Key conclusions from Westminster Hall debate on property tax reform
Proposals for Property Tax Reform: Levelling Up, Promoting Fairness and Stimulating Economic Growth
Simon Fell, MP for Barrow and Furness, led a Westminster Hall debate on the future of Council Tax and Stamp Duty in Parliament on Wednesday 17th May. There was widespread cross party support for Fairer Share’s Proportional Property Tax. Below are the key conclusions drawn from this important debate
In his speech advocating for property tax reform, Simon Fell highlights the flaws and inequities of the current property tax system and presents a solution aimed at unleashing savings, promoting equity, and stimulating economic growth. Fell acknowledges the historical challenges associated with property tax reform, referencing the poll tax riots as a cautionary tale. However, he emphasizes that the current property taxes disproportionately favour the wealthy, burden lower-value homes, discourage efficient housing use, and penalize homebuyers and sellers. These issues impact all constituencies and hinder the provision of local services and infrastructure.
Council Tax
Council tax, introduced in 1993 as a replacement for the unpopular poll tax, has become increasingly dissatisfying to the public. Surveys reveal that only 29% of people consider council tax calculations fair, with 33% supporting the status quo. The burden falls heavily on the young, low earners, and residents in less prosperous regions, while benefiting wealthy homeowners and property investors. The outdated property valuations and the band structure contribute to the unfairness of council tax. For example, a person in a £100,000 property pays roughly five times more tax relative to property value than someone in a £1 million property. Such disparities are far from a fair tax system.
Stamp Duty
Stamp duty, often considered council tax's accomplice, exacerbates the housing crisis by discouraging property transactions and hindering efficient property use. While it has progressive rates for larger transactions, it still poses barriers to homeowners looking to downsize or upsize, affecting job opportunities and overall housing market activity. Fell argues that abolishing stamp duty on owner-occupied properties would alleviate the housing crisis and promote housing stock utilization. However, he suggests retaining stamp duty for second home and non-residential buyers to address issues specific to certain communities, such as the hollowing out of villages due to second homes and holiday lets.
The Proposal
Proportional Property Tax (PPT) System To address the inadequacies of the current property tax system, Fell proposes a move to a proportional property tax (PPT) system. He cites the Fairer Share methodology as a concrete solution, replacing the convoluted band system with a simple flat tax of 0.48% of property value, with a 0.96% surcharge for second homes, empty homes, and non-residential properties. The benefits of such a system would be significant: 18 million households would experience a tax reduction, with an average annual saving of £556 per household. Additionally, council tax payers outside central London would save £6.5 billion annually, providing a substantial boost to local communities and economies. The reform would also exempt over 750,000 house buyers from paying stamp duty, simplifying, and reducing the cost of house buying. The increased housing market activity is estimated to contribute to a £3.27 billion boost in GDP per year.
Impact on Second Homes and Empty Homes:
Moreover, the PPT system would ensure that 1.4 million second homes, empty homes, and undeveloped properties contribute their fair share of tax, with the generated revenue used to lower bills for all taxpayers. This would incentivize owners to rent, sell, or develop these properties, thereby increasing the housing supply. Fell highlights that the reform would generate an annual surplus of £5.4 billion through surcharges on second homes, empty homes, and foreign-owned homes. This surplus can be utilized by the government to address various pressing needs. Shifting the tax burden to owners aligns with international practice and also eases administration for local councils.
Mitigations for Potential Impact:
Fell acknowledges that any wide-ranging reform will have winners and losers. To address concerns about potential higher taxes for individuals, he proposes several mitigations to soften the impact. These include the introduction of a transitional period, extending the period for any tax increase over a certain threshold, and allowing homeowners to defer payments until a property is sold. Additionally, the government could explore options such as a temporary subsidy for certain groups to ensure a fair transition and alleviate any short-term financial burden.
Local Government Finance and Redistribution:
Regarding the impact on local government finance, Fell proposes central government grants or funds redistributed from councils generating higher PPT revenue to supplement the shortfall for councils generating less revenue. This would ensure that no local authority faces significant financial challenges due to the reform. Additionally, a portion of the generated surplus could be allocated to local authorities to support community projects, infrastructure development, and public services.
Political Support:
Fell noted that politicians from various parties, along with think tanks like Bright Blue, IFS, IPPR, and campaign groups such as PricedOut, Generation Rent, and Intergenerational Foundation, have endorsed the transition to a proportional property tax. He went on to say that prominent economists from respected publications including The Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Economist, and The Guardian have given their endorsement to this reform.
The proposed property tax reforms have gained support from multiple Members of Parliament across party lines. Aaron Bell, MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme, sees the alignment of the reforms with the government's levelling-up agenda and supports the proposal's potential benefits for his constituents.
Tim Farron, MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale, describes the current council tax system as regressive and ineffective, supporting the use of sliding scales and surcharges to ensure a fair contribution based on property value and ability to pay.
Jill Mortimer, MP for Hartlepool, highlights the unfairness of disproportionate council tax costs in her constituency compared to her London flat and supports the proportional property tax proposal.
Some MPs go even further in their criticisms. Mary Kelly Foy, MP for the City of Durham, criticizes the regressive nature of council tax and calls for a more progressive system that adequately funds local governments.
Peter Gibson, MP for Darlington, criticizes the fundamental flaws of the council tax system and advocates for alternatives, emphasizing the potential savings for his constituents.
Richard Burgon, Labour MP for Leeds East, calls for more progressive alternatives to council tax and suggests implementing real wealth taxes on the super-wealthy.
Kirsty Blackman, SNP Member of Parliament for Aberdeen North, notes that in Scotland, they have a different system with council tax known as the land and buildings transaction tax (LBTT), which was introduced in 2015. Blackman highlights that the LBTT is more proportionate to property prices compared to stamp duty in England. In Scotland, 40% of homebuyers do not pay any LBTT, and for properties below £175,000, which is the range for many first-time buyers, no LBTT is payable.
Responding to Helen Morgan's suggestion of linking stamp duty and similar taxes to the energy performance of buildings to encourage retrofitting and meet carbon targets, Blackman finds the idea novel and worthy of consideration.
Blackman mentions ongoing discussions in Scotland regarding council tax reform, acknowledging that the current system is not as fair as it could be. The Scottish Greens, SNP, and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities are working on short-term and long-term reforms for council tax. Blackman notes that council tax in Scotland is significantly lower than in England, with an average difference of £600 for a Band E property. While Blackman acknowledges that Scotland's system is still not as fair as desired, she emphasizes the commitment to making necessary changes and ensuring a more equitable tax system.
However, not all MPs are fully on board with the proposed reforms. Chris Loder, Conservative MP for West Dorset, calls for a review of the revenue support grant and supports a comprehensive review of council tax and its contributing factors.
James Murray, MP for Ealing North, emphasizes the need to address the cost-of-living crisis and criticizes the government's handling of council tax and stamp duty, calling for fairer and more effective alternatives.
Andrew Griffith, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, acknowledges the concerns raised and highlights the importance of council tax and stamp duty as fundamental taxes. He expresses caution regarding the potential consequences of certain reforms on local authorities and suggests exploring solutions that promote downsizing. Griffith assures that the government will continue to listen and consider the various proposals and concerns raised.
Conclusion:
The proposal for property tax reform, presented by Simon Fell, provides a compelling case for transforming the current property tax system. The Proportional Property Tax (PPT) system offers the potential to unleash savings for millions of households, promote equity by ensuring a fairer distribution of the tax burden, stimulate economic growth through increased housing market activity, and address the inefficiencies of the existing council tax and stamp duty regimes. While concerns and opposition exist, the support garnered from MPs across different political affiliations underscores the urgent need for a comprehensive review and reform of property taxation in the United Kingdom. The government's commitment to considering alternative proposals and engaging in further dialogue represents a positive step toward achieving a fairer and more effective property tax system.
MP calls for fairer council tax system for Furness residents
- Simon Fell, the MP for Barrow and Furness, is to hold a debate in the Westminster Hall Committee Room on Wednesday this week, to put forward council tax reforms for the UK.
- The motion presented is: that the House of Commons considers Alternatives to Council Tax and Stamp Duty
- Simon Fell MP supports and calls for council tax and stamp duty reforms to introduce a ‘Proportional Property Tax’
Simon Fell, the Member of Parliament for Barrow and Furness, is to host a debate in Parliament this week where he plans to call on the Government to consider reforms to council tax and stamp duty.
Mr Fell is calling on the government to scrap the current council tax and stamp duty system in favour of a proportional property tax.
In theory, council tax is a fair and progressive system which is based on a property’s value. In essence, if your property is worth more, then you pay more. The challenge, Simon says, with the current system is that the valuations are based on the property market of the early 1990’s. As a result, Mr Fell and MPs of all political persuasions are joining ‘Fairer Shares’ calls for a modern, reformed taxation system on property through proportional property tax.
Commenting, Simon said:
“I’m delighted to have been drawn in the ballot to hold this important debate on council tax reforms.
“It can not be right that the owner of a £30 million mansion in Westminster pays a council tax burden of just 0.06%, meanwhile the owner of a £120,000 home in Barrow pays a council tax burden of 0.80%.
“The current system is out of date, and unfair for Furness residents, and many others across the UK. That is why I am calling for reform to the way we tax properties in the UK.”
The Furness MP says that the ‘council tax conundrum’ has a ‘fair and simple solution’, which has the support of MPs from many political parties in Parliament called ‘Proportional Property Tax’ (PPT). PPT would see homeowners (and not renters) pay a flat rate of 0.48% based on current valuations, updated annually, rather than 1991 figures.
Fairer Share, the independent organisation calling for PPT, own analysis shows this would lead to significant tax cuts for 76% of families, saving £6.5 billion per year for households outside central London and the southeast (or £556 per household), helping to level up communities and boost local economies.
Commenting, Simon said:
“Not only will PPT save Furness households an average of £556 a year, but this reform would bring the treasury an extra £5.4 billion per year. This could be put toward the additional deficit created by the pandemic and the energy crisis. Or it could also be used to alleviate the cost-of-living crisis facing hard-working families.
“This is not about more tax. These reforms are about fairer tax. Households are finding the cost of living a real challenge right now. Westmorland and Furness council has hiked Furness residents council tax by almost 5%, and we’re not paying a fair rate when compared to mansion owners in London and the South East. It’s time for this outdated system to be modernised so that it’s fair and equal.”
Commenting, Andrew Dixon, Chairman of Fairer Share, said:
“We are delighted that Simon Fell has secured this important Westminster Hall debate. Council Tax is outdated and unfair. Stamp Duty is punitive and hinders mobility. Both taxes are in need of urgent reform and this debate is a wonderful opportunity for MPs to discuss the various options that are available. It is time for the Government to ensure councils are sustainably funded. I encourage MPs from all sides of the political spectrum to participate.”
The Guardian becomes the latest to endorse Fairer Share's PPT
The Guardian became the latest UK news publication to editorially endorse Council Tax reform, and more specifically, replacing it with a Proportional Property Tax. The article was written by the Guardian's Economics Editor, Larry Elliot and first appeared on the 9th April 2023.
A property tax based on annually uprated values would be a gamechanger
Sunak or Starmer will win votes – and most UK households will gain – if they replace the council tax
Rishi Sunak needs a gamechanger to have any hope of leading the Conservatives to victory at the next general election. Sir Keir Starmer could do with something to seal the deal with the British public.
The conventional wisdom is that there are no easy wins available to either the prime minister or the leader of the opposition in these straitened times. But the conventional wisdom is wrong. There is one policy that would be both popular and make economic sense, and that is reform of the UK’s property taxation...
Click here to read the rest of the article.
Council Tax reform included in 'Homes For Britain' Labour plan
Council Tax reform and Fairer Share were included in a housing policy report put together by the Fabian Society, providing policy recommendations for a next Labour Government. The Council Tax reform piece was written by Tom Spencer, Research Director for Priced Out UK.
REFORMING PROPERTY TAXES
We have wasted 31 years adopting regressive models of council tax argues Tom Spencer
Harold Wilson used the slogan ‘Thirteen wasted years’ throughout the 1964 election to signal that technological development and economic growth would be championed by his Government if they were to be elected. Thirteen years on from Labour’s last term in Government we are in a very similar place. Under successive Tory Governments, growth has been slow, and as such our living standards relative to our neighbours have declined. Channelling his inner Harold Wilson, Keir Starmer has unveiled his five missions for a better Britain that seek to make the UK the fastest-growing economy in the G7.
We are yet to have visibility on the concrete plans, but ideas have been put forward. Michael Saunders, former member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee (MPC) and now senior policy adviser to Oxford Economics, has outlined a seven point ‘Plan for Growth.’
Reforming UK property taxes is one of his key recommendations and Saunders writes, “both the OECD and IMF have proposed the UK should shift from the current Stamp Duty system to a tax based on property values (or a Land Value Tax) that is not dependent on whether people move home.” Similarly, David Smith, Economics Editor of the Sunday Times, has argued that “we should move away from Stamp Duty, a tax on transactions, to other ways of taxing property” in his own plan for growth. To its credit Stamp Duty is at least somewhat progressive since buyers only pay on purchases over £250,000, or over £425,000 if you are a first-time buyer.
However, the tax is a disincentive to moving home. It creates a barrier for young families in starter homes to move up the housing ladder, and is also a barrier for those in under-occupied homes who wish to downsize, creating a much less dynamic housing market where people are unlikely to move as often as they and their families would like This leads to under-occupation of property by older generations and over-occupation by younger generations, especially in many of our cities.
Yet Stamp Duty, which hinders growth, is not the only property tax in need of reform. Council tax has existed since 1992 and in theory taxes houses progressively based upon their value. However, the valuations have not been updated since 1991 and the bands are not sufficiently wide.
This means that not only does the tax fail to tax people proportionate to their wealth, it also insufficiently distinguishes
between different property values. This regressive system is designed so that payments increase slower than property values, and thus the greater the property value increases, the less the share of its value must be paid. To make things worse there are vast regional inequalities in how Council Tax is levied - for example, a £30 million townhouse in Westminster will be liable for less tax this year than a modest £120,000 home in County Durham.
Since its introduction the average household in Westminster has paid 2.5 times less Council Tax than the average home in Hartlepool.
Reforming the punitive Stamp Duty and the regressive Council Tax would be an easy way of creating growth in a way that helps the communities who need it most. Putting more pounds in people’s pockets supports local communities and improves health and educational outcomes.
It also encourages entrepreneurs to create businesses and facilitates the movement of employees around the country. This leads to greater economic growth, and a better chance of realising the goal of becoming the fastest growing country in the G7. However, simple abolition is insufficient. We saw from the turmoil that followed Liz Truss’ leadership that fiscal responsibility is essential. The best idea available seems to be Fairer Share’s Proportional Property Tax. This is a fully-costed plan that would introduce a 0.48% tax on annualised property values as a replacement for both Stamp Duty and Council Tax.
Fairer Share’s modelling reveals the enormous benefits for households across the country. Firstly, it would mean annual tax cuts for more than 77 percent of homes with the average household saving over £560 every year.
Moreover, this will be extremely positive for growth. By eliminating Stamp Duty, the IPPR estimates that GDP will grow by more than £3.2 billion thanks to increased market activity. This would go a long way, therefore, to both ending an exploitative and unfair form of taxation and also meeting Labour’s target of becoming the fastest growing economy in the G7.
Finally, the polling suggests this would be electorally advantageous for Labour. Whilst following polls is a poor substitute for governing, when good policy polls well it simply becomes more attractive as an implementable instrument. MRP Polling conducted by JL Partners revealed that should Labour introduce a Proportional Property Tax, it could help the party gain as many as 52 seats including 43 in the so-called ‘Red Wall’. They could also make gains in Scotland and would see their vote share increase by 15% among swing voters.
Keir Starmer’s focus on growth is a sign that, should Labour win the next election, we will finally have a Government dedicated to combating Britain’s relative decline over the past two decades. The last time Labour took advantage of this messaging they won dramatically.
Labour must use this approach today, and bring an end to not just 13 wasted years of the current Conservative Party, but to 31 wasted years stuck with an inequitable and regressive system of property taxation.
IPPR Roundtable shows the growing support for property tax reform
Convened by the IPPR, a roundtable discussion entitled “Addressing the cost of living crisis through property tax reform” was held with an esteemed group of politicians, academics, economists and campaigners.
The event was attended by Shadow Financial Secretary, James Murray MP, who is currently working on the Labour Party manifesto for the next election. The discussion covered numerous elements of the cost of living crisis as well as the role that property tax reform can play in alleviating the challenges that households face.
The message was clear – Stamp Duty and Council Tax are in much need of reform.
Growth
Senior Research Fellow at the University of Oxford, John Muellbauer, made several contributions based upon his research for the OECD on the role property taxes have had on stagnating GDP in the UK. He noted that high taxes on moving and low taxes on homeownership combine to force too many people to live far from their workplaces or from their relatives. Stamp Duty is the key cause of this effect. High levels of Stamp Duty mean that few homes come on the market at any one time, restricting choice. Combined with the high cost of transacting, many people are forced to live far from their most suitable locations. The time wasted on travelling results in greater tiredness and fewer waking hours to put towards work and leisure. This has contributed to Britain having the highest commuting times in Europe. Downwind of these problems, Muellbauer noted, you end up with lower productivity resulting in lower levels of growth.
Professor Muellbauer also linked these problems to the perennial issue of climate change. Our housing stock is rife with under-occupation helped by huge disincentives to move in the form of Stamp Duty. By having a more efficient use of the housing stock there is a reduced need to heat unused rooms, and also the need for new construction is marginally reduced since the overall available stock will increase, constituting an increase in effective supply. Moreover, in the long-run this will help the cost of living by reducing carbon emissions, and thus preventing carbon related cost of living volatility.
Sam Robinson, Senior Research Fellow at Bright Blue, added to this point, noting that a proportional property tax could feasibly take carbon emissions into account, for example by tying the rate of the PPT to a home’s EPC rating.
Moreover, it was noted by many participants, such as Shreya Nanda, Chief Economist at the Social Market Foundation, that the current system provides little scope to improve land. This means that developed land, in addition to developable land due to regulatory constraints, is in a massive shortage. As such, average house prices are over three times more expensive than their cost of construction. This is worsened by the fact that when infrastructure is developed, increasing the desirability for nearby households, the public purse is not at all reimbursed for this. For example, a £3.5 billion investment in the Jubilee Line Extension, increased nearby property values by £13.5 billion. If just a small percentage of this had been taxed, then these improvements, that help to grow productivity, would fund themselves. However, it was discussed that since property valuations for the purpose of council taxation have not been updated since 1991, then such improvements will not be recognised in the tax bill, thus making investments in infrastructure harder to finance.
Unfairness
Whilst there were some disagreements in the specific type of tax that should replace our current system, there was almost universal agreement that change is needed.
George Dibb, Head of the Centre for Economic Justice at IPPR, set out how IPPR research has previously shown the unfairness of the current tax system both in terms of wealth inequality but also regional inequality. Council tax is based on 30-year-old property valuations, varies widely around the country, and is capped at relatively low property values, meaning that a multi-million-pound property in the South-East of England can attract the same tax bill as a normal family home elsewhere. Reform is clearly overdue.
Liz Emerson, CEO of the Intergenerational Foundation, commented that their preferred policy is to levy capital gains tax on the sale of primary residences, as this would feed back intergenerationally unfair gains made by wealthier older generations through the unrestrained rise in house prices. Proceeds would go to the public purse in order, they hope, to be spent on improving the prospects of the young and future generations, whether that be through reducing the cost of childcare, investing in the green transition, or removing the onerous burden of student debt, which from September 2023 will follow the young for 40 years.
Andrew Dixon, founder of Fairer Share, explained that their analysis showed that moving to a proportional property tax would not just mean lower bills for most households, it would also free up thousands of homes for people who need them. He noted that their analysis showed that 76% of households would be better off by moving to this system. Included in the Fairer Share proposals are the elimination of single person and second home discounts, and exemptions on undeveloped land. Deferral of tax payments for those with low cash incomes are a key element in their proposals.
Sara Hall, Deputy Director at Tax Justice UK, explained that property makes up one of the biggest portions of all UK wealth but that we have a dysfunctional approach to taxing it. Under council tax, people living in lower value housing pay more in tax as a proportion of the value of their homes than people living in multi-million pound mansions. There are also big variations between different councils and regions of the country.
She went on to say that if this was replaced with a proportional property tax, paid by the homeowner, a large majority of people would be better off. Sara admitted that the other tax on residential property - stamp duty - is progressive in that the wealthy pay more. However, it’s economically inefficient as it makes it unnecessarily expensive to downsize or move house. Replacing these two taxes with a proportional property tax would be fairer and is why Tax Justice UK fully supports the proposal put forward by the Fairer Share campaign.
Vote Winner
Jacky Peacock, Head of Policy at Advice4Renters, argued that a land value tax would be her preference, but identified proportional property taxes, like that advocated by Fairer Share, as a welcome alternative that would generate more political support. This argument was joined by several of the attendees, such as Sam Robinson, Senior Research Fellow at Bright Blue, who explained that proportional property taxes would rebalance the regressivity of the current system and put more money in the pockets of those from modest backgrounds and areas. To all parties the electoral benefits of proportional property taxes constitutes a key selling point. It was mentioned that JL Partner’s MRP Polling that found that if Labour were to introduce a PPT, then they could gain as many as 52 additional seats with numerous gains in Red Wall seats and Scotland.
Final thoughts
What was clear from the discussion, despite frank disagreement over policy specifics, experts from all sides of the aisle were unanimous that property taxation in the UK, through Council Tax and Stamp Duty, is not fit for purpose and thus in dire need of reform. Whilst specific preferences of optimal improvements varied, many agreed that a Proportional Property Tax would constitute a significant improvement compared to the current system that would alleviate the cost of living crisis, assist the levelling up effort, help incentivise infrastructure investments and help make house prices more affordable.
The key question is whether these recommendations will be part of the Labour Party manifesto going into the next general election?
WATCH: Fairer Share on GB News
On February 15th, Fairer Share Chairman and Founder, Andrew Dixon, went on GB News to discuss the unfairness of Council Tax with Eamonn Holmes and Isabel Webster.
Watch the conversation below:
How Much Will Council Tax Increase In Your Area?
Council Tax will rise by 5% (on average) in 2023-24. Here is what a 5% increase would mean for Band D properties in your area:
| Local Authority | Band D Council Tax 2022-23 (£) | Band D Council Tax 2023-24 (£) |
| Adur | 2,119 | 2,224 |
| Allerdale | 2,079 | 2,183 |
| Amber Valley | 2,003 | 2,104 |
| Arun | 2,057 | 2,160 |
| Ashfield | 2,188 | 2,297 |
| Ashford | 2,000 | 2,100 |
| Babergh | 1,954 | 2,051 |
| Barking & Dagenham | 1,785 | 1,874 |
| Barnet | 1,746 | 1,834 |
| Barnsley | 1,949 | 2,046 |
| Barrow-in-Furness | 2,068 | 2,171 |
| Basildon | 1,986 | 2,085 |
| Basingstoke & Deane | 1,863 | 1,956 |
| Bassetlaw | 2,210 | 2,321 |
| Bath & North East Somerset UA | 1,950 | 2,047 |
| Bedford UA | 2,063 | 2,166 |
| Bexley | 1,923 | 2,019 |
| Birmingham | 1,816 | 1,906 |
| Blaby | 2,079 | 2,183 |
| Blackburn with Darwen UA | 2,016 | 2,117 |
| Blackpool UA | 2,064 | 2,167 |
| Bolsover | 2,111 | 2,216 |
| Bolton | 1,960 | 2,058 |
| Boston | 1,973 | 2,072 |
| Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole | 1,955 | 2,053 |
| Bracknell Forest UA | 1,861 | 1,954 |
| Bradford | 1,857 | 1,950 |
| Braintree | 1,933 | 2,030 |
| Breckland | 2,011 | 2,111 |
| Brent | 1,815 | 1,906 |
| Brentwood | 1,912 | 2,008 |
| Brighton & Hove UA | 2,119 | 2,225 |
| Bristol UA | 2,230 | 2,342 |
| Broadland | 2,027 | 2,128 |
| Bromley | 1,737 | 1,824 |
| Bromsgrove | 2,002 | 2,103 |
| Broxbourne | 1,901 | 1,996 |
| Broxtowe | 2,188 | 2,297 |
| Buckinghamshire UA | 2,068 | 2,172 |
| Burnley | 2,154 | 2,261 |
| Bury | 2,073 | 2,176 |
| Calderdale | 1,981 | 2,080 |
| Cambridge | 2,015 | 2,115 |
| Camden | 1,792 | 1,882 |
| Cannock Chase | 1,988 | 2,087 |
| Canterbury | 2,015 | 2,115 |
| Carlisle | 2,053 | 2,156 |
| Castle Point | 1,977 | 2,076 |
| Central Bedfordshire UA | 2,142 | 2,249 |
| Charnwood | 2,016 | 2,117 |
| Chelmsford | 1,946 | 2,043 |
| Cheltenham | 1,964 | 2,062 |
| Cherwell | 2,138 | 2,245 |
| Cheshire East UA | 2,004 | 2,104 |
| Cheshire West and Chester UA | 2,061 | 2,164 |
| Chesterfield | 1,954 | 2,051 |
| Chichester | 2,028 | 2,130 |
| Chorley | 2,048 | 2,151 |
| City of London | 1,075 | 1,128 |
| City of Nottingham UA | 2,294 | 2,409 |
| Colchester | 1,934 | 2,031 |
| Copeland | 2,086 | 2,190 |
| Cornwall UA | 2,109 | 2,214 |
| Cotswold | 1,967 | 2,065 |
| Coventry | 2,076 | 2,180 |
| Craven | 2,075 | 2,179 |
| Crawley | 1,999 | 2,099 |
| Croydon | 1,966 | 2,064 |
| Dacorum | 1,986 | 2,085 |
| Darlington UA | 2,048 | 2,151 |
| Dartford | 1,985 | 2,084 |
| Derby City UA | 1,910 | 2,006 |
| Derbyshire Dales | 2,042 | 2,145 |
| Doncaster | 1,842 | 1,934 |
| Dorset Council | 2,290 | 2,405 |
| Dover | 2,050 | 2,152 |
| Dudley | 1,749 | 1,837 |
| Durham UA | 2,203 | 2,314 |
| Ealing | 1,735 | 1,822 |
| East Cambridgeshire | 2,032 | 2,134 |
| East Devon | 2,130 | 2,236 |
| East Hampshire | 1,932 | 2,028 |
| East Hertfordshire | 2,017 | 2,118 |
| East Lindsey | 1,935 | 2,032 |
| East Riding of Yorkshire UA | 2,021 | 2,122 |
| East Staffordshire | 1,962 | 2,060 |
| East Suffolk | 1,939 | 2,036 |
| Eastbourne | 2,199 | 2,309 |
| Eastleigh | 1,911 | 2,007 |
| Eden | 2,069 | 2,172 |
| Elmbridge | 2,159 | 2,267 |
| Enfield | 1,842 | 1,934 |
| Epping Forest | 1,923 | 2,019 |
| Epsom & Ewell | 2,135 | 2,242 |
| Erewash | 1,972 | 2,071 |
| Exeter | 2,065 | 2,168 |
| Fareham | 1,878 | 1,972 |
| Fenland | 2,111 | 2,217 |
| Folkestone & Hythe | 2,119 | 2,225 |
| Forest of Dean | 2,016 | 2,117 |
| Fylde | 2,084 | 2,188 |
| Gateshead | 2,214 | 2,324 |
| Gedling | 2,182 | 2,291 |
| Gloucester | 1,955 | 2,053 |
| Gosport | 1,944 | 2,041 |
| Gravesham | 2,003 | 2,103 |
| Great Yarmouth | 2,002 | 2,102 |
| Greenwich | 1,710 | 1,796 |
| Guildford | 2,144 | 2,251 |
| Hackney | 1,671 | 1,755 |
| Halton UA | 1,937 | 2,034 |
| Hambleton | 1,990 | 2,089 |
| Hammersmith & Fulham | 1,228 | 1,289 |
| Harborough | 2,020 | 2,121 |
| Haringey | 1,880 | 1,974 |
| Harlow | 1,984 | 2,083 |
| Harrogate | 2,099 | 2,204 |
| Harrow | 2,042 | 2,144 |
| Hart | 1,978 | 2,077 |
| Hartlepool UA | 2,197 | 2,307 |
| Hastings | 2,219 | 2,330 |
| Havant | 1,922 | 2,018 |
| Havering | 1,971 | 2,070 |
| Herefordshire UA | 2,114 | 2,220 |
| Hertsmere | 1,975 | 2,074 |
| High Peak | 1,986 | 2,086 |
| Hillingdon | 1,659 | 1,742 |
| Hinckley & Bosworth | 1,989 | 2,088 |
| Horsham | 2,010 | 2,110 |
| Hounslow | 1,774 | 1,863 |
| Huntingdonshire | 2,075 | 2,179 |
| Hyndburn | 2,089 | 2,194 |
| Ipswich | 2,071 | 2,174 |
| Isle of Wight UA | 2,140 | 2,247 |
| Isles of Scilly | 1,683 | 1,767 |
| Islington | 1,710 | 1,796 |
| Kensington & Chelsea | 1,382 | 1,451 |
| King's Lynn & West Norfolk | 2,015 | 2,116 |
| Kingston upon Hull UA | 1,885 | 1,979 |
| Kingston upon Thames | 2,123 | 2,229 |
| Kirklees | 1,997 | 2,097 |
| Knowsley | 2,047 | 2,150 |
| Lambeth | 1,660 | 1,743 |
| Lancaster | 2,093 | 2,198 |
| Leeds | 1,869 | 1,963 |
| Leicester City UA | 2,078 | 2,182 |
| Lewes | 2,281 | 2,396 |
| Lewisham | 1,817 | 1,908 |
| Lichfield | 1,972 | 2,070 |
| Lincoln | 1,999 | 2,099 |
| Liverpool | 2,195 | 2,305 |
| Luton UA | 2,004 | 2,104 |
| Maidstone | 2,085 | 2,189 |
| Maldon | 1,970 | 2,069 |
| Malvern Hills | 1,984 | 2,083 |
| Manchester | 1,873 | 1,966 |
| Mansfield | 2,181 | 2,290 |
| Medway UA | 1,909 | 2,004 |
| Melton | 2,040 | 2,142 |
| Mendip | 2,045 | 2,147 |
| Merton | 1,781 | 1,871 |
| Mid Devon | 2,186 | 2,295 |
| Mid Suffolk | 1,941 | 2,038 |
| Mid Sussex | 2,038 | 2,140 |
| Middlesbrough UA | 2,168 | 2,277 |
| Milton Keynes UA | 1,943 | 2,040 |
| Mole Valley | 2,124 | 2,231 |
| New Forest | 1,988 | 2,087 |
| Newark & Sherwood | 2,252 | 2,364 |
| Newcastle upon Tyne | 2,088 | 2,193 |
| Newcastle-under-Lyme | 1,958 | 2,056 |
| Newham | 1,532 | 1,609 |
| North Devon | 2,170 | 2,278 |
| North East Derbyshire | 2,063 | 2,167 |
| North East Lincolnshire UA | 2,080 | 2,184 |
| North Hertfordshire | 2,023 | 2,124 |
| North Kesteven | 1,990 | 2,090 |
| North Lincolnshire UA | 2,003 | 2,104 |
| North Norfolk | 2,030 | 2,132 |
| North Northamptonshire | 1,985 | 2,084 |
| North Somerset UA | 1,959 | 2,057 |
| North Tyneside | 2,004 | 2,105 |
| North Warwickshire | 2,128 | 2,235 |
| North West Leicestershire | 2,031 | 2,133 |
| Northumberland UA | 2,142 | 2,249 |
| Norwich | 2,085 | 2,189 |
| Nuneaton & Bedworth | 2,102 | 2,207 |
| Oadby & Wigston | 2,025 | 2,126 |
| Oldham | 2,128 | 2,235 |
| Oxford | 2,225 | 2,337 |
| Pendle | 2,211 | 2,322 |
| Peterborough UA | 1,856 | 1,949 |
| Plymouth UA | 2,008 | 2,109 |
| Portsmouth UA | 1,882 | 1,976 |
| Preston | 2,171 | 2,280 |
| Reading UA | 2,145 | 2,252 |
| Redbridge | 1,864 | 1,957 |
| Redcar & Cleveland UA | 2,112 | 2,218 |
| Redditch | 1,991 | 2,090 |
| Reigate & Banstead | 2,173 | 2,281 |
| Ribble Valley | 2,010 | 2,110 |
| Richmond upon Thames | 2,022 | 2,123 |
| Richmondshire | 2,085 | 2,189 |
| Rochdale | 2,110 | 2,216 |
| Rochford | 1,994 | 2,094 |
| Rossendale | 2,122 | 2,228 |
| Rother | 2,211 | 2,321 |
| Rotherham | 2,035 | 2,136 |
| Rugby | 2,082 | 2,186 |
| Runnymede | 2,102 | 2,207 |
| Rushcliffe | 2,206 | 2,316 |
| Rushmoor | 1,922 | 2,018 |
| Rutland UA | 2,300 | 2,415 |
| Ryedale | 2,083 | 2,187 |
| Salford | 2,105 | 2,210 |
| Sandwell | 1,831 | 1,923 |
| Scarborough | 2,097 | 2,202 |
| Sedgemoor | 1,988 | 2,088 |
| Sefton | 2,122 | 2,228 |
| Selby | 2,067 | 2,171 |
| Sevenoaks | 2,098 | 2,203 |
| Sheffield | 2,058 | 2,161 |
| Shropshire UA | 2,000 | 2,100 |
| Slough UA | 1,855 | 1,948 |
| Solihull | 1,792 | 1,882 |
| Somerset West & Taunton | 1,959 | 2,057 |
| South Cambridgeshire | 2,062 | 2,165 |
| South Derbyshire | 1,957 | 2,055 |
| South Gloucestershire UA | 2,086 | 2,190 |
| South Hams | 2,155 | 2,263 |
| South Holland | 1,941 | 2,038 |
| South Kesteven | 1,922 | 2,018 |
| South Lakeland | 2,061 | 2,164 |
| South Norfolk | 2,057 | 2,160 |
| South Oxfordshire | 2,133 | 2,240 |
| South Ribble | 2,064 | 2,167 |
| South Somerset | 2,027 | 2,128 |
| South Staffordshire | 1,923 | 2,019 |
| South Tyneside | 1,985 | 2,084 |
| Southampton UA | 1,956 | 2,054 |
| Southend-on-Sea UA | 1,856 | 1,949 |
| Southwark | 1,595 | 1,674 |
| Spelthorne | 2,132 | 2,239 |
| St Albans | 1,994 | 2,094 |
| St Helens | 1,972 | 2,070 |
| Stafford | 1,922 | 2,018 |
| Staffordshire Moorlands | 1,950 | 2,047 |
| Stevenage | 1,978 | 2,077 |
| Stockport | 2,142 | 2,250 |
| Stockton-on-Tees UA | 2,138 | 2,245 |
| Stoke-on-Trent UA | 1,797 | 1,887 |
| Stratford-on-Avon | 2,074 | 2,178 |
| Stroud | 2,054 | 2,156 |
| Sunderland | 1,832 | 1,923 |
| Surrey Heath | 2,177 | 2,286 |
| Sutton | 1,933 | 2,030 |
| Swale | 1,995 | 2,095 |
| Swindon UA | 1,982 | 2,081 |
| Tameside | 1,984 | 2,083 |
| Tamworth | 1,922 | 2,018 |
| Tandridge | 2,181 | 2,290 |
| Teignbridge | 2,167 | 2,275 |
| Telford and the Wrekin UA | 1,887 | 1,981 |
| Tendring | 1,923 | 2,019 |
| Test Valley | 1,899 | 1,994 |
| Tewkesbury | 1,934 | 2,030 |
| Thanet | 2,070 | 2,174 |
| Three Rivers | 1,998 | 2,098 |
| Thurrock UA | 1,735 | 1,822 |
| Tonbridge & Malling | 2,064 | 2,167 |
| Torbay UA | 2,037 | 2,138 |
| Torridge | 2,145 | 2,252 |
| Tower Hamlets | 1,520 | 1,596 |
| Trafford | 1,786 | 1,875 |
| Tunbridge Wells | 2,030 | 2,131 |
| Uttlesford | 1,966 | 2,064 |
| Vale of White Horse | 2,124 | 2,230 |
| Wakefield | 1,883 | 1,977 |
| Walsall | 2,183 | 2,293 |
| Waltham Forest | 1,940 | 2,037 |
| Wandsworth | 873 | 916 |
| Warrington UA | 1,969 | 2,068 |
| Warwick | 2,066 | 2,169 |
| Watford | 2,035 | 2,136 |
| Waverley | 2,188 | 2,298 |
| Wealden | 2,252 | 2,365 |
| Welwyn Hatfield | 2,020 | 2,121 |
| West Berkshire UA | 2,046 | 2,149 |
| West Devon | 2,231 | 2,342 |
| West Lancashire | 2,064 | 2,168 |
| West Lindsey | 2,011 | 2,112 |
| West Northamptonshire | 2,041 | 2,143 |
| West Oxfordshire | 2,103 | 2,208 |
| West Suffolk | 1,956 | 2,054 |
| Westminster | 866 | 909 |
| Wigan | 1,741 | 1,828 |
| Wiltshire UA | 2,100 | 2,205 |
| Winchester | 1,949 | 2,046 |
| Windsor & Maidenhead UA | 1,523 | 1,600 |
| Wirral | 2,053 | 2,155 |
| Woking | 2,177 | 2,286 |
| Wokingham UA | 2,053 | 2,155 |
| Wolverhampton | 2,074 | 2,178 |
| Worcester | 1,941 | 2,038 |
| Worthing | 2,033 | 2,135 |
| Wychavon | 1,909 | 2,005 |
| Wyre | 2,065 | 2,169 |
| Wyre Forest | 2,012 | 2,112 |
| York UA | 1,865 | 1,958 |
Local Campaigning Pack | Working Together To Support UK Households
As we begin our third year of campaigning for fairer property taxes, much has changed. We began by campaigning a Boris Johnson-led Government with a gigantic majority that represented constituencies that had not voted Conservative in generations. We now have a new Government that is just about hanging in there while Labour surge in the polls and a general election on the horizon in 2024.
This means we need to alter our approach too. The power to create change is no longer held solely by Conservative MPs. Ahead of the next election, we must create a consensus that Council Tax is unfair and needs to be urgently replaced before millions more are plunged into debt as they seek to manage rising prices and household bills.
To do this, we’ve launched our Local Campaigning Pack - a guide for local residents, Councillors, MPs and parliamentary candidates, outlining how they can create local groups to push for a fairer system that benefits the majority, not millionaires and billionaires in London.
What does the pack include?
For local residents:
- How to set-up a local Fairer Share campaign group
- Tool to write to your MP
- Example social media posts
For Councillors:
- How to set-up a local Fairer Share campaign group
- Submitting a motion at a council meeting
- Announcing support for Fairer Share and the Proportional Property Tax
- Example social media posts and support cards
For MPs and candidates:
- Announcing support for Fairer Share and the Proportional Property Tax
- Example social media posts and support cards
- Contacting Fairer Share for support
We’ve already seen the success local campaign groups can have, such as in Hartlepool where local Fairer Share campaigners managed to gain the support of the local Council and the local MP, Jill Mortimer.
If this can be replicated, then together, we can build the type of momentum political parties cannot ignore heading into a General Election. But we need your help!
Download our local campaigner pack today and find out how you can help! < [CLICK HERE]
Abolishing Stamp Duty can help us achieve intergenerational equity
This blog first appeared on the Intergenerational Foundation website on the 19th July 2022, written by Fairer Share Founder and Chairman, Andrew Dixon.
Growing gerontocracy
The basis of our society, as well as many foundational economic models, is that people will tend to vote in the best interests of themselves and their descendants. However, declining birth rates and an older population has led to an increased distribution of resources towards the elderly at the expense of the younger, working population of the United Kingdom. This has created what many have described as a gerontocracy – a society run by the elderly.
This can most obviously be seen with the housing crisis. Since the real price of housing has soared over the last three decades it has become increasingly challenging for young people to get on the housing ladder. Accordingly, the age at which people can afford their first home has increased over time.
This contributes to high levels of housing insecurity for young people and greater levels of intergenerational inequality. Thirty years of declining interest rates, rising immigration and tight planning regulations has led to homeowners becoming wealthier relative to the general population. Given housing is effectively distributed based on generational lines this has contributed to increasing levels of intergenerational inequality. Whilst the planning system is the chief offender for this, stamp duty has exacerbated the problem.
Where Stamp Duty comes in
At its heart stamp duty is a transaction tax, in that it is levied when one makes a transaction to purchase a new home. Therefore, it is only natural that a tax on transactions will do the same thing as a tax on anything else – discourage it.
This is problematic, because where people are discouraged from buying a new home then they will be stuck in one less appropriate for their needs. On the one hand, this prevents starter homes becoming available, because those in them will have more difficulty moving up to larger ones, and on the other, it means the larger homes do not free up as downsizing becomes less beneficial.
The effects this has on wider housing markets is astronomical. Indeed, one paper in the Journal of Urban Economics by Christian Hilber and Teemu Lyytikainen found that a two per cent increase in stamp duty will reduce household mobility by as much as 40 per cent. WPI Economics agree – they found that given there are as many as 8.1 million underutilised homes in England, then up to 315,000 new homes will be released just through increased market activity.
It’s no wonder Sam Dumitriu, formerly of the Adam Smith Institute, famously estimated in 2017 that abolishing stamp duty would increase GDP by £10 billion. Today, it would be even more!
Abolished and replaced
Despite its problems stamp duty is a significant money raiser for the Treasury, and simple abolition would inevitably contribute to the national debt and only worsen outcomes for young people in the long run. Therefore, it is important that stamp duty is not just abolished but replaced. Moving to a proportional property tax would help resolve these numerous challenges.
Created by the team at Fairer Share, a proportional property tax would replace both stamp duty and council tax with a single 0.48% levied on property value. It would immediately result in tax cuts for 77% of households, with a particular benefit for those in areas the Government is seeking to level up. Indeed, research from Landman Economics found that 98% of households in the North East would benefit from this move with an average annual saving of over £550. This would contribute to a 0.8% fall in poverty nationwide.
Despite the regional benefits of this change, the effects on intergenerational inequality are profound. The victims of overcrowding are overwhelmingly the young – indeed more than 20% of 16-24 year olds live in overcrowded conditions – in London it’s 46%. Consequently, it is them who will benefit most by having new starter homes freed up. WPI Economics estimate that as many as 600,000 new homes would be freed up overall, ensuring that a fairer future can be provided to them.
Time has come
The fine work of the Intergenerational Foundation has demonstrated time and time again that the contract between generations is broken. By moving to a proportional property tax, a reform which the Intergenerational Foundation wholeheartedly supports, we can help restore it, and help to provide better housing outcomes for people across the country and across the generations.
It’s time the Government listened to the voters, MPs, think tanks and economists who are calling for the introduction of a proportional property tax.
Andrew Dixon
Founder and Chairman
Fairer Share
Grahame Morris MP | Fairer Share’s plan sets out how we can reform our punitive council tax system
This article first appeared in Labour List on the 22nd June 2022, written by Grahame Morris, Member of Parliament for Easington.
Council tax is broken. Local authorities, MPs, think tanks, economists and households understand this. It is fundamentally a regressive tax based on inaccurate valuations conducted more than 30 years ago, which distorts housing markets and drives millions into poverty annually. The government knows this. Indeed, the Chancellor recognised it when he looked to alleviate our present cost-of-living crisis by providing modest council tax relief back in February. However, successive governments have been pussyfooting around the problem for decades.
The latest example of this is the recent consultation conducted by the levelling up, housing and communities committee into council tax collection. The issue here is a tough one. If councils collect the tax they are owed, people will be forced into poverty. If they do not enforce collection, councils will be unable to provide the services that they are obliged to provide. This has been worsened in the past ten years by government intervention and the decision to replace the council tax benefit (CTB) with local council tax support, which resulted in councils now only receiving 90% of their previously forecast CTB budgets. This amounts to a £15bn cut in government support to councils between 2010 and 2019.
Compounding the issue, many individuals are not even aware of the reliefs that might be available, and councils across the country do not always have the resources and inclination to help households, simply rushing to enforcement when payment is not made. Indeed, a survey conducted by the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute revealed that 34% of individuals who are eligible for discounts on their council tax bill are not aware of them and 82% were not provided this information by the council in their standard communications.
To make matters worse, economising will not be sufficient. Citizens Advice has recently revealed that 53% of the people that they help with their council tax bills have a deficit budget. This means that their income is not sufficient to meet the basic costs of living.
These problems are very real and should be taken seriously. However, all of them could also be addressed by reforming the root of the problem – council tax itself. As Dukes Bailiffs admitted in their submission to the committee, council tax is regressive. Households are not taxed based on their ability to pay, but on the 1991 value of their home and on the area in which they live. This means that local authorities need to impose tax levels on their residents to cover important services, such as adult social care, regardless of the wealth within those communities. For this reason, an £8m townhouse in Westminster ends up paying less council tax each year than a £150,000 home in my constituency of Easington in County Durham. Inevitably, this results in many struggling to pay their bills. This is part of the reason why council tax arrears grew by 51% (more than £1.2bn) between April 2013 and March 2020 in England alone.
Maintaining this heinous system is particularly frustrating given that solutions are being offered that are fully costed, hold bipartisan support and would provide massive relief for the vast majority of individuals across the country. One such policy that meets these requirements is the proportional property tax designed by Fairer Share. Rather than relying on local discretion based on outdated property values, this would tax all households a flat 0.48% rate on up-to-date values. 77% of households across the country would enjoy an average annual tax cut of £556.
However, it is particularly beneficial for those suffering most. Research by Landman Economics found that the vast majority of the least well-off in every region of England would benefit from this reform. Consequently, they estimate that this reform alone would immediately lower poverty by 0.8% across the United Kingdom.
Of course, with any reform there are winners and losers, but Fairer Share’s plan does a good job of ensuring that the impact on those who may pay more is minimised. Any increase is capped at £1,200 a year – a manageable £100 a month – and households are allowed to defer payment until they are in a position to pay or have sold their house.
Moreover, it is much fairer than the current system that mandates that anyone in arrears must pay the entirety of their debts or face potential prison sentences. Indeed, in 2017-18, more than 300 people were imprisoned for non-payment of council taxes, with another 6,278 receiving suspended sentences. It is widely believed that the days of debtors’ prisons are gone, but that is far from the case.
Whilst it is encouraging that collection reform is being considered by the levelling up committee, this simply is not enough. Council tax is a fundamentally punitive tax that hurts families across the country for no good reason. It is essential that the government stops tweaking and looks at fundamental reform. Fairer Share’s plan would be a great place to start.