LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
I actually read up on this and at one point the IHT was as high as 70% and was hammering businesses when the founder died. Overall tax take went up becuase the economy grew, part of that growth was put down to scrapping IHT making it a more business friendly placekingstongraham said:
Could be something to do with most of them having inheritance tax or property tax.Stevo_666 said:
So why are you pushing the point?kingstongraham said:
You were the one who brought Sweden into this irrelevant discussion.Stevo_666 said:
Why not do both? Would attract more of the wealthy back (as the IHT abolition did) where they can pay taxes on everything else. Worked once.kingstongraham said:
You don't think it's possible the presence of CGT on the main residence (which is more difficult to avoid) makes it more straightforward to abolish inheritance tax?Stevo_666 said:
Taxation of main residences is pretty uncommon even in the normally tax hungry EU. Which should tell you how poor an idea it is. The Swedes don't get everything right.kingstongraham said:
Tell me about Sweden's capital gains tax on sales of property.Stevo_666 said:
See above. It is likely to be counter productive, like your misplaced wealth tax ideas.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.
A quick reminder of the real life experience of Sweden when it abolished IHT and increased the tax take:
https://telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/sweden-ditched-inheritance-tax-business-boom/
So if you want to increase the overall, tax take, what would you do?
And after a bit more research, Sweden is the outlier in terms of taxing main residence sales in Europe (Spain and Portugal do but allow relief for reinvestment in another property). If it was such a good idea, why do you think other countries haven't done it?
Although I see you can't answer my question.
You've chosen one tax in one country because the Telegraph highlighted it.
I'm not sure how they have directly related the increase in overall tax revenue to removing this tax. Any detail on that? I'm sure it wasn't the only thing they've done.0 -
Like I said, I'm sure that wasn't the only thing that was done to make things more business friendly. Maybe I'm wrong.surrey_commuter said:
I actually read up on this and at one point the IHT was as high as 70% and was hammering businesses when the founder died. Overall tax take went up becuase the economy grew, part of that growth was put down to scrapping IHT making it a more business friendly placekingstongraham said:
Could be something to do with most of them having inheritance tax or property tax.Stevo_666 said:
So why are you pushing the point?kingstongraham said:
You were the one who brought Sweden into this irrelevant discussion.Stevo_666 said:
Why not do both? Would attract more of the wealthy back (as the IHT abolition did) where they can pay taxes on everything else. Worked once.kingstongraham said:
You don't think it's possible the presence of CGT on the main residence (which is more difficult to avoid) makes it more straightforward to abolish inheritance tax?Stevo_666 said:
Taxation of main residences is pretty uncommon even in the normally tax hungry EU. Which should tell you how poor an idea it is. The Swedes don't get everything right.kingstongraham said:
Tell me about Sweden's capital gains tax on sales of property.Stevo_666 said:
See above. It is likely to be counter productive, like your misplaced wealth tax ideas.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.
A quick reminder of the real life experience of Sweden when it abolished IHT and increased the tax take:
https://telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/sweden-ditched-inheritance-tax-business-boom/
So if you want to increase the overall, tax take, what would you do?
And after a bit more research, Sweden is the outlier in terms of taxing main residence sales in Europe (Spain and Portugal do but allow relief for reinvestment in another property). If it was such a good idea, why do you think other countries haven't done it?
Although I see you can't answer my question.
You've chosen one tax in one country because the Telegraph highlighted it.
I'm not sure how they have directly related the increase in overall tax revenue to removing this tax. Any detail on that? I'm sure it wasn't the only thing they've done.
0 -
It would just be a fairer system. It's not that wild.rjsterry said:
I'm also not clear what the end goal is.Stevo_666 said:
Something tells me that Rick doesn't like other people making money in ways that he doesn't approve of. Which is kind of tough, because the rules are extremely unlikely to change here.rjsterry said:
So if a reduced tax on certain capital gains promotes saving, I think it's fairly likely that an increased tax on other capital gains will have a similar but inverse effect. People will find ways to avoid it as sure as water finds a leak.rick_chasey said:
Because the pension exemption is specifically designed to promote savings because people otherwise tend to not save enough for retirement.rjsterry said:
What's the rationale for taxing property more than the growth in your pension, say. Is that not wealth?rick_chasey said:
Pretty good return on your home right?rjsterry said:
So let's say he gets a 40% equity release of £200k and no other income - he gets, what, 10 years if he's frugal. How old is he?rick_chasey said:
No need. He can line up his equity release, and live off that.rjsterry said:
That £500k is just an estimate of what he could sell the property for. And then he'd need to buy another, which will cost him about £500k unless he wants to take out a new mortgage. So none of that will end up in his account for more than a few hours at most. There are almost no properties in the UK that can be bought for £70k.rick_chasey said:
Err yes.rjsterry said:
Almost none of them on the basis of their own home. You're thinking of landlords.rick_chasey said:Buying and selling stuff that appreciates or depreciates in value is investment and the realisation of said investment, end of.
I'd like to see you argue to the tax man you only bought shares in barclays because their AGM is the best social event of the year for you, and you only sold them because you needed the money to pay for your heating, so because you didn't *mean* for it to be an investment, it doesn't count.
A lot of people have got incredibility wealthy from their real estate investments.
My neighbour bought his house for £70k in the 90s. It's now worth £500k.
He's been mortgage free since the 00s. That's so remarkable in fact, he gave up working early because the little bits he does on the side cover his food and heating costs etc.
Wealth is wealth, regardless of what it’s tied up in.
If I just stick £10k in a fund and I get returns I pay CGT on it.
I can stick it in a ISA because again that’s designed to promote saving.
So are you trying to stop property from appreciating or tax the middle classes more or what?
Increasing revenues? Not going to move the needle much. The whole of CGT receipts was £18bn.
Reducing house price inflation? That's caused by restriction of supply.
There's an appeal to the simplicity of taxing all gains at the same rate but that implies the removal of SDLT, which goes against the first aim.0 -
Firstly, how are you defining fair; and then how does this (whichever iteration we are on) improve the situation?
It strikes me that the people really making money out of property - larger landlords - would not be affected by this change. People primarily buy a house to live in. They also want it to hold it's value enough that they can move house. The number of 'micro developers' doing one house at a time for profit and living in it as a tax efficient business plan is really pretty small. Mainly because it is so easy to get it massively and expensively wrong.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
I don't understand the need for the exemption (or why so many people are arguing about it). Tax is paid on income/gains. To me it is unfair that an exemption exists. I'd like an exemption from the tax I pay.rjsterry said:Firstly, how are you defining fair; and then how does this (whichever iteration we are on) improve the situation?
It strikes me that the people really making money out of property - larger landlords - would not be affected by this change. People primarily buy a house to live in. They also want it to hold it's value enough that they can move house. The number of 'micro developers' doing one house at a time for profit and living in it as a tax efficient business plan is really pretty small. Mainly because it is so easy to get it massively and expensively wrong.
It's also close to being an inheritance tax which is hard to avoid. Something that acts as a leveller to society and increases fairness (in my view).0 -
I think the issue is best illustrated by what happens if you need to move house to take a new job and keep family together. (So no weekly commutes.) Per one of my previous posts to Rick, house price increases don't provide a gain of "ability to house yourself", so you could argue that tax shouldn't be paid as there is no gain, even if the £ amount of your house price has increased.TheBigBean said:
I don't understand the need for the exemption (or why so many people are arguing about it). Tax is paid on income/gains. To me it is unfair that an exemption exists. I'd like an exemption from the tax I pay.rjsterry said:Firstly, how are you defining fair; and then how does this (whichever iteration we are on) improve the situation?
It strikes me that the people really making money out of property - larger landlords - would not be affected by this change. People primarily buy a house to live in. They also want it to hold it's value enough that they can move house. The number of 'micro developers' doing one house at a time for profit and living in it as a tax efficient business plan is really pretty small. Mainly because it is so easy to get it massively and expensively wrong.
It's also close to being an inheritance tax which is hard to avoid. Something that acts as a leveller to society and increases fairness (in my view).
If you have to pay tax on the profit from the sale of your existing home, then your buying power will be reduced, which is a huge disincentive to move jobs. Not ideal for the economy or you, one would think.
With IHT, by definition (it's only payable when you're dead) there isn't the issue of having reduced your ability to keep a suitably sized roof over your head.0 -
Why not close IHT loopholes instead. Right now it is a tax that people find morally abhorrent because it tends to come at a bad time and now traps middle classes. The taper catches people who die unexpectedly, making it even worse. It also discriminates against the unmarried. You don't pay it if you have a low wealth, and you tend to squirrel out of it if you are wealthy enough to pay someone to do that for you. So it's not exactly hitting the spot at the moment is it?TheBigBean said:
I don't understand the need for the exemption (or why so many people are arguing about it). Tax is paid on income/gains. To me it is unfair that an exemption exists. I'd like an exemption from the tax I pay.rjsterry said:Firstly, how are you defining fair; and then how does this (whichever iteration we are on) improve the situation?
It strikes me that the people really making money out of property - larger landlords - would not be affected by this change. People primarily buy a house to live in. They also want it to hold it's value enough that they can move house. The number of 'micro developers' doing one house at a time for profit and living in it as a tax efficient business plan is really pretty small. Mainly because it is so easy to get it massively and expensively wrong.
It's also close to being an inheritance tax which is hard to avoid. Something that acts as a leveller to society and increases fairness (in my view).0 -
This is an interesting thread- it seems that all conservative supporters believe that it has been captured by people who fundamentally disagree with them.
0 -
You must have missed the bit about roll over relief. You wouldn't pay it if you bought a new house with it.wallace_and_gromit said:
I think the issue is best illustrated by what happens if you need to move house to take a new job and keep family together. (So no weekly commutes.) Per one of my previous posts to Rick, house price increases don't provide a gain of "ability to house yourself", so you could argue that tax shouldn't be paid as there is no gain, even if the £ amount of your house price has increased.TheBigBean said:
I don't understand the need for the exemption (or why so many people are arguing about it). Tax is paid on income/gains. To me it is unfair that an exemption exists. I'd like an exemption from the tax I pay.rjsterry said:Firstly, how are you defining fair; and then how does this (whichever iteration we are on) improve the situation?
It strikes me that the people really making money out of property - larger landlords - would not be affected by this change. People primarily buy a house to live in. They also want it to hold it's value enough that they can move house. The number of 'micro developers' doing one house at a time for profit and living in it as a tax efficient business plan is really pretty small. Mainly because it is so easy to get it massively and expensively wrong.
It's also close to being an inheritance tax which is hard to avoid. Something that acts as a leveller to society and increases fairness (in my view).
If you have to pay tax on the profit from the sale of your existing home, then your buying power will be reduced, which is a huge disincentive to move jobs. Not ideal for the economy or you, one would think.
With IHT, by definition (it's only payable when you're dead) there isn't the issue of having reduced your ability to keep a suitably sized roof over your head.0 -
I did miss that. Thanks. So how is this different in practical terms from IHT? Most folk "roll over" their houses whilst alive, with the asset converted to cash only when they're dead.TheBigBean said:
You must have missed the bit about roll over relief. You wouldn't pay it if you bought a new house with it.wallace_and_gromit said:
I think the issue is best illustrated by what happens if you need to move house to take a new job and keep family together. (So no weekly commutes.) Per one of my previous posts to Rick, house price increases don't provide a gain of "ability to house yourself", so you could argue that tax shouldn't be paid as there is no gain, even if the £ amount of your house price has increased.TheBigBean said:
I don't understand the need for the exemption (or why so many people are arguing about it). Tax is paid on income/gains. To me it is unfair that an exemption exists. I'd like an exemption from the tax I pay.rjsterry said:Firstly, how are you defining fair; and then how does this (whichever iteration we are on) improve the situation?
It strikes me that the people really making money out of property - larger landlords - would not be affected by this change. People primarily buy a house to live in. They also want it to hold it's value enough that they can move house. The number of 'micro developers' doing one house at a time for profit and living in it as a tax efficient business plan is really pretty small. Mainly because it is so easy to get it massively and expensively wrong.
It's also close to being an inheritance tax which is hard to avoid. Something that acts as a leveller to society and increases fairness (in my view).
If you have to pay tax on the profit from the sale of your existing home, then your buying power will be reduced, which is a huge disincentive to move jobs. Not ideal for the economy or you, one would think.
With IHT, by definition (it's only payable when you're dead) there isn't the issue of having reduced your ability to keep a suitably sized roof over your head.0 -
kingstongraham said:
This is an interesting thread- it seems that all conservative supporters believe that it has been captured by people who fundamentally disagree with them.
That guy seems totally normal.0 -
The gain is not taxed. Death doesn't mean the tax shouldn't be due. Plus IHT is easily avoided whereas stamp duty is not.wallace_and_gromit said:
I did miss that. Thanks. So how is this different in practical terms from IHT? Most folk "roll over" their houses whilst alive, with the asset converted to cash only when they're dead.TheBigBean said:
You must have missed the bit about roll over relief. You wouldn't pay it if you bought a new house with it.wallace_and_gromit said:
I think the issue is best illustrated by what happens if you need to move house to take a new job and keep family together. (So no weekly commutes.) Per one of my previous posts to Rick, house price increases don't provide a gain of "ability to house yourself", so you could argue that tax shouldn't be paid as there is no gain, even if the £ amount of your house price has increased.TheBigBean said:
I don't understand the need for the exemption (or why so many people are arguing about it). Tax is paid on income/gains. To me it is unfair that an exemption exists. I'd like an exemption from the tax I pay.rjsterry said:Firstly, how are you defining fair; and then how does this (whichever iteration we are on) improve the situation?
It strikes me that the people really making money out of property - larger landlords - would not be affected by this change. People primarily buy a house to live in. They also want it to hold it's value enough that they can move house. The number of 'micro developers' doing one house at a time for profit and living in it as a tax efficient business plan is really pretty small. Mainly because it is so easy to get it massively and expensively wrong.
It's also close to being an inheritance tax which is hard to avoid. Something that acts as a leveller to society and increases fairness (in my view).
If you have to pay tax on the profit from the sale of your existing home, then your buying power will be reduced, which is a huge disincentive to move jobs. Not ideal for the economy or you, one would think.
With IHT, by definition (it's only payable when you're dead) there isn't the issue of having reduced your ability to keep a suitably sized roof over your head.
It is also not taxed when people downsize.0 -
There are all sorts of exemptions. Pension contributions avoid tax. ISAs. Income thresholds. Council tax exemptions...TheBigBean said:
I don't understand the need for the exemption (or why so many people are arguing about it). Tax is paid on income/gains. To me it is unfair that an exemption exists. I'd like an exemption from the tax I pay.rjsterry said:Firstly, how are you defining fair; and then how does this (whichever iteration we are on) improve the situation?
It strikes me that the people really making money out of property - larger landlords - would not be affected by this change. People primarily buy a house to live in. They also want it to hold it's value enough that they can move house. The number of 'micro developers' doing one house at a time for profit and living in it as a tax efficient business plan is really pretty small. Mainly because it is so easy to get it massively and expensively wrong.
It's also close to being an inheritance tax which is hard to avoid. Something that acts as a leveller to society and increases fairness (in my view).1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Yeah...Jezyboy said:kingstongraham said:This is an interesting thread- it seems that all conservative supporters believe that it has been captured by people who fundamentally disagree with them.
That guy seems totally normal.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Well when IHT is due the property is subsequently likely to be sold and stamp duty is then paid by the purchaser, so HMRC are potentially getting some IHT and SDLT on the property.TheBigBean said:
The gain is not taxed. Death doesn't mean the tax shouldn't be due. Plus IHT is easily avoided whereas stamp duty is not.wallace_and_gromit said:
I did miss that. Thanks. So how is this different in practical terms from IHT? Most folk "roll over" their houses whilst alive, with the asset converted to cash only when they're dead.TheBigBean said:
You must have missed the bit about roll over relief. You wouldn't pay it if you bought a new house with it.wallace_and_gromit said:
I think the issue is best illustrated by what happens if you need to move house to take a new job and keep family together. (So no weekly commutes.) Per one of my previous posts to Rick, house price increases don't provide a gain of "ability to house yourself", so you could argue that tax shouldn't be paid as there is no gain, even if the £ amount of your house price has increased.TheBigBean said:
I don't understand the need for the exemption (or why so many people are arguing about it). Tax is paid on income/gains. To me it is unfair that an exemption exists. I'd like an exemption from the tax I pay.rjsterry said:Firstly, how are you defining fair; and then how does this (whichever iteration we are on) improve the situation?
It strikes me that the people really making money out of property - larger landlords - would not be affected by this change. People primarily buy a house to live in. They also want it to hold it's value enough that they can move house. The number of 'micro developers' doing one house at a time for profit and living in it as a tax efficient business plan is really pretty small. Mainly because it is so easy to get it massively and expensively wrong.
It's also close to being an inheritance tax which is hard to avoid. Something that acts as a leveller to society and increases fairness (in my view).
If you have to pay tax on the profit from the sale of your existing home, then your buying power will be reduced, which is a huge disincentive to move jobs. Not ideal for the economy or you, one would think.
With IHT, by definition (it's only payable when you're dead) there isn't the issue of having reduced your ability to keep a suitably sized roof over your head.
It is also not taxed when people downsize.
Increasing amounts are being raised from IHT - this is the latest:
The amount raised in April and May rose by 9.1 per cent year-on-year to £1.2bn. If this increase held for the entire year to next April, the tax take would hit £7.7bn
0 -
I'd be extremely sceptical of anyone who claims to speak for 'everyone' without anything to back it up beyond "I've spoken to a few people".Jezyboy said:kingstongraham said:This is an interesting thread- it seems that all conservative supporters believe that it has been captured by people who fundamentally disagree with them.
That guy seems totally normal.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It's a good example of the effects of an echo chamber.rjsterry said:
I'd be extremely sceptical of anyone who claims to speak for 'everyone' without anything to back it up beyond "I've spoken to a few people".Jezyboy said:kingstongraham said:This is an interesting thread- it seems that all conservative supporters believe that it has been captured by people who fundamentally disagree with them.
That guy seems totally normal.
Of course, bike radar isn't exactly a diverse pool of individuals, but there is a little diversity, and in spite of what some posters might claim, is a lot less left wing than many bits of the internet.0 -
I've shown you my evidence. I think the onus is now on you to show some evidence that the article is wrong.kingstongraham said:
Could be something to do with most of them having inheritance tax or property tax.Stevo_666 said:
So why are you pushing the point?kingstongraham said:
You were the one who brought Sweden into this irrelevant discussion.Stevo_666 said:
Why not do both? Would attract more of the wealthy back (as the IHT abolition did) where they can pay taxes on everything else. Worked once.kingstongraham said:
You don't think it's possible the presence of CGT on the main residence (which is more difficult to avoid) makes it more straightforward to abolish inheritance tax?Stevo_666 said:
Taxation of main residences is pretty uncommon even in the normally tax hungry EU. Which should tell you how poor an idea it is. The Swedes don't get everything right.kingstongraham said:
Tell me about Sweden's capital gains tax on sales of property.Stevo_666 said:
See above. It is likely to be counter productive, like your misplaced wealth tax ideas.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.
A quick reminder of the real life experience of Sweden when it abolished IHT and increased the tax take:
https://telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/sweden-ditched-inheritance-tax-business-boom/
So if you want to increase the overall, tax take, what would you do?
And after a bit more research, Sweden is the outlier in terms of taxing main residence sales in Europe (Spain and Portugal do but allow relief for reinvestment in another property). If it was such a good idea, why do you think other countries haven't done it?
Although I see you can't answer my question.
You've chosen one tax in one country because the Telegraph highlighted it.
I'm not sure how they have directly related the increase in overall tax revenue to removing this tax. Any detail on that? I'm sure it wasn't the only thing they've done.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It says this: "Unlike in Britain, Sweden offered no inheritance tax relief for family-owned businesses. This was disastrous for Swedish enterprise, where around nine in 10 companies were owned by people related to each other in 2004. "Stevo_666 said:
I've shown you my evidence. I think the onus is now on you to show some evidence that the article is wrong.kingstongraham said:
Could be something to do with most of them having inheritance tax or property tax.Stevo_666 said:
So why are you pushing the point?kingstongraham said:
You were the one who brought Sweden into this irrelevant discussion.Stevo_666 said:
Why not do both? Would attract more of the wealthy back (as the IHT abolition did) where they can pay taxes on everything else. Worked once.kingstongraham said:
You don't think it's possible the presence of CGT on the main residence (which is more difficult to avoid) makes it more straightforward to abolish inheritance tax?Stevo_666 said:
Taxation of main residences is pretty uncommon even in the normally tax hungry EU. Which should tell you how poor an idea it is. The Swedes don't get everything right.kingstongraham said:
Tell me about Sweden's capital gains tax on sales of property.Stevo_666 said:
See above. It is likely to be counter productive, like your misplaced wealth tax ideas.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.
A quick reminder of the real life experience of Sweden when it abolished IHT and increased the tax take:
https://telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/sweden-ditched-inheritance-tax-business-boom/
So if you want to increase the overall, tax take, what would you do?
And after a bit more research, Sweden is the outlier in terms of taxing main residence sales in Europe (Spain and Portugal do but allow relief for reinvestment in another property). If it was such a good idea, why do you think other countries haven't done it?
Although I see you can't answer my question.
You've chosen one tax in one country because the Telegraph highlighted it.
I'm not sure how they have directly related the increase in overall tax revenue to removing this tax. Any detail on that? I'm sure it wasn't the only thing they've done.
0 -
0
-
Is Korski the Polish for Pincher?0
-
Isn’t this just a reflection that those dying now are likely to be wealthier than those who died before?Dorset_Boy said:
Well when IHT is due the property is subsequently likely to be sold and stamp duty is then paid by the purchaser, so HMRC are potentially getting some IHT and SDLT on the property.TheBigBean said:
The gain is not taxed. Death doesn't mean the tax shouldn't be due. Plus IHT is easily avoided whereas stamp duty is not.wallace_and_gromit said:
I did miss that. Thanks. So how is this different in practical terms from IHT? Most folk "roll over" their houses whilst alive, with the asset converted to cash only when they're dead.TheBigBean said:
You must have missed the bit about roll over relief. You wouldn't pay it if you bought a new house with it.wallace_and_gromit said:
I think the issue is best illustrated by what happens if you need to move house to take a new job and keep family together. (So no weekly commutes.) Per one of my previous posts to Rick, house price increases don't provide a gain of "ability to house yourself", so you could argue that tax shouldn't be paid as there is no gain, even if the £ amount of your house price has increased.TheBigBean said:
I don't understand the need for the exemption (or why so many people are arguing about it). Tax is paid on income/gains. To me it is unfair that an exemption exists. I'd like an exemption from the tax I pay.rjsterry said:Firstly, how are you defining fair; and then how does this (whichever iteration we are on) improve the situation?
It strikes me that the people really making money out of property - larger landlords - would not be affected by this change. People primarily buy a house to live in. They also want it to hold it's value enough that they can move house. The number of 'micro developers' doing one house at a time for profit and living in it as a tax efficient business plan is really pretty small. Mainly because it is so easy to get it massively and expensively wrong.
It's also close to being an inheritance tax which is hard to avoid. Something that acts as a leveller to society and increases fairness (in my view).
If you have to pay tax on the profit from the sale of your existing home, then your buying power will be reduced, which is a huge disincentive to move jobs. Not ideal for the economy or you, one would think.
With IHT, by definition (it's only payable when you're dead) there isn't the issue of having reduced your ability to keep a suitably sized roof over your head.
It is also not taxed when people downsize.
Increasing amounts are being raised from IHT - this is the latest:
The amount raised in April and May rose by 9.1 per cent year-on-year to £1.2bn. If this increase held for the entire year to next April, the tax take would hit £7.7bn0 -
I thought that was a good thing.rick_chasey said:
Isn’t this just a reflection that those dying now are likely to be wealthier than those who died before?Dorset_Boy said:
Well when IHT is due the property is subsequently likely to be sold and stamp duty is then paid by the purchaser, so HMRC are potentially getting some IHT and SDLT on the property.TheBigBean said:
The gain is not taxed. Death doesn't mean the tax shouldn't be due. Plus IHT is easily avoided whereas stamp duty is not.wallace_and_gromit said:
I did miss that. Thanks. So how is this different in practical terms from IHT? Most folk "roll over" their houses whilst alive, with the asset converted to cash only when they're dead.TheBigBean said:
You must have missed the bit about roll over relief. You wouldn't pay it if you bought a new house with it.wallace_and_gromit said:
I think the issue is best illustrated by what happens if you need to move house to take a new job and keep family together. (So no weekly commutes.) Per one of my previous posts to Rick, house price increases don't provide a gain of "ability to house yourself", so you could argue that tax shouldn't be paid as there is no gain, even if the £ amount of your house price has increased.TheBigBean said:
I don't understand the need for the exemption (or why so many people are arguing about it). Tax is paid on income/gains. To me it is unfair that an exemption exists. I'd like an exemption from the tax I pay.rjsterry said:Firstly, how are you defining fair; and then how does this (whichever iteration we are on) improve the situation?
It strikes me that the people really making money out of property - larger landlords - would not be affected by this change. People primarily buy a house to live in. They also want it to hold it's value enough that they can move house. The number of 'micro developers' doing one house at a time for profit and living in it as a tax efficient business plan is really pretty small. Mainly because it is so easy to get it massively and expensively wrong.
It's also close to being an inheritance tax which is hard to avoid. Something that acts as a leveller to society and increases fairness (in my view).
If you have to pay tax on the profit from the sale of your existing home, then your buying power will be reduced, which is a huge disincentive to move jobs. Not ideal for the economy or you, one would think.
With IHT, by definition (it's only payable when you're dead) there isn't the issue of having reduced your ability to keep a suitably sized roof over your head.
It is also not taxed when people downsize.
Increasing amounts are being raised from IHT - this is the latest:
The amount raised in April and May rose by 9.1 per cent year-on-year to £1.2bn. If this increase held for the entire year to next April, the tax take would hit £7.7bn1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You are welcome to moan any exemption. I don't see the point of ISAs or the 25% tax free lump sum.rjsterry said:
There are all sorts of exemptions. Pension contributions avoid tax. ISAs. Income thresholds. Council tax exemptions...TheBigBean said:
I don't understand the need for the exemption (or why so many people are arguing about it). Tax is paid on income/gains. To me it is unfair that an exemption exists. I'd like an exemption from the tax I pay.rjsterry said:Firstly, how are you defining fair; and then how does this (whichever iteration we are on) improve the situation?
It strikes me that the people really making money out of property - larger landlords - would not be affected by this change. People primarily buy a house to live in. They also want it to hold it's value enough that they can move house. The number of 'micro developers' doing one house at a time for profit and living in it as a tax efficient business plan is really pretty small. Mainly because it is so easy to get it massively and expensively wrong.
It's also close to being an inheritance tax which is hard to avoid. Something that acts as a leveller to society and increases fairness (in my view).1 -
What?rick_chasey said:
Isn’t this just a reflection that those dying now are likely to be wealthier than those who died before?Dorset_Boy said:
Well when IHT is due the property is subsequently likely to be sold and stamp duty is then paid by the purchaser, so HMRC are potentially getting some IHT and SDLT on the property.TheBigBean said:
The gain is not taxed. Death doesn't mean the tax shouldn't be due. Plus IHT is easily avoided whereas stamp duty is not.wallace_and_gromit said:
I did miss that. Thanks. So how is this different in practical terms from IHT? Most folk "roll over" their houses whilst alive, with the asset converted to cash only when they're dead.TheBigBean said:
You must have missed the bit about roll over relief. You wouldn't pay it if you bought a new house with it.wallace_and_gromit said:
I think the issue is best illustrated by what happens if you need to move house to take a new job and keep family together. (So no weekly commutes.) Per one of my previous posts to Rick, house price increases don't provide a gain of "ability to house yourself", so you could argue that tax shouldn't be paid as there is no gain, even if the £ amount of your house price has increased.TheBigBean said:
I don't understand the need for the exemption (or why so many people are arguing about it). Tax is paid on income/gains. To me it is unfair that an exemption exists. I'd like an exemption from the tax I pay.rjsterry said:Firstly, how are you defining fair; and then how does this (whichever iteration we are on) improve the situation?
It strikes me that the people really making money out of property - larger landlords - would not be affected by this change. People primarily buy a house to live in. They also want it to hold it's value enough that they can move house. The number of 'micro developers' doing one house at a time for profit and living in it as a tax efficient business plan is really pretty small. Mainly because it is so easy to get it massively and expensively wrong.
It's also close to being an inheritance tax which is hard to avoid. Something that acts as a leveller to society and increases fairness (in my view).
If you have to pay tax on the profit from the sale of your existing home, then your buying power will be reduced, which is a huge disincentive to move jobs. Not ideal for the economy or you, one would think.
With IHT, by definition (it's only payable when you're dead) there isn't the issue of having reduced your ability to keep a suitably sized roof over your head.
It is also not taxed when people downsize.
Increasing amounts are being raised from IHT - this is the latest:
The amount raised in April and May rose by 9.1 per cent year-on-year to £1.2bn. If this increase held for the entire year to next April, the tax take would hit £7.7bn
You saying that people's wealth has jumped by over 9% in the last year?
What investment makets have fallen across the board.
0 -
Well no. That’s not what I’m saying no.Dorset_Boy said:
What?rick_chasey said:
Isn’t this just a reflection that those dying now are likely to be wealthier than those who died before?Dorset_Boy said:
Well when IHT is due the property is subsequently likely to be sold and stamp duty is then paid by the purchaser, so HMRC are potentially getting some IHT and SDLT on the property.TheBigBean said:
The gain is not taxed. Death doesn't mean the tax shouldn't be due. Plus IHT is easily avoided whereas stamp duty is not.wallace_and_gromit said:
I did miss that. Thanks. So how is this different in practical terms from IHT? Most folk "roll over" their houses whilst alive, with the asset converted to cash only when they're dead.TheBigBean said:
You must have missed the bit about roll over relief. You wouldn't pay it if you bought a new house with it.wallace_and_gromit said:
I think the issue is best illustrated by what happens if you need to move house to take a new job and keep family together. (So no weekly commutes.) Per one of my previous posts to Rick, house price increases don't provide a gain of "ability to house yourself", so you could argue that tax shouldn't be paid as there is no gain, even if the £ amount of your house price has increased.TheBigBean said:
I don't understand the need for the exemption (or why so many people are arguing about it). Tax is paid on income/gains. To me it is unfair that an exemption exists. I'd like an exemption from the tax I pay.rjsterry said:Firstly, how are you defining fair; and then how does this (whichever iteration we are on) improve the situation?
It strikes me that the people really making money out of property - larger landlords - would not be affected by this change. People primarily buy a house to live in. They also want it to hold it's value enough that they can move house. The number of 'micro developers' doing one house at a time for profit and living in it as a tax efficient business plan is really pretty small. Mainly because it is so easy to get it massively and expensively wrong.
It's also close to being an inheritance tax which is hard to avoid. Something that acts as a leveller to society and increases fairness (in my view).
If you have to pay tax on the profit from the sale of your existing home, then your buying power will be reduced, which is a huge disincentive to move jobs. Not ideal for the economy or you, one would think.
With IHT, by definition (it's only payable when you're dead) there isn't the issue of having reduced your ability to keep a suitably sized roof over your head.
It is also not taxed when people downsize.
Increasing amounts are being raised from IHT - this is the latest:
The amount raised in April and May rose by 9.1 per cent year-on-year to £1.2bn. If this increase held for the entire year to next April, the tax take would hit £7.7bn
You saying that people's wealth has jumped by over 9% in the last year?
What investment makets have fallen across the board.0 -
You've still not defined what fair is. The trouble with mono-rate universal taxes is they end up having just as many unintended consequences as all the quirks and exemptions. I remain to be convinced that they are any more fair.TheBigBean said:
You are welcome to moan any exemption. I don't see the point of ISAs or the 25% tax free lump sum.rjsterry said:
There are all sorts of exemptions. Pension contributions avoid tax. ISAs. Income thresholds. Council tax exemptions...TheBigBean said:
I don't understand the need for the exemption (or why so many people are arguing about it). Tax is paid on income/gains. To me it is unfair that an exemption exists. I'd like an exemption from the tax I pay.rjsterry said:Firstly, how are you defining fair; and then how does this (whichever iteration we are on) improve the situation?
It strikes me that the people really making money out of property - larger landlords - would not be affected by this change. People primarily buy a house to live in. They also want it to hold it's value enough that they can move house. The number of 'micro developers' doing one house at a time for profit and living in it as a tax efficient business plan is really pretty small. Mainly because it is so easy to get it massively and expensively wrong.
It's also close to being an inheritance tax which is hard to avoid. Something that acts as a leveller to society and increases fairness (in my view).1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It is 100% annoying me that according to the govt, state workers asking for pay rises is bad, but pensioners getting a 10% state pay rise is good.0
-
That supports my point quite well, thanks.kingstongraham said:
It says this: "Unlike in Britain, Sweden offered no inheritance tax relief for family-owned businesses. This was disastrous for Swedish enterprise, where around nine in 10 companies were owned by people related to each other in 2004. "Stevo_666 said:
I've shown you my evidence. I think the onus is now on you to show some evidence that the article is wrong.kingstongraham said:
Could be something to do with most of them having inheritance tax or property tax.Stevo_666 said:
So why are you pushing the point?kingstongraham said:
You were the one who brought Sweden into this irrelevant discussion.Stevo_666 said:
Why not do both? Would attract more of the wealthy back (as the IHT abolition did) where they can pay taxes on everything else. Worked once.kingstongraham said:
You don't think it's possible the presence of CGT on the main residence (which is more difficult to avoid) makes it more straightforward to abolish inheritance tax?Stevo_666 said:
Taxation of main residences is pretty uncommon even in the normally tax hungry EU. Which should tell you how poor an idea it is. The Swedes don't get everything right.kingstongraham said:
Tell me about Sweden's capital gains tax on sales of property.Stevo_666 said:
See above. It is likely to be counter productive, like your misplaced wealth tax ideas.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.
A quick reminder of the real life experience of Sweden when it abolished IHT and increased the tax take:
https://telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/sweden-ditched-inheritance-tax-business-boom/
So if you want to increase the overall, tax take, what would you do?
And after a bit more research, Sweden is the outlier in terms of taxing main residence sales in Europe (Spain and Portugal do but allow relief for reinvestment in another property). If it was such a good idea, why do you think other countries haven't done it?
Although I see you can't answer my question.
You've chosen one tax in one country because the Telegraph highlighted it.
I'm not sure how they have directly related the increase in overall tax revenue to removing this tax. Any detail on that? I'm sure it wasn't the only thing they've done."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
