Consider this scenario: A property bought for 36L in 2009 might fetch up to 60L if sold today. With indexation adjustments, its value could reach around 88L, effectively showing a 28L loss which can be carried forward. However, there is now a 12.5% tax on a 24L portion related to the loss. This example underlines how indexation benefits have long served to justify real estate investments despite the asset’s traditionally modest returns.
Fascinating viewpoint! I’m curious, without indexation benefits, would rising market trends be enough to reward the upfront investment? How do you see tax impacts shaping long-term property value growth?
Based on personal observations, opting for property investments without the cushion of indexation benefits can be somewhat perilous. It requires careful analysis of market fundamentals and a keen eye on potential tax liabilities, which could erode returns significantly. In my experience, additional thorough research and often enlisting tax advisory services made the difference. Relying solely on market rallies may not be enough, as unforeseen changes in fiscal policy could further complicate matters. Thus, an all-around strategy that factors in taxation, market trends, and property specifics is indispensable.
i think if market trends are solid, property can still be a good bet. but without indexation benefits, tax hits get harsher so be sure to crunch the numbers and work out the risk carefully.
Really interesting thread! I wonder if strong local market demand might sometimes outweigh those tax downsides when indexation isn’t in play. What do you think – can dynamic markets really fill the gap or will the tax bite always be a dealbreaker?