CGT on assets Inc primary residence at death

"Yes you’re right I have assumed that, but also I don’t think they’d bring in a huge amount so they’re sort of tinkering around the edges but there is an argument.

It will be interesting, I think the biggest problem that any govt faces is that everyone wants someone else to pay, this thread is a really clear example of that.

”Yes tax rich people - they’ve got hundreds of thousands they don’t need poor me I live on a meagre income. Oh me when I die with hundreds of thousands that I don’t need anymore because I’m not here? No I don’t mean that, not me… THEM.”"

That's the issue with capital taxes though. And I think you are wrong about business asset disposal relief - that could increase tax take considerably - but then puts people off selling their business.

And it ultimately depends on the overall objective - not just about increasing the tax take. Ie don't let the tail wag the dog. Taxi g main homes certainly would increase tax take in the short term, but could collapse the housing market. Maybe needed to a point. But then it will ultimately put people off home ownership if up to 45% of the gain is given to the government.

If it's in death only, people would sell as they get older and keep the cash. And pay rent rather than give it to the government. Not everyone of course but enough.

Are governments wanting to encourage or discourage home ownership? That will be the main driver behind the policy with the tax consequences a secondary issue

No it isn’t. Deprivation of assets is disposing of wealth in anticipating of avoiding care costs. It’s entirely different.

"But why should any gains you've made be tax free?"

1. By your reckoning we should save every receipt for everything spent on our property to off set against any "gain"?

1. Because we have CHOSEN to save. To reduce our burden on the State. So actually how to do offset that?

You have made the assumption though that the other reliefs you mentioned don't ret removed. There is speculation about that too. Things like bpr and apr etc and business asset disposal relief etc.

No doubt in my head that there will be changes. But it is a tough balancing act - and often these things have unintended consequences and don't end up creating the increase in tax that is thought.

Its going to be a very interesting budget I think.

I feel fine about it as per my post. HTH.

I’d support IHT on pensions, unless the pension is used to buy an annuity-type income for a partner or dependent child.

Hang on a minute.
For disclosure we are higher rate tax payers. No issue as we want and need our public services and that's the law. We don't dodge paying or move things to avoid.
We bought our home in 2018. So we haven't taken advantage of buying when houses were cheaper and huge gains. We have chosen to use our money in a home that suits our family. We have chosen to invest in pensions for old age rather than take multiple holidays for example. Someone else will have no pension, won't be paying a mortgage and have loads of holidays etc. We have spent money (after taxation) to make our property how we want it rather than buying designer gear or sending the children to private school. I do not see how or why we should pay even more (or the children pay) after our death given we have made what we deem to be sensible decisions. I would be happy with additional tax on income. Why should the pensions we have CHOSEN to build (rather than another holiday or whatever) be heavily taxed? Why should our home that we have CHOSEN to buy and spend money on (plus mortgage rates) be heavily taxed? Or should we sell up, rent, stop paying into pensions and make it the states problem when we can't afford to live, go on more holidays, live it up more?
There has to be a way to not penalise those who are already contributing.
And why large corporate businesses are able to avoid tax when the hard working individuals are slammed is beyond me. It's a shit show.

Yes. I'm damn sure I paid much more than 20% Income Tax at times in my working life, and I am still liable to pay a little, as a pensioner.

I don't know how much difference it would make to change from 20% to 21%, in the way of income for the government to spend. However, am I right in thinking that Labour said they wouldn't raise Income Tax in their manifesto?

What about all the investments people make into their house to ensure it stays standing, or to improve it?

Eg we've just spent ££ on all new windows on our house. A few years ago we had the garden landscaped.

Over the years we've knocked walls down, put walls up, replaced carpets, gas boiler, fitted kitchen etc etc.

Would all those expenses be offset against the any profit made between buying and selling the house, and how would any beneficiaries or executors know how much was spent?

You were arguing that it’s not on to expect people on lower incomes to subsidise tax breaks for richer people. Firstly, they aren’t subsidising anything (it’s a tax break or exemption, not a cash service that is being underwritten), and secondly, the richer people are already subsidising (in that their tax definitely pays for services used by lower income families) a huge (and ever increasing) chunk of society.

I think some kind of stamp duty reform is a better way of taxing the growth of house prices. At the moment, the tax burden falls on the buyer, who hasn’t benefitted from the increase in property value.

Am I understanding you correctly so my mother who is looking to move to a more suitable property (bungalow) but will probably be paying more not less than current on will be taxed on the increase in the new house (minimal) rather than the increase in the current property (300k ish) that works for me. Benefits the wealthy who have more ability to move so what's to be upset about (where's that sarcasm emoji again?)

What I am saying is that there has been a huge increased in house prices which has made both the value of and importance of inheritance much greater.

A better solution might be to introduce some sanity into the housing market and make pensions better

If you’re going down that path, why should high earners subsidise free childcare hours and child benefit, for example?

Also @DotPotato it is exactly the lower and middle
income families you would hit

You can’t just bring in something that has increase from the date they bought it especially when many bought at ridiculously low prices up against a retirement home

you can fix it at the price it was on a particular year for all properties (similar to council tax) and do it from there and only have it if it is sold - solving the issues of farms as they aren’t sold and making it a more even playing field. Even so you are taxing it twice inheritance and CGT and it could actually badly impact the housing market and it could cause less houses to be sold and families keep assets

Labour will do something with it in October and the threshold has been cut