2024 Election thread
Comments
-
Given that Labour gave refused to rule out increasing the rates on CGT, watch this space.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Also worth quoting what Rayner said last night on the TV debate: 'You can't tax your way to growth'. I'll be watching that one carefully...
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Just taxed at a lower rate than income.
- 18% or 24% on gains from residential property
- 28% on gains from ‘carried interest’ if you manage an investment fund
- 10% or 20% on your gains from other chargeable assets
Capital Gains Tax does look to be a likely target for Labour.
0 -
Sure, but there's still a lot of room for manoeuvre there without taxing primary residence. Could that possibly be rightybollock scaremongering?
0 -
I assume Capital Gains being taxed at a lower rate is historically due to trying to encourage investment / entrepreneurship?
0 -
Interestingly I've just been chatting to a former client in that industry - and it was one of the first things he mentioned as being a loophole to close. He was also expecting an increase in CGT
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
No one is suggesting they will apply CGT to the primary residence. The rates I mentioned are the current CGT rates. The CGT allowance has aso been slashed in the last couple of years to just £3,000.
it does of course apply to secondary residences such as holiday homes and investment properties be they residential or commercial
0 -
Transport:
Labour will "support drivers by tackling the soaring cost of car insurance". Any ideas? More potholes filled. Phase out ICE by 2030. "Promote active travel networks"
Conservatives will continue the £2 bus fare cap, but also insist on more cars EVERYWHERE. But also introduce measures that protect vulnerable road users (if they have local support first). Make of that what you will.
Lib Dems £2 bus fare, freeze rail prices and simplify ticketing, more money for road maintenance rather than new roads, review HS2, electrification, lots of electric cars etc. "New nationwide active travel strategy"
Reform: completely cancel HS2, more polluting cars everywhere.
Greens: No petrol or diesel ON THE ROADS after 2035. Charge heavier vehicles more, 20mph default limit in built up areas, road pricing etc etc. Lots of public transport, lots of cycleways, footpaths.
0 -
Stevo was suggesting it, and I seem to recall that the Tory strategy is to now find anything whatsoever that the labour manifesto is silent on and intimate that's where taxes will increase.
0 -
Opinions vary. You need to hold the assets for 40 months to qualify as a capital gain.
0 -
I had completely missed this change. Glad I didn't make any in the last two years.
0 -
They could easily show that by explicitly ruling it out. Rayner had the opportunity to do that on last night's debate but didn't.
That said, charging CGT on house sales would a really stupid thing to do as it would size up the housing market. Especially for all the old codgers and biddies living in their 6 bedroom mansions that Rick wants to get his hands on.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
Wider question is, where do you think they are going to get the money from to to all the things they want to do? The silence on how appears to be deliberate and note that the costings in their manifesto only have a 1 year time horizon.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I know they could Stevo, but it's an absurd expectation and no party ever does, including the Conservatives, because running a country is complicated and one needs to be able to react to things that happen.
I'm finding this election campaign more infantile than normal.
0 -
What do you mean by a 1 year time horizon?
0 -
It was probably down to Rayner not fully understanding the issue as she retreated to a stock answer about 'not taxing working familehs'.
But still, if they have no plans to impose CGT on principal private residence sales it's easy enough to say so, surely?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Possibly. Or they don't know. Or they weren't directly asked. Or the person asked wasn't authorised to comment.
At least there is a balance of costing in their manifesto, instead of the free pick & mix approach. Is all hypothetical I know, but at least make some effort...
0 -
She was asked directly by Mordaunt. More than once.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Fwiw I think CGT on primary residence would backfire, like any other housing market intervention, and simply induce a sudden sharp rise in asking prices and/or a sudden drop in availability (which would drive said rises). I hope Labour avoid the temptation for silly social engineering attempts like that.
There is a stronger argument in my view for more closely alinging taxation from various forms of income, whether earned, unearned, investment, capital gains etc.
0 -
They have only done their financial projections in any detail covering one year.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
But that year is 2028-29, which is beyond a one year horizon. Stated as being chosen as it is the year with the highest cost.
0 -
So you agree, good.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It's worth bearing in mind that all of these projections are base lined on the figures from Hunt's budget, which are pretty much completely undeliverable by anyone beyond this year.
It means that none of the figures for spending in any manifesto are at all realistic.
1 -
No. Their costings have a 5 year horizon.
0 -
Interesting view on Labours plans from the Institute of Fiscal studies. Oh dear...
Quote:
"One public service where there are big promises is on the NHS. Labour has recommitted to the workforce plan, to getting rid of all waiting times more than 18 weeks, and to more hospitals. Big promises, but that will require big spending too.
All that will leave Labour with a problem. On current forecasts, and especially with an extra £17.5 billion borrowing over five years to fund the green prosperity plan, this leaves literally no room – within the fiscal rule that Labour has signed up to – for any more spending than planned by the current government. And those plans do involve cuts both to investment spending and to spending on unprotected public services. Yet Sir Keir Starmer effectively ruled out such cuts. How they will square the circle in government we do not know."
"This is a manifesto that promises a dizzying number of reviews and strategies to tackle some of the challenges facing the country. That is better than a shopping list of half-baked policy announcements. But delivering genuine change will almost certainly also require putting actual resources on the table. And Labour’s manifesto offers no indication that there is a plan for where the money would come from to finance this.”
Hence the questions on Labour's tax policy being entirely justified.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Here's the IFS on the Conservative's manifesto:
"these plans imply large real-terms cuts to day-to-day spending in a range of unprotected areas, many of which are still at lower real funding levels than in 2010. Delivering these cuts – to areas including further education, prisons, and criminal courts – would not be consistent with a desire to maintain current levels of service provision, let alone delivering improvements. This is particularly the case since a range of cuts identified in the Conservative Party manifesto have been earmarked to fund higher defence spending, so cannot now be used to top up spending plans elsewhere."
"manifesto pledges only to protect schools budgets in per pupil terms, falling pupil numbers mean it is possible they could cut overall schools spending by £3½ billion a year in order to reduce the cuts faced by other departments. "
None of it makes sense because the baseline is bullshit.
0 -
I wonder which Party "that is better than a shopping list of half-baked policy announcements" is aimed at.
0 -
I see nobody is disagreeing with the IFS view on Labour's plans.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
If it helps, I expect Labour to spend more and ultimately tax more. I'm happy enough with that, because lots of things are falling apart and need a bit of money.
2 -
This.
Is anyone agreeing with the Tories plan to double down on their highly effective programme of austerity?
0
