As London grapples with soaring living costs, deepening inequality and mounting pressure on its public services, renewed attention is turning to how the wealth of the capital is taxed – and who truly benefits from its prosperity.In a city that hosts more billionaires than almost anywhere else on earth, while hundreds of thousands struggle with insecure housing and low pay, the question of fairness in the tax system has moved from the margins to the center of political debate.Zack Polanski, deputy leader of the Green Party and a London Assembly member, is among those arguing that a bolder approach to taxing wealth is essential not only to narrow the gap between rich and poor, but to unlock the funds needed for better transport, greener infrastructure and improved opportunities for all Londoners.
Zack Polanski’s vision for a fairer London through progressive wealth taxation
For Zack Polanski, narrowing London’s wealth gap begins with a simple principle: those who benefit most from the city’s growth should contribute more to its future. He argues for a modernised tax system that shifts the burden away from work and onto accumulated assets, targeting unearned windfalls rather than everyday earnings. In practical terms, that means closing loopholes on property speculation, taxing luxury homes more fairly, and curbing the advantages of vast investment portfolios that currently outpace the tax paid by many full-time workers. His approach is framed not as punishment for success, but as a recalibration of responsibility – a way to ensure that soaring townhouse values in Kensington help fund decent housing, clean air and safe streets in every borough.
Polanski’s proposals link fiscal reform to visible, local outcomes, presenting Londoners with a clear line between fairer taxation and better public services. Revenue raised from progressive wealth taxes, he suggests, should be ringfenced and transparently invested in priorities that directly improve everyday life:
- Affordable housing funded by higher levies on empty and speculative properties.
- Clean, reliable transport paid for by contributions from the city’s wealthiest asset holders.
- Green neighbourhoods backed by investment in parks, air quality and active travel.
- Youth services supported through targeted funds from high-value real estate gains.
| Wealth Source | Tax Focus | Public Benefit |
|---|---|---|
| Luxury property | Higher bands & empty home charges | New council homes |
| Large portfolios | Stronger capital gains rules | Stable funding for TfL |
| Speculative land | Land value taxation | Community facilities |
How targeted levies on high value property and financial assets could fund vital city services
Rather than squeezing people who are already struggling to cover the basics, London can look upwards and ask its most fortunate residents to contribute a fairer share. A modest, progressive levy on super-prime homes, luxury second properties and large portfolios of financial assets would tap wealth that has largely escaped taxation, without touching ordinary family homes. Revenues could be channelled directly into frontline services that Londoners feel the loss of most sharply when budgets are cut, including:
- Transport: stabilising fares and safeguarding bus routes in outer boroughs
- Housing: accelerating the delivery of genuinely affordable, energy‑efficient homes
- Childcare and youth services: reopening centres that prevent problems before they reach crisis point
- Green spaces and clean air: maintaining parks, trees and pollution‑cutting measures
Designing these levies well is the difference between a blunt raid and smart, targeted reform. The city could focus on assets with values far beyond what most Londoners could ever dream of owning, with tiered rates that rise at the very top and safeguards to prevent any impact on low and middle‑income residents. Structured this way, a small slice of extreme wealth becomes a stable funding stream for shared essentials. A simplified illustration of how this might work:
| Asset band | Illustrative annual levy | Priority use of funds |
|---|---|---|
| £2m-£5m property | 0.3% | Local buses and safer streets |
| £5m-£10m property | 0.6% | Social housing and retrofits |
| High‑value share portfolios | 0.5% above a high threshold | Childcare and youth provision |
Tackling inequality in housing transport and green spaces to rebalance opportunities across boroughs
On one side of the city,families are trapped paying extortionate rents to live miles from reliable transport and with barely a tree in sight; on the other,residents enjoy leafy streets,fast links and stable tenancies as the norm,not the exception. This unequal geography is not accidental – it is the consequence of decades of underinvestment and policy choices that have favoured asset-owners over ordinary Londoners. A bold program of wealth taxation can fund a different settlement: building genuinely affordable, energy-efficient homes near high-capacity public transport, opening up neglected land as new parks, and enforcing planning rules that guarantee access to light, space and clean air rather than off-plan speculation.
Rebalancing the city also means redesigning priorities street by street. That includes ringfencing revenue from wealth and windfall taxes to improve local infrastructure in the communities that have been left behind the longest. Investment would flow first to boroughs with the worst housing conditions, the fewest green spaces and the most congested, unreliable transport links, with transparent criteria so residents can see where money is going and why.
- Fair rents tied to local incomes, not speculative values
- Transport upgrades that reduce commute times in outer boroughs
- New parks and trees in areas with the highest pollution
- Safe cycling and walking routes linking estates to jobs and schools
| Borough Type | Homes Near Frequent Transport | Accessible Green Space |
|---|---|---|
| High-wealth areas | 8 in 10 households | Park within 5-10 minutes |
| Low-wealth areas | 3 in 10 households | Frequently enough 20+ minutes away |
Policy roadmap for City Hall combining fiscal reform with community investment and social safeguards
City Hall’s next phase of reform rests on a simple bargain: unlock new revenue from those who have gained most from London’s boom, and recycle it directly into the fabric of local life. A rebalanced council tax banding, tougher measures on empty luxury properties, and a modest city-wide levy on speculative land banking would provide predictable income to fund public transport, youth services and genuinely affordable housing. To keep this compact transparent, City Hall would publish an annual Wealth & Fairness Ledger mapping every pound of additional revenue to visible outcomes in each borough, making it impossible for wealth taxes to disappear into a bureaucratic black hole.
- Targeted wealth taxation on high-value property and unearned gains
- Ring-fenced funds for housing, transport and climate resilience
- Neighbourhood investment boards giving residents a direct say
- Social safeguards to protect renters, key workers and small traders
| Reform Tool | New Revenue Use | Protection Built In |
|---|---|---|
| Progressive council tax bands | Fixing estates & damp homes | Rebates for low-income households |
| Empty homes surcharge | Street-level youth projects | Exemptions for temporary vacancies |
| Speculative land levy | New social and co-op housing | Small-site relief for community builders |
Alongside new taxes on accumulated wealth, Polanski’s roadmap leans on social guarantees to ensure reform is felt first and fastest by those locked out of London’s prosperity. A strengthened safety net for renters, caps on above-inflation fare rises and minimum service standards for childcare and mental health would operate as non-negotiable floors beneath which no Londoner should fall. By coupling revenue-raising with visible, hyper-local investments – from cleaner air along main roads to safer cycling corridors in outer boroughs – the plan seeks to prove that tackling inequality is not a moral luxury but a practical programme for a more liveable, cohesive capital.
Future Outlook
As the debate over how to fund London’s future intensifies, Polanski’s message is clear: tackling inequality is not a moral add‑on but an economic necessity. Whether voters agree with his prescription of taxing wealth more heavily to pay for social investment, his intervention sharpens the question facing the capital: who should shoulder the burden of keeping London liveable, and who stands to benefit when it thrives?
In a city defined by both extraordinary riches and deep-rooted hardship, the answer will shape not only London’s finances, but its identity. What happens next – in City Hall, in Westminster and at the ballot box – will determine whether Polanski’s vision remains a radical blueprint, or becomes part of the city’s political mainstream.
