Capital gains tax on houses and investment properties should be redirected to those who are struggling to acquire property, a new report on housing affordability has recommended.

The federal government should examine “iniquitous” and “inefficient” home ownership and investment subsidies, including negative gearing, to aim for a $12 billion per annum in savings, the report from lobby group Compass Housing suggests.

This Robin Hood approach of taking from the asset-rich and giving to the asset-poor is among 15 recommendations made in the report Toward a National Housing Strategy launched on Tuesday.

The Capital Gains Tax (CGT) exemption for the main residence is likely to cost $100 billion in the four years to 2018/2019, according to recent Treasury estimates.

“High earners in the top 20 per cent receive 55 per cent of the benefit,” the report says, pointing to a study from The Australia Institute calling to end the exemption for homes above $2 million.

This change, estimated by the Institute, would raise “almost $12 billion over four years, which represents three times the current budget for social housing” and matches the $12 billion in savings made in the report’s suggestion.

But author of the report Dave Adamson said they “weren’t suggesting the main residence exemption would be up for grabs” but that it shouldn’t be ruled out entirely.

“All exemptions should be considered in a review … You can’t consider negative gearing without [also] looking at capital gains tax,” Dr Adamson said.

However, it was the “shared opinion” of the report’s contributors that changes to the level of home ownership subsidy was essential, and almost all contributors “stressed the need for reform”.

“Reform of CGT exemption for the main residence and the CGT discount on investment property are seen as the prime targets for change that could contribute to the solution of current issues and build toward a robust and sustainable housing system for the nation,” the report said.

But change won’t be easy. The report warns of “vested interests” from individual consumers, real estate agents, builders and investors who would want to maintain the status quo.

This would include the 70 per cent of Australians who own property either outright or with a mortgage, AMP Capital chief economist Shane Oliver said.

And unless the change was undertaken retrospectively it would take “several years” for the tax to accrue the $12 billion required, Dr Oliver said.

“It would be another tax slug for the high income earners, which may be the fashion these days,” he said, and could see some high income earners “move offshore [to countries] without the tax imposts”.

“We do need to find ways to improve affordability without resorting to tax fiddles,” he said, pointing to supply reforms.

Some of the other recommendations in the report also considered supply – including an introduction of a national program of house building – to provide Commonwealth land not in current use to state departments for home construction, and the introduction of inclusionary zoning.

Urban Taskforce chief executive Chris Johnson said the family home is most people’s major asset and “with the increase in value over recent years it is important that this value can be passed on to the next generation of the family when the parents die”.

He warned a tax on the family home would be “unpopular”.