Member Info for Gray1

Funnily enough before renewables came on the scene in any large quantity gas and electricity prices were much cheaper. Gas, oil exploration and generation has been massively reduced since the dash for renewables has taken over and prices have gone up. How is the £12 billion GB Energy fund doing?

Why would there be a tapering measurement if it is not a tax on a gain? So if I buy a house for 500k and put a extension on for 50k in three years time I sell it for 750k. I pay tax on the 250k I have gained from it no allowance for the 50k I spent on it. If that isn't a capital gains tax then we need to change the definition of it.

I have never mentioned buyers I only stated that is was a tax on a capital gain of your house with tapering similar to selling a business.

The other day when I told you to be careful with percentages when you were quoting 59% white convictions and 39% asians you just quoted that number in isolation trying to prove a point that whites had a higher crime statistics well yeah there are more white than anyone else here.

I gave you an example where if you based it on population of each ethnicity it could show that there could be a preponderance that other ethnicity could have a higher crime conviction rate than whites and you completely misunderstood it in your reply back to me so had to explain it again just before I went out.

Then when I explained it you came back with the AI stock answers about blacks having the largest convictions rate by population 9proved my point really) but caveating that with they are more likely to be stopped and searched which I don't doubt.

Leerex there are many instances where the HO has circumvented councils not wanting more migrants to place more. They won't admit it and only do when found out which they have been. This post will probably get deleted as well.

You weren't very good on percentages the other day:)

Where has the argument not gone my way? You haven't convinced me that the new proposed tax is not a tax on a capital gain yet.

"marginal pricing" so when the UK has to go to the market for extra electricity we have to pay the highest price of whichever energy is generated so if windpower is 30p a therm gas 8p we pay 30p if gas 30p and windpower 8p we pay 30p because we have to have our gas fired power stations running at a low rate whilst the wind and solar are running if they drop we then have to increase power at our own power company's or increase intake from the interconnectors paying the extra cost.

Also renewables are heavily subsidised adding to the cost of conventional energy. The more renewable energy we have the more back up power will be required this is not factored into the cost of renewable energy. At some point the government will arrive at a cul de sac with net zero and will have no option but to turn round it is unsustainable unless you are willing to shell out massive amounts of money which will have to be borrowed and passed onto consumers. Electricity isn't getting significantly cheaper any time soon and will continue to be more expensive.

Making blanket statements generated from AI like yours also asi will continue to ignore the real problems being in the government think tank explains a lot about you:)

Looks like we are governed by AI now is there any wonder the country is where it is. It will get worse.

I don't care what it is replacing it is still a tax on a capital gain however you dress it up paid for by the owner of the asset who is selling funnily enough there is a tapering effect when selling a business for CGT. Sounds very similar to me. Wonder how well it would stand up if challenged in court that other expenses are not allowed to be offset against the profit such as interest, maintenance etc that is allowed in a business.

So this new tax isn't a tax on a capital gain?

They are treating your home like a business when you come to sell it without all the perks of what a business receives.

You are missing the point asi they want to tax an increase in value on your home and take no account of the money that you put in to increase or maintain the value of that home that is the issue. I know how they are treated but this is a tax treatment change.

The civil servants who supposedly advise the chancellor on finance issues are not fit for purpose jobs for the boys on artificially inflated salaries and pensions.

How any sane person couldn't see the inevitable reduction in investment, recruitment and the potential closure of businesses, discouraging start ups with the increase in costs put on employers by the significant increase in there employers NI should have their head seeing to. What did they expect?

As for tax increase. I would look at pensioners receiving more than 50k per year in pensions (could be lower). These are not poor pensioners and I would put a NI charge on anything above this level start with 5%. This would be also recoverable against the state pension if someone leaves the country. You earned it here so you don't get away with paying.

This would only affect mainly people with gold plated pensions and are in a position to pay it. This would eventually affect me but I would be fine with this personally as it wouldn't materially affect me and it wouldn't most people as pensions once over the pension age don't attract NI anyway.

Any salaried pensions with defined benefit pensions (mainly civil servants, mps, government employees, bankers etc.) as their salary increase would bring them into this tax band but only when they reach pension age. No idea how much this would bring in but it would be ring fenced to help pay the old aged pension. As more people retire this contribution would increase and offset some of the general pension increase. Pensioners helping pensioners.

I would also look at benefits for example an employed person can earn 30k per year but pay tax and national insurance on anything above 12570 (NI a little different) but a person on benefits can receive 30K benefits in kind pay no tax or NI on said benefits and actually receive NI credits. How is that fair? I accept it can be a little more nuanced than that but being better off on benefits doesn't encourage work. It should be significantly more worthwhile to be working than on benefits. There should be a maximum amount of benefits a household can claim with an extra allowance for significant disabilities.

Motability needs a massive overhaul it is just one huge scam. Far to easy to claim than what it was originally intended for.

Costs for the government has spiralled out of control and yet we are told that we need ever increasing migration as they are are net contributors so why isn't the tax intake overtaking the government spending we have had a massive intake in migrant labour over the last few years we should be rolling in cash but it doesn't seem to be happening.

Maybe all the indigenous population have all gone on pip as that is increasing significantly plus all other benefits going through the roof. Having the highest energy costs in western Europe impacts all this as well.

High wealth creators and earners leaving It appears we are in a vicious circle with no-one having any idea or the political will to get us out of it. It will get worse.

They shouldn't have reduced it last time. It was only done to help the government with reduced interest payments.

Your main home of residence should be exempt from the new tax. Reeves hasn't got a clue they need to reduce their outgoings but the back benchers won't let them so they have to keep raising taxes which is already too high and ends up having the opposite effect.

That is quite true triumph1. This is where critical thinking comes in instead of accepting everything ai throws out.

Over the last 20 years I have received an average of 8% after tax on money invested (I am an accountant) and I could have had a 10 year fixed mortgage at 2.5% and many others at similar rates. I have no debt now just invest but there is very few people gone through life with no debt at some point you are probably the only one asi.

asi. I wouldn't give money advice on a discussion board advising putting money into trusts as you don't know anyone's personal, health and financial background.

Just as an aside when companies borrow money to buy capital assets they write the capital off through an allowed depreciation but also any interest on the said loans is also allowed against profits which reduces their tax payment. Do you not think that is similar to buying a house that is mortgaged? They are allowing you to write the capital off against an increase in house price but no allowance for the interest payment.

What about home improvement putting an extension on your house again paying capital plus interest out. Your house increase but no allowance. Maintenance costs would be exempt from tax in a business but maintaining your house to keep or increase value no allowance. Yes I know it is a business but it is all cost to the householder who would have to pay out for maintenance, improvements etc increasing the value of their house and then incorporating more tax when they sell it which may be a forced sale if they have to go into an home to pay for care. Hardly encouraging home ownership. If you are buying multiple homes as a business these can all be written off against tax.

Another ill thought out policy.

Adding more tax onto anything very rarely makes it cheaper.

Now they want to increase the pension age to 70 when will the idiots realise this won't save any money as more and more people get closer to 60/65 they will just go on long term sick so it will just end up costing more:)

You could always then rent off a private landlord but their rents will more than likely go up if their properties are worth more than 300k mortgaged and need to make a higher return to offset the higher tax they will pay on it when sold if they want to make a return on it. Which will then make them more expensive for councils to use to supplement their stock.

Great idea what's not to like.