Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
porca misèria

Foolish Article On Cgt

Recommended Posts

There's an article supporting the Redwood line on CGT at the Motley Fool.

I'm not going to link to it, 'cos someone'll smell a rat if they get lots of traffic with HPC as "Referer". But I'm sure I'm not the only HPC person who is also a registered Fool. Perhaps some more of you would care to join me in the comments section!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an article supporting the Redwood line on CGT at the Motley Fool.

I'm not going to link to it, 'cos someone'll smell a rat if they get lots of traffic with HPC as "Referer". But I'm sure I'm not the only HPC person who is also a registered Fool. Perhaps some more of you would care to join me in the comments section!

Mr Redwood is off the mark on this topic. He speaks for the very right wing of the Cons only. I reckon the more silent majority think the rise in CGT put forward is right in the present economic mess we are in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Redwood is off the mark on this topic. He speaks for the very right wing of the Cons only. I reckon the more silent majority think the rise in CGT put forward is right in the present economic mess we are in.

Discouraging investment in British business is the right thing to do is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an article supporting the Redwood line on CGT at the Motley Fool.

I'm not going to link to it, 'cos someone'll smell a rat if they get lots of traffic with HPC as "Referer". But I'm sure I'm not the only HPC person who is also a registered Fool. Perhaps some more of you would care to join me in the comments section!

I think the principle of tapering is right.

But 5 years is too short and zero percent is far too low. The previous scheme of down to 24% after 10 years is about right.

tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

Discouraging investment in British business is the right thing to do is it?

Given that the CGT changes will only affect non business assets that won't be an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Torygraph has started a campaign to try and get a change of mind by Cameron and Osborne.

The whinging posts on their thread from dozens of "hard working investors" is really hilarious. They just can't see that they have already made huge gains well beyond what they ever expected (and planned for?), yet think they should pay only 18% on their 100%+ unearned profits, whilst the majority of us have to pay the full whack on our earned income and deposit savings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the principle of tapering is right.

But 5 years is too short and zero percent is far too low. The previous scheme of down to 24% after 10 years is about right.

tim

I would argue that inflation linking should also be incorporated. Otherwise, uncontrolled inflation simply becomes tax by stealth for the government.

I would have thought a CGT rate of 50-60% with index-linking and a long (>5 years) taper would be a good compromise.

Because a lot of capital-gains are relatively unproductive, CGT should be higher than income tax. E.g. I buy shares in a rapidly growing company. The company reinvests its profits in order to grow. To me, this appears as a big capital gain - but actually, a lot of my capital gain, is not actually capital gain, but reinvested income. This is a big problem with high rates of CGT, acts as a very strong deterrent for productive investment by people who are not higher rate tax payers.

I wonder whether a better solution is to pay CGT at the same rate as income (with appropriate taper relief). However, in order to encourage productive investment, there should be a reduced rate (e.g. 5-10% below your marginal rate) for income/CGT from certain types of assets e.g. shares or long-term (>5 years remaining) bonds. In much the same way that there are share ISAs (which permit investment into productive assets), and cash ISAs (which aren't productively invested).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder whether a better solution is to pay CGT at the same rate as income (with appropriate taper relief). However, in order to encourage productive investment, there should be a reduced rate (e.g. 5-10% below your marginal rate) for income/CGT from certain types of assets e.g. shares or long-term (>5 years remaining) bonds. In much the same way that there are share ISAs (which permit investment into productive assets), and cash ISAs (which aren't productively invested).

The solution is to treat actual capital gains entirely differently from land property gains

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 140 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.