LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

1…907908910912913…1128

Comments

  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rick_chasey said:

    it is literally an investment. Often a leveraged one at that.

    *You don't need to own your own home*

    You either do not know what the word "literally" means or you do not know whatthe word "investment" means.

    I literally bought my house to live in until the kids leave home.

    If I wanted to invest in property I would have done so but despite always scoring really high on risk profiles it is a big no for me. I suspect the people who invest in property ie amateur BTL do not undertsand the risk of leveraging themselves to buy an illiquid asset
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Because its not an investment for a lot, or most, people, its a home.

    So you need to make a choice, tax people for buying their home, or don't tax people buying houses for investment.

    They don't have to buy it, right? They could also rent.

    And you don't get taxed for buying it. You get taxed on the "gains from it".
    How do you compare the gains from general rise in values versus adding floor area? Are the building costs fully deductable in calculating the gains? Do you need to keep records of the costs of all building maintenance costs for your tax return?
    If people kept account of all of their expenses then there would be a far greater understanding that property is not as lucrative as people like to think.

    Fo rmost people the emperor will have no clothes
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,154
    First.Aspect said:

    Pross said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Because its not an investment for a lot, or most, people, its a home.

    So you need to make a choice, tax people for buying their home, or don't tax people buying houses for investment.

    They don't have to buy it, right? They could also rent.

    And you don't get taxed for buying it. You get taxed on the "gains from it".
    How do you compare the gains from general rise in values versus adding floor area? Are the building costs fully deductable in calculating the gains? Do you need to keep records of the costs of all building maintenance costs for your tax return?
    If you prevent people from owning their own homes, you immediately dispense with the taxation problems that DIY causes.
    How would putting CGT on the sale of a home prevent someone owning a home?
    See discussion with RC above.
    Does nobody own a home in Sweden?
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,181
    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Pross said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Because its not an investment for a lot, or most, people, its a home.

    So you need to make a choice, tax people for buying their home, or don't tax people buying houses for investment.

    They don't have to buy it, right? They could also rent.

    And you don't get taxed for buying it. You get taxed on the "gains from it".
    How do you compare the gains from general rise in values versus adding floor area? Are the building costs fully deductable in calculating the gains? Do you need to keep records of the costs of all building maintenance costs for your tax return?
    If you prevent people from owning their own homes, you immediately dispense with the taxation problems that DIY causes.
    How would putting CGT on the sale of a home prevent someone owning a home?
    See discussion with RC above.
    Does nobody own a home in Sweden?
    No, they have abolished money and material things in Scandanavia, and replaced it with personal fulfilment. Gene Rodennbery used Sweden as his inspiration for Star Trek.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Unsurprisingly I have my own idea for how to free up the property market and make taxation more equitable.

    SDLT - 1% on all transactions
    Double Council Tax (this can be juggled to make the combined measures tax neutral)
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,574
    surrey_commuter said:

    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Because its not an investment for a lot, or most, people, its a home.

    So you need to make a choice, tax people for buying their home, or don't tax people buying houses for investment.

    They don't have to buy it, right? They could also rent.

    And you don't get taxed for buying it. You get taxed on the "gains from it".
    How do you compare the gains from general rise in values versus adding floor area? Are the building costs fully deductable in calculating the gains? Do you need to keep records of the costs of all building maintenance costs for your tax return?
    If people kept account of all of their expenses then there would be a far greater understanding that property is not as lucrative as people like to think.

    Fo rmost people the emperor will have no clothes
    Amen!

    The number of people who can't even be bothered to get their boiler serviced. And would rather disconnect a fire alarm system than replace a £3 battery.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,154
    surrey_commuter said:

    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Because its not an investment for a lot, or most, people, its a home.

    So you need to make a choice, tax people for buying their home, or don't tax people buying houses for investment.

    They don't have to buy it, right? They could also rent.

    And you don't get taxed for buying it. You get taxed on the "gains from it".
    How do you compare the gains from general rise in values versus adding floor area? Are the building costs fully deductable in calculating the gains? Do you need to keep records of the costs of all building maintenance costs for your tax return?
    If people kept account of all of their expenses then there would be a far greater understanding that property is not as lucrative as people like to think.

    Fo rmost people the emperor will have no clothes
    In Sweden, this is the rule for repairs and maintenance to count for reducing the taxable gain.
    In order to count expenses for repairs and maintenance for a private residential property, you must have had them done during the year of sale or one of the previous five years. In addition, they must have left the property in a better condition when sold than when purchased. For new construction, extensions or refurbishment, there is no such time limit.


  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rjsterry said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Because its not an investment for a lot, or most, people, its a home.

    So you need to make a choice, tax people for buying their home, or don't tax people buying houses for investment.

    They don't have to buy it, right? They could also rent.

    And you don't get taxed for buying it. You get taxed on the "gains from it".
    How do you compare the gains from general rise in values versus adding floor area? Are the building costs fully deductable in calculating the gains? Do you need to keep records of the costs of all building maintenance costs for your tax return?
    If people kept account of all of their expenses then there would be a far greater understanding that property is not as lucrative as people like to think.

    Fo rmost people the emperor will have no clothes
    Amen!

    The number of people who can't even be bothered to get their boiler serviced. And would rather disconnect a fire alarm system than replace a £3 battery.
    I have never even known somebody deduct their Stamp or EA fees off their "profit"
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    it is literally an investment. Often a leveraged one at that.

    *You don't need to own your own home*

    You either do not know what the word "literally" means or you do not know whatthe word "investment" means.

    I literally bought my house to live in until the kids leave home.

    If I wanted to invest in property I would have done so but despite always scoring really high on risk profiles it is a big no for me. I suspect the people who invest in property ie amateur BTL do not undertsand the risk of leveraging themselves to buy an illiquid asset
    It is an investment. You can not want it to be, but that's the reality.
    _
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,181
    It is an investment, but the fact you need a home does make it different from other investments. One way or another, living not in a tent is a required expenditure, so you need to decide RC whether you want to incentivise trying to build your own wealth while you are at it, or just someone else's.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,574
    surrey_commuter said:

    rjsterry said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Because its not an investment for a lot, or most, people, its a home.

    So you need to make a choice, tax people for buying their home, or don't tax people buying houses for investment.

    They don't have to buy it, right? They could also rent.

    And you don't get taxed for buying it. You get taxed on the "gains from it".
    How do you compare the gains from general rise in values versus adding floor area? Are the building costs fully deductable in calculating the gains? Do you need to keep records of the costs of all building maintenance costs for your tax return?
    If people kept account of all of their expenses then there would be a far greater understanding that property is not as lucrative as people like to think.

    Fo rmost people the emperor will have no clothes
    Amen!

    The number of people who can't even be bothered to get their boiler serviced. And would rather disconnect a fire alarm system than replace a £3 battery.
    I have never even known somebody deduct their Stamp or EA fees off their "profit"
    See also the barefaced lies about budgets on Grand Designs and other property shows.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • super_davo
    super_davo Posts: 1,227
    surrey_commuter said:

    Unsurprisingly I have my own idea for how to free up the property market and make taxation more equitable.

    SDLT - 1% on all transactions
    Double Council Tax (this can be juggled to make the combined measures tax neutral)

    Definitely agree with you, but council tax needs a bit of a revamp all round. The bands are completely out of whack because they were based on valuations in 1990. You could either revalue every 5 years or so or do something more objective like floor space / ground space. If countless websites can do it, why can't the government.

    Key thing is to make it fiscally neutral so not seen as "politics of envy" or other rightybollox, so remove some central government subsidy and do something useful with it like raise the zero tax threshold for income tax.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    First.Aspect said:

    It is an investment, but the fact you need a home does make it different from other investments. One way or another, living not in a tent is a required expenditure, so you need to decide RC whether you want to incentivise trying to build your own wealth while you are at it, or just someone else's.

    You're not being taxed to live in it. Only if you make money from it. And even then, it's not all the money, is it? How do other countries manage?

    On your basis, why aren't you more annoyed about stamp duty?
    _
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,181
    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    It is an investment, but the fact you need a home does make it different from other investments. One way or another, living not in a tent is a required expenditure, so you need to decide RC whether you want to incentivise trying to build your own wealth while you are at it, or just someone else's.

    You're not being taxed to live in it. Only if you make money from it. And even then, it's not all the money, is it? How do other countries manage?

    On your basis, why aren't you more annoyed about stamp duty?
    What, do I get a choice, or are you just adding tax?
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,921
    I'm going to invest in lunch soon.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,921
    in·vest·ment (ĭn-vĕst′mənt)
    n.
    1. The act of investing.
    2. An amount invested.
    3. Property or another possession acquired for future financial return or benefit.
    4. A commitment, as of time or support.
    5. A military siege.
    6. Investiture.
    7. Archaic
    a. A garment; a vestment.
    b. An outer covering or layer.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,181
    TheBigBean said:

    in·vest·ment (ĭn-vĕst′mənt)
    n.
    1. The act of investing.
    2. An amount invested.
    3. Property or another possession acquired for future financial return or benefit.
    4. A commitment, as of time or support.
    5. A military siege.
    6. Investiture.
    7. Archaic
    a. A garment; a vestment.
    b. An outer covering or layer.

    Not sure this progresses the discussion, but thanks.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    it is literally an investment. Often a leveraged one at that.

    *You don't need to own your own home*

    You either do not know what the word "literally" means or you do not know whatthe word "investment" means.

    I literally bought my house to live in until the kids leave home.

    If I wanted to invest in property I would have done so but despite always scoring really high on risk profiles it is a big no for me. I suspect the people who invest in property ie amateur BTL do not undertsand the risk of leveraging themselves to buy an illiquid asset
    It is an investment. You can not want it to be, but that's the reality.
    I disagree.

    I bought this house 7 years ago.

    If I was doing it as an investment then i would have bought somewhee that I forecast would outperform the general market. Then I would be livig in some easten shithole at the planned end of Crossrail, Elephant and Castle or Canning Town.

    I did none of these things and bought a house to live in. In all likelihood it will go up and down in line with the wider market and I will not be materially better off.

    How many people do you know who have cashed in their "investment" and taken the profit?

    House prices were widely predicted to fall, so where are all the stories of people who sold at the peak with teh expectation of buying back when prices were lower?

    It used to be possible to buy a doer upper and make money on it, now people buy a house to live in and kid themselves they have made money.
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,618
    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    it is literally an investment. Often a leveraged one at that.

    *You don't need to own your own home*

    You either do not know what the word "literally" means or you do not know whatthe word "investment" means.

    I literally bought my house to live in until the kids leave home.

    If I wanted to invest in property I would have done so but despite always scoring really high on risk profiles it is a big no for me. I suspect the people who invest in property ie amateur BTL do not undertsand the risk of leveraging themselves to buy an illiquid asset
    Off-topic maybe but in my view houses are like women: One is fine. More than one can be highly problematical.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,181
    wallace_and_gromit said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    it is literally an investment. Often a leveraged one at that.

    *You don't need to own your own home*

    You either do not know what the word "literally" means or you do not know whatthe word "investment" means.

    I literally bought my house to live in until the kids leave home.

    If I wanted to invest in property I would have done so but despite always scoring really high on risk profiles it is a big no for me. I suspect the people who invest in property ie amateur BTL do not undertsand the risk of leveraging themselves to buy an illiquid asset
    Off-topic maybe but in my view houses are like women: One is fine. More than one can be highly problematical.
    Hi, this is the 21st century calling. Would you like to meet up?
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,618
    First.Aspect said:

    wallace_and_gromit said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    it is literally an investment. Often a leveraged one at that.

    *You don't need to own your own home*

    You either do not know what the word "literally" means or you do not know whatthe word "investment" means.

    I literally bought my house to live in until the kids leave home.

    If I wanted to invest in property I would have done so but despite always scoring really high on risk profiles it is a big no for me. I suspect the people who invest in property ie amateur BTL do not undertsand the risk of leveraging themselves to buy an illiquid asset
    Off-topic maybe but in my view houses are like women: One is fine. More than one can be highly problematical.
    Hi, this is the 21st century calling. Would you like to meet up?
    Nice thought, but Mrs W&G takes no prisoners. And knows everything.
  • MidlandsGrimpeur2
    MidlandsGrimpeur2 Posts: 2,115
    It used to be possible to buy a doer upper and make money on it, now people buy a house to live in and kid themselves they have made money.


    This is an interesting point in relation to my area, something I have noticed whilst house hunting over the last 12 months. Used to be that renovation projects were priced accordingly, taking into account additional costs to bring the house up to date (and make it attractive for property investors). A lot of these houses now seem to come onto the market priced as though they are a finished house and ready to move into. I assume the lack of housing has meant more families are looking to buy these and the demand has pushed the price up to the point where once you have actually renovated, the market price is probably slightly lower than your overall spend on it.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,463
    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    it is literally an investment. Often a leveraged one at that.

    *You don't need to own your own home*

    You either do not know what the word "literally" means or you do not know whatthe word "investment" means.

    I literally bought my house to live in until the kids leave home.

    If I wanted to invest in property I would have done so but despite always scoring really high on risk profiles it is a big no for me. I suspect the people who invest in property ie amateur BTL do not undertsand the risk of leveraging themselves to buy an illiquid asset
    It is an investment. You can not want it to be, but that's the reality.
    I disagree.

    I bought this house 7 years ago.

    If I was doing it as an investment then i would have bought somewhee that I forecast would outperform the general market. Then I would be livig in some easten censored at the planned end of Crossrail, Elephant and Castle or Canning Town.

    I did none of these things and bought a house to live in. In all likelihood it will go up and down in line with the wider market and I will not be materially better off.

    How many people do you know who have cashed in their "investment" and taken the profit?

    House prices were widely predicted to fall, so where are all the stories of people who sold at the peak with teh expectation of buying back when prices were lower?

    It used to be possible to buy a doer upper and make money on it, now people buy a house to live in and kid themselves they have made money.
    Isn't that exactly what the people who retire early and 'downsize to the country' / move to Spain do?
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Pross said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    it is literally an investment. Often a leveraged one at that.

    *You don't need to own your own home*

    You either do not know what the word "literally" means or you do not know whatthe word "investment" means.

    I literally bought my house to live in until the kids leave home.

    If I wanted to invest in property I would have done so but despite always scoring really high on risk profiles it is a big no for me. I suspect the people who invest in property ie amateur BTL do not undertsand the risk of leveraging themselves to buy an illiquid asset
    It is an investment. You can not want it to be, but that's the reality.
    I disagree.

    I bought this house 7 years ago.

    If I was doing it as an investment then i would have bought somewhee that I forecast would outperform the general market. Then I would be livig in some easten censored at the planned end of Crossrail, Elephant and Castle or Canning Town.

    I did none of these things and bought a house to live in. In all likelihood it will go up and down in line with the wider market and I will not be materially better off.

    How many people do you know who have cashed in their "investment" and taken the profit?

    House prices were widely predicted to fall, so where are all the stories of people who sold at the peak with teh expectation of buying back when prices were lower?

    It used to be possible to buy a doer upper and make money on it, now people buy a house to live in and kid themselves they have made money.
    Isn't that exactly what the people who retire early and 'downsize to the country' / move to Spain do?
    The people I know who have moved "out" have all spent the same amount
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,463
    surrey_commuter said:

    Pross said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    it is literally an investment. Often a leveraged one at that.

    *You don't need to own your own home*

    You either do not know what the word "literally" means or you do not know whatthe word "investment" means.

    I literally bought my house to live in until the kids leave home.

    If I wanted to invest in property I would have done so but despite always scoring really high on risk profiles it is a big no for me. I suspect the people who invest in property ie amateur BTL do not undertsand the risk of leveraging themselves to buy an illiquid asset
    It is an investment. You can not want it to be, but that's the reality.
    I disagree.

    I bought this house 7 years ago.

    If I was doing it as an investment then i would have bought somewhee that I forecast would outperform the general market. Then I would be livig in some easten censored at the planned end of Crossrail, Elephant and Castle or Canning Town.

    I did none of these things and bought a house to live in. In all likelihood it will go up and down in line with the wider market and I will not be materially better off.

    How many people do you know who have cashed in their "investment" and taken the profit?

    House prices were widely predicted to fall, so where are all the stories of people who sold at the peak with teh expectation of buying back when prices were lower?

    It used to be possible to buy a doer upper and make money on it, now people buy a house to live in and kid themselves they have made money.
    Isn't that exactly what the people who retire early and 'downsize to the country' / move to Spain do?
    The people I know who have moved "out" have all spent the same amount
    I guess the ones I come across are at the other end, you can get some fanastic properties around here for less than you would get for a lot of places in the south-east so unless you decide to move to a much bigger place in your later years (which would be odd) you'll be making a decent chunk on the sale.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,428
    super_davo said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    super_davo said:

    Personally I'd reduce the local authority subsidies from central government and increase council tax to offset. With more and higher bands, and second home uplifts.

    i.e. you can live in that £1million home on your own just fine, but it will cost you £10k per year to do so.

    That will encourage downsizing when you no longer need the space to "free up housing", stop hoarding of property as investments and miles less faffing than CGT exemptions and the like. And it doesn't need to be Draconian and cliff edge, you can have progressive rates and bands and exemptions.

    Reckon the Poll Tax scared anyone off fiddling around with local taxation in that way mind.

    That sounds like the politics of envy to me.

    Forcing people to move from a house where they may have lived for a long time and have emotional connections etc is not a winning strategy unless you want to punish 'the rich'. For info, terraced houses in the London burbs can cost £1m, but the people who live in them are often not rich. Are these really the people you want to punish?
    Depends entirely on how you implement it. However, what's clear is a lot of people made a lot of money on property and whilst you might say "good for them"; the flip side is that the next generation needs to pay more and more or the whole ponzi scheme collapses. Property has always had the "investment vs somewhere to live" aspect to it and government policy over the last 40 years tipped it firmly towards the former. Taxation should always be about incentivising things rather than punishment, and to me this would just be incentivising having the house you need rather than the house to shield your wealth using main residence tax breaks!
    And any people have to move house for various reasons - so why punish that? As mentioned above, it will, also siese up the market as those facing large tax bills will not move unless forced.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,428
    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Jezyboy said:

    rick_chasey said:



    😈😈
    Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?

    I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
    I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.
    Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-
    - Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
    - Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
    - And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
    All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.

    I would generously allow roll over relief though.

    I won't be elected.
    I reckon you're right about the last bit :smile:

    The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.

    The tax wouldn't be avoided by death, so wouldn't be part of the estate. Therefore not moving only delays the payment.
    If you whack 40% gct on primary residence, this will be more or less 40% tax on moving house for a lot of people, and make downsizing quite hard to do, unless downsizing a lot.

    All that will do is choke supply in the middle and upper ends of the market and raise prices.

    Discuss.
    Why would it be tax on moving, if when you die it's set at the same rate? It would just be a tax on capital gains, regardless.
    See above. It is likely to be counter productive, like your misplaced wealth tax ideas.

    A quick reminder of the real life experience of Sweden when it abolished IHT and increased the tax take:
    https://telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/sweden-ditched-inheritance-tax-business-boom/
    So if you want to increase the overall, tax take, what would you do?
    Tell me about Sweden's capital gains tax on sales of property.

    Taxation of main residences is pretty uncommon even in the normally tax hungry EU. Which should tell you how poor an idea it is. The Swedes don't get everything right.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,428
    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Jezyboy said:

    rick_chasey said:



    😈😈
    Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?

    I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
    I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.
    Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-
    - Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
    - Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
    - And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
    All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.

    I would generously allow roll over relief though.

    I won't be elected.
    I reckon you're right about the last bit :smile:

    The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.

    The tax wouldn't be avoided by death, so wouldn't be part of the estate. Therefore not moving only delays the payment.
    As both FA and I have both said, it sticks a massive spoke in the housing market. Which tax aside, is not a good thing. It also reduces SD receipts in the short term and allows a lot of interim IHT planning by those best placed to do it.

    Failing that, it will tend push the internationally mobile rich away from the UK and we lose the other taxes that they would have paid in the UK.

    So at best the proposal is naive and very probably counter productive in terms of overall tax take.
    How many homes owned by these people do they actually live in and how many are used as tax efficient investments plus how many of those that own them pay tax in the UK? Isn't this sort of thing part of the problem in parts of London? Also, as we saw at the start of the war in Ukraine, these aren't necessarily the people we want here and there's probably a degree of money laundering going on.
    Point is, a lot of the tax take is accounted for by that set of people, like it or not. For example, recall an article that stated more stamp duty was paid by people in one London Borough (Kensington?) than the whole of Wales. So don't scare them away or you lose not just the tax you're trying to levy but all the other taxes that they would pay if UK resident.

    Goes back to my recurring point about tax competition and also ties in with the Swedish experience of abolishing IHT but increasing the tax take overall,
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,428
    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    it is literally an investment. Often a leveraged one at that.

    *You don't need to own your own home*

    You either do not know what the word "literally" means or you do not know whatthe word "investment" means.

    I literally bought my house to live in until the kids leave home.

    If I wanted to invest in property I would have done so but despite always scoring really high on risk profiles it is a big no for me. I suspect the people who invest in property ie amateur BTL do not undertsand the risk of leveraging themselves to buy an illiquid asset
    Agreed. My house is to live in.

    If I owned another property then it might be an investment, but then again properties other than your main residence are taxed. Quite handy really, as the last time that happened when I inherited, I made a capital loss which sheltered quite a few gains on share sales :smile:
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,428
    surrey_commuter said:

    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Because its not an investment for a lot, or most, people, its a home.

    So you need to make a choice, tax people for buying their home, or don't tax people buying houses for investment.

    They don't have to buy it, right? They could also rent.

    And you don't get taxed for buying it. You get taxed on the "gains from it".
    How do you compare the gains from general rise in values versus adding floor area? Are the building costs fully deductable in calculating the gains? Do you need to keep records of the costs of all building maintenance costs for your tax return?
    If people kept account of all of their expenses then there would be a far greater understanding that property is not as lucrative as people like to think.

    Fo rmost people the emperor will have no clothes
    True. Some people get the impression that other are making more money than them from property, which probably explains their keenness to tax it.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]

Categories