[Politics] Are you a so called working class Conservative ?

[mikeyjh]

It’s very easy to use arbitrary figures to justify an argument. We bought our house in March 2008 and according to Zoopla, house prices in our area have increased by 45% since then. In the same period inflation has been 30%(Consumer Price Index - ONS)

It is and you have done - Housing costs in your area have outstripped inflation by 50% over 11 years, whichever way you look at, that's staggering. If you're a 'have not' than owning your own home has become significantly more expensive, if you're a 'have' and see your home as a financial asset then outstripping inflation by 50% for extremely low risk is one heck of a return.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

It is and you have done - Housing costs in your area have outstripped inflation by 50% over 11 years, whichever way you look at, that's staggering. If you're a 'have not' than owning your own home has become significantly more expensive, if you're a 'have' and see your home as a financial asset then outstripping inflation by 50% for extremely low risk is one heck of a return.

Houses have to be maintained, they don’t repair themselves. Our house is 90 years old and has needed work doing, over the years, to the roof and to remedy porous brickwork. Add to that a new boiler, new floors, new roofs to garage and conservatory, redecoration etc and any financial gain over and above inflation has been largely negated.

As a matter of comparison, I have stocks and shares ISA’s (low risk) that have increased 55% over the same period, so the rise in house prices isn’t out of keeping with economic trends. Both can go down as well as up.

 

[blue-shifted]

As a matter of comparison, I have stocks and shares ISA’s (low risk) that have increased 55% over the same period, so the rise in house prices isn’t out of keeping with economic trends. Both can go down as well as up.

It's unlikely your wages will have increased by anything like that. So if you don't have a house, you'll have very little chance of getting one unless your "lucky" enough to have a loved one die and leave you something. You also won't have a chance to get that high yielding ISA either as most of your wages will go on rent .... and thus you'll see ever increasing inequality.

 

[mikeyjh]

Houses have to be maintained, they don’t repair themselves. Our house is 90 years old and has needed work doing, over the years, to the roof and to remedy porous brickwork. Add to that a new boiler, new floors, new roofs to garage and conservatory, redecoration etc and any financial gain over and above inflation has been largely negated.

As a matter of comparison, I have stocks and shares ISA’s (low risk) that have increased 55% over the same period, so the rise in house prices isn’t out of keeping with economic trends. Both can go down as well as up.

In general in the south east, as you know, value of housing far outstrips inflation+maintenance. In any case, house prices have exceeded inflation, wages have not.

Back on point, primary house sales should be subject to taxation, just like secondary 'homes' are.

 

[Whitechapel]

Why vile. Utterly inappropriate description. Do you honestly believe Corbyn is less removed from the reality of the man in the street?

Hmmm. Tricky question. Do I think the man who spent his Christmas volunteering at a homeless shelter is less removed from the reality of day to day life than the man who flew off for some R&R in the Caribbean?

It’s a real head scratcher, that.

 

[Chicken Run]

Hmmm. Tricky question. Do I think the man who spent his Christmas volunteering at a homeless shelter is less removed from the reality of day to day life than the man who flew off for some R&R in the Caribbean?

It’s a real head scratcher, that.

I know for a fact he was watching the queens speech in the morning ...

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

In general in the south east, as you know, value of housing far outstrips inflation+maintenance. In any case, house prices have exceeded inflation, wages have not.

Back on point, primary house sales should be subject to taxation, just like secondary 'homes' are.

I couldn't argue with a capital gains tax where you get an allowance for each year for as long as you live there. That would discourage speculative buying.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

In general in the south east, as you know, value of housing far outstrips inflation+maintenance. In any case, house prices have exceeded inflation, wages have not.

Back on point, primary house sales should be subject to taxation, just like secondary 'homes' are.

Taxing primary house sales would just kill the housing market dead. Owners would never be able to afford to move and would extend instead. First time buyer houses would never come back to the market, all to support the politics of envy.

 

[carlzeiss]

I couldn't argue with a capital gains tax where you get an allowance for each year for as long as you live there. That would discourage speculative buying.

How exactly would the purchase cost of a property be calculated for taxation purposes ?

 

[mikeyjh]

I couldn't argue with a capital gains tax where you get an allowance for each year for as long as you live there. That would discourage speculative buying.

Agreed, it would be complex but not insurmountable.

 

[mikeyjh]

Taxing primary house sales would just kill the housing market dead. Owners would never be able to afford to move and would extend instead. First time buyer houses would never come back to the market, all to support the politics of envy.

Would it heck, how do you reach the conclusion that one wouldn't be able to move? Taxed on profit means exactly that, profit - It make take some of the madness out of the market, which would be a great thing.

Who, precisely, am I envious of?

 

[pastafarian]

All of them . Because every Law they pass becomes the new Law . Thus making everything they do "Lawful".

If Boris Johnson wants to ban the wearing of nickers outdoors now he can do

You seem to have missed what he said, that the Tories have passed a law (singular and specific) which prohibits anything they do (now or in the future) from being ruled unlawful.
When you consider laws can be challenged through the courts.( for example the Uk Court of Appeal and European courts can rule a UK law is not compatible with EU made law) I simply wanted to know which specific law has been passed which has taken away the right of any law to be challenged and ruled unlawful.
Don’t expect to find out what law he was referring to as he has decided not to post on this thread anymore.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

How exactly would the purchase cost of a property be calculated for taxation purposes ?

The purchase price is what you pay. At present, on second homes, the CGT allowance is £12k per annum. On a primary residence this would need to be higher, say 6% of the purchase price p/a. This would mean that the CGT allowance on a £300k house would be £18k pa. After 5 years you will have accumulated £90k in CGT allowances. If you sell for £390k or less there would be no CGT to pay. Obviously it would become complicated because the valuation of any recognised improvements would need to be factored in and omitted from the selling price before assessing for CGT.

 

[carlzeiss]

The purchase price is what you pay. At present, on second homes, the CGT allowance is £12k per annum. On a primary residence this would need to be higher, say 6% of the purchase price p/a. This would mean that the CGT allowance on a £300k house would be £18k pa. After 5 years you will have accumulated £90k in CGT allowances. If you sell for £390k or less there would be no CGT to pay. Obviously it would become complicated because the valuation of any recognised improvements would need to be factored in and omitted from the selling price before assessing for CGT.

If you are paying by cash then it is but most people require a mortgage which means paying interest . There are also legal fees associated with property purchases .

 

[blue-shifted]

Would it heck, how do you reach the conclusion that one wouldn't be able to move? Taxed on profit means exactly that, profit - It make take some of the madness out of the market, which would be a great thing.

Who, precisely, am I envious of?

Don't really agree with you mate. I think it would create more problems than it solves. One of the side effects will be that people who really need to move, maybe they are in a difficult relationship or something will find it financially harder. Also discourages making your house nice if you know you'll be taxed on proceeds. Better would be to further discourage buying to let and second home ownership.

Better still the government could build more houses (or give councils the money to do it on their behalf). Not wait for a private company to do it, who'll only build the type of houses that makes them the most profit at a time of their choosing and won't add any obviously needed facilities. But I suppose we've decided not to go down that path

 

[Guinness Boy]

Quite, and you can tell those who did a mile off - We have a housing crisis but hey, if I make a few quid on a house, I'm all right Jack....

Firstly there are already two taxes on primary housing, they just kick in when you are old, poorly and infirm. Firstly the equity from your house must be used to pay for social care. Secondly, if you cark it, then your kids can end up with a large inheritence tax bill.

Secondly many people these days use the equity in their house as a pension replacement. When you can no longer get a final salary pension anywhere, where successive governments have raided pensions pots and changed the tax on them and when it seems that selling up and moving to a cheaper place abroad in retirement may not be an option after Brexit then what you are doing is proposing a tax on the last remaining part of working people's wealth. And if you have paid a mortgage for 25 years, quite possibly sacrificing a lot of other things to do so, then, yes, you have earned it. Of course people speculate on their primary property. But equally there are people who have to move quickly due to divorce, family reasons or job relocation. You've just punished them as well.

It's the sort of policy I could see those on the left of Labour pushing hard. Adopting it would keep them in the political wilderness for donkey's years.

 

[mikeyjh]

Don't really agree with you mate. I think it would create more problems than it solves. One of the side effects will be that people who really need to move, maybe they are in a difficult relationship or something will find it financially harder. Also discourages making your house nice if you know you'll be taxed on proceeds. Better would be to further discourage buying to let and second home ownership.

Better still the government could build more houses (or give councils the money to do it on their behalf). Not wait for a private company to do it, who'll only build the type of houses that makes them the most profit at a time of their choosing and won't add any obviously needed facilities. But I suppose we've decided not to go down that path

Maybe, but it does seem you're following the old argument that taxing people (at whatever level) is a disincentive to aspiration. It is only a tax on profit after all!

Couldn't agree more with paragraph 2 though, there is a such resistance to it by many as it would prick the bubble of housing....

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Would it heck, how do you reach the conclusion that one wouldn't be able to move? Taxed on profit means exactly that, profit - It make take some of the madness out of the market, which would be a great thing.

Who, precisely, am I envious of?

It isn't profit at all. It's closer to capital growth and can't be realised until crystallised on sale of the house. But the rise in equity would be needed to contribute to the rise in equity on the next home or the bigger home for a larger family. If their own rise is slashed by a tax on the growth in equity, then this tax combined with all the other fees and costs of moving might be too prohibitive. On the other hand, owners who no longer need their family homes might decide not to downtrade and free up their family homes due to unwillingness to be penalised by tax they could avoid by staying put. The worse scenario would be that houses prices rise even more rapidly as homeowners build the tax in to the sale value of their property.

I said the politics of envy, not you specifically, but at the risk of 'statin' the bleedin' obvious', the envy would be of the homeowners who have gained additional value in their properties just by living there for a few years.

 

[beorhthelm]

It is and you have done - Housing costs in your area have outstripped inflation by 50% over 11 years, whichever way you look at, that's staggering. If you're a 'have not' than owning your own home has become significantly more expensive, if you're a 'have' and see your home as a financial asset then outstripping inflation by 50% for extremely low risk is one heck of a return.

who are these people that see homes as financial assets? landlords see property as investment (subject to tax) and perhaps some do like to know or tell people their property value. it doesnt really matter though, most people dont move often and when they do its often a necessity, and into other property at similar or higher prices. people dont see a return on that increased value unless and until they sell to downsize, seperation, or death. and at this point you want to tax them, making moving a financial burden as well as a pain in the arse.

wouldnt it be better to increase the supply to address the problems of housing?

 

[amexer]

If buy to let investors went we would have a greater housing problem then we have now