the highest number of £2m-plus homes is Kensington, where almost one-third of households will pay the tax. Outside London, Beaconsfield in Buckinghamshirejust outside the capitalhas the most.
However, it says over half of English and Welsh constituencies317 of 573have no mansions at all, it says.
This is where the article turns on London.
The uneven distribution of the tax hardly comes as a surprise. Incomes and hence income tax revenues are highest in the south-east; few label this an injustice. Similarly, the high price of London properties is down to their desirability and scarcity; economists measure wealth with prices, not floorspace it says.
The Economist then addresses the argument suggesting that many long-standing owners are accidental mansion owners' by adding: An occupant of a London housewhenever they bought itis making use of one of society's prized assets.
.jpg)
Comments
thanks John. Don't want everyone pretending to be a middle aged bald man!
I think it's just a glitch on the site, Lorne. You can rest assured that Guest(Paul) has a blank face on my machine!
And why does Guest (paul) have a picture of me next to his name Is it just my computer or can everyone see that If everyone then please change it!
Mansion tax won't actually raise a penny for the NHS though. Numerous studies and independent reports show the devaluation of affected property will cause a 2.0bn drop in stamp duty and inheritance tax revenue.
Forget what you might think about 'mansion' owners and just look at the fundamental economics. 1.2bn raised but 2.0bn lost every year. It's a stupid tax
Quite. All this anti-mansion tax stuff is scaremongering. It will only affect a relatively small percentage of people, almost exclusively in London and the SE, who can more than afford a small annual charge.
If you live in a 2m plus house - have you seen what you can get for 2m plus, even in London - then I can't imagine you are scrimping by. Look at the areas spoken about, Kensington and Beaconsfield, very desirable areas and have been for some time. I doubt many of the properties in that area have leapt from 100,000 to 3m in the last ten years.
The very rich should have to pay a little bit extra, that's only fair. And, as some don't seem to understand, this is a progressive tax, so that rich Ukrainian bloke who topped the Sunday Times Rich list and has a 41m house in Kensington will pay more than someone who is just over the threshold with a 2.1m property.
Some sense at last. Well said, The Economist!