house price recovery will end, estate agents say

chucky

!!!!!!_face wrote: »

It's all fun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax is useful in understanding your comment above.

So are you suggesting the 40% flat rate as suggested all over the place in the press just to make it appear like the LibTories aren't half as bad when it is then put to just 22%?

Might they not just bring back in line with the historical system?

yup - a flat rate, i reckon 22%. if income tax goes up further than this CGT will go up with that.

why go back to the historical version of taxation - it looks more complex. when it's more complex you need more people employed by HMRC to enforce it. i wouldn't have thought that the current government wanted to employ more people in the public sector.

Thrugelmir

chucky wrote: »

nahh - doubt it.

i reckon 22%.

and the basic rate of income tax changed to this as well ?

chucky

Thrugelmir wrote: »

and the basic rate of income tax changed to this as well ?

20% income tax is now right?

i think we could get a 2p income tax rise also

twadge_face

chucky wrote: »

20% income tax is now right?

i think we could get a 2p income tax rise also

When you take into account the the Personal Allowance, the basic rate of 20% applies to £6,475 - £37,400.

The higher rate of 40% applies to £37,401-£150,000.

The new* additional rate of 50% applies to £150,000+.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm

News quite literally "hot off the [electronic] press" suggests it will be brought closer to the higher rate of income tax.

http://www.freshbusinessthinking.com/news.php?CID=&NID=5168&Title=Cameron+Defends+Capital+Gains+Tax+Rise+Despite+Opposition+From+Businesses

http://www.sharecast.com/cgi-bin/sharecast/story.cgi?story_id=3522168

So I'm sticking with my 35% guess. 22% just wouldn't be a credible move close enough to the higher rate, methinks.

---

*for the tax year of 2010-2011

twadge_face

Useful article from yesterday:

"Last orders Q and A on CGT as investors rush to beat Budget"

(dramatic headline!)

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100006306/last-orders-q-and-a-on-cgt-as-investors-rush-to-beat-budget/

chucky

if anything - if the rise in CGT is big, people will rather not sell than have to pay more tax. by default it will reduce even more the number of properties on the market.

we all know what happens when the supply of an asset is reduced... it goes up in price...

those wishing for a CGT rise should be carefull what they wish for.

twadge_face

chucky wrote: »

if anything - if the rise in CGT is big, people will rather not sell than have to pay more tax. by default it will reduce even more the number of properties on the market.

we all know what happens when the supply of an asset is reduced... it goes up in price...

those wishing for a CGT rise should be carefull what they wish for.

A deferred implementation date, such as the start of the next tax year (i.e. April 2011), would see to that (in the medium term). Nearly a year to flog off their extra assets.

It's not in the government's interests to wilfully lock a whole generation of those who would be traditional FTBs out of the market.

Or is it?

I thought the whole thing with home ownership is that it gives citizens a stake in society.

The last decade has been woefully regressive in that respect.

Seems to me that the LibCons would like to capture that youthful vote by giving them the chance of home ownership with a deliberately-engineered correction of the bubble.

They may hope that this would lead to that younger generation being much more likely to vote Blue/Yellow in future, as they remember that it was Labour who screwed them over and did all they can to keep them priced out of the property market.

chucky

!!!!!!_face wrote: »

It's not in the government's interests to wilfully lock a whole generation of those who would be traditional FTBs out of the market.

Or is it?

nearly 70% of property is owner occupied - that's a lot more votes.

at the moment i think it's these guys who call the shots as far as political votes go. from where i see it keeping these people content is more of a priority, politically anyway.

things will change in favour of the younger priced out generation but not for the forseable future IMO...

twadge_face

chucky wrote: »

nearly 70% of property is owner occupied - that's a lot more votes.

at the moment i think it's these guys who call the shots as far as political votes go. from where i see it keeping these people content is more of a priority, politically anyway.

things will change in favour of the younger priced out generation but not for the forseable future IMO...

But what's the stats for those who would be hurt by, say, a 20% reduction? It won't be all the homeowners will it? Just those who don't have the corresponding equity, i.e. those who would be left "underwater" (to use the American term).

There could be a correction and most homeowners probably wouldn't notice.

The Tories got back in in 1992 didn't they? After a bit of a iffy crash too...

abaxas

chucky wrote: »

nearly 70% of property is owner occupied - that's a lot more votes.

at the moment i think it's these guys who call the shots as far as political votes go. from where i see it keeping these people content is more of a priority, politically anyway.

things will change in favour of the younger priced out generation but not for the forseable future IMO...

I think you'll find that the %age 'owner occupation' has gone down over the last few years.

Also, as you already know, no-one in this country owns property, so 'owner occupied' is a blatant lie.