Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
AvoidDebt

Capital Gains Tax on home sales - even on principal private residence?

Recommended Posts

Henry threw this out earlier. Interestingly the idea has been floating around in Canada too, some of the economic arguments here. 

A capital-gains tax would go far to cool Toronto’s housing market

 

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/a-capital-gains-tax-would-go-far-to-cool-torontos-housing-market/article34654462/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting but takes no account on the effect it would have on thee market i.e. freezing it

The reduced number of properties that would hit the market would be subject to a bidding war, although I acknowledge the paradigm shift the proposal makes of why should income from a primary residence be different from say salaried income. Logically I would say there is no reason, other than a social policy one that governments wish to encourage home ownership (the alternative is social housing or private sector rental - each with their associated costs to local government and ultimately us)

The dearth of properties available for sale would make non home owners even more dependent on the private rental sector (in the absence of sufficient social housing)

My take on it anyway - I'm sure I'll take a load of flak from people

Edited by knock out johnny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about this the other day. A policy like this would freeze the market permanently, no one would sell, certainly older people - until the policy was reversed.

My solution to the problem when thinking about this, was the ensure there weren't these absolutely mental 'profits' in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whose manifesto exactly? Conservatives looking more like labour by the day (On the economy at least)

On the one hand it would be yet another baby boomer perk denied to younger generations but on the other it's hard to argue it wouldn't be fair. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe make it roll up house to next house and only payable when you die?

Ah no, that would be inheritance tax and no one should be taxed on money they have already paid tax on. Or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, CunningPlan said:

Maybe make it roll up house to next house and only payable when you die?

Ah no, that would be inheritance tax and no one should be taxed on money they have already paid tax on. Or something like that.

If I have to pay a tax, I'd rather pay it when I'm dead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CunningPlan said:

Maybe make it roll up house to next house and only payable when you die?

Ah no, that would be inheritance tax and no one should be taxed on money they have already paid tax on. Or something like that.

Not really working in the south East is it? That's why they're proposing capital gains

22 minutes ago, Ah-so said:

If I have to pay a tax, I'd rather pay it when I'm dead. 

Why should you pay a tax on something you've already bought outright with previously taxed income?

20 minutes ago, CunningPlan said:

Apparently other people's children would rather you paid it when you are alive.

Apparently most people would rather own something once they've paid for it and do with it as they wish without the state skimming whatever amount it fancies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just make it over 5/7/10 years with a taper adjusted for inflation.

By a house sell after a refurb and a flip full cap gains

By a house live in for 3 years pay 2/5ths cap gains with renovation costs deducted

Dont they have something like this in Germany?

That way if you fixing up property as a business you pay tax thank you very much.

If you dont then you either rent if you dont need to stay or buy if you envisage staying.

S24 takes people away from renting at high risky multiples and using tax relief to horde.

This would target speculation and would cover the other side and would be a very good change.  in my search area invariably the most overpriced homes are ones where there is someone after a flip profit.

Would it freeze the market.. more than it is now?

Put it with a start date of April 2019 and does not apply to houses sold before then an it might just get things going so the conservatives can get the crash out the way before the following election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't this tip the balance in favour of the younger generation/FTBs?

SDLT has to be paid by the buyer and the higher house prices are, the more SDLT is paid.

CGT is a tax on the seller and the higher house prices are, the more CGT is paid.

Perhaps this is a move towards the realisation that the younger generation has been thoroughly disenfranchised by HPI, that they vote and that in the not too distant future, they will be the majority voting demographic. Perhaps time to give something back, especially with Labour in such a dire position (and with more extreme anti-HPI policies than the Tories)?

Edited by fru-gal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, knock out johnny said:

Why should you pay a tax on something you've already bought outright with previously taxed income?

Such is life. Given that the government will get the share of GDP that it wants one way or another, an abolition of death duties would simply push them onto the living. 

So if you do not want to pay £X when you are dead, would you add £X onto some other tax - perhaps an annual wealth tax, or a much higher rate of income tax. 

My preference is that if they are going to tax me, I would prefer it done when I'm dead than when I'm alive. At least I have the option in life of spending all my money or giving it away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Ah-so said:

Such is life. Given that the government will get the share of GDP that it wants one way or another, an abolition of death duties would simply push them onto the living. 

So if you do not want to pay £X when you are dead, would you add £X onto some other tax - perhaps an annual wealth tax, or a much higher rate of income tax. 

My preference is that if they are going to tax me, I would prefer it done when I'm dead than when I'm alive. At least I have the option in life of spending all my money or giving it away. 

1. Inheritance tax isn't a tax on the dead, you can't tax the dead, they are dead.

2. Inheritance tax is a tax on the income of the living.  An income tax, in fact. 

3. There no reason why inherited income should be exempt from the taxes you have to pay on money you actually earn.

4.  All income 'has been taxed already', income tax is a transaction tax, it's paid when the money changes hands. 

If you want to lower income taxes then fine. We should start with taxes on earned incomes first, then we can worry about unearned windfalls. 

Edited by DrBuyToLeech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DrBuyToLeech said:

Not a good idea, since it encourages the main problem - hoarders.

In the long run, with no landlords selling up, everyone would be a tenant. 

I think the system does that already. I would suggest a higher inheritance tax rate on property and lower amount on cash (as we do with business assets). This would encourage downsizing and selling off portfolios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CunningPlan said:

I think the system does that already. I would suggest a higher inheritance tax rate on property and lower amount on cash (as we do with business assets). This would encourage downsizing and selling off portfolios.

It does, but I think increasing the scope of capital gains makes it worse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ah-so said:

Such is life. Given that the government will get the share of GDP that it wants one way or another, an abolition of death duties would simply push them onto the living. 

So if you do not want to pay £X when you are dead, would you add £X onto some other tax - perhaps an annual wealth tax, or a much higher rate of income tax. 

My preference is that if they are going to tax me, I would prefer it done when I'm dead than when I'm alive. At least I have the option in life of spending all my money or giving it away. 

If we see the need for taxation as a necessary eveil I;d tax corporates properly - including clawing back WTC which is basically a subsidy

You can only give it away if you know 7 years beforehand when youre going to die

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DrBuyToLeech said:

1. Inheritance tax isn't a tax on the dead, you can't tax the dead, they are dead.

2. Inheritance tax is a tax on the income of the living.  An income tax, in fact. 

3. There no reason why inherited income should be exempt from the taxes you have to pay on money you actually earn.

4.  All income 'has been taxed already', income tax is a transaction tax, it's paid when the money changes hands. 

If you want to lower income taxes then fine. We should start with taxes on earned incomes first, then we can worry about unearned windfalls. 

These statements come from someone who wants to justify inheritance tax by using sophistry, calling it an income and it's taxation as a transaction tax

Even the government when it wwas first introduced IHT knew they were taking the p!ss  by saying it was a temporary tax to pay for the war against napoleon

You seem to like the fact that government has a say so over private property

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THis would just make it difficult for people to move. A far simpler and fairer method would just be a land value tax as this compensates others for not being able to access your land. The issue would be that wealthy landowners would lose out and you can't have that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will attempt to take everything they can get their hands on before the final collapse. I think pensions are next after property as these are also sitting ducks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyone can be highly paid....both the low paid and the highly paid work hard, some highly paid work harder than the low paid, some low paid work harder than the highly paid......the thing with assets like property, land, stocks, shares, bonds etc......they increase or decrease in value just by holding them.....no work required.....so I am in favour of taxing things that increase in price with little or no effort or brains, education or work required, just a gut feeling....only a bet a wish and a prayer, in a lot of cases using borrowed money to gamble with. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government deliberately cause house inflation and then taxes it. What could possibly go wrong? The answer to all of this is to cut immigration, build more houses, cut housing benefit which is inflating rents. It is simple but the MP's are thick and are all invested in property so nothing much will change. Build more houses.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, winkie said:

Not everyone can be highly paid....both the low paid and the highly paid work hard, some highly paid work harder than the low paid, some low paid work harder than the highly paid......the thing with assets like property, land, stocks, shares, bonds etc......they increase or decrease in value just by holding them.....no work required.....so I am in favour of taxing things that increase in price with little or no effort or brains, education or work required, just a gut feeling....only a bet a wish and a prayer, in a lot of cases using borrowed money to gamble with. ;)

So all assets that fall in value can be deducted from income tax also? Taxes should be placed on things that are finite or cause detriment to the rest of the population through their use, nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   76 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.