In further response to Butti's link to the Guardian article, I have read it and it is one of the biggest piles of surreal nonsense I have seen from a supposed "professional" in a long time.
John Perry says "...no government is likely to restore schedule A tax, but even disregarding it the outcome is that owners pay no net tax at all (council tax doesn't count as tenants pay it too). As Professor Steve Wilcox points out, the existence of these tax advantages means that house prices are far higher than they might otherwise be"
I have no idea what he means by this - according to what I find on the HMRC website, Schedule A is a list of tax-deductible costs when calculating tax due on profits from a property rental business, it has nothing to do with taxing home ownership at all.
Anyway, it is not true that home owners are not taxed - for example there is the small matter of stamp duty, which resulted my pensioner mother having to pay around £8,000 straight into the Treasury's coffers when she moved home to live closer to me so I could care for her in her old age.
She is by no means rich - she receives Pension Credit/Guarantee Credit because her income is not enough to live on, despite the fact that she worked and paid income tax most of her adult life and receives a state pension as a result. She even receives a widow's pension from my father's employer's pension scheme in addition to her state pension, but still she does not have enough income to live on according to the government's criteria.
As for the remarkable claim that house prices are higher because no tax has to be paid on the purchase price, I wonder what parallel universe Professor Wilcox is living in? In my part of the universe, tax added to the price of something always increases what I have to pay for it.