How low will property go?

westernpromise

cells wrote: »

No government proposing such a silly idea would get elected. Some 1.2 million properties are sold each year of which probably about 1 million are owners and not landlords. You will be saying to them that they will need to pay tens of thousands of pounds.

1 million households per year or 5 million households in a 5 year government term. That is probably in excess of 10 million voters you will very highly !!!! off

It could also be a huge tax on inflationary (imaginary) gains.

When I pointed out here that gains on house price are just inflation, I was told I had it all wrong. Nice to see common sense starting to prevail.

cells

westernpromise wrote: »

When I pointed out here that gains on house price are just inflation, I was told I had it all wrong. Nice to see common sense starting to prevail.

Oh I think I read this wrong. If you are saying house prices have more or less just kept up with wage inflation in most parts of the country long term (especially if you factor in improvements to the stock to try and compare like for like) then that's possibly/probably true.

In which case a tax on the capital gain is a tax on imaginary gain in which case it's not even a capital gains tax it's a simple confiscation of a percentage of your asset.

If I'm not mistaken I think in the past there was indexation relief for capital gains on Property to try and factor into account real v inflation gains to tax only the real gains. Also if I'm not mistaken companies still get indexation relief on properties?

Maybe its better that we enter a zero inflation world so governments can't confiscate with the sleight to hand that is inflation

wotsthat

mwpt wrote: »

What percentage of people who would pay the tax do you see as being in that situation? Assuming we don't compromise on the idea of taxing owning more than one home, what proposal do you have to deal with the edge cases?

A good start would be to remove the number of edge cases. As the government dreams up ever more complicated ways to raise tax the edge cases increase.I'd remove stamp duty on transacting houses.

The cost of buying and selling houses is ridiculous. I can sell £500k of shares and buy them back for £19.90 in charges and £2500 in stamp duty. Do that with a house and you're looking at £15k in stamp duty before you even get around to paying the rest of the compulsory charges.

Whatever you do never ever sell a second home and replace it with another. That luxury will cost you £30k in stamp duty.

lisyloo

What percentage of people who would pay the tax do you see as being in that situation?

Probably a 5 figure sum - mainly people who work in London, so more than being an "edge" case IMO.

Assuming we don't compromise on the idea of taxing owning more than one home, what proposal do you have to deal with the edge cases?

How about exempting people using the home as a residence for their employment? (only for the duration of a permanent or contract job).
As with all things financial people can lie in the same way they can on their tax return or mortgage application, but that makes it fraud.

BTW - I don't think we're better off buying over a 5 year, but that does depends on your assumptions on HPI.

westernpromise

cells wrote: »

Oh I think I read this wrong. If you are saying house prices have more or less just kept up with wage inflation in most parts of the country long term (especially if you factor in improvements to the stock to try and compare like for like) then that's possibly/probably true.

In which case a tax on the capital gain is a tax on imaginary gain in which case it's not even a capital gains tax it's a simple confiscation of a percentage of your asset.

If I'm not mistaken I think in the past there was indexation relief for capital gains on Property to try and factor into account real v inflation gains to tax only the real gains. Also if I'm not mistaken companies still get indexation relief on properties?

Maybe its better that we enter a zero inflation world so governments can't confiscate with the sleight to hand that is inflation

A point I have often made is that if your house has gone up £10k but so have all others, you have no gain. That was just inflation. It's only a gain if you made more than other comparable houses. You could then sell up, buy an identical house in the same place and pocket your gain. In fact ad soon as you do this you find every penny of your"gain" is required just to buy the same place again.

People who are short housing are very keen not to understand this and instead prefer to imagine that this inflation is in fact profit, on which you should be taxed. It is a good example of people being in favour - for wholly moral reasons, and purely to help young people - of taxes on other people.

The same people are usually also keen not to understand that taxing other people on inflation will mean nobody ever sells a house, so as to avoid the tax. At this point they often decide that a land value tax is needed as well.

It is a huge shame nobody's figured out a way to tax envy or malice. It would solve everything.

DividedNation

westernpromise wrote: »

A point I have often made is that if your house has gone up £10k but so have all others, you have no gain. That was just inflation. It's only a gain if you made more than other comparable houses. You could then sell up, buy an identical house in the same place and pocket your gain. In fact ad soon as you do this you find every penny of your"gain" is required just to buy the same place again.

People who are short housing are very keen not to understand this and instead prefer to imagine that this inflation is in fact profit, on which you should be taxed. It is a good example of people being in favour - for wholly moral reasons, and purely to help young people - of taxes on other people.

The same people are usually also keen not to understand that taxing other people on inflation will mean nobody ever sells a house, so as to avoid the tax. At this point they often decide that a land value tax is needed as well.

It is a huge shame nobody's figured out a way to tax envy or malice. It would solve everything.

AS malicious as the majority of taxes which are regressive. Some massively so.

The malicious are very good at taxing the poor one way or another, they even get them to pay off the debt of the most wealthy,

You seem to confuse social justice with envy, that is a cheap trick.

westernpromise

It's funny how your idea of social justice always calls for you to be given my money. I call that theft by state expropriation.

DividedNation

westernpromise wrote: »

It's funny how your idea of social justice always calls for you to be given my money. I call that theft by state expropriation.

No it is to stop talking money from the least well off and giving it to the richest as has happened for the last 45 years, maybe you didn't notice. Maybe you think people not being able to afford a home is a good thing, maybe it is good for you, but outside of your selfish reasons it is bad for society which has became increasingly corrupt and evil.

westernpromise

It's being so cheerful that keeps you going. I blame Labour prime minister Tony Blair.

Unfortunately for your potty student activist theory, the highest paid 3,000 earners pay more income tax the whole bottom 9 million put together.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11233686/How-top-3000-earners-pay-more-tax-than-bottom-9-million.html

Reducing the top rate of tax from 50% to 45% resulted in their paying more.

The top 10% of earners pay 55% of the tax.

You just want everyone else to be as poor as you. It is why the voters will never let people like you near the levers of power.

cells

DividedNation wrote: »

No it is to stop talking money from the least well off and giving it to the richest as has happened for the last 45 years, maybe you didn't notice. Maybe you think people not being able to afford a home is a good thing, maybe it is good for you, but outside of your selfish reasons it is bad for society which has became increasingly corrupt and evil.

imagine someone who has never worked in their life, and has therefore never paid any direct taxes and lives off benefits. who has taken anything off them over the last 45 years as you put it?

It reminds me a story of a man I used to know. He was from a 3rd world country and sent back a sum of money monthly to his family for many years. Then he didn't anymore. Instead of being grateful for the years of support and free money they were receiving they were angry that the monthly payments has stopped

the odd world of entitlement. Give someone a regular payment/gift and soon enough they feel its theirs. Stop giving the gift and you have stolen from them or so they feel


the poor in the uk have it very good thanks to the DISTRIBUTION not RE-distribution of the wealth of the rich. I don't object to this distribution of other peoples wealth as I believe a lot of our lives are down to good or bad fortune but I am realistic enough to know a lot maybe most people dont feel like that so there is a limit on how much you can distribute of other peoples earnings and capital before either they say f.off or the economy responds will less production overall