Former Sunak adviser urges Labour to introduce wealth tax on housing
In recent years, the push to reform local government finance has gained significant traction. A growing consensus among parliamentarians, think tanks, economists, and campaigners underscores the urgent need to replace the regressive Council Tax and the anti-aspirational Stamp Duty with a more equitable Proportional Property Tax. Tim Leunig has made three key recommendations: implementing a clear distinction between national and local funding, introducing a minimum payment to safeguard essential local services, and advocating for a more efficient property valuation process. These innovative proposals deserve serious consideration from the new Government, and we strongly urge them to give this paper the attention it merits.
You can read the full article featured in The Guardian here.
Sunak's Blind Spot: Council Tax Reform Remains a Political Opportunity
Despite its widespread unpopularity, successive governments have avoided tackling Council Tax reform, deeming it too challenging to address. While there has been occasional talk of adjustments, such as adding new bands to account for rising house prices since 1991, substantive reform remains elusive.
Although there is a clear connection between the cost-of-living crisis and the regressive nature of Council Tax, the government shows little interest in implementing meaningful changes to this outdated and unfair system of taxing people's homes.
With the cost-of-living crisis still hitting hard and essential expenses like energy, fuel, and food bills remaining high, now is the time for politicians to confront Council Tax. Reforming it would alleviate financial burdens for the vast majority of households across the country and potentially yield significant electoral advantages for whichever major party is willing to take the lead.
Extensive polling by JL Partners indicates that voters throughout the UK believe it is time to replace Council Tax and Stamp Duty with a simpler and fairer Proportional Property Tax, based on current property values. The findings suggest substantial electoral gains for either Conservatives or Labour if they were to endorse this policy. This is further supported by More in Common’s report, which highlighted that a pledge to reform Council Tax is at the top of everyone's manifesto wish list. In fact, according to James Johnson of JL Partners, “there is a huge electoral gift here for either party if they want to take it on”. So why are we not hearing more about it from party leaders?
Support for the Proportional Property Tax is highest among residents in lower-value homes in the North and the Midlands, who would benefit the most from significantly lower bills. Across England, households could see an average annual property tax saving of £556, with even larger savings in towns such as Blackpool South and Hartlepool. With Council Tax rises of up to 10% in some areas, the financial strains on households who are already grappling with rising living costs, are exacerbated.
When asked about a Proportional Property Tax, the Government responds by saying the tax would mean “soaring bills for many hard-working families and pensioners who have saved and improved their homes”. This shows a complete lack of understanding of the policy, which has significant safeguards in place to protect those who live in valuable homes but have limited income – the so-called “asset rich, cash poor”.
Regarding the Proportional Property Tax, Fairer Share’s founder, Andrew Dixon, says “Our fully funded solution presents a real opportunity for meaningful tax reform that addresses the cost-of-living crisis, bolsters public finances, and secures electoral advantages. The party that embraces this reform will create positive change, benefiting both the public and the country as a whole by addressing the unfairness of the current system and providing much-needed relief to households facing financial strain”.
The lack of meaningful Council Tax reform raises questions about whether it has been a blind spot for Sunak's administration. Despite the clear need for change highlighted by numerous MPs, think tanks, campaigners and economists, and the clear benefits of solutions like the Proportional Property Tax, the government's reluctance to address this issue raises concerns over its commitment to addressing the cost-of-living crisis and ensuring fairness within the tax system. Maybe Starmer will grasp the nettle? He has, after all, committed to “level up” regions more effectively than the Conservatives.
John Stevenson, MP for Carlisle | Council Tax has morphed into the Poll Tax
Council Tax has morphed into the Poll Tax and is a drag on rebalancing our regional economies - John Stevenson, Conservative MP for Carlisle
The Poll Tax was a deeply unpopular policy because, at its most basic level, it felt unfair. The problem was that it simply did not reflect an individual’s ability to pay. The poorest families and the richest families were expected to contribute an equal amount, meaning that, as a proportion of one’s income, the poorest were much worse off.
However, we are now in a position where its replacement, Council Tax, has morphed into a new version of the Poll Tax. And because of hugely imbalanced property prices across the country, it acts as a drag on rebalancing our regional economies and levelling up the areas of the country that need it the most.
Whilst Council Tax is somewhat more progressive – property value is banded and it is levied on capital value as opposed to notional rental value – it still fails to properly compensate for differences in actual income and wealth. Worse still, because of regional imbalances in property values that have only grown larger, the current system of Council Tax ingrains the disparity between the North and the South. The overarching reality is that, because property values have not been updated for over 30 years, Council Tax suffers from almost the same regressivity as the Poll Tax.
This is due to many features relating to the design of Council Tax. For example, the difference between bands is extremely small, making it resemble a per capita tax. Accordingly, the difference in payments between rich and poor is extraordinarily small. The fact that it is levied equally within bands means that the lowest-valued properties in each band pay a significantly higher amount as a percentage of their property value than the highest-valued property in that same band.
This is all before we look at the disproportionate effect that the tax has on the different regions of the UK, where property prices vary to such a wild degree. As property value in the South East has sky-rocketed, the relative cost of Council Tax to property value has plummeted in comparison to the rest of the country. Right now, someone in a £150,000 home in Bolton pays £1,000 more a year in Council Tax than someone living in an £8m mansion in Westminster.
So, by unintended effect, Council Tax has almost become the Poll Tax in all but name. It is time for the Conservative Party to finally put this right, by listening to their MPs, think tank Bright Blue and voters and introducing a proportional property tax. One idea, spearheaded by Fairer Share, would be to create a flat 0.48 per cent tax on residential property value. This would provide more than £550 of annual tax savings for 77 per cent of households.
A huge number of these households would be in the North and Midlands – meaning a substantial annual cash boost to those hard working families who pay Council Tax on top of all the other obligations they currently have. Levelling up, or any incarnation of that concept, can only happen when the people of those areas which need to be boosted become richer themselves and have more money to spend.
Furthermore, the incentive to live in an area where property prices are not only lower but where the tax attached to them is also lower would mean a huge rebalancing in the workforce – at once easing the burden in the South and opening up opportunities in the rest of the country, especially for those areas that have traditionally found it more difficult to attract skilled labour and talent.
Not only is this the right thing to do for the country, but there is also a politically necessary element to the reform. Recent polling has indicated that adopting this policy would be popular amongst a large number of voters, with a plurality, 41 per cent, supporting a proportional property tax and only 8 per cent opposing it.
This is not surprising, as 90 per cent of households in key constituencies would see a tax cut from this policy.
This reform is fully costed, will help to fund new infrastructure and, perhaps most importantly, will provide the Treasury with additional fiscal breathing room - a surplus of £5.6bn.
Some 32 years later, the Poll Tax riots still haunt the Conservative Party – which is why I think governments of all colours are loath to meddle with Council Tax. But there has to be a reckoning.
The Conservative Party should never be seen as the party of high taxes. Instead, we should aim to be seen as the party of fair taxes. Being an unfair tax is what did it for the Poll Tax - and Council Tax is now basically replicating this unfairness across the country. It is time to be bold and finally right the wrong that Council Tax has become.
This article was first published in The Yorkshire Post here.
Families in Essex's poorest area hit with 'disproportionate' council tax burden
"People in Jaywick are paying at least three times more as a proportion of their property value in council tax compared to the most wealthy area of Hutton Mount in Brentwood."
Families in Essex's poorest area hit with 'disproportionate' council tax burden
An excellent piece, written by Piers Meyler and published in Essex Live, highlights the significant Council Tax disparities faced by families in Jaywick, Essex, the region with the highest level of deprivation. Recent findings shed light on the disproportionate burden, revealing that residents in Jaywick pay at least three times more as a proportion of their property value in Council Tax compared to wealthier areas such as Hutton Mount in Brentwood. This stark contrast has reignited calls for a reform of the current system, with the author advocating for a fairer approach through Fairer Share’s Proportional Property Tax.
Click here to read the full article.
Andrew Dixon | From Inequality to Inclusivity: Property Tax Reform and Labour's Vision for the UK
From Inequality to Inclusivity: Property Tax Reform and Labour's Vision for the UK
Andrew Dixon, Founder & Chairman of Fairer Share
The debate surrounding tax policy in the UK has intensified, with Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chancellor of the Labour Party, ruling out wealth taxes. This stance has faced criticism in several articles from reputable sources such as New Statesman, The Guardian, and The Financial Times. Rachel Reeves' decision to reject wealth taxes and other tax increases is part of Labour's strategy to demonstrate economic competence and appeal to the corporate sector. However, critics argue that this approach misses opportunities to address wealth inequality and promote economic growth.
Harry Lambert, writing in the New Statesman, criticizes Labour's refusal to adopt tax reforms that shift the tax burden from labour to capital and wealth. These reforms could raise substantial revenue, potentially funding green energy initiatives or cutting income taxes for most people, while also addressing wealth inequality and boosting economic growth.
Josh Ryan-Collins, in The Guardian, criticizes Rachel Reeves' rejection of wealth taxes and her implication that lower taxes on the wealthy will lead to prosperity (trickle-down economics). The article argues that the UK's tax system incentivizes rentier capitalism, where capital gains are taxed less than income, resulting in a misallocation of capital that stifles growth and productivity. It contends that taxing wealth and capital gains while increasing public spending can help control inflation and promote progressive deflation, aligning with recommendations from organizations like the OECD, IMF, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
In the context of this ongoing debate surrounding taxation policies in the UK, if outright wealth taxes are ruled out, it is crucial to at least reform more regressive and punitive property taxes, notably council tax and stamp duty. Indeed, The Financial Times’ Editorial Board argues that council tax, stamp duty, and business rates hinder productivity and economic growth. The board proposes replacing council tax with an annual proportional property value tax based on updated valuations, gradually reducing stamp duty, and reforming business rates. These changes aim to address inequality and promote growth.
As we turn our attention to the next General Election, the Labour Party Manifesto serves as a roadmap for its policy priorities and aspirations when seeking to govern the country. By including property tax reform, the party would signal its commitment to addressing two of the most pressing issues in the UK: economic inequality and regional disparities. This commitment aligns with the party's historical values and its promise to create a fairer and more inclusive society.
Property tax reform, as outlined by The FT, Lambert and Ryan-Collins, can play a pivotal role in rectifying the regressive nature of the current tax system. Council tax, based on outdated property values, places a disproportionate burden on households in less affluent regions, exacerbating regional inequality. By pledging to replace council tax with an annual proportional property value tax, the Labour Party would demonstrate its dedication to levelling the playing field and ensuring that taxation is fair and equitable.
Furthermore, the inclusion of property tax reform in their manifesto underscores the Labour Party's commitment to fiscal responsibility. While advocating for tax reforms, Labour acknowledges the importance of maintaining local government revenue. By carefully phasing in changes, introducing caps and reliefs for vulnerable households, and deferring payments until property sale or death, the party can strike a balance between fairness and financial stability. This balanced approach resonates with voters who value responsible economic management.
Importantly, property tax reform is a policy that can capture the attention and support of a broad spectrum of voters. Proportional property taxes are commonplace in many countries indicating their feasibility and acceptance among the public. The proposal to cut taxes for three in four people while raising necessary revenue can be an attractive proposition for voters and help deliver a persuasive campaign platform.
In conclusion, while wealth taxes may be ruled out, including reform to property taxes, specifically council tax and stamp duty, in the Labour Party's manifesto is not only a strategic move but also a commitment to tackling regional inequality, fiscal responsibility, and an opportunity to resonate with voters across the political spectrum. By taking a stance that aligns with economic fairness and growth, the Labour Party can set itself apart and offer a compelling vision for the future of the UK's tax system and its broader society.
In ditching wealth tax, Labour is rejecting growth and embracing bad economics
“The Labour Party has no serious plans for reforming Britain’s regressive taxation system. There will be no new property taxes or wealth tax. Nor will tax rates on capital gains – unearned income from increases in the value of property or financial assets – be raised to match those on wages.”
In ditching wealth tax, Labour is rejecting growth and embracing bad economics
In his article for The Guardian, Josh Ryan-Collins criticizes the Labour Party, particularly its shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, for their refusal to embrace property tax reform and wealth taxation. Reeves' stance of maintaining the current taxation system, including not implementing new property or wealth taxes, is viewed by Ryan-Collins as a misguided political move that contradicts the party's mission of fostering economic growth.
Reeves seems to endorse "trickle-down" economics, implying that lower taxes for the wealthy will stimulate economic growth for all, a concept widely discredited. Contrary to this approach, the Biden administration in the United States has opted for aggressive tax increases to support a significant fiscal expansion, leading to a robust post-pandemic recovery.
Ryan-Collins argues that the UK's tax system encourages a form of "rentier capitalism" where capital gains are taxed less than income, leading to significant tax breaks for property ownership and housing investment. This incentivizes the accumulation of assets by private investors and property owners, rather than fostering productive investment, innovation, or infrastructure development. This structural issue contributes to the UK's stagnant growth and low productivity.
The article also highlights the challenge of inflation, which can hinder Labour's plans for increased public spending and green initiatives. To address this, Ryan-Collins suggests that taxing wealth and capital gains, particularly from the wealthy, can help mitigate inflationary pressures and allow wages for lower earners to catch up with the rest of society.
Notably, Labour's stance on taxation contradicts the views of many economic institutions, including the OECD, IMF, Institute for Fiscal Studies, and the Financial Times, which advocate for higher taxes on property and wealth as a means to support public investment, reduce inequality, and promote economic growth. Ryan-Collins concludes that Labour's position aligns with a minority of economists who still believe taxing wealth less than income can foster growth, a viewpoint that is increasingly isolated.
Click here to read the full article.
Britain’s great tax con
“A proportional property tax would not raise revenue, but it would even the burden between poor and rich households. That would galvanise the economy, as the rich save and the poor spend.”
Britain’s great tax con
In his excellent piece titled "Britain’s great tax con" Harry Lambert discusses the need for tax reform in the UK. The article points out that the UK's tax system perpetuates inequality, hampers economic growth, and benefits the wealthy at the expense of the majority.
The Labour party, poised to return to power, has been reluctant to specify its tax plans, except for a commitment not to introduce new taxes on wealth. However, the article argues that Labour will face the challenge of raising revenue to fund its government spending, and one effective way to do so is by shifting the tax burden from labour to capital, from income to wealth.
By increasing taxes on wealth, Labour could potentially reduce taxes on income. The proposed reforms detailed in the article could generate £28 billion annually, which could be used for green energy initiatives or to cut income tax rates. This shift from taxing labour to capital would align with Labour's historical focus on supporting workers.
The article emphasizes that ignoring wealth and refusing to consider these tax reforms is a mistake for Labour. Wealth inequality in the UK has grown over the years, with the wealthiest 10 percent consistently gaining the most, while the bottom half struggles. The current tax system benefits the wealthy, including those who inherit vast estates, as only a small percentage of gifts and inheritances are taxed.
The article argues that Labour could gain popularity and redefine its identity by advocating for tax reforms on wealth, such as a proportional property tax, which could level the playing field between rich and poor households.
Furthermore, the article suggests implementing a wealth tax on the very richest individuals, which could raise substantial revenue without causing capital flight or significant evasion.
In conclusion, the article calls on the Labour party to address the flaws in the UK's tax code, particularly regarding property tax, in order to reduce inequality, spur economic growth, and fulfill its promise of representing the interests of working people.
Click here to read the full article.
Britain’s inefficient and unfair property levies need reform
“As long as the status quo with council tax, stamp duty and business rates remains in place, the UK will be a more unequal, less productive, and lower revenue-raising country.”
Britain’s inefficient and unfair property levies need reform
In this article by the FT Editorial Board, the authors delve into the shortcomings of Britain's property tax system, touching upon the principles of taxation set forth by Adam Smith and emphasizing the need for reform to address issues of fairness, certainty, convenience, and efficiency. The article references "Fairer Share" in proposing solutions to these problems.
The current system of property taxes in the UK, including council tax, stamp duty, and business rates, is criticized for failing to align with the four principles advocated by Adam Smith. These taxes collectively generate substantial government revenue, close to 9 percent of the total, but they are considered poorly designed and detrimental to both economic equality and productivity.
Council tax, a tax based on property values from 1991, is highlighted as regressive due to significant changes in house prices since then. This tax places a disproportionate burden on residents, with those in the north-east and south-west regions paying the highest percentages of their wages. In contrast, residents in London, where incomes and property values are higher, pay significantly less in proportion to their income.
The article suggests replacing council tax with an annual proportional property value tax based on current house valuations, with local councils retaining access to the revenues. Tax rates would be adjusted to ensure each authority raises a similar amount as it did with council tax, and central funding to local authorities would be modified accordingly. The transition would be phased in to prevent abrupt changes in bills, and safeguards such as caps, reliefs, and deferred payment options would be implemented to support those in vulnerable financial situations.
The discussion then turns to stamp duty, a transaction tax that discourages property owners from downsizing and hinders the fluidity of the housing market. This, in turn, affects labour mobility and exacerbates skill shortages in various regions. The article proposes a gradual reduction and eventual elimination of stamp duty, potentially replaced by a 0.5 percent tax on current property valuations, as proposed by us, while maintaining revenue neutrality.
The article acknowledges the political challenges and resistance to these reforms, emphasizing the inertia within the current property tax system due to potential winners and losers from change. It calls for a phased approach, cost mitigation measures, and planning reforms to incentivize development. The central message is that maintaining the status quo with council tax, stamp duty, and business rates will result in a more unequal, less productive, and lower-revenue-raising UK, ultimately benefiting no one.
Click here to read the full article.
Andrew Dixon | Living longer with the Proportional Property Tax
This article appeared in CapX on June 29th 2023, written by Andrew Dixon, founder of Fairer Share
The debate surrounding tax reform options is intensifying ahead of the next General Election, compelling both the Government and Opposition to grapple with the challenge of maintaining fiscal balance in the face of higher inflation, growing inequality, and aging populations. Inheritance tax, income tax, corporation tax have all become topics of daily discussion but there is one area that deserves more attention: property tax. Stamp Duty and Council Tax have become outdated and are having a significant impact in the marginal seats that will be at the centre of the election battle.
Stamp Duty is restricting the opportunity for families to get onto the housing ladder, exacerbating the housing crisis by discouraging house purchases, contributing to under-occupation of certain properties, and slowing down the overall market. And Council Tax is in dire need of reform. Research conducted by the TaxPayers’ Alliance revealed that the average band D Council Tax bill in England has more than tripled since its introduction 30 years ago, representing an increase of 79% in real terms. The consequences of this rising and regressive tax are far-reaching. It diminishes disposal income, adds to already high housing costs, and exacerbates inequalities in local government funding. Disturbingly, all these issues have a knock-on impact on health and life expectancy as well.
A new report from Fairer Share released this week with WPI Economics highlights a startling correlation: even a 0.2% increase in the burden of Council Tax is associated with a one-year reduction in average life expectancy. The impact of this in practice can be seen in the comparison between County Durham and Westminster. In the former, Council Tax bills average 1.15% of property value, while in the latter, it is a mere 0.06%. Life expectancy in County Durham is seven years lower for men and six years lower for women compared to the area surrounding Parliament.
Amidst the ongoing cost-of-living crisis, politicians are overlooking a revenue-neutral tax reform that could make a difference. This reform involves abolishing both Council Tax and Stamp Duty, replacing them with the Proportional Property Tax, which would primarily benefit those residing in the poorest and least healthy areas. Under the new system, 18 million households would pay less compared to the current Council Tax rates, resulting in £6.5bn in savings for Council Tax payers outside of central London. Every region in the UK except London would experience savings on property tax, ranging from £143 per year per household in eastern England to £615 in Yorkshire, Humber, and the north-east.
By increasing the disposable incomes of those most in need and poorest in health, this shift in tax policy has the potential to reduce inequality and improve health outcomes. It is crucial that a transition to the Proportional Property Tax be included in party manifestos. Voters should no longer be expected to endure the burden of regressive property taxes, particularly when these taxes have the potential to compromise the health, the well-being, and the financial stability of both themselves and their families.
Simon Fell's Letter to Andrew Griffith MP
Andrew Griffith MP
Economic Secretary to the Treasury HM Treasury
The Correspondence & Enquiry unit 1 Horse Guards Road
London SW1A 2HQ
26 May 2023
Alternatives to Council Tax and Stamp Duty
Thank you for attending the Westminster Hall debate on Wednesday 17th May. I appreciate your recognition of the cross-party support for reform and your acknowledgment of the unfairness inherent in our country's property taxes.
I thought it prudent to write to you, post-debate, to address some of the concerns that you raised at the debate.
You expressed concerns about the impact on low and fixed incomes, particularly the "asset- rich, cash-poor"individuals. As mentioned in my introductory remarks, during the transition to Proportional Property Tax (PPT),any increase in local property tax would be capped at £100 per month (£3 per day) for primary residences. This transitional protection would cease upon sale, but buyerswould benefit from the removal of Stamp Duty.
Additionally, a deferral mechanism could be implemented for owners genuinely unable to pay, allowing them todefer tax payments with a modest interest charge. The deferred amount could be paid later or upon the sale of the home,avoiding debt-related issues associated with Council Tax collection.
It is important to note that this reform aims to address the inherent unfairness of Council Tax rather thanimposing wealth taxes. Council Tax, in essence, acts as a wealth tax for low and middle-income families. While it istheoretically based on a property's value, the valuations are outdated, relying on property prices from 1991.
In my constituency of Barrow & Furness, the average household pays 0.80% of the property value in Council Taxannually, significantly impacting their disposable income. Such a tax rate would be deemed unpalatable in affluentareas like London. Therefore, we must question why it is accepted in constituencies like mine.
You rightly noted that a property tax on residential properties alone would not be comprehensive, but it is a positive step to tax immovable and easily valued assets, considering how simple it is to shift financial assets offshore.
Furthermore, local government finance has long been a subject of concern and debate. Local authorities face thechallenge of balancing their budgets while providing essential services to their communities. However, existingmechanisms like Council Tax has limitations that result in imbalances and unfairness. Fairer Share proposes asolution to these challenges through the implementation of Proportional Property Tax (PPT). This innovative approachaims to create a fairer and more progressive system of local government finance. The PPT addresses thelimitations of existing mechanisms by aligning tax payments more closely with property values and ensuring a more equitable distribution of resources.
Under the PPT, properties would be regularly revalued based on their current market value, reducing disparities andensuring that households with similar properties pay a fair share of taxes. Additionally, the PPT introduces aprogressive structure, meaning that individuals with higher-valued properties contribute more, while those withlower-valued properties pay less.
Crucially, Fairer Share's PPT still upholds the principles of local referenda, allowing local residents to have a say inmajor financial decisions. The PPT would provide local communities with a fairer and more transparent tax system as the basis for their decision-making.
Implementing Fairer Share's PPT would bring several benefits to local government finance. Firstly, it would create afairer and more progressive system, reducing inequalities in tax burdens across households and communities. Thisenhanced fairness would contribute to greater social cohesion and address the long-standing issue of disproportionate tax contributions.
Secondly, the PPT would provide local authorities with a more stable and predictable revenue stream. By basing taxes on property values, which tend to be more stable than other economic indicators, local authorities can better plan and allocate resources to meet the needs of their communities.
Lastly, the PPT promotes local autonomy and decision-making. By granting local authorities’ greater revenue-raising powers, they can become more self-reliant and responsive to local needs and preferences. The PPT enableslocal authorities to have the financial means to invest in infrastructure, public services, and other initiatives thatdirectly benefit their communities.
I understand your concerns regarding the challenges of valuation. Fairer Share approached the International Property Tax Institute (IPTI) for advice on implementing Proportional Property Tax (PPT) inthe UK. IPTI, drawing on its expertise in property tax systems worldwide, provided guidance on various valuationissues related to the potential implementation of PPT.
It is worth noting that several countries already have property tax systems similar to the proposed PPT, which haveproven successful. Countries like the Netherlands, British Columbia (Canada), and New York City (USA) employ property tax systems closely resembling PPT, utilizing local property taxes based on annual revalued capitalvalues. Some parts of Australia also employ local property tax systems with similar characteristics. Other jurisdictionslike Ontario (Canada) and New Zealand use capital values but revalue them every 3 to 4 years.
Many countries worldwide conduct regular revaluations of capital values for their property tax systems.
Notably, these jurisdictions value all property types (residential and non-residential) on the same basis. They havefound that valuing residential properties with a high degree of accuracy is relatively straightforward, utilizingcomputer-assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) techniques incorporating automated valuation model (AVM)technology.
Ireland's unique approach to valuing residential properties for local property tax purposes is included in the study.Although based on individual capital values like PPT, Ireland's system employs self-assessment for valuations. Arevaluation is planned for later in 2021. Another similarity between the Irish system and the UK is the distinctionbetween residential and non- residential properties, involving separate processes, procedures, and valuation methods.The current UK valuation agencies do not possess the necessary technology for PPT. However, their previousexperiences with mass appraisal systems could be beneficial.
In conclusion, IPTI provided comprehensive advice on implementing Proportional Property Tax (PPT) in the UK, addressing valuation methodologies, data requirements, costs, challenges, and international examples. The report highlights the potential benefits of PPT and offers insights based on the experiences of other jurisdictions.
Thank you once again for your input, and I hope that the information provided addresses your concerns.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
Simon Fell
Member of Parliament for Barrow & Furness
Watch the debate below: -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_5H85Yob-w&t=20s