Budget

[motorbiking]

There's alkso a n ffect on the bonds they use to raise money through the carry interest.

How’s that work?

 

[motorbiking]

Raising minimum wage for young people will make it harder for them to find work.

There can’t be an argument against that.

 

[gas112]

only 5% of workers are on the minimum wage still too many but not as many as people think
our local aldi is offering over 13 quid an hour for starters

 

[festive]

It was a spiteful raid on cohabiting couples with drawdown pensions.

Imagine a couple living together in a house worth 500k and a drawdown pension with £300k left in. The holder dies, these are not wealthy people. That’s a massive tax bill on the survivor. That’s the pension wiped out.

Shameful. Just as a raise in capital gains tax. It's this fcked up mentality of 'you're doing better than me' tax.

A friend of mine has just cashed in some shares. Did very well from them. Paid for his mum to have a hip operation private, a new family car and a luxury holiday. 40% taken off him and given to civil servants who are burnt out and most don't give a ff to spaff up a wall would be an outrage.
10% CGT maybe acceptable but not 40% all that will happen is instead of declaring as CGT these people will shift these income streams. Don't blame them at all.
I know where we are hemorrhaging money it's how it's being spent and the managers who run those departments. There's no excuse just saying 'we are just doing as we are told by the new government'. People who know know what I mean.

 

[motorbiking]

It’s not gone up to 40% though..

Details

This measure increases: 

the main rates of Capital Gains Tax from 10% and 20%, that apply to assets other than residential property and carried interest, to 18% and 24% respectively for disposals made on or after 30 October 2024
the main rate of Capital Gains Tax that applies to trustees and personal representatives from 20% to 24% for disposals made on or after 30 October 2024
the rate of Capital Gains Tax that applies to Business Asset Disposal Relief and Investors’ Relief is increasing to 14% for disposals made on or after 6 April 2025 and from 14% to 18% for disposals made on or after 6 April 2026
Published 30 October 2024

Capital Gains Tax — rates of tax

www.gov.uk

But you are correct, the way to reduce your capital gains will be to switch to a managed fund which avoids the issue. Trouble is these tend to be poor value.

Who’d have thought.. Labour the party to support wealthy Fund Managers

 

[blup]

It's this fcked up mentality of 'you're doing better than me' tax.

There‘s an element of that but it comes down to helping your core voters. Ultimately potholes need be filled and someone has to be paid to fill them.

 

[motorbiking]

£40bn. Is a massive take.

 

[Mottie]

It’s not gone up to 40% though..

Details

This measure increases: 

the main rates of Capital Gains Tax from 10% and 20%, that apply to assets other than residential property and carried interest, to 18% and 24% respectively for disposals made on or after 30 October 2024
the main rate of Capital Gains Tax that applies to trustees and personal representatives from 20% to 24% for disposals made on or after 30 October 2024
the rate of Capital Gains Tax that applies to Business Asset Disposal Relief and Investors’ Relief is increasing to 14% for disposals made on or after 6 April 2025 and from 14% to 18% for disposals made on or after 6 April 2026
Published 30 October 2024

Capital Gains Tax — rates of tax

www.gov.uk

Hmm. So that’s 18% CGT if we sell our workshop instead of 10%. 8% extra tax on what it's worth is a fair chunk. Mind you, we actually paid next to nothing for it and have had 40 years use or rental from it so it’s all a bonus. Might just think about renting it out instead of selling though.

 

[gas112]

its great that all these companies will get extra money to fix the same potholes over and over again

 

[motorbiking]

Hmm. So that’s 18% CGT if we sell our workshop instead of 10%. 8% extra tax on what it's worth is a fair chunk. Mind you, we actually paid next to nothing for it and have had 40 years use or rental from it so it’s all a bonus. Might just think about renting it out instead of selling though.

If the value is set to continue to rise then that is sensible. You’ll need to find a way to drip the profits out so that when you sell your income for the year from Capital gain does not push you in to a higher/top tax rate.

That is pretty simple to do.

 

[JohnD]

It was a spiteful raid on cohabiting couples with drawdown pensions.

Imagine a couple living together in a house worth 500k and a drawdown pension with £300k left in. The holder dies, these are not wealthy people. That’s a massive tax bill on the survivor. That’s the pension wiped out.

Actually, it is an attempt to prevent a loophole allowing large amounts of money to be inherited without paying inheritance tax.

People who are not married, or in a civil partnership, do not get the same inheritance tax concessions. The same applies if your beneficiary is a friend, or mistress, or son, or random person in the street.

This is not new.

The same applies if it is a house, or a sack of gold bars, or shares, or money in the bank.

Sometimes it is a good idea to consider tax implications.

 

[aveatry]

Stamp duty on second home why?

And if someone buys another property to rent out then that starting rent is now going to be higher to re coup some of that extra expenditure.

Equally if you’re buying a second house to rent, or holiday let, the higher rate stamp duty should just be part of your business model. And if you’re fortunate enough to be in the position to be able to afford a second home for yourself then you can probably find the extra.

Yep as as I said - the raise will just mean higher rents -as part of the business model-- well done labour.

 

[ajohn]

A bit more clarity has emerged.
Shadowman Tory admits to a £9b black hole. Labour have added the 2 compensation claims to the books. Troy didn't The difference that Labour claim is down to aspects like this. Tory was oh well we will manage probably via the fiscal plan surplus that has to be planned in. Labour mentioned that this had been gobbled up. The OBR on all plans like this say that as a % of spending this allowance is tiny. Debt reduction is also built in so by reducing that and the eventual surplus there is scope for more spending on say the compensation claims aspects. When this happens the term bouncing against the fiscal rules gets mentioned. A country keeps needing to rebalance things. So you tell me is Reeves right to include all spending in it? There has been background chat on this. Countries need to actually stick to the rules.

Later I caught some of a conversation between shadowman and Laura. The OBR report on this area states that insufficient info was given to them and that the errors would change their forecast. Actually the IFS made similar comments when more data came out. They were suggesting just use ordinary borrowing to get out of the situation. She is not doing that. She will for specific infrastructure. Other than that in an ordinary sense debt is set to fall - fiscal rules again.

The NI and min wage changes will result in a short period where inflation is a bit higher than it could be. It might be worth recollecting the BofE comments on inflation in the hospitality area being down to wage pressure. They may be needing to pay more to get people they want.

The NI lower wage change. Looks to me to only apply to situations where people do not get enough hours of work - the ones that need support. The total take in this area according to the OBR is £23.5b of 40. She is using this and others to cover what might be called the public purse something that borrowing should not cover. Overall 90% of people are likely to be better off in the end.

LOL BBC reporting was fairer this morning but included talk about the balancing act that is needed. There are all sorts of factors in that area. There is scope for Tory to make noises but not in a numerical sense. So they will ignore that aspect.

Growth. Well initially a 2% boost then falls back to 1.5%. I recollect comments about how wonderful it would have been if we had managed to maintain that when we had it.

Expenditure on the NHS. One package is for capital equipment. I'd hope that lasts more than 5 years. This and the other are to meet their plan for this term. These expenditures are not needed once they have been made. All public spending is capped to suite the budget.

Record taxation. Lets remember we were already in that situation before the election.

 

[Odds]

Reeves’s budget finally began to answer the question about what Keir Starmer’s government stands for: more support for public services, protecting the incomes of working people and investing in the fabric of the nation, although there was little mention of Starmer’s “missions”.

When voters ask themselves whether they feel better off in three or four years, the government needs the answer to be yes. Yet living standards are expected to increase by just 0.5% a year during this parliament, downgraded in part because of the impact of higher NICS on real wages.

And if, as Reeves told MPs, economic growth is key, she needs to hope that the OBR’s anaemic forecasts are wrong, that productivity improves and that by the middle of the parliament she has more fiscal headroom.

analysis@the Grundian

Also noted are the five Freeports created recently so it seems Labour are tweaking the Tories economic policies, adding plenty of fresh cash and hoping to hell the cost of borrowing doesn't go up during their tenure in #10

 

[motorbiking]

Actually, it is an attempt to prevent a loophole allowing large amounts of money to be inherited without paying inheritance tax.

People who are not married, or in a civil partnership, do not get the same inheritance tax concessions. The same applies if your beneficiary is a friend, or mistress, or son, or random person in the street.

This is not new.

The same applies if it is a house, or a sack of gold bars, or shares, or money in the bank.

Sometimes it is a good idea to consider tax implications.

loophole. you are funny.

It's an opportunistic raid. She can see that many people have realised that annuities are sh*t value, so choose to take a draw down. She is aware that only heavily unionised and public sector industries have defined benefit pensions. She has also realised its a great way to push people married (dependants) or otherwise in to paying inheritance tax on estates that didn't previously attract tax.

less than 50% of couples are married and 42% of Marriages end in divorce.

Is your suggestion that the couple with a modest house and modest draw down pension, get married to avoid the surviving partner being made homeless if the holder dies early in his/her retirement? Pots and pans lawyers will be busy.

This is not your "people inheriting some money are still better off" b@llox. Even you are bright enough to see that there will be plenty of people who've planned to be self sufficient in retirement pushed in to poverty by IHT. People who's nominal tax rate is probably in the 20% threshold.