-
Assume the state pension and my dad's would cover it. Unfortunately the infinite gifts of inflation and government mismanagement fucked that.
Also even without a 400% rise in prices I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the difference in value between a 4/5 bed family home and a 2 bed flat should be allowed to release capital for retirement.
-
I don’t think it’s a case of getting loads of shit - more about everyone discussing so it’s clear what it means. There’s loads of comments which imply that somehow prices rising mean people are able to have a bigger proportion of the overall housing stock, when what’s actually happening is that they have a bigger paper value but probably a bigger mortgage and the next size house up is even further out of reach.
You’re talking about making housing not primarily a financial investment. I agree, that should be the aim. But saying “tax it because you’ve made a profit” ignores the fact that might not be a usable profit if you need to spend it (and add more from your pocket too) on your next house
You are reading a single comment by @angelofthenorth and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Grumpy_Git
andyfallsoff
@angelofthenorth
Love how much shit @Stonehedge is getting for daring to suggest that if people make huge gains on an asset, they should be taxed on it. Also puts into scale a bit the problem, given that I suspect most of they people on a Tory-downfall thread are not, well... Tories, and how fucked up Brits attitudes are towards housing (i.e. not first and foremost a place to live).
What on earth were they planning on doing had they not had their house increase in value 400% over the last 30 years?
Re. the risk argument: Equal (or greater in recent years) risk in the stock market, but you pay capital gains?