Capital Gains Tax On Your Home?

With all the other madness that's going on, I can see CGT on own homes becoming a reality. The Guardian has been funded by the B&M Gates Foundation - nothing to do with CGT but it should make you stop and think...

Reply to the comment left by AlanR at 30/12/2021 - 10:35
AlanR, what are you saying? The B&M Gates Foundation may have supported a particular project or charitable cause run by The Guardian newspaper, but the newspaper itself most certainly isn't sponsored by any single organisation. All the Guardian's funding comes from subscribers - and it's doing very well thank you.
Let's keep this all in perspective and simply concentrate on the issue of suggesting that CGT should, or shouldn't, be charged on ones' own home.

Please post a transcript so that I may read your article.

Hi Colin. I assume your comment is to AlanR and not to me - but just in case you wanted me to reply, this is the only reference I can find to an article in the Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/feb/22/if-i-rent-out-my-house-then-sell-it-in-2026-what-will-the-capital-gains-tax-be
This was back in February 2021.

Okay, I've fallen foul of my own constant refrain to always look at the source of the news before jumping in with both feet first! Sorry for that.
The Guardian was only reporting on the Resolution Foundation's report published on 9 December 2021. https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/press-releases/the-great-british-3-trillion-wealth-windfall-is-unequal-unearned-and-untaxed/
The report points out that the rapid increase in the value of property over the last 20 years represents nearly a fifth of all wealth in Britain and is very unevenly spread, concentrated as it is mainly in those over 60 years old and those who had purchased their properties in the 1990s or earlier.
The report suggests (and nothing more than that) that this ought to be part of the conversation about wealth distribution and taxation in the UK. In fact, it offers it's own opinion that this could be pegged at a more modest level than the rant that Andrew Roberts dished up in the above video. I have to say I would be ashamed to offer any of Andrew's opinions to HMRC as to why I shouldn't have to pay CGT and would fully expect to lose my case handsomely. Really, can we have a more nuanced and balanced discussion than that in future videos please.

The resolution foundation are a left wing organization that seeks to constantly punish the elderly and take away their wealth. Someone who has saved hard and purchased their own home deserves their wealth those that have pissed it up the wall deserve nothing. Like my drug taking layabout neighbour ( house rented by the council. The resolution foundation should concentrate on companies such as Amazon who pay very little UK tax instead of seeking to victimize the elderly. Do not also forget that David Cameron did not pay any inheritance tax on his fathers estate, all in a an offshore trust.

Reply to the comment left by Arthur Bennett at 30/12/2021 - 12:29
No. But thank you anyway. My comment was directed at Ranjan, it seems everything has to be done in front of a camera now, when a written piece would suffice.

Reply to the comment left by at 30/12/2021 - 17:36I don't know quite how to reply to this - your comment seems to contradict itself and state something that is not true.
The Resolution Foundation is, according to you, a 'left wing' (read 'nasty') organisation that seeks to punish the elderly and rob them of their wealth. Untrue, but don't let that stop you.
In fact the RF frequently attacks the serious issue of large multinational corporations getting away with little taxation - but is constantly stymied by (oh dear, we have to say it don't we?) 'right wing' organisations who refuse to support proper taxation of those self same multinationals that you decry.
As for David Cameron's dad - are you arguing for or against taxation for him? (he is after all 'elderly') And are you arguing for taxation of 'hard-earned' off shore funds?
What (I think) you're edging towards is a sensible discussion about introducing a reasonable and balanced taxation system that we can all get behind, that would not be much changed at the drop of a hat as soon as a differently flavoured political party wins an election.
We could then have some confidence that the taxation system would be reasonably stable and predictable.
Scandinavia does it rather well actually and property owners still make a profit, people are housed, the standard of living is higher than here, and the Scandinavian countries consistently score higher on population 'satisfaction' ratios than we do.

Reply to the comment left by AlanR at 30/12/2021 - 10:35
Surely if as is said ‘most of property is owned by people in their 60’s’ then it will soon be inherited by people under 60. All this property wealth has to go somewhere and IHT may well have been paid on the estate.

(Sir) Tony Blair famously bought his latest London property without paying any Stamp Duty, as the property was owned by an offshore 'business', and he bought the business, not the property, notwithstanding that the only asset of that business was the actual property. He avoided £312,000 in stamp duty. A perfectly legal way of avoiding tax.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if many of the more expensive homes are currently being sold to offshore companies, thus crystallising the Capital Gain now, and avoiding any future changes to the CGT rules.
Anyone know a cheap accountant?