Reply to: Should the BoE choke off our last remaining growth industry?

[BrilloPad]

Spoiled my vote since it's a multiple choice yes/no and it's a public poll.

f**k that. It was a good AndyW option and that is what counts.....

[AtW]

Which could be removed via a marriage tax.

FTFY

[d000hg]

Spoiled my vote since it's a multiple choice yes/no and it's a public poll.

[lilelvis2000]

Which could be removed via a mansion tax.

and those billionaires with many houses...and not paying any Council tax what so ever? Yeah that needs sorting out too.

But stay away from my cash in hand...I'm just a pleb.

[doodab]

One obvious move would be to introduce a tax on coffee similar to the duty on alcohol or cigarettes. It should apply to all caffeinated beverages except tea.

[BrilloPad]

Resolve that and you start introducing loopholes for the rich to exploit

Which could be removed via a mansion tax.

[lilelvis2000]

As if any of the bankers would allow that to happen! Mr. Osborne is counting on this housing boom - heck he's the one who's made it happen with state funds! If this is all Britain has as an economy we truly have gone down to a banana republic. all we need now is for some unruly dictator to take over.

[DimPrawn]

Ah I thought you were implying extending capital gains tax to 50% of house price sales

A simpler solution is the govt seize all private property and rent it to us at 100% of our take home pay, but provide free soup kitchens in return.

Labour policy 2015 I believe.

[AtW]

Ah I thought you were implying extending capital gains tax to 50% of house price sales

The 50% part will be covered by VAT

[amcdonald]

Why? It's only the profit that's taxed. They'd still have whatever their original equity was (assuming they didn't start with >100% mortgage), plus whatever they paid off, plus 50% of the price increase. That's not bankrupt.

Ah I thought you were implying extending capital gains tax to 50% of house price sales

[VectraMan]

That would mean people who want to move house, but have little equity will be unable to move as they'd probably be bankrupt if they sell

Why? It's only the profit that's taxed. They'd still have whatever their original equity was (assuming they didn't start with >100% mortgage), plus whatever they paid off, plus 50% of the price increase. That's not bankrupt.

[amcdonald]

There is a simple solution and that's CGT (at 50%) all on property sales, including primary residence.

When calculating the gain, you are allowed to offset any large capital spends (e.g. extension) and the annual rate of inflation (calculated based on earning inflation) for the years you owned the property.

I would suggest this in place of stamp duty.

Other countries do this and it works well.

House prices can rise, but not faster than general level of wage inflation, if they do, only the govt wins.

That would mean people who want to move house, but have little equity will be unable to move as they'd probably be bankrupt if they sell

Resolve that and you start introducing loopholes for the rich to exploit

[AtW]

There is a simple solution and that's CGT (at 50%) all on property sales, including primary residence.

That does not solve the problem of people getting deep in debt just to have roof over heads, if anything such tax would increase value of houses because people will NEED more money to have in pocket after sale.

Solution is at least 5-6% interest rates and legal limit on max LTV - 3-4 annual salaries. That should be enough to put any Govt that implements it out of power for next 50 years...

[vetran]

There is a simple solution and that's CGT (at 50%) all on property sales, including primary residence.

When calculating the gain, you are allowed to offset any large capital spends (e.g. extension) and the annual rate of inflation (calculated based on earning inflation) for the years you owned the property.

I would suggest this in place of stamp duty.

Other countries do this and it works well.

House prices can rise, but not faster than general level of wage inflation, if they do, only the govt wins.

not so Dim prawn!

[bobspud]

Why should a government be allowed to interfere with a "free economy"?

The professionals are pretty tulip at moving markets in the way they want, So why would a civil servant have any better luck? We can't stop crashes and we can't even change the way they happen. Markets find their own way