B846 - Chattels and Capital Gains Tax Bill 2015

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
B846 - Chattels and Capital Gains Tax Bill 2015, TSR Conservative and Unionist Party
A

B I L L

TO


Increase the threshold for Capital Gains taxation in the United Kingdom, and adjust the percentage rate of Capital Gains Tax.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1 Definitions
(1) 'Capital Gains Tax' refers to the tax on net profits from the disposal of assets.
(2) A 'trustee' shall refer to a property holder on behalf of a beneficiary.
(3) A 'chattel' refers to any tangible asset.

2 Increased Taxable Threshold
(1) The annual Capital Gains Tax exemption shall be increased to £20,000 for individuals and;
(2) £7,000 for trustees and;
(3) £9,000 for all chattels.

3 Capital Gains Tax Rate Reduction
(1) Up to £35,000, the rate of Capital Gains Tax shall be 15%
(2) From £35,000 rate of capital gains tax shall be reduced to £25%.

4 Commencement, Short Title and Extent
(1) This Act may be cited as Capital Gains Tax Act 2015.
(2) This Act will come into force at the beginning of the next tax year following date assent.
(3) This Act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.

Notes
Spoiler:
Show
In a time of improving economic conditions, we cannot afford to penalise investment in British industry and business. This Bill would increase the return investors gain from investment, enabling them more money to reinvest and boost business.

This Bill is estimated to cost (£3.4 bn), but the long term effect of increased investment would certainly balance this out.

Gov.uk Capital Gains Tax Info
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
So if the price of RBS shares goes up after Gideon sold them at a loss, we will tax less of the profits?

Regardless, this should be (or not be) part of a Budget.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
So making it more profitable for shareholders to sell British companies for parts? Nay.
0
United1892
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
Nay.
0
username1621561
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
Nay
0
thehistorybore
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
(Original post by barnetlad)
Regardless, this should be (or not be) part of a Budget.
As there has been no Budget, we're taking such matters into our own hands.
(Original post by Aph)
So making it more profitable for shareholders to sell British companies for parts? Nay.
Exactly so.
(Original post by United1892)
Nay.
(Original post by DanE1998)
Nay
I encourage hon. members to look beyond the 'aiding the rich' outlook. This is a measure to encourage investment, and thus too business growth. These two factors obviously boost the economy, and make us all richer in the long run. It isn't prudent to penalise the rich for investing as one does.

Naturally, aye.
0
Andy98
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
Nay

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
Aye, CGT drives investment out of the country creating an economic cost that is not offset by the tax revenues, the UK should follow New Zealand by introducing a 0% CGT rate.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by thehistorybore)
I encourage hon. members to look beyond the 'aiding the rich' outlook. This is a measure to encourage investment, and thus too business growth. These two factors obviously boost the economy, and make us all richer in the long run. It isn't prudent to penalise the rich for investing as one does.
Government spending also boosts the economy, and the monopolisation of wealth encourages a lower marginal propensity to consume across the country, leading to less money flowing through the economy which reduces potential for economic expansion.

Nay.
0
thehistorybore
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Government spending also boosts the economy, and the monopolisation of wealth encourages a lower marginal propensity to consume across the country, leading to less money flowing through the economy which reduces potential for economic expansion.

Nay.
This bill isn't about the monopolisation of wealth, this is about encouraging responsible investing; backing the people with the money who drive business growth and provide employment. This bill is not about pandering to the rich, it's about providing them with the opportunity to help boost the economy with net growth, not just stagnant taxation.

As for the 'government spending' statement, what money does the government currently have to spend, he asks him knowingly? You don't buy cigarettes when you can't feed your family.
0
thehistorybore
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
Aye, CGT drives investment out of the country creating an economic cost that is not offset by the tax revenues, the UK should follow New Zealand by introducing a 0% CGT rate.
Hear hear.
0
Wellzi
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
No.
0
username1621561
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by thehistorybore)
As there has been no Budget, we're taking such matters into our own hands.

Exactly so.



I encourage hon. members to look beyond the 'aiding the rich' outlook. This is a measure to encourage investment, and thus too business growth. These two factors obviously boost the economy, and make us all richer in the long run. It isn't prudent to penalise the rich for investing as one does.

Naturally, aye.

But that isn't the aim of the bill is it.

Still nay!
0
thehistorybore
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by DanE1998)
But that isn't the aim of the bill is it.

Still nay!
Of course it's the aim of the Bill; if we tried to appeal to the rich with our Bills, the house's left majority would shoot it down. I urge you that our aims here are honest.
0
McRite
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
Just voicing my thoughts, not necessarily an argument.

So, CGT, basically tax the profits of a sale, whether bonds, or minerals, or property, etc. from what I read. That means a lower rate would essentially make businesses and individuals more profit, however the government loses that money.That means less government spending power, and 3.4 Billion Pounds is a lot to lose considering we still have debt. The argument is whether or not that money would be reinvested back into Britain and not lost.

We're not sure that money would be reinvested and cause a good enough boost to the economy. Plus this makes it attractive to sell of bits of a company, whether this is a good thing, I don't think so.

So for now, I have no answer, because it makes sense do a thing like this, but I feel the Government will lose too much and welfare schemes are going to suffer.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by thehistorybore)
This bill isn't about the monopolisation of wealth, this is about encouraging responsible investing; backing the people with the money who drive business growth and provide employment. This bill is not about pandering to the rich, it's about providing them with the opportunity to help boost the economy with net growth, not just stagnant taxation.

As for the 'government spending' statement, what money does the government currently have to spend, he asks him knowingly? You don't buy cigarettes when you can't feed your family.
Let's face it, the 'people' who really drive business growth through investment are funds, not individuals. This bill is irrelevant in that context.

I'm not even going to respond to the second paragraph since a government is nothing like a household - to the extent that a valid analogy simply cannot be made on that point. If the government needs to spend money, the government can spend money; the link is ultimately that taxation funds government spending.
0
thehistorybore
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Let's face it, the 'people' who really drive business growth through investment are funds, not individuals. This bill is irrelevant in that context.

I'm not even going to respond to the second paragraph since a government is nothing like a household - to the extent that a valid analogy simply cannot be made on that point. If the government needs to spend money, the government can spend money; the link is ultimately that taxation funds government spending.
I think you underestimate the number of people who hold private investments; it's the norm for the vast majority of the Middle classes, and that doesn't incude SIPPs held by a vast number of people, across classes. That's fact.

So you ramp up taxation, scare off all of the people with money, and they all go to Switzerland. Where's your tax revenue then?
0
That Bearded Man
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by thehistorybore)
I think you underestimate the number of people who hold private investments; it's the norm for the vast majority of the Middle classes, and that doesn't incude SIPPs held by a vast number of people, across classes. That's fact.

So you ramp up taxation, scare off all of the people with money, and they all go to Switzerland. Where's your tax revenue then?
I dislike that as an argument - "if we don't reduce their costs, they will leave"

I'm no economist but as stated previously I don't see why encouraging people to sell is at all beneficial. Nor do I feel this is worthy of government loss of taxation.

I will look at the economic arguments for it, but from where I am right now, it has no economic benefits and IS pandering to the rich.
0
thehistorybore
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by That Bearded Man)
I dislike that as an argument - "if we don't reduce their costs, they will leave"

I'm no economist but as stated previously I don't see why encouraging people to sell is at all beneficial. Nor do I feel this is worthy of government loss of taxation.

I will look at the economic arguments for it, but from where I am right now, it has no economic benefits and IS pandering to the rich.
Well that's fine then, because that isn't my argument. If we increase their costs, they will leave. If we reduce their costs, we will attract them.

Private investors don't sell and just hoard the money; they reinvest. With this Bill, they will all get a greater return and thus will have more to reinvest.

You're just wrong.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by thehistorybore)
I think you underestimate the number of people who hold private investments; it's the norm for the vast majority of the Middle classes, and that doesn't incude SIPPs held by a vast number of people, across classes. That's fact.

So you ramp up taxation, scare off all of the people with money, and they all go to Switzerland. Where's your tax revenue then?
I could be wrong, but I don't see how increasing capital gains tax, or indeed, keeping it as it is, is necessarily going to cause people to leave the country, especially the 'vast majority of the middle class' you speak of. I daresay most of the scum people who decide their location of residence based on taxation rates are already abroad.

Quick factual question, which I genuinely don't know - is capital gains tax paid based on where the gain was made (i.e. all gains on London markets) or where the person is resident?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you travelling in the Uni student travel window (3-9 Dec) to go home for Christmas?

Yes (70)
27.13%
No - I have already returned home (29)
11.24%
No - I plan on travelling outside these dates (54)
20.93%
No - I'm staying at my term time address over Christmas (28)
10.85%
No - I live at home during term anyway (77)
29.84%

Watched Threads

View All