Housing isn't a source of unearned wealth

[Itchthescratch]

If you bought in the last 20 years.

Houses are now worth the same as they were worth 20 years ago in real terms. We need to get over the idea that every homeowner is sat on a money making asset and therefore is in a preferential position to pay loads of tax on all this non existent unearned wealth. Too many people don't understand how inflation works. £1 in 2006 is worth £1.65 today. House prices need to go up 65% just to be worth the same in real terms.

Telling women we need to get over something doesn’t sound like you want ‘debate and discussion’ 🤣

Nice try anyway x

They won't

You don't pay CGT on your primary residence - your home.

For landlords, if the building hasn't increased much in price, there won't be much capital gains tax to pay.

It’s not subsidised. Tell me, how you think this works?
Who gives out the money, to who? What is the process of this happening as you understand it?

I agree with you OP. But I’m betting that a lot of the rabid Labour voting socialists on here won’t.

House price rises have truly outstripped general inflation in many areas over time so some people have made huge gains - it depends where and when you bought.

Houses that may have cost less than £30,000 in London in the 1980s would have been around £100,000 if they had kept pace with inflation but are changing hands at £600,000-£750,000 - so greatly exceeded inflation

They haven't earned £100k though in real terms as they have simply owned a depreciating asset. They have lost money. They can buy less with the £500k now than they could but with the £400k 5 years ago.

The person earning £20k a year will have actually made money. This is what I mean about people not understanding how inflation works.

I think the maths is wrong or the language; a pound several years ago is worth less in spending power today not more.

Our house is worth a third of what it would cost to rebuild.

You couldn’t actually do it now. You would never get your money back.

Yes, it depends on region and timeframe. My poing is though that people could be sitting on houses that have nominally doubled in value but are actually worth less in real terms than they were when they bought them. People still seem to be confusing this with unearned wealth.

Savills has their maths wrong as the data shows house values have outpaced inflation and then recently dipped.

https://business.zoopla.co.uk/20-years-of-house-price-growth

https://www.jrf.org.uk/income-savings-and-debt/weak-income-growth-leaves-people-with-little-resilience-to-shocks

https://www.thechamberlaingroup.com/2026/05/08/house-prices-versus-inflation/

A chart is worth a thousand words.

No, a pound is worth less in spending power today. That is how inflation works.

I don't know why they ever got rid of indexation for CGT. It's basically a wealth tax now rather than a tax on capital gains. (I know some people would support a wealth tax but we ought to be honest at least about what we are taxing.)

@Itchthescratch Houses are now worth the same as they were worth 20 years ago in real terms.

Correct.

We need to get over the idea that every homeowner is sat on a money making asset and therefore is in a preferential position to pay loads of tax on all this non existent unearned wealth. Too many people don't understand how inflation works. £1 in 2006 is worth £1.65 today. House prices need to go up 65% just to be worth the same in real terms.

Are you bitter because you've just discovered that your home wasn't the passive money-making asset that you thought it was?

The real issue here might be your attitude towards housing and property. For decades, home-owners have tried to appropriate housing and land as "assets," rather than places to live. This forced appropriation is what made the price of housing skyrocket over the past few decades.

Really, what we should have been doing as a society was building plentiful housing, to make sure everyone can have their own home, rather than deliberately restricting the housing supply in a bizarre attempt to try to generate more wealth for home owners.

By the way... no one actually profits from rising house prices. Everyone needs a place to live, so if you tried to sell your house to release cash, you would end up buying another house anyway. The only winner from rising house prices is the greedy bankers, smiling with glee while rubbing their hands together.

If you wanted more wealth, then perhaps you should have invested your money elsewhere... you know, actual investments, instead of property.

Guess what? If you add those figures together, you get "up to £1m."

Your graph shows only 10 years and conveniently cuts out the 2008 crash.

All the rest of your links don't disprove what I'm saying. In fact the first one shows that house price growth has been below inflation in the last twenty years which has been over 80%.

Agree houses are not meant to be an investment. If it were an investment, like a stock, they should have sold at the peak.

None of this is true. I am just tired of people pretending that homeowners are sat on a load of unearned wealth that is ripe to be taxed. It simply isn't true for people that have bought in the last 20 years.

Which is austerity …and look at what that has done to our economy.

So you are arguing that the better able to pay shouldn’t pay more? So no universal healthcare or education, care for the elderly, special needs children, veterans, state housing?

People unable to afford insulin, chemotherapy? Tent cities. Survival crime. Huge prisons or lawlessness? Gated communities with security staff? Where does it end if greed wins?

True, but the point is that housing is in a boom and bust cycle.
While a bust may be going on now, it was just after a boom.
2006 was the end of a boom. To measure value now compared to the height of a housing bubble in 2006 right before the market reset to say oh there’s been no gain in real terms is a bit disingenuous.

You quote a higher figure for today

It will be for those who bought directly after the crash in 2010 and sold in 2021 anywhere in southern England.

You cannot generalise.

Yes in some cases it's true but in general, on average it isn't true

None of this is true. I am just tired of people pretending that homeowners are sat on a load of unearned wealth that is ripe to be taxed. It simply isn't true for people that have bought in the last 20 years.

But it is true for some & for many who got on the ladder prior to the last 20 years!

Yes, which I haven't denied