LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
You don't think it's possible the presence of CGT on the main residence (which is more difficult to avoid) makes it more straightforward to abolish inheritance tax?Stevo_666 said:
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.kingstongraham said:
Tell me about Sweden's capital gains tax on sales of property.Stevo_666 said:
See above. It is likely to be counter productive, like your misplaced wealth tax ideas.rick_chasey said:
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.First.Aspect said:
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.TheBigBean said:
The tax wouldn't be avoided by death, so wouldn't be part of the estate. Therefore not moving only delays the payment.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
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.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- 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).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
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.
All that will do is choke supply in the middle and upper ends of the market and raise prices.
Discuss.
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?0 -
How will raising council tax seize up the market exactly?Stevo_666 said:
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.super_davo said:
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!Stevo_666 said:
That sounds like the politics of envy to me.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.
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?
I would have thought it would have the reverse effect, as people that are asset (house) rich, cash poor would be incentivised to move, and those that want a bigger house find more available, assuming said incentives work.
Any decent tax regime should incentivise the behaviour you want. Which is why adding CGT to sale of main residences won't work, that just incentivises people to stay put.
So if done is a fiscally neutral manner, can you give the rationale as to why you wouldn't want to incentivise working (by say cutting income tax) over sitting in a property (raising council tax)?0 -
I was talking about taxing gains on sale of main residences seizing up the market.super_davo said:
How will raising council tax seize up the market exactly?Stevo_666 said:
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.super_davo said:
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!Stevo_666 said:
That sounds like the politics of envy to me.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.
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?
I would have thought it would have the reverse effect, as people that are asset (house) rich, cash poor would be incentivised to move, and those that want a bigger house find more available, assuming said incentives work.
Any decent tax regime should incentivise the behaviour you want. Which is why adding CGT to sale of main residences won't work, that just incentivises people to stay put.
So if done is a fiscally neutral manner, can you give the rationale as to why you wouldn't want to incentivise working (by say cutting income tax) over sitting in a property (raising council tax)?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Government has ditched Raab's bill of rights act.0
-
Hancock quite scathing of the Government's preparation for the pandemic. He should have raised it with the Health Secretary and tried to get things changed.1
-
Be fair, he'd only been health secretary for 18 months when it hit.Pross said:Hancock quite scathing of the Government's preparation for the pandemic. He should have raised it with the Health Secretary and tried to get things changed.
0 -
And to be even fairer, he is incompetent at anything other than self-promotion so it’s unfair to expect him to have fixed any problems.kingstongraham said:
Be fair, he'd only been health secretary for 18 months when it hit.Pross said:Hancock quite scathing of the Government's preparation for the pandemic. He should have raised it with the Health Secretary and tried to get things changed.
1 -
Matt Hancock got 20 MPs' votes for him to be PM in the first ballot in 2019.0
-
There is an entire industry called equity release, and millions of people consider their home as part of their retirement.Pross said:
Isn't that exactly what the people who retire early and 'downsize to the country' / move to Spain do?surrey_commuter said:
I disagree.rick_chasey said:
It is an investment. You can not want it to be, but that's the reality.surrey_commuter said:
You either do not know what the word "literally" means or you do not know whatthe word "investment" means.rick_chasey said:it is literally an investment. Often a leveraged one at that.
*You don't need to own your own home*
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
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.
Just because you didn't buy your property with the specific intent to make money out of it, does not mean it's not an investment.
Hell, if you buy a bottle of wine to drink and then decide to sell it when it goes up 1000% in value, you still pay CGT on that.0 -
Who among Jo 'n' Joe Public actually pays any CGT? Honest question guv.0
-
As I suspected we don't agree on what an investment isrick_chasey said:
There is an entire industry called equity release, and millions of people consider their home as part of their retirement.Pross said:
Isn't that exactly what the people who retire early and 'downsize to the country' / move to Spain do?surrey_commuter said:
I disagree.rick_chasey said:
It is an investment. You can not want it to be, but that's the reality.surrey_commuter said:
You either do not know what the word "literally" means or you do not know whatthe word "investment" means.rick_chasey said:it is literally an investment. Often a leveraged one at that.
*You don't need to own your own home*
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
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.
Just because you didn't buy your property with the specific intent to make money out of it, does not mean it's not an investment.
Hell, if you buy a bottle of wine to drink and then decide to sell it when it goes up 1000% in value, you still pay CGT on that.
the action or process of investing money for profit.
IfI buya case of en primeur claret and pay a wines merchant to store it in a certified manner and then sell it a decade later that is very different from selling a bottle from my fridge to a neighbour who comes knocking on the door desparate for a drink.0 -
Buying and selling stuff that appreciates or depreciates in value is investment and the realisation of said investment, end of.
I'd like to see you argue to the tax man you only bought shares in barclays because their AGM is the best social event of the year for you, and you only sold them because you needed the money to pay for your heating, so because you didn't *mean* for it to be an investment, it doesn't count.
A lot of people have got incredibility wealthy from their real estate investments.0 -
I have, but it seems sufficiently novel that when you include it on the self assessment system, it double checks whether you have done it by mistake. Surely, you must be eligible for entrepreneurs' relief etc.orraloon said:Who among Jo 'n' Joe Public actually pays any CGT? Honest question guv.
0 -
Not sure it matters whether you bought it as an investment or not - if you've unearned gains from it, then why should it be treated any differently to a different asset class?1
-
Almost none of them on the basis of their own home. You're thinking of landlords.rick_chasey said:Buying and selling stuff that appreciates or depreciates in value is investment and the realisation of said investment, end of.
I'd like to see you argue to the tax man you only bought shares in barclays because their AGM is the best social event of the year for you, and you only sold them because you needed the money to pay for your heating, so because you didn't *mean* for it to be an investment, it doesn't count.
A lot of people have got incredibility wealthy from their real estate investments.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Err yes.rjsterry said:
Almost none of them on the basis of their own home. You're thinking of landlords.rick_chasey said:Buying and selling stuff that appreciates or depreciates in value is investment and the realisation of said investment, end of.
I'd like to see you argue to the tax man you only bought shares in barclays because their AGM is the best social event of the year for you, and you only sold them because you needed the money to pay for your heating, so because you didn't *mean* for it to be an investment, it doesn't count.
A lot of people have got incredibility wealthy from their real estate investments.
My neighbour bought his house for £70k in the 90s. It's now worth £500k.
He's been mortgage free since the 00s. That's so remarkable in fact, he gave up working early because the little bits he does on the side cover his food and heating costs etc.0 -
I'm temporarily mortgage free, but I still have to work to pay for things like holidays, a car, pensions, wine, council tax etc. It doesn't, or shouldn't, make that much difference.rick_chasey said:
Err yes.rjsterry said:
Almost none of them on the basis of their own home. You're thinking of landlords.rick_chasey said:Buying and selling stuff that appreciates or depreciates in value is investment and the realisation of said investment, end of.
I'd like to see you argue to the tax man you only bought shares in barclays because their AGM is the best social event of the year for you, and you only sold them because you needed the money to pay for your heating, so because you didn't *mean* for it to be an investment, it doesn't count.
A lot of people have got incredibility wealthy from their real estate investments.
My neighbour bought his house for £70k in the 90s. It's now worth £500k.
He's been mortgage free since the 00s. That's so remarkable in fact, he gave up working early because the little bits he does on the side cover his food and heating costs etc.
Too many people borrow what the bank will lend them, not what the bank should lend them.0 -
Has he moved or freed up equity to live off the difference?rick_chasey said:
Err yes.rjsterry said:
Almost none of them on the basis of their own home. You're thinking of landlords.rick_chasey said:Buying and selling stuff that appreciates or depreciates in value is investment and the realisation of said investment, end of.
I'd like to see you argue to the tax man you only bought shares in barclays because their AGM is the best social event of the year for you, and you only sold them because you needed the money to pay for your heating, so because you didn't *mean* for it to be an investment, it doesn't count.
A lot of people have got incredibility wealthy from their real estate investments.
My neighbour bought his house for £70k in the 90s. It's now worth £500k.
He's been mortgage free since the 00s. That's so remarkable in fact, he gave up working early because the little bits he does on the side cover his food and heating costs etc.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
That £500k is just an estimate of what he could sell the property for. And then he'd need to buy another, which will cost him about £500k unless he wants to take out a new mortgage. So none of that will end up in his account for more than a few hours at most. There are almost no properties in the UK that can be bought for £70k.rick_chasey said:
Err yes.rjsterry said:
Almost none of them on the basis of their own home. You're thinking of landlords.rick_chasey said:Buying and selling stuff that appreciates or depreciates in value is investment and the realisation of said investment, end of.
I'd like to see you argue to the tax man you only bought shares in barclays because their AGM is the best social event of the year for you, and you only sold them because you needed the money to pay for your heating, so because you didn't *mean* for it to be an investment, it doesn't count.
A lot of people have got incredibility wealthy from their real estate investments.
My neighbour bought his house for £70k in the 90s. It's now worth £500k.
He's been mortgage free since the 00s. That's so remarkable in fact, he gave up working early because the little bits he does on the side cover his food and heating costs etc.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Nonsense, a mere 40 miles outside Cambridge is this gem: https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/127892597#/?channel=RES_BUYrjsterry said:
That £500k is just an estimate of what he could sell the property for. And then he'd need to buy another, which will cost him about £500k unless he wants to take out a new mortgage. So none of that will end up in his account for more than a few hours at most. There are almost no properties in the UK that can be bought for £70k.rick_chasey said:
Err yes.rjsterry said:
Almost none of them on the basis of their own home. You're thinking of landlords.rick_chasey said:Buying and selling stuff that appreciates or depreciates in value is investment and the realisation of said investment, end of.
I'd like to see you argue to the tax man you only bought shares in barclays because their AGM is the best social event of the year for you, and you only sold them because you needed the money to pay for your heating, so because you didn't *mean* for it to be an investment, it doesn't count.
A lot of people have got incredibility wealthy from their real estate investments.
My neighbour bought his house for £70k in the 90s. It's now worth £500k.
He's been mortgage free since the 00s. That's so remarkable in fact, he gave up working early because the little bits he does on the side cover his food and heating costs etc.
Or this in St Neots: https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/135202793#/?channel=RES_BUY
Opportunities abound.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
3 bed end terrace with some lovely cycling country practically on the doorstep:
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/1358474120 -
No need. He can line up his equity release, and live off that.rjsterry said:
That £500k is just an estimate of what he could sell the property for. And then he'd need to buy another, which will cost him about £500k unless he wants to take out a new mortgage. So none of that will end up in his account for more than a few hours at most. There are almost no properties in the UK that can be bought for £70k.rick_chasey said:
Err yes.rjsterry said:
Almost none of them on the basis of their own home. You're thinking of landlords.rick_chasey said:Buying and selling stuff that appreciates or depreciates in value is investment and the realisation of said investment, end of.
I'd like to see you argue to the tax man you only bought shares in barclays because their AGM is the best social event of the year for you, and you only sold them because you needed the money to pay for your heating, so because you didn't *mean* for it to be an investment, it doesn't count.
A lot of people have got incredibility wealthy from their real estate investments.
My neighbour bought his house for £70k in the 90s. It's now worth £500k.
He's been mortgage free since the 00s. That's so remarkable in fact, he gave up working early because the little bits he does on the side cover his food and heating costs etc.0 -
You are moving the goalposts. There is no wayyou consider living in a house that you own outright worth £500k is incredibly wealthy.rick_chasey said:
Err yes.rjsterry said:
Almost none of them on the basis of their own home. You're thinking of landlords.rick_chasey said:Buying and selling stuff that appreciates or depreciates in value is investment and the realisation of said investment, end of.
I'd like to see you argue to the tax man you only bought shares in barclays because their AGM is the best social event of the year for you, and you only sold them because you needed the money to pay for your heating, so because you didn't *mean* for it to be an investment, it doesn't count.
A lot of people have got incredibility wealthy from their real estate investments.
My neighbour bought his house for £70k in the 90s. It's now worth £500k.
He's been mortgage free since the 00s. That's so remarkable in fact, he gave up working early because the little bits he does on the side cover his food and heating costs etc.
Incredibly wealthy is millions in disposable assets0 -
so if I sell any of my possessions it becomes an investment and liable for CGT? as I tend to make a loss can I offset it against other tax?rick_chasey said:Buying and selling stuff that appreciates or depreciates in value is investment and the realisation of said investment, end of.
I'd like to see you argue to the tax man you only bought shares in barclays because their AGM is the best social event of the year for you, and you only sold them because you needed the money to pay for your heating, so because you didn't *mean* for it to be an investment, it doesn't count.
A lot of people have got incredibility wealthy from their real estate investments.
I will feel happier investing in toys for the kids.0 -
There's a lower limit per item, but if you lose money on a £10,000 toy that is expected to have a life of more than 50 years, then yes.surrey_commuter said:
so if I sell any of my possessions it becomes an investment and liable for CGT? as I tend to make a loss can I offset it against other tax?rick_chasey said:Buying and selling stuff that appreciates or depreciates in value is investment and the realisation of said investment, end of.
I'd like to see you argue to the tax man you only bought shares in barclays because their AGM is the best social event of the year for you, and you only sold them because you needed the money to pay for your heating, so because you didn't *mean* for it to be an investment, it doesn't count.
A lot of people have got incredibility wealthy from their real estate investments.
I will feel happier investing in toys for the kids.0 -
Nonsense. Wealth is wealth. If you chose to tie it up in illiquid assets that’s your business.surrey_commuter said:
You are moving the goalposts. There is no wayyou consider living in a house that you own outright worth £500k is incredibly wealthy.rick_chasey said:
Err yes.rjsterry said:
Almost none of them on the basis of their own home. You're thinking of landlords.rick_chasey said:Buying and selling stuff that appreciates or depreciates in value is investment and the realisation of said investment, end of.
I'd like to see you argue to the tax man you only bought shares in barclays because their AGM is the best social event of the year for you, and you only sold them because you needed the money to pay for your heating, so because you didn't *mean* for it to be an investment, it doesn't count.
A lot of people have got incredibility wealthy from their real estate investments.
My neighbour bought his house for £70k in the 90s. It's now worth £500k.
He's been mortgage free since the 00s. That's so remarkable in fact, he gave up working early because the little bits he does on the side cover his food and heating costs etc.
Incredibly wealthy is millions in disposable assets
I could have chosen someone who bought a house in Fulham in the early 90s and it would be 3x more profit.0 -
What is the profit do you think? You mentioned the headline figures but no info on mortgage cost, renovations, council tax, etc etc.rick_chasey said:
Nonsense. Wealth is wealth. If you chose to tie it up in illiquid assets that’s your business.surrey_commuter said:
You are moving the goalposts. There is no wayyou consider living in a house that you own outright worth £500k is incredibly wealthy.rick_chasey said:
Err yes.rjsterry said:
Almost none of them on the basis of their own home. You're thinking of landlords.rick_chasey said:Buying and selling stuff that appreciates or depreciates in value is investment and the realisation of said investment, end of.
I'd like to see you argue to the tax man you only bought shares in barclays because their AGM is the best social event of the year for you, and you only sold them because you needed the money to pay for your heating, so because you didn't *mean* for it to be an investment, it doesn't count.
A lot of people have got incredibility wealthy from their real estate investments.
My neighbour bought his house for £70k in the 90s. It's now worth £500k.
He's been mortgage free since the 00s. That's so remarkable in fact, he gave up working early because the little bits he does on the side cover his food and heating costs etc.
Incredibly wealthy is millions in disposable assets
I could have chosen someone who bought a house in Fulham in the early 90s and it would be 3x more profit.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I’m getting the feeling that you really don’t like people with smaller mortgages than you have.rick_chasey said:
No need. He can line up his equity release, and live off that.rjsterry said:
That £500k is just an estimate of what he could sell the property for. And then he'd need to buy another, which will cost him about £500k unless he wants to take out a new mortgage. So none of that will end up in his account for more than a few hours at most. There are almost no properties in the UK that can be bought for £70k.rick_chasey said:
Err yes.rjsterry said:
Almost none of them on the basis of their own home. You're thinking of landlords.rick_chasey said:Buying and selling stuff that appreciates or depreciates in value is investment and the realisation of said investment, end of.
I'd like to see you argue to the tax man you only bought shares in barclays because their AGM is the best social event of the year for you, and you only sold them because you needed the money to pay for your heating, so because you didn't *mean* for it to be an investment, it doesn't count.
A lot of people have got incredibility wealthy from their real estate investments.
My neighbour bought his house for £70k in the 90s. It's now worth £500k.
He's been mortgage free since the 00s. That's so remarkable in fact, he gave up working early because the little bits he does on the side cover his food and heating costs etc.
1 -
Feel like whether there is CGT or not is just dicking about at the edges of the housing market.
Not enough houses, subsidising high prices through help to buy and stamp duty holidays would all seem to be more worth looking at.0 -
I have some Lego that is near as dammit 50 years old. Colours have faded slightly. I don't think there's £10k worth.kingstongraham said:
There's a lower limit per item, but if you lose money on a £10,000 toy that is expected to have a life of more than 50 years, then yes.surrey_commuter said:
so if I sell any of my possessions it becomes an investment and liable for CGT? as I tend to make a loss can I offset it against other tax?rick_chasey said:Buying and selling stuff that appreciates or depreciates in value is investment and the realisation of said investment, end of.
I'd like to see you argue to the tax man you only bought shares in barclays because their AGM is the best social event of the year for you, and you only sold them because you needed the money to pay for your heating, so because you didn't *mean* for it to be an investment, it doesn't count.
A lot of people have got incredibility wealthy from their real estate investments.
I will feel happier investing in toys for the kids.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
