Should a seller have to pay CGT on the difference between purchase and selling price when selling their house - or be allowed to carry forward any losses as with the CGT rules now ?
If it was such a punitive CGT would house price inflation be more in line with CPI or less ?
Should farming land be compulsory purchased by LAs - a 10% (?) premium to farming land price before the LA gives planning permission to build so the " community " benefits from the planning permission rather than the land owner - or disused / derelict land be compulsory purchased if left derelict for x years ?
My feeling is that houses should be places for people to live and make their own, not investment vehicles, assets on a balance sheet or part of someoneās pension plan. I think as a society weāve taken a wrong turn where house prices are now so closely linked with politics that successive governments have felt the need to manipulate prices upwards (help to buy pumping billions into the market on top of usual lending multiples, supply squeeze caused by decades of laissez-faire policies, NIMBY planning departments and no public sector building).
I think CGT should be charged on people who own more than one home. It should be a really unattractive investment so the properties return to the market for people to buy and make their home. Buy to let and the spiralling growth of the for-profit landlord has really ruined things for the next generation and thatās the enemy of progress if you ask me.
I donāt think compulsory purchase is fair unless itās being landbanked or is derelict (I live near HS2 and think what theyāve done to communities is disgusting). If you own a farm then thatās your home and your livelihood and possibly your ancestors home & livelihood. You shouldnāt be forced to sell for anyone - if itās such a great need the surely the price will be so high that youād want to sell up.
There is no shortage of homes in the U.K. thereās a shortage of homes available to buy or live in for an affordable amount of money because of Buy to let.
Personally I have rented a new build in London for nearly 4 years and I overlook about 50-100 apartments which have been empty for 4 years, and when I walk to work I walk past homeless people every day. It does not make any sense,
I remember watching a Sarah Beeny ( ? ) property show about people buying property and then basically painting them and then selling, seeing a "profit " of 60k on a 400K purchase - it was their only āhomeā this type of activity should have been CGT liable as it was purely done to turn a profit not have a house to live in, it did in fact create a hot property market by the very nature of people seeing it as easy money - everybody became property developers almost overnight , prices went up partly because of it.
I have a problem with those shows and people that do up houses and selling them for more. However, private small landlords I do not have any issue with and donāt think tax should effect them.
Not a dig at you personally but the āproperty businessā forces young people and single adults into the rental sector, forcing them to waste obscene amounts of money on rent and making it extremely difficult to ever buy their own property.
Houses should be homes, not investment pieces or part of a āportfolioā. House prices in the south and south east are at least 30-40% inflated
EDIT: I just want to say I would love houses everywhere to be cheaper as I am the young adult that canāt afford one. I would love houses to be homes but I donāt feel like it would happen.
Houses have always been investment pieces back into history like the Middle Ages. It has actually only been in recent history people have actually bought their own houses. This we can all agree on.
It has always been true that people will be at a disadvantage sometimes when going from rental to buying your own house. Also with areas people want to live in are more expensive than others. There are houses that people can afford itās just the choice of moving far away or renting near where you want to be.
(Sorry if Iāve gone completely off or make no sense)
I think houses will always be investments to be honest and donāt think it will change.
Yeap true and itās only been since the 60ās that working class families have been able to afford their own homes on mass. Itās just got considerably worse since theyāve become āmain streamā investments.
Personally iād tax those with more than 1 property considerably so that there is a better supply of houses which would help keep prices lower and more affordable for younger people
What is your opinion of people buying a very cheap house and then spending money and time into it and then selling it for more. Buying then another house and doing it up for more. They would only have one house at a time but it would also be a massive investment after doing up many houses.
EDIT: would like to say I am a law student and love a discussion like this. Love to hear opinions about this stuff and love to get you thinking.
Anarchist
(Press āHelpā search āContact usā or email help@monzo.com or call 0800 802 1281)
10
Absolutely true. I advocate a massive increase in social housing for this reason.
No objection to this if itās a single property at a time as it doesnāt significantly decrease the housing stock nor significantly push the value of similar homes up over a short period of time
I donāt think there is anything wrong with it. At the end of the day it is business - supply and demand.
Plenty of people buy items cheap and sell them for more. Be this in the sales, in bulk, damaged so that they can repair themselves etc. Is this not the same thing but on a bigger scale?
if thats a business , shouldnāt it be taxed - if that is the intention in the first place to do up and sell on, maybe there should be a 5 year live in it rule ?
Both. It should be done on a sliding scale e.g. (rough numbers here!) under 5 houses you pay 1.5x some kind of tax, 5-10 2x tax etc. That would then mean itād be unattractive to buy up and bank lots of property
I can agree on that. The worst thing is if someone is a single parent and are helping fund their children with renting out another house they own (any story like that) and then to make their way of income taxed.
Iām not super clued up on property but donāt they have stamp duty and all sorts of other costs that they need to pay after the sale of their first property?
I know plenty of people who much prefer to rent over buying. There are plenty of pros and cons for both so by favouring buyers and tipping the scales in their favour, wonāt it effect the ones who like renting?
Also another thing is what can make houses prices go up? Train stations being put in (I know where I live we are having another train station so the houses around it will more than double)
Not peopleās fault the government put a train station next to their house.