Rachel Reeves plant, hochwertige Häuser zu steuern, um das Finanzloch anzuschließen

The chancellor may use the autumn budget to end the tax exemption under plans that will be seen as a ‘mansion tax’.

Rachel Reeves is drawing up plans to hit the owners of high-value properties with capital gains tax when they sell their homes as she attempts to fill a £40 billion hole in the public finances.
The chancellor is considering using the autumn budget to end the current exemption from capital gains tax that people enjoy when they sell their “primary” residence under plans that will be seen as a “mansion tax”.
Higher-rate taxpayers would have to pay 24 per cent of the value of any “gain” they make from the increase in the value of their property while basic rate taxpayers would have to pay 18 per cent.

Under the plans the current exemption from capital gains tax, known as private residence relief, would come to an end for properties above a certain threshold.
While the threshold is the subject of live discussion in the Treasury, officials believe it could raise significant sums of money. A threshold of £1.5 million would hit around 120,000 homeowners who are higher-rate taxpayers with capital gains tax bills of £199,973.
However, property experts warned that the owners of more expensive properties could choose to simply stay put instead of selling up and this could stymie the housing market and limit revenues for the government. There are also concerns that it could hit pensioners who want to downsize particularly hard.

Aneisha Beveridge, head of research at the estate agent Hamptons, said: “It’s a big change that would hit long-term owners hardest and create a cliff-edge at £1.5 million, distorting behaviour around that point.
“While the headline gains look substantial, they’re often the result of decades of ownership and, in some cases, house prices haven’t even kept pace with inflation.
“For households who don’t need to move, this could act as a strong disincentive to sell, dampening transactions and potentially weighing on house price growth and Treasury revenues alike.”
The Treasury is also looking at the idea of imposing an entirely new tax on the sale of more expensive homes, as first reported by The Guardian. However, government sources rejected suggestions that the threshold for a potential annual levy would be £500,000, suggesting it would have to be far higher to avoid slowing the market.
No decisions have been taken given the budget is months out. Reeves is said to be concerned that Britain’s property taxes are outdated and in need of reform and she also has limited room for manoeuvre given Labour’s manifesto commitments.

The chancellor will put the principle of “fairness” at the heart of her budget. She is looking at property taxes after ruling out increasing income tax, national insurance or VAT in Labour’s manifesto. The manifesto also included an explicit pledge by the government not to raise taxes on working people.
There are concerns that the current council tax system is deeply unfair because it is based on property values from 1991. Critics say that this has led to a “regressive” system under which a house valued at £1 million pays only twice as much council tax as a house worth £80,000.
The Treasury has considered adding additional bands in the past but any changes are likely to be highly complex and would carry significant political risk.
Removing the capital gains tax exemption for higher-value properties is viewed as a more realistic revenue-raiser.

More reasons to quit Britain if you have any ambition

What fiscal hole? We’re already taxed out of our damn minds!

As a recent buyer of a higher-value home, it would put be in a distinctly unenviable position tax wise. I have already paid a large stamp duty bill that can cannot be recovered. But that was the dela at the time, pay up front and then the property is yours. Now the tax goal post are being changed to clip buyers on the sale, not the purchase. So if the property does not rise much in value I face the distinct possibility of being left worse off overall even without paying capital gains tax on the increase in value of a primary residence. Unlike long-term owners sitting on big gains, I do not get the same cushion yet I would still face the same new rules. That makes selling even less attractive, since it risks locking in a loss, and is likely to leave many recent buyers stuck in place unable to move and gum up the market even more than it already is!

or, just copy what the US does and have a land tax. Taxing someone annually 1/2% of their home value would then encourage people in bigger houses to downsize, or you annually take a bigger slice from those with higher value assets. This current idea will just stop people selling and moving.

Or you could just plug all of tax holes that corporations and extremely wealthy individuals use to such an extent that it’s an industry unto itself.

Can we also get an extortionately high tax on anything more than a second home and commercially owned residential properties please?

>Higher-rate taxpayers would have to pay 24 per cent of the value of any “gain” they make from the increase in the value of their property while basic rate taxpayers would have to pay 18 per cent.

Take some unpaid leave the year you sell and make large pension contributions to get 6% discount on the amount you pay. I’m not an accountant, but this seems like a pretty obvious loophole.

I give it 3 weeks before the Telegraph rolls out the story of an old Doris who has lived in her house in Central London since 1921. Having just fought off the cuts to Winter Fuel Allowances so she can afford ~~her third holiday to Tuscany~~ to heat her home, now Labour are coming after her remaining ~~millions in house value~~ pennies.

Another tax on the most productive people in the country

I’m a huge fan of this tax because it doesn’t impact me. 

Oh, fiscal drag. Fuck. 

I’d be more supportive if Reeves said: “Houses worth more than X times the average price”. She won’t of course. 

This is how the middle class residents of the UK get clobbered by a wealth tax far more than the actual billionaires

How about scrapping the triple lock instead?

How about stopping a system which a ridiculous number of the working age population on benefits?

Does anyone have the sort code and bank account number for HM Treasury please? I thought that I’d just cut out the middle man and get my work to send all my wages direct to them… /s

A problem we need to address is people holding expensive properties to store value. This results in the best properties staying unoccupied! It’s depressing to see places such as Kensington and Chelsea devoid of life because the houses have been finkncialised. It’s fundamentally flawed that someone can buy a multi-million pound property in one of the best parts of town and keep it empty.

To do this, we need an **annual** **tax** on those properties – something around 0.5% instead of council tax, or in addition to a fixed council tax.

If anyone here thinks that the £500k threshold will be raised every year in line with inflation, I have a bridge to sell you.