Should we have some CGT on the family home?

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
54,774

Purple made the above point in another thread about how we tax income and don't tax wealth.

I support the Local Property Tax.

But I wonder should we review the CGT exemption on the PPR.

I don't think we should treat it in exactly the same way as any other investment, but I don't think it should be entirely exempt either.

Those of us who were able to afford homes have accumulated a fair bit of wealth. Some research suggests that many more people will never be able to afford their own home.

Could something be done to balance the two out a bit?

I certainly don't see why someone living in a €5m home should get full exemption from CGT.

Some options
1) Charge CGT on the market value of the property on the death of the owner. This would be essential as most people stay in their family home for life. Without this, there would be no benefit in introducing a CGT on the PPR.
2) Limit the PPR exemption to a lifetime figure of €200k. That is still a huge exemption.
3) Roll over any CGT liability on the PPR if the seller buys a new property. This would be necessary to avoid any disincentive to trade-up or trade down. The CGT would be a charge on the new home and payable on death.
4) Maybe introduce an incentive for people to encourage people to trade down.

Indexation should be introduced, so only real gains above the normal level of inflation would be subject to tax.

5) Would there be some way of ringfencing the tax generated by this measure to help younger people get on the housing ladder? For example, abolish VAT on starter homes bought by FTBs? And fund this through the CGT measures.

Brendan
 
Another consideration will be the cost of nursing home charges into the future. Society is changing extremely rapidly in relation who cares for older people....the main carer's in the past where women but they have been subsumed into the workforce with nothing substantial put in place.... This will only increase substantial in the future which will limit the amount that will be generated from cgt..
 
In principle I like the idea of taxing people on unearned capital gains. It's like a windfall tax. On balance I'd rather just see higher rates of property tax with no exemptions but the option of means tested deferrals or partial deferral. That makes receipts less volatile.

I like the idea of using the receipts to help first time buyers and/or existing mortgage holders.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Good point. I will make a submission on that.
It's crazy that the state pays for them for people with substantial assets.

Brendan
Click to expand...
Yep, I could never understand leftie politicians being in favour of the State spending so much money protecting the assets of rich people.
 
Purple said:
Yep, I could never understand leftie politicians being in favour of the State spending so much money protecting the assets of rich people.
Click to expand...
Because, er, that's where the votes are?
 
Last edited:
One PPR, for social and stability purposes should never be treated via CGT.
A person shouldn't be forced down specific pathways by policy, and out of their PPR if it has become too valuable over a lifetime.
 
Purple said:
On balance I'd rather just see higher rates of property tax
Click to expand...

Hi Purple

I felt it was very tough on people who had recently bought a home and were struggling with mortgages and negative equity to pay property tax. I would prefer them to pay if they sold the house at a profit.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Hi Purple

I felt it was very tough on people who had recently bought a home and were struggling with mortgages and negative equity to pay property tax. I would prefer them to pay if they sold the house at a profit.

Brendan
Click to expand...
That's why I proposed revenues from such a tax be used to make mortgage interest payments tax deductible in another thread. That said all taxes can be unfair to someone. I find taxing someone who is trying to save to buy a house at a rate of 52% more unfair.
 
You are essentially advocating an additional tax on people who are ‘asset comfortable but income poor’, i.e. people who have purchased a house from saving the deposit, and subsequently through mortgage payments. Later in life, assuming they have paid off their mortgage, they have secured home ownership and can live in their home mortgage free. Unfortunately, by this time and in retirement, most households have few, if any, other income generating assets, and are reliant on pensions for their income. So you are not talking of taxing rich people – just ordinary folk on pensions.

For the average family in Ireland, when you own a family home you are not wealthy. You have used your savings and a fair share of your post-tax income to buy on margin and with high transaction costs, a one-trick pony – a risky illiquid indivisible non-income generating asset, that produces one ‘service’ (i.e. shelter), and requires continued expenditure on insurance and maintenance. You can’t calculate the total return on home ownership in the way you can on income generating assets. And except for insured perils you can’t hedge the financial risk of owning a family home, it’s just not like other assets. It’s not ‘wealth’ in the same way as owning equities or bonds.
 
Interesting topic this. There's no doubt some people are (what I would term) experts at accumulating a large amount of money from no taxes being payable on their PPR when selling. How many houses can someone buy and sell and take profits from as a PPR before the authorities take action, or should they at all? I do know of quite a few people in 2 major cities who have bought and sold (moved) 3 and more times in the last 20 years while making one hell of a lot of money from doing so. Yes, they seem to have done nothing wrong, some would say they played the system as it stands and were substantially rewarded. How many times can someone buy and sell like this before the revenue/goverment opens their eyes to what I see as a flaw in the system? In instances like I mention a substantial tax should indeed accumulate to the state from the sales, but how does one go about not discriminating against others who buy/sell? Tricky subject and no doubt will rise some people.
 
People with low incomes can be rich. Income and wealth are not the same thing.
PMU said:
For the average family in Ireland, when you own a family home you are not wealthy.
Click to expand...
You are in many cases if you own your own home.
The point is that when you own your home you have much lower ongoing costs. If you are renting you or paying a mortgage you are doing so out of after tax income. People in that position, especially if they are buying now, have a very high cost to essentially use someone else's capital. That's where conflating income and wealth is a problem.
 
Apples and oranges analysis.

If you're renting, you don't have to worry about the cost of ever replacing the roof, or the windows, or the boiler, or the insulation or a hundred other things.

If you're in social housing, your housing costs can almost approximate to nil. There seems to be plenty of high earners enjoying this benefit, including at least one currently serving TD.

And if you buy a new build, you're not using someone else's capital, whatever that means.
 
PMU said:
So you are not talking of taxing rich people – just ordinary folk on pensions.
Click to expand...

Hi PMU

I am proposing to tax the gains from selling a house. I would like to see people paying tax on their gains rather than as at the moment, ordinary people paying Local Property Tax on on ongoing basis.

Brendan
 
In the US, if you realise a capital gain on the sale of your main home, you can only exclude $250,000 of that gain (or $500,000 if married and filing jointly) for tax purposes. This exemption is only available once every two years.

I always thought it odd that our PPR Relief is completely unlimited.
 
T McGibney said:
If you're renting, you don't have to worry about the cost of ever replacing the roof, or the windows, or the boiler, or the insulation or a hundred other things.
Click to expand...
Rents are higher than the cost of ownership.
T McGibney said:
If you're in social housing, your housing costs can almost approximate to nil. There seems to be plenty of high earners enjoying this benefit, including at least one currently serving TD.
Click to expand...
Yes, that should certainly be addressed as well. Social housing should be subject to a needs assessment every 5 years. If there's one person in a 3 bed house they should be moved, it doesn't matter if they've lived there for 30 years. Income should also be taken into account much more.
T McGibney said:
And if you buy a new build, you're not using someone else's capital, whatever that means.
Click to expand...
You're using the banks capital. That's what a mortgage is.
 
noproblem said:
I do know of quite a few people in 2 major cities who have bought and sold (moved) 3 and more times in the last 20 years while making one hell of a lot of money from doing so.
Click to expand...

But did they make the lot of money from buying and selling? They made the money from owning property.

One big drawback of the proposal is that it might discourage people from trading up or down. And in a healthy market, people should trade up and down.

Brendan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register