Money

Millions of tenants across England are set for new protections from unfair evictions and unfair increases in rent.The changes come as part of the government’s landmark reforms under the Renters’ Rights Act.They aim to shift the balance of power between landlords and tenants to make renting fairer, more affordable, and to improve standards.But there are warnings that the reforms could add to the burden of renting out a property, leading to landlords exiting the sector and ultimately pushing up rents due to decreased supply.Ministers will outline how the reforms will be rolled out across the coming weeks, but here is what the government’s rental reforms mean for tenants.The end of no-fault evictionsPreviously, landlords could evict tenants without reason, known as a “no-fault” eviction by just serving a Section 21 notice and giving a renter two months to leave.This created uncertainty for tenants, but the new laws will abolish Section 21 evictions and landlords will need to give a valid reason through the courts for a tenant to vacate, such as for unpaid rent or anti-social behaviour.Sarah Elliott, chief executive of housing charity Shelter, said: “Once implemented, England’s 11 million renters will finally be unshackled from the gross injustice of no-fault evictions that have made thousands homeless.”More flexible tenancies Tenants will also have more flexibility if they want or need to leave a property, as tenancy contracts will no longer be for a fixed period.Fixed tenancies will be replaced with rolling ones that renew each month and landlords will only be able to change the rent once a year.Get a free fractional share worth up to £100.Capital at risk.Terms and conditions apply.Go to websiteADVERTISEMENTGet a free fractional share worth up to £100.Capital at risk.Terms and conditions apply.Go to websiteADVERTISEMENTThe act has been created to rebalance the power dynamic between tenants and landlords More

Rachel Reeves has been warned that cutting cash ISA limits will cost the Treasury billions and will not encourage people to start investing.The Building Society Association (BSA) say the damage inflicted by cutting cash ISA rates would result in up to 60,000 fewer mortgages being offered across the property market, as well as hamper the government’s own target of 1.5 million new homes across the term of parliament.As a result, BSA estimate that damaging economic growth and reducing tax revenues could hit the Treasury by £2.5bn.Over the summer, building societies including Nationwide and Skipton wrote to the chancellor pleading with her to leave cash ISAs untouched.Building societies are among those who offer cash ISA products and use those deposits to support their ability to fund residential mortgages. Cutting the amounts saved into them could hit building society mortgage supply by 5 per cent, says BSA research. They tend to be particularly active in the first-time buyer market.The Treasury select committee chairman Dame Meg Hillier said that it was “not the right time to cut the cash Isa limit”.Currently, rules allow each person to save £20,000 per tax year into ISAs across the available range, which includes Lifetime ISAs as well as cash and investing versions. Speculation has suggested Ms Reeves may cut that by half with regards to how much can be saved as cash, with the remainder of the allowance then able to be diverted towards investing.The chancellor earlier this year highlighted the vast difference in potential returns that saving or investing £2,000 could make, and though eyebrows were raised at the rates used in each case, the essential point remains valid: over prolonged periods of time, investing tends to yield better results than saving.Meanwhile, the results of a new poll show more people would rather potentially pay tax on cash savings than start investing.Get a free fractional share worth up to £100.Capital at risk.Terms and conditions apply.Go to websiteADVERTISEMENTGet a free fractional share worth up to £100.Capital at risk.Terms and conditions apply.Go to websiteADVERTISEMENTThe government have been clear that they want to create a culture of investing across the UK, which has lower numbers of retail investors – the general public, in other words – than other nations such as Germany, Sweden or the US.But the chancellor’s reported plan to effectively herd people into stocks and funds by cutting their tax-free savings allowance has been widely criticised, with most industry experts agreeing it is entirely unlikely to have the desired effect.( More

Stamp duty reform is rumoured to be under consideration by chancellor Rachel Reeves ahead of the Autumn Budget.Reports suggest the Treasury is considering a new tax on the sale of homes worth more than £500,000 as a step towards a radical overhaul of stamp duty and council tax.Meanwhile, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch really set the cat among the pigeons by pledging to scrap the tax entirely during her party’s conference last week. But Independent readers are divided on whether the tax should be axed, with some arguing abolition is “fantasy economics” that would only drive up prices. “When stamp duty was cut during Covid, the spike was so huge it made it even harder for first-time buyers,” one said, while another warned that any savings would just be added to deposits and fuel a crash. Several noted it would “appeal to the very well off” but do “absolutely nothing” for renters or those already priced out of the housing market.Alternatives being floated included new exemptions, higher thresholds, rebates to “encourage downsizing” or replacing it with a fairer levy such as a mansion tax.Overall, there was a sense that all options carried risks – from taking money out of the economy to pushing house prices even higher by fuelling demand.Here’s what you had to say:We need those with financial power to bear their shareIf the abolition of stamp duty is part of a package to properly tax property, then that is good, but I suspect this is merely a headline grabber with no substance. Get a free fractional share worth up to £100.Capital at risk.Terms and conditions apply.Go to websiteADVERTISEMENTGet a free fractional share worth up to £100.Capital at risk.Terms and conditions apply.Go to websiteADVERTISEMENTSure, we all hate taxes and love the benefit of the NHS, roads, dustbin collection, etc. Unfortunately, we need both, and we also need those with the assets and financial power to bear their share and not leave it just to wage earners to shoulder the burden. The UK is a rich nation, it’s just that the distribution of those riches is disproportionately spread, and that situation is worsening at pace.SorrySurreyAppealing to the well-offAbolishing stamp duty is designed to appeal to the very well-off, who are likely to be seeing a big hike in stamp duty on property above £500k in value.It would do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help people struggling to get on the property ladder and would also hit the private rented market, as house prices would surge and greedy landlords looking to expand their property portfolios would jack up rents to cover their increased borrowing.The Greens undoubtedly won the Conference season with their audacious but BRILLIANT idea to extend right to buy to the private rented market and give tenants an increasing discount and first refusal when a landlord puts a rental property on the market.If tenants don’t wish to or are unable to buy, then second in line are local authorities, who could progressively rebuild their social housing stock and alleviate their huge housing waiting lists.CanPeopleReallyBeThisStupidFantasy economicsThere was some speculation that Reeves was considering reform of stamp duty or replacement by something else well ahead of the Tory conference, so I think the ideas thief in this case is probably Kemi Badenoch. However, abolition without creating another tax to replace it seems like fantasy economics and a quick way to fuel house price inflation. Badenoch’s announcement sounded more akin to the unfunded Tory National Insurance Contributions cut before the last election.Tanaquil2Stamp duty’s dual purposeStamp duty seems to have two purposes: a way to raise taxes – though all taxes are taxes on income, so it is disguised income tax – and a way to limit house prices (rises) by taking those taxes out of the housing market. The latter is necessary because the housing shortage pushes up house prices, only later to collapse when rates are raised. Removing stamp duty without building more homes is asking for trouble and will not help anyone. It will just mean that the money that would have paid stamp duty will now be added to funds available for deposits and so increase house prices… ready for a crash.much0adoEncourage downsizing insteadIf stamp duty is stopping homeowners downsizing, preventing family homes coming to market and leaving people in properties that are too big for them, all that needs to be done is tweak the tax to encourage downsizing. (Downsizing being moving to a lower square metre, fewer bedroom property, not moving from a high-value housing area to a cheaper area.) Maybe offer a percentage rebate linked to the difference in selling higher-priced property to smaller property purchase price?PedrobearWhat are the benefits of stopping it?When stamp duty was temporarily cut during COVID, the house price spike was so huge it made it even harder for first-time buyers to get on the market.I’m not sure what the amazing benefits of stopping it are.Naa27House price inflation riskPast stamp duty holidays led to house prices rising, meaning buyers paid much the same, were less likely to be able to get a mortgage, and had to have a larger deposit. Perhaps a more limited change to encourage downsizing, especially by the elderly.Alexander Boris de Pfeffel JohnsonIncreasing supply is the solutionReducing or abolishing stamp duty will just push up prices. The only way to make property more affordable is to increase supply, particularly of social housing.BeigeDaveMeaningless nonsenseMost people realise that scrapping stamp duty is fantasy economics. As such, why should Reeves be forced to respond? The Tories have no fiscal credibility, about the same as Farage, so any proposal Badenoch makes now (being so far out from an election) is nothing but childish politicking. I suspect Reeves will ignore it entirely because it’s just meaningless nonsense from a politician nobody takes seriously.TabbersSome of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity.Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day’s top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘log in’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here. More

Independent readers are divided over proposals being considered by Chancellor Rachel Reeves for a new tax on homes worth more than £500,000, with many questioning whether the threshold would unfairly affect ordinary homeowners rather than the truly wealthy.Several argued that in high-priced areas, £500,000 is not a marker of wealth, with smaller homes often costing more than that. “In London and parts of the South East, owning a £500k home… does not make you rich,” noted one reader, while others suggested a higher threshold or regional variations to avoid penalising middle-class families.Some readers welcomed the idea of targeting unearned property wealth, arguing that decades of house price rises have created inequalities that younger generations cannot overcome. “Taxing property, targeting unearned income, is what the government needs to do,” one wrote.Others warned the tax could have unintended consequences, including discouraging downsizing, reducing housing market mobility, and forcing homeowners to raise asking prices to offset the levy. There were also concerns that pensioners or couples on modest incomes could be hit unfairly.Across the board, readers emphasised the need for a fair approach that distinguishes genuine wealth from ordinary homeowners.Here’s what you had to say:Regional house price disparities I have recently moved from Berkshire to Yorkshire. The semi-detached house I’ve bought was £200,000 in Yorkshire, but the equivalent and possibly terraced house in Berkshire would have been £500,000. So this tax would certainly be a detriment to workers in the South East. The salary weighting is far from compensating for the house price difference.Over a £1,000,000 might be a more appropriate national figure, but possibly there would need to be some regional differences. This could also be reflected in IHT rates for inherited property.The problem that really needs to be addressed is ensuring that richer people actually pay tax on all their income and/or property, and that they are not able to legally “evade” tax using loopholes.Get a free fractional share worth up to £100.Capital at risk.Terms and conditions apply.Go to websiteADVERTISEMENTGet a free fractional share worth up to £100.Capital at risk.Terms and conditions apply.Go to websiteADVERTISEMENTDavidWRDo you think a £500k property tax is fair? Join the conversation in the comments.Property wealth tax concerns A tax on the unearned wealth of property due to the housing market of the last 40 years is a sensible tax. However, £500,000 is too low. It will bring many people who are just making ends meet into paying a tax they can’t afford. In many parts of the country, especially the South East, £500k will barely get you a two-bed terrace house.If a couple has scrimped and saved to buy one in the last few years and can just afford the mortgage, they may end up being stuck in a property they can’t afford to sell. That will impact both job mobility and the housing market.Maybe raise it to £750k to ensure it’s only the genuinely wealthy that pay it.TabbersRedistribution of unearned property wealth A lot of people are missing the point… too much of the nation’s wealth has been tied up in property, with huge increases in prices over the last 20–30 years, all to be passed on to siblings. Younger generations without rich parents don’t stand a chance.The government has no choice but to try and extract this unearned income and attempt to redistribute it to give other people a future. Taxing property, targeting unearned income, is what the government needs to do (and ignore the naysayers).ChrisMatthewsRegional variation needed £500K is far too low… no way is this a wealth tax, more just about managing tax. The average cost of a home around here is about £450K, and that is a two-bed terrace. Surely the price should not be a blanket one but reflect different areas?mindfulImpact on downsizing All that is going to do is make it far more likely that people in larger houses won’t downsize, leading to increases in the value of those houses as the market dries up. The cost of moving house is already stopping many pensioners from downsizing. The level should be far higher or adjusted for regional differences at the very least.KrakenUKInefficient housing stock In the south of England, developers only want to build large homes as that’s where they can make the most profit. They justify the need for large homes by stating there is a terrible shortfall. In reality, there are millions of large homes in the UK with single elderly people rattling about in them, when a smaller, more efficient, quality home would make far more sense. Older people balk at the thought of selling up and paying loads in Stamp Duty for their new home. A new ‘selling’ tax will just cement this inglorious cycle.Hardly SurprisedCouncil tax outdated This Council Tax was a last-minute replacement for the Poll Tax. It has become as unpopular because it is based on property prices nearly 35 years ago. Things have moved on since then, and so should this tax system.jadfgIllusion of wealth through property The illusion that you create wealth while sitting on your backside checking Zoopla to see how much your house has gone up has to be broken. Work creates wealth. Property prices just redistribute it unfairly. The worst result of house price booms is the emergence of millions of little property empires of buy-to-let investors who retire at 45 and contribute nothing thereafter. Ironically, they end up renting to each other’s kids, but their imagination doesn’t stretch that far.CarolanMiddle-class southern households Labour seem determined to lose all support everywhere. In London and parts of the South East, owning a £500k home, which is often smaller than a £300k home up north, does not make you rich.This is partially about trying to win over people who call middle-class southerners “the London elite”. Has Starmer not realised that no amount of red meat can satisfy the rabid? They just grow bigger and stronger on it. Starmer and co are reluctant to penalise the super-rich who can get rich after their term in office or use their media clout to hound them out.BrotherCheEconomic warning More adjusting of the net curtains while the house crumbles…Prof Richard Wolff and Analyst Sean Foo on China dumping increasingly worthless US bonds, but after Japan and China, the UK, the third largest holder of worthless bonds, is buying more – collapse is on the horizon, especially as Trump blunders with little understanding of the impact:Meanwhile, here in the UK, our chancellor is buying US Treasury Bonds like there’s no tomorrow! At the same time, we are told we are so skint we’ll have to cut back on help for the disabled. This will wreck our economy – all to try and crawl to Trump, who hates them!DolphinsImpact on pensioners A property tax doesn’t take account of residents’ incomes. Four wage-earners in a £499k property would not pay, but a couple of pensioners in a £501k property would have to starve – and freeze – to death.Lucy LasticProperty as investment People look to accumulate profit in house ownership to compensate for low wages. If their gaff is going up by 5 per cent year on year, they’re quids in and can retire in style.Lots of people own houses as a business – what percentage of homeowners actually live in that home? Stop anyone owning more than one house, especially foreign buyers. We are rife with investors dispossessing us here.covergoSome of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity.Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day’s top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘log in’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here. More

As warnings grow over a looming £50bn black hole in the public finances, many Independent readers have turned their attention to the difficult choices facing Chancellor Rachel Reeves ahead of the autumn Budget.The National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) has said Reeves faces an “impossible trilemma”: raise taxes, cut spending, or abandon her self-imposed fiscal rules. But with little “low-hanging fruit” left after years of austerity and Labour’s retreat from welfare reforms, pressure is mounting for the chancellor to consider new sources of revenue – chief among them, a wealth tax.Some readers argued that higher taxes are now inevitable if the government wants to maintain public services and credibility in the markets. As one commenter put it:“We are poorer. We cannot afford the nice things anymore. If you want anything resembling the level of public services we used to enjoy, you have to be willing to pay more for them.”Not everyone agreed, however. Some feared income tax rises would stifle growth and hurt struggling sectors. Others saw untapped potential in taxing wealth, closing loopholes, or enforcing existing fines. There were also calls for Reeves to rethink the logic of her borrowing rules altogether.Amid competing opinions, readers could agree on one thing: if Britain wants decent public services, someone has to pay for them.Here’s what you had to say:Basic rate income tax has never been lowerWe are where we are because Brexit ripped £100 billion a year out of the economy, because Starmer refuses even partially to undo Brexit (e.g. the single market), and because the sunlit uplands Brexiteers promised us never arrived—and never will.We are poorer. We cannot afford the nice things anymore. If you want anything resembling the level of public services we used to enjoy, you have to be willing to pay more for them.Get a free fractional share worth up to £100.Capital at risk.Terms and conditions apply.Go to websiteADVERTISEMENTGet a free fractional share worth up to £100.Capital at risk.Terms and conditions apply.Go to websiteADVERTISEMENTIf not, accept the inevitable cuts with good grace: winter fuel allowance, triple lock pensions, longer NHS waiting lists, bankrupt local councils, failing SEND provision for children and all the rest.If you want to do something about these things, you pay.SteveHillLow-hanging fruit in tax reformSo much low-hanging fruit, which will also support other goals. For example, fuel duty has been frozen for years – put it up. Fine levels and collection should be increased; many civil fines should be more means-tested and actually collected, from employing illegal workers to water pollution to fly-tipping. Currently, the record in this space is woeful. Fuel duty alone will raise significant sums.JSMill88How do you think Reeves should fix the public finances? Let us know in the comments.Tax levers don’t work like a carsThe uncomfortable truth is that the ‘levers’ the Chancellor has at her disposal do not work like the levers of a car.Raising tax levels decreases economic activity, so reduces tax take – oops! Decreasing spending decreases economic activity, so it reduces tax take – oops! Breaking her rules increases the cost of the debt, so increases spending – oops!Despite the ridiculous metaphor of a ‘black hole’, £41 billion is a tiny proportion of the £1,200 billion budget. All that is required are minor tweaks. Presentation is everything, so attacking pensioners and children was pure stupidity. Everyone agrees the whole system needs radical reform. Labour is committed to that in its manifesto and needs to get on with it to have any chance of survival.LordNelson3This is a global problemEconomic problems are being experienced around the world. Britain is far from being alone in this. Brexit and Trump haven’t helped, of course. Before that, the privatisation of so many state-owned companies that used to invest in services (instead of pocketing the money) has led to much degraded service in many areas of the UK.Worldwide, the multibillionaires haven’t had it so good for over a century, and yet people are led to believe voting (where democracy still survives) for the parties they finance will make things better… because so much of the press is in the hands of this minority. Raise taxes on certain goods and people.BJCExperiment with a wealth taxI would love to see a wealth tax implemented. We’d soon see if the feared adverse effects come to pass or not.I don’t live in the UK, so I’d be glad to see it become the subject of an experiment.soccerdadRachel Reeves’ pledge comes back to biteSo, in a speech last November to the annual CBI Conference, who told them “I’m really clear, I’m not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes”? One Rachel Reeves!She’s already broken her “pledge” on borrowing as, month on month, she takes in record amounts. Starmer refused to rubber-stamp her “pledge” to the CBI, and eventually – several months later – he wouldn’t count out tax rises in “unforeseen circumstances”.Well, if those “unforeseen circumstances” are a £50 billion black hole created by Reeves, then she has to go. She will forever regret coining the word, which now comes back and bites her with a real financial black hole created by her in just one year.Munch58Equalise tax across all forms of incomeWealth taxes are the answer. Equalise taxes on all forms of income – salary, capital gains, dividends, etc. A 1% or 2% tax on all wealth over £5m or £10m.Remove all tax loopholes such as trusts designed to avoid tax. Tax all companies and corporations on their UK activity, including profits exported elsewhere. For example, Amazon UK has paid no corporation tax for years.SteveMarshall128Increasing taxes while economy faltersCan’t make this up. Chancellor increases taxes and hurts the UK economy – then reacts by putting up more taxes.Can’t believe we have another four years of this government. How many more in the retail and leisure sector need to lose their jobs before she learns?Hard to say this about the Tories that brought us Brexit, but Sunak was doing a better job, with budding signs the economy was starting to recover.DPLDNGrown-up conversation on taxA grown-up conversation needs to be had on tax and its purposes. You can’t pay less tax and have the quality of public services we had in the 70s.We also need to recognise that income tax is progressive and can be made more so. Increasing VAT, cutting spending, taxing pensions, increasing pension ages, broadening the council tax base and charging more are all impactful on the poorest and those just managing.The Thatcher neoliberalism of the last 50 years needs to be put to bed. We need to look at creating a fairer, more equal society, with good public services for all – provided through fair and progressive taxation.SteeneGambling and smoking, yes – but not drinking”Some upward adjustments in ‘sin’ taxes on online gambling, drinking and smoking are inevitable, and thoroughly justifiable.”Gambling and smoking, yes. Drinking, no.So many pubs, bars, venues and clubs are already closing on a daily basis, as drinks prices are so very high. Hitting them even more isn’t going to help the hospitality and entertainment industries at all.Can’t she target the large companies that pay their staff such low wages that they need in-work benefits? We are effectively subsidising their profits anyway (and many companies seem to be having high or record profits).Someone182Undo Brexit and recover lost growthSomething has to give, and that something is taxation.I don’t share your confidence that this automatically means only higher-rate taxes. There are very good reasons for saying the 20% basic rate is historically, and unaffordably, too low.There is a fourth option (to taxes, cuts, or borrowing): undo Brexit, and put that missing £100 billion a year back into the economy. At a minimum, we should be looking to rejoin the single market.SteveHillQuantitative easing funnels money away from servicesWhat most people don’t realise is that this huge level of interest is created every time the government carries out quantitative easing, since we moved from the gold standard.Before, the government just printed money, which caused inflation. Now, when they print money, we still get inflation, but have to pay commercial banks interest for doing it.It’s a crazy system that funnels money away from public services, public wages, etc., to private investors. That’s the real problem.ficklepickleSome of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity.Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day’s top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘log in’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here. More

Welcome to an exclusive Ask Me Anything with me, Chris Blackhurst – business commentator at The Independent.Scroll down to read more – or jump straight to the Q&A by clicking here.Talk of a wealth tax is back. And this time, it’s being pushed not from the political fringe, but from within the Labour Party itself.Former party leader Lord Kinnock has called for a 2 per cent tax on assets over £10 million, arguing it could raise up to £11 billion a year and help shore up the UK’s finances. His intervention has reignited debate over an “asset tax” on the super-rich.With five trade unions now backing the idea, and Rachel Reeves refusing to rule anything out ahead of her Mansion House speech, Labour’s direction on tax policy is under real scrutiny.I’ve spent decades reporting from the Square Mile and speaking to the people who keep Britain’s economy turning. And from where I sit, a wealth tax is not just economically risky – it’s a political signal that the UK is no longer serious about prosperity, investment, or growth.The wealthy, contrary to popular myth, don’t live in a vacuum. They create jobs, fund philanthropy, and help drive economic confidence. Drive them away, and it’s not just the rich who suffer – it’s the exchequer, small businesses, and the very public services Labour wants to support. The UK’s loss is another’s gain. There are plenty of countries lining up to entice the wealthy to relocate. So what’s really going on here? Is a wealth tax a fair way to close Labour’s fiscal black hole – or a dangerous misstep that could stall Britain’s recovery just as it gets going?Join me live at 6pm BST on Wednesday, 16 July, as I take your questions and comments on wealth, taxation, and the high-stakes economic choices facing this new Labour government.Submit your questions in the comments below. If you’re not already a member, click “sign up” in the comments section to participate. For a full guide on how to comment, click here.Get a free fractional share worth up to £100.Capital at risk.Terms and conditions apply.Go to websiteADVERTISEMENTGet a free fractional share worth up to £100.Capital at risk.Terms and conditions apply.Go to websiteADVERTISEMENTDon’t worry if you can’t see your question right away – some may be hidden until the Q&A starts. See you at 6pm! More