LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.0 -
I'd vote for it but presumably you'd have to allow for any costs spent that have contributed to the price increase such as an extension? That in itself wouldn't be bad either as it might get people away from the cash in hand builders to those that pay their proper taxes. Anything that stops housing being seen as an investment rather than somewhere to live has to be a good thing.TheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.0 -
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Surely that's where inheritance tax comes in? Just set it at the same level as the CGT would be.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.0 -
Or indeed, higherPross said:
Surely that's where inheritance tax comes in? Just set it at the same level as the CGT would be.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.
.
I'd rather just a 1% tax on wealth to get it all going. That'd also crystalise in people's minds how much wealth they actually have.
0 -
Not with some sensible planning. Or p1$$ing it up the wall.Pross said:
Surely that's where inheritance tax comes in? Just set it at the same level as the CGT would be.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
More than happy for you to give your hard earned to the government when the time comes. You'll only have your kids to answer to.rick_chasey said:
Or indeed, higherPross said:
Surely that's where inheritance tax comes in? Just set it at the same level as the CGT would be.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good..
I'd rather just a 1% tax on wealth to get it all going. That'd also crystalise in people's minds how much wealth they actually have.
I won't be joining you "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You are very successfully making the case for a wealth tax/property tax/call it what you will.Stevo_666 said:
More than happy for you to give your hard earned to the government when the time comes. You'll only have your kids to answer to.rick_chasey said:
Or indeed, higherPross said:
Surely that's where inheritance tax comes in? Just set it at the same level as the CGT would be.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good..
I'd rather just a 1% tax on wealth to get it all going. That'd also crystalise in people's minds how much wealth they actually have.
I won't be joining you0 -
The tax wouldn't be avoided by death, so wouldn't be part of the estate. Therefore not moving only delays the payment.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.0 -
If you whack 40% gct on primary residence, this will be more or less 40% tax on moving house for a lot of people, and make downsizing quite hard to do, unless downsizing a lot.TheBigBean said:
The tax wouldn't be avoided by death, so wouldn't be part of the estate. Therefore not moving only delays the payment.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.
All that will do is choke supply in the middle and upper ends of the market and raise prices.
Discuss.0 -
It would seem pretty easy to ensure no avoidance - you pay up CGT on sale, if you try giving it away you either pay CGT based on the market value or the recipient gets taxed on it as income and if you snuff it before either of those the tax gets deducted from the estate. I don't see how pi$$ing it up the wall works either as you'd have to sell to get disposoble income at which point the CGT gets deducted.Stevo_666 said:
Not with some sensible planning. Or p1$$ing it up the wall.Pross said:
Surely that's where inheritance tax comes in? Just set it at the same level as the CGT would be.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.0 -
Why would it be tax on moving, if when you die it's set at the same rate? It would just be a tax on capital gains, regardless.First.Aspect said:
If you whack 40% gct on primary residence, this will be more or less 40% tax on moving house for a lot of people, and make downsizing quite hard to do, unless downsizing a lot.TheBigBean said:
The tax wouldn't be avoided by death, so wouldn't be part of the estate. Therefore not moving only delays the payment.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.
All that will do is choke supply in the middle and upper ends of the market and raise prices.
Discuss.0 -
Yeah. The Idea that this will fix the housing market seems a stretch.First.Aspect said:
If you whack 40% gct on primary residence, this will be more or less 40% tax on moving house for a lot of people, and make downsizing quite hard to do, unless downsizing a lot.TheBigBean said:
The tax wouldn't be avoided by death, so wouldn't be part of the estate. Therefore not moving only delays the payment.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.
All that will do is choke supply in the middle and upper ends of the market and raise prices.
Discuss.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
If you sell a house, that's when cgt would be triggered. So instantly nan and grandad would have only 60% of the value of their home with which to buy another one. For a fair number of people, that won't be enough.rick_chasey said:
Why would it be tax on moving, if when you die it's set at the same rate? It would just be a tax on capital gains, regardless.First.Aspect said:
If you whack 40% gct on primary residence, this will be more or less 40% tax on moving house for a lot of people, and make downsizing quite hard to do, unless downsizing a lot.TheBigBean said:
The tax wouldn't be avoided by death, so wouldn't be part of the estate. Therefore not moving only delays the payment.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.
All that will do is choke supply in the middle and upper ends of the market and raise prices.
Discuss.
So thinking about it, not only would this reduce supply, but also encourage higher asking prices.0 -
Personally I'd reduce the local authority subsidies from central government and increase council tax to offset. With more and higher bands, and second home uplifts.
i.e. you can live in that £1million home on your own just fine, but it will cost you £10k per year to do so.
That will encourage downsizing when you no longer need the space to "free up housing", stop hoarding of property as investments and miles less faffing than CGT exemptions and the like. And it doesn't need to be Draconian and cliff edge, you can have progressive rates and bands and exemptions.
Reckon the Poll Tax scared anyone off fiddling around with local taxation in that way mind.0 -
You are not using the rollover relief. They would only lose 28% of the cash they make from the sale less the amount they spend on a new property. The remainder would be due when they downsize again / die.First.Aspect said:
If you sell a house, that's when cgt would be triggered. So instantly nan and grandad would have only 60% of the value of their home with which to buy another one. For a fair number of people, that won't be enough.rick_chasey said:
Why would it be tax on moving, if when you die it's set at the same rate? It would just be a tax on capital gains, regardless.First.Aspect said:
If you whack 40% gct on primary residence, this will be more or less 40% tax on moving house for a lot of people, and make downsizing quite hard to do, unless downsizing a lot.TheBigBean said:
The tax wouldn't be avoided by death, so wouldn't be part of the estate. Therefore not moving only delays the payment.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.
All that will do is choke supply in the middle and upper ends of the market and raise prices.
Discuss.
So thinking about it, not only would this reduce supply, but also encourage higher asking prices.0 -
Some taxes, such as stamp duty, are hard to avoid. Don't think this would be any easier.Stevo_666 said:
Not with some sensible planning. Or p1$$ing it up the wall.Pross said:
Surely that's where inheritance tax comes in? Just set it at the same level as the CGT would be.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.0 -
I see that Gove is reported in one of the papers as going for the old chestnut that it could all be fixed but developers releasing the million homes they have banked the land for.rjsterry said:
Yeah. The Idea that this will fix the housing market seems a stretch.First.Aspect said:
If you whack 40% gct on primary residence, this will be more or less 40% tax on moving house for a lot of people, and make downsizing quite hard to do, unless downsizing a lot.TheBigBean said:
The tax wouldn't be avoided by death, so wouldn't be part of the estate. Therefore not moving only delays the payment.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.
All that will do is choke supply in the middle and upper ends of the market and raise prices.
Discuss.0 -
it's not 40% on the value of the house. it's 40% on the gain.First.Aspect said:
If you sell a house, that's when cgt would be triggered. So instantly nan and grandad would have only 60% of the value of their home with which to buy another one. For a fair number of people, that won't be enough.rick_chasey said:
Why would it be tax on moving, if when you die it's set at the same rate? It would just be a tax on capital gains, regardless.First.Aspect said:
If you whack 40% gct on primary residence, this will be more or less 40% tax on moving house for a lot of people, and make downsizing quite hard to do, unless downsizing a lot.TheBigBean said:
The tax wouldn't be avoided by death, so wouldn't be part of the estate. Therefore not moving only delays the payment.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.
All that will do is choke supply in the middle and upper ends of the market and raise prices.
Discuss.
So thinking about it, not only would this reduce supply, but also encourage higher asking prices.
0 -
I know. But there is a generation plus of people living in houses that have increased in value by an order of magnitude. The initial value is negligible compared tp what its worth now.rick_chasey said:
it's not 40% on the value of the house. it's 40% on the gain.First.Aspect said:
If you sell a house, that's when cgt would be triggered. So instantly nan and grandad would have only 60% of the value of their home with which to buy another one. For a fair number of people, that won't be enough.rick_chasey said:
Why would it be tax on moving, if when you die it's set at the same rate? It would just be a tax on capital gains, regardless.First.Aspect said:
If you whack 40% gct on primary residence, this will be more or less 40% tax on moving house for a lot of people, and make downsizing quite hard to do, unless downsizing a lot.TheBigBean said:
The tax wouldn't be avoided by death, so wouldn't be part of the estate. Therefore not moving only delays the payment.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.
All that will do is choke supply in the middle and upper ends of the market and raise prices.
Discuss.
So thinking about it, not only would this reduce supply, but also encourage higher asking prices.
As an extreme example, my Dad bought a house in 1980 for £28k. It is now worth about £1M.
0 -
oh no, how awful. Smack up IHT to the same for the house so you don't get away with not paying it by dying.First.Aspect said:
I know. But there is a generation plus of people living in houses that have increased in value by an order of magnitude. The initial value is negligible compared tp what its worth now.rick_chasey said:
it's not 40% on the value of the house. it's 40% on the gain.First.Aspect said:
If you sell a house, that's when cgt would be triggered. So instantly nan and grandad would have only 60% of the value of their home with which to buy another one. For a fair number of people, that won't be enough.rick_chasey said:
Why would it be tax on moving, if when you die it's set at the same rate? It would just be a tax on capital gains, regardless.First.Aspect said:
If you whack 40% gct on primary residence, this will be more or less 40% tax on moving house for a lot of people, and make downsizing quite hard to do, unless downsizing a lot.TheBigBean said:
The tax wouldn't be avoided by death, so wouldn't be part of the estate. Therefore not moving only delays the payment.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.
All that will do is choke supply in the middle and upper ends of the market and raise prices.
Discuss.
So thinking about it, not only would this reduce supply, but also encourage higher asking prices.
As an extreme example, my Dad bought a house in 1980 for £28k. It is now worth about £1M.
(I do honestly think this is a great case for a wealth tax.)0 -
Well that's IHT isn't it? The CGT proposal seems to be no different other than removing the £500k allowance for primary residence.rick_chasey said:
oh no, how awful. Smack up IHT to the same for the house so you don't get away with not paying it by dying.First.Aspect said:
I know. But there is a generation plus of people living in houses that have increased in value by an order of magnitude. The initial value is negligible compared tp what its worth now.rick_chasey said:
it's not 40% on the value of the house. it's 40% on the gain.First.Aspect said:
If you sell a house, that's when cgt would be triggered. So instantly nan and grandad would have only 60% of the value of their home with which to buy another one. For a fair number of people, that won't be enough.rick_chasey said:
Why would it be tax on moving, if when you die it's set at the same rate? It would just be a tax on capital gains, regardless.First.Aspect said:
If you whack 40% gct on primary residence, this will be more or less 40% tax on moving house for a lot of people, and make downsizing quite hard to do, unless downsizing a lot.TheBigBean said:
The tax wouldn't be avoided by death, so wouldn't be part of the estate. Therefore not moving only delays the payment.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.
All that will do is choke supply in the middle and upper ends of the market and raise prices.
Discuss.
So thinking about it, not only would this reduce supply, but also encourage higher asking prices.
As an extreme example, my Dad bought a house in 1980 for £28k. It is now worth about £1M.
(I do honestly think this is a great case for a wealth tax.)
I mean thats fine if it is what you believe, but call it what it is.
Personally, I think the more punitive the tax, the harder people try to evade it. Certainly applies to iht and income tax.
If iht was a flat 10 or 15% with no allowances it would pretty much eliminate an entire iht evasion industry, and probably bring in more tax revenue.0 -
Beaten to it.First.Aspect said:
If you sell a house, that's when cgt would be triggered. So instantly nan and grandad would have only 60% of the value of their home with which to buy another one. For a fair number of people, that won't be enough.rick_chasey said:
Why would it be tax on moving, if when you die it's set at the same rate? It would just be a tax on capital gains, regardless.First.Aspect said:
If you whack 40% gct on primary residence, this will be more or less 40% tax on moving house for a lot of people, and make downsizing quite hard to do, unless downsizing a lot.TheBigBean said:
The tax wouldn't be avoided by death, so wouldn't be part of the estate. Therefore not moving only delays the payment.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.
All that will do is choke supply in the middle and upper ends of the market and raise prices.
Discuss.
So thinking about it, not only would this reduce supply, but also encourage higher asking prices.
If you adjusted for inflation it would be less punitive on those who don't move every couple of years, but would also be open to endless wrangling over exactly which value should be used and could you pay another surveyor with a clipboard to assess the value differently?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
See above. If your house has increased in value 1000%, which is fairly common, your cgt would be 36%.rjsterry said:
60% of the increase in value, not 60% of the value.First.Aspect said:
If you sell a house, that's when cgt would be triggered. So instantly nan and grandad would have only 60% of the value of their home with which to buy another one. For a fair number of people, that won't be enough.rick_chasey said:
Why would it be tax on moving, if when you die it's set at the same rate? It would just be a tax on capital gains, regardless.First.Aspect said:
If you whack 40% gct on primary residence, this will be more or less 40% tax on moving house for a lot of people, and make downsizing quite hard to do, unless downsizing a lot.TheBigBean said:
The tax wouldn't be avoided by death, so wouldn't be part of the estate. Therefore not moving only delays the payment.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.
All that will do is choke supply in the middle and upper ends of the market and raise prices.
Discuss.
So thinking about it, not only would this reduce supply, but also encourage higher asking prices.
Maffs innit.0 -
Mafs is entertaining.
Particularly when they shag around.0 -
Let's say your dad sells his house and buys a smaller one for £400k. Then he will pay tax at 28% on £600k. This would still give him a massive windfall, just a taxed one.First.Aspect said:
I know. But there is a generation plus of people living in houses that have increased in value by an order of magnitude. The initial value is negligible compared tp what its worth now.rick_chasey said:
it's not 40% on the value of the house. it's 40% on the gain.First.Aspect said:
If you sell a house, that's when cgt would be triggered. So instantly nan and grandad would have only 60% of the value of their home with which to buy another one. For a fair number of people, that won't be enough.rick_chasey said:
Why would it be tax on moving, if when you die it's set at the same rate? It would just be a tax on capital gains, regardless.First.Aspect said:
If you whack 40% gct on primary residence, this will be more or less 40% tax on moving house for a lot of people, and make downsizing quite hard to do, unless downsizing a lot.TheBigBean said:
The tax wouldn't be avoided by death, so wouldn't be part of the estate. Therefore not moving only delays the payment.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.
All that will do is choke supply in the middle and upper ends of the market and raise prices.
Discuss.
So thinking about it, not only would this reduce supply, but also encourage higher asking prices.
As an extreme example, my Dad bought a house in 1980 for £28k. It is now worth about £1M.
Then when he dies the remaining CGT would be due on £372k.
His remaining estate of £600k cash + 72% of £372k would be subject to IHT.
0 -
There's an indexation allowanceFirst.Aspect said:
I know. But there is a generation plus of people living in houses that have increased in value by an order of magnitude. The initial value is negligible compared tp what its worth now.rick_chasey said:
it's not 40% on the value of the house. it's 40% on the gain.First.Aspect said:
If you sell a house, that's when cgt would be triggered. So instantly nan and grandad would have only 60% of the value of their home with which to buy another one. For a fair number of people, that won't be enough.rick_chasey said:
Why would it be tax on moving, if when you die it's set at the same rate? It would just be a tax on capital gains, regardless.First.Aspect said:
If you whack 40% gct on primary residence, this will be more or less 40% tax on moving house for a lot of people, and make downsizing quite hard to do, unless downsizing a lot.TheBigBean said:
The tax wouldn't be avoided by death, so wouldn't be part of the estate. Therefore not moving only delays the payment.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.
All that will do is choke supply in the middle and upper ends of the market and raise prices.
Discuss.
So thinking about it, not only would this reduce supply, but also encourage higher asking prices.
As an extreme example, my Dad bought a house in 1980 for £28k. It is now worth about £1M.0 -
Oh for some reason I thought it was 40%.TheBigBean said:
Let's say your dad sells his house and buys a smaller one for £400k. Then he will pay tax at 28% on £600k. This would still give him a massive windfall, just a taxed one.First.Aspect said:
I know. But there is a generation plus of people living in houses that have increased in value by an order of magnitude. The initial value is negligible compared tp what its worth now.rick_chasey said:
it's not 40% on the value of the house. it's 40% on the gain.First.Aspect said:
If you sell a house, that's when cgt would be triggered. So instantly nan and grandad would have only 60% of the value of their home with which to buy another one. For a fair number of people, that won't be enough.rick_chasey said:
Why would it be tax on moving, if when you die it's set at the same rate? It would just be a tax on capital gains, regardless.First.Aspect said:
If you whack 40% gct on primary residence, this will be more or less 40% tax on moving house for a lot of people, and make downsizing quite hard to do, unless downsizing a lot.TheBigBean said:
The tax wouldn't be avoided by death, so wouldn't be part of the estate. Therefore not moving only delays the payment.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.
All that will do is choke supply in the middle and upper ends of the market and raise prices.
Discuss.
So thinking about it, not only would this reduce supply, but also encourage higher asking prices.
As an extreme example, my Dad bought a house in 1980 for £28k. It is now worth about £1M.
Then when he dies the remaining CGT would be due on £372k.
His remaining estate of £600k cash + 72% of £372k would be subject to IHT.
I suppose the deferral on the remaining cgt would help reduce the damage to that part of the property market.
So what's the work around? Because if you come up with a new tax, there'll be a new loophole.0 -
There's no work around, because buyers and sellers need the stamp.First.Aspect said:
Oh for some reason I thought it was 40%.TheBigBean said:
Let's say your dad sells his house and buys a smaller one for £400k. Then he will pay tax at 28% on £600k. This would still give him a massive windfall, just a taxed one.First.Aspect said:
I know. But there is a generation plus of people living in houses that have increased in value by an order of magnitude. The initial value is negligible compared tp what its worth now.rick_chasey said:
it's not 40% on the value of the house. it's 40% on the gain.First.Aspect said:
If you sell a house, that's when cgt would be triggered. So instantly nan and grandad would have only 60% of the value of their home with which to buy another one. For a fair number of people, that won't be enough.rick_chasey said:
Why would it be tax on moving, if when you die it's set at the same rate? It would just be a tax on capital gains, regardless.First.Aspect said:
If you whack 40% gct on primary residence, this will be more or less 40% tax on moving house for a lot of people, and make downsizing quite hard to do, unless downsizing a lot.TheBigBean said:
The tax wouldn't be avoided by death, so wouldn't be part of the estate. Therefore not moving only delays the payment.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.
All that will do is choke supply in the middle and upper ends of the market and raise prices.
Discuss.
So thinking about it, not only would this reduce supply, but also encourage higher asking prices.
As an extreme example, my Dad bought a house in 1980 for £28k. It is now worth about £1M.
Then when he dies the remaining CGT would be due on £372k.
His remaining estate of £600k cash + 72% of £372k would be subject to IHT.
I suppose the deferral on the remaining cgt would help reduce the damage to that part of the property market.
So what's the work around? Because if you come up with a new tax, there'll be a new loophole.
0 -
Buying through a company already happens, as does agreeing a sale price other than the market value. The incentive to try will not disappear.TheBigBean said:
There's no work around, because buyers and sellers need the stamp.First.Aspect said:
Oh for some reason I thought it was 40%.TheBigBean said:
Let's say your dad sells his house and buys a smaller one for £400k. Then he will pay tax at 28% on £600k. This would still give him a massive windfall, just a taxed one.First.Aspect said:
I know. But there is a generation plus of people living in houses that have increased in value by an order of magnitude. The initial value is negligible compared tp what its worth now.rick_chasey said:
it's not 40% on the value of the house. it's 40% on the gain.First.Aspect said:
If you sell a house, that's when cgt would be triggered. So instantly nan and grandad would have only 60% of the value of their home with which to buy another one. For a fair number of people, that won't be enough.rick_chasey said:
Why would it be tax on moving, if when you die it's set at the same rate? It would just be a tax on capital gains, regardless.First.Aspect said:
If you whack 40% gct on primary residence, this will be more or less 40% tax on moving house for a lot of people, and make downsizing quite hard to do, unless downsizing a lot.TheBigBean said:
The tax wouldn't be avoided by death, so wouldn't be part of the estate. Therefore not moving only delays the payment.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.
All that will do is choke supply in the middle and upper ends of the market and raise prices.
Discuss.
So thinking about it, not only would this reduce supply, but also encourage higher asking prices.
As an extreme example, my Dad bought a house in 1980 for £28k. It is now worth about £1M.
Then when he dies the remaining CGT would be due on £372k.
His remaining estate of £600k cash + 72% of £372k would be subject to IHT.
I suppose the deferral on the remaining cgt would help reduce the damage to that part of the property market.
So what's the work around? Because if you come up with a new tax, there'll be a new loophole.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
