The impact of a tax on house values on low income households
- rpwills
- 1 minute ago
- 3 min read
A tax on property values is deeply regressive. As lower income households would have greater difficulty in paying the tax they would be more likely to have to sell up which would be a very perverse result creating greater inequality in society. The analysis clearly indicates that any tax for local government services should be based on earnings levels.
Â
Introduction
One of the many features of the United Kingdom is its strange persistence in looking to the past to provide policy. Traces of the past linger on in other ways particularly when it comes to taxes to fund local services and alternatives to the current system. The idea of a tax based on the value of a dwelling has been mooted. A figure of 0.5 % could be an option. So what would be the impact of this on households of varying earnings levels?
Â
Lets look at a property valued at £350,000. A 0.5% charge would produce a tax bill of £1,750 a year.Â
Â
We can calculate this as a percentage of both gross and net income. The tables set out tax liability by gross and net earnings levels for a single person and two-person household. It is assumed for the purpose of this analysis that in a two person household has double the earnings of a single person household. In reality of course it is likely that individuals would have different levels of earnings. Another point to consider is that earnings from savings, shares and property are not liable for National Insurance which means that individuals with significant amounts from such sources have higher levels of net income and hence a lower rate of property tax.
Â
Results
The analysis indicates the regressive nature of a tax based on a property value.Â
Â
One-person household.Â
Lower income households pay more as a proportion than higher income households. The cost in property tax for an individual with gross earnings of £20,000 (net £17,920) would be 8.8% (9.8%). For an individual with earnings of £120,000 the charges would equate to 1.5% (2.3%).
 Â
Income | Income | Charge | Charge | |
Gross | Tax NI | Net | Gross | Net |
£ | £ | £ | % | % |
20000 | 2080 | 17920 | 8.8 | 9.8 |
40000 | 7680 | 32320 | 4.4 | 5.4 |
60000 | 14643 | 45357 | 2.9 | 3.9 |
100000 | 31443 | 68557 | 1.8 | 2.6 |
120000 | 43843 | 76157 | 1.5 | 2.3 |
Â
Two-person household
The data clearly shows that a household with two adults is far better able to absorb the cost of the tax although again lower income households pay more as a proportion than higher income households.
Â
Income | Income | Charge | Charge | |
Gross | Tax NI | Net | Gross | Net |
£ | £ | £ | % | % |
40000 | 4160 | 35840 | 4.4 | 4.9 |
60000 | 9760 | 50240 | 2.9 | 3.5 |
120000 | 29286 | 90714 | 1.5 | 1.9 |
200000 | 62886 | 137114 | 0.9 | 1.3 |
240000 | 87686 | 152314 | 0.7 | 1.1 |
Tables.Â
Â
One-person household
 Â
Income | Income | Charge | Charge | |
Gross | Tax NI | Net | Gross | Net |
£ | £ | £ | % | % |
15000 | 680 | 14320 | 11.7 | 12.2 |
20000 | 2080 | 17920 | 8.8 | 9.8 |
25000 | 3480 | 21520 | 7.0 | 8.1 |
30000 | 4880 | 25120 | 5.8 | 7.0 |
35000 | 6280 | 28720 | 5.0 | 6.1 |
40000 | 7680 | 32320 | 4.4 | 5.4 |
45000 | 9080 | 35920 | 3.9 | 4.9 |
50000 | 10480 | 39520 | 3.5 | 4.4 |
55000 | 12543 | 42457 | 3.2 | 4.1 |
60000 | 14643 | 45357 | 2.9 | 3.9 |
65000 | 16743 | 48257 | 2.7 | 3.6 |
70000 | 18843 | 51157 | 2.5 | 3.4 |
75000 | 20943 | 54057 | 2.3 | 3.2 |
80000 | 23043 | 56957 | 2.2 | 3.1 |
85000 | 25143 | 59857 | 2.1 | 2.9 |
90000 | 27243 | 62757 | 1.9 | 2.8 |
95000 | 29343 | 65657 | 1.8 | 2.7 |
100000 | 31443 | 68557 | 1.8 | 2.6 |
105000 | 34543 | 70457 | 1.7 | 2.5 |
110000 | 37643 | 72357 | 1.6 | 2.4 |
120000 | 43843 | 76157 | 1.5 | 2.3 |
 Â
Two-person household
 Â
Income | Income | Charge | Charge | |
Gross | Tax NI | Net | Gross | Net |
£ | £ | £ | % | % |
30000 | 1360 | 28640 | 5.8 | 6.1 |
40000 | 4160 | 35840 | 4.4 | 4.9 |
50000 | 6960 | 43040 | 3.5 | 4.1 |
60000 | 9760 | 50240 | 2.9 | 3.5 |
70000 | 12560 | 57440 | 2.5 | 3.0 |
80000 | 15360 | 64640 | 2.2 | 2.7 |
90000 | 18160 | 71840 | 1.9 | 2.4 |
100000 | 20960 | 79040 | 1.8 | 2.2 |
110000 | 25086 | 84914 | 1.6 | 2.1 |
120000 | 29286 | 90714 | 1.5 | 1.9 |
130000 | 33486 | 96514 | 1.3 | 1.8 |
140000 | 37686 | 102314 | 1.3 | 1.7 |
150000 | 41886 | 108114 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
160000 | 46086 | 113914 | 1.1 | 1.5 |
170000 | 50286 | 119714 | 1.0 | 1.5 |
180000 | 54486 | 125514 | 1.0 | 1.4 |
190000 | 58686 | 131314 | 0.9 | 1.3 |
200000 | 62886 | 137114 | 0.9 | 1.3 |
210000 | 69086 | 140914 | 0.8 | 1.2 |
220000 | 75286 | 144714 | 0.8 | 1.2 |
240000 | 87686 | 152314 | 0.7 | 1.1 |
Â
 Notes
Other useful posts
Â
Â
Conclusion
A tax on property values is deeply regressive. As lower income households would have greater difficulty in paying the tax they would be more likely to have to sell up which would be a very perverse result creating greater inequality in society. The analysis clearly indicates that any tax for local government services should be based on earnings levels.
Â
Sources
PayPrecisePremium UK Salary Tools.
Â