Keir Starmer's definition of working class

What's the difference between goods and chattels?

MaizieD another way of looking at this is that VAT is paid on new goods? Not yet another tax on second hand items?

We’re a very well taxed country with quite disappointing outcomes?

Mollygo

If I buy chattels from a charity shop, or, from a car boot sale, I don’t expect to pay VAT on it because that has already been paid by the initial purchaser.
If I buy from an auction, I already have to pay a service fee. Do you think we ought to pay VAT on those goods too?
Would you like to see VAT added on household effects for probate calculations?

According to a friend who was left to clear his parents' house not long ago everything had to be listed. All goods, all chattels.

I'd never heard of that before.

If I buy chattels from a charity shop, or, from a car boot sale, I don’t expect to pay VAT on it because that has already been paid by the initial purchaser.
If I buy from an auction, I already have to pay a service fee. Do you think we ought to pay VAT on those goods too?
Would you like to see VAT added on household effects for probate calculations?

ronib

I am a bit confused by the idea that CGT should be paid on the profit from chattels because presumably the initial purchase was made from taxed income?

Also if profits are taxed, then how about offsetting losses on items purchased which have devalued?

So do you think that you shouldn't pay VAT on anything you purchase because you are using already taxed income to pay for your purchase?

Rosie51

I gratefully accepted the £100 bonus Nationwide BS paid me recently as a profit sharing bonus because I have a current account and savings with them. Anyone with savings or a mortgage as well as a current account received this payment, a flat rate for all. Should we have rejected it as a 'bribe' to stay with them? I took it as a nice little sum to have a treat or two.
They're hoping to be able to do this again in the future, hence DH has now opened a savings account in his name. Proper little capitalists aren't we?

Somehow I missed out on that because I hadn't spent enough during that period. I was rather miffed.

Me too, ronib.

After all, if selling a property one owns, CGT is only liable if it has not been your main residence for a period of time.

How would anyone calculate the CGT owed anyway? How is the appreciation in value calculated on something which had such a variable price over the years?

I am a bit confused by the idea that CGT should be paid on the profit from chattels because presumably the initial purchase was made from taxed income?

Also if profits are taxed, then how about offsetting losses on items purchased which have devalued?

I gratefully accepted the £100 bonus Nationwide BS paid me recently as a profit sharing bonus because I have a current account and savings with them. Anyone with savings or a mortgage as well as a current account received this payment, a flat rate for all. Should we have rejected it as a 'bribe' to stay with them? I took it as a nice little sum to have a treat or two.
They're hoping to be able to do this again in the future, hence DH has now opened a savings account in his name. Proper little capitalists aren't we?

Germanshepherdsmum

What about the increase in value of shares though Dinahmo? What would increasing the rate of CGT do for investment?

There are shares, and then there are shares, aren't there, GSM

If you are buying shares in the primary market, i.e shares offered to capitalise a start up or to put more capital into a business, then you are supporting a business and taking a risk, which could justify a lighter tax regime.

But if you're buying on the secondary market the purchase price goes to the previous owner of the shares, not to the business which originally offered them. In which case you are merely looking for making a profit on them if they increase in value, and/or looking for an unearned income from the dividends. In which case I see no problem with CGT if you sell them and the same rate of tax on the dividend income that there would be had you gained the income by employment.

Any more than I can see any reason why Dinahmo shouldn't pay CGT on the £49,950 profit she made when she sold her £50 picture.

No obsession here - that's another word used when people say things others don't like😂.

What I am saying is that currently it is those who work who pay income tax, which is what we were talking about when discussing the historical rates that drove out a minute number of people who still spend a lot of time and money in the UK.

Doodledog

I agree. It's so unfair that someone who works for their money is charged tax on it but someone who doesn't pays nothing.

Obviously if people have nothing it's different, but those who don't earn but claim that they are paying tax when they spend seem to fail to see the irony of that claim. Workers pay VAT too - it's not reserved for those who are living on someone else's earnings, and it's supposedly only charged on non-essential items.

It's not envy at all - it's just saying things that those who benefit from the current unfairness don't want to hear.

Where do you get the idea that someone who doesn’t work for their money pays nothing? Take the example of someone who has some rental properties. They pay income tax on the rent - there are fewer deductions allowed now - and when they sell they will pay CGT on any increase in value. You seem obsessed with the idea that someone who isn’t on PAYE isn’t paying any taxes.

Yes we do. At the moment it benefits the wealthy. As has been said before the poorer pay a larger proportion of their income in tax that the wealthy. Just look at Sunak.

But, if I had bought something for say £50 and it is now worth say £50k I would not mind paying tax at income tax rates.

I would call that serendipity.

That is a dishonest tax. I think we eed a more open, honest taxation system.

People still would buy investments. What else would they do with their money?

I agree. It's so unfair that someone who works for their money is charged tax on it but someone who doesn't pays nothing.

Obviously if people have nothing it's different, but those who don't earn but claim that they are paying tax when they spend seem to fail to see the irony of that claim. Workers pay VAT too - it's not reserved for those who are living on someone else's earnings, and it's supposedly only charged on non-essential items.

It's not envy at all - it's just saying things that those who benefit from the current unfairness don't want to hear.

What about the increase in value of shares though Dinahmo? What would increasing the rate of CGT do for investment?

Doodledog, when I said that the number of non doms was declining I meant that they were leaving the country - which if your spending is predicated on getting tax from them is not good news.

Why should people obtain higher rate tax relief on their pension premiums? It should all be reduced to the basic rate only.

Why should capital gains tax be at a lower rate than income tax? If you are given a picture, for example, some years ago,and it has hung on your wall all that time. The artist becomes popular, its value increases substantially and you decide to sell it. You have not done anything to earn that increase so why should you pay less tax?

This not the politics of envy.

I enjoy looking at items I've bought for very little money and seeing how much they are worth now. Usually a few hundred pounds. So. if I was to sell them I would probably be exempt from CGT because of he goods and chattels rules. But, if I had bought something for say £50 and it is now worth say £50k I would not mind paying tax at income tax rates.

Dinahmo

Not all popstars are tax exiles. One very well know guitarist owns a house in Holland Park where he has lived since 1972. Another member of the group lives in Worcesterhsire. Eric Clapton lives in Surrey. They appreciate what the UK offers and are not all tax exiles.

Of course they do. People with family and cultural ties here are unlikely to move away for the sake of money - particularly when they already have far more than they can realistically spend. This is what I was saying upthread - the super-rich are outliers, and using them as exemplars is pointless. They are too few in number to show trends. Some will go where they can keep more of their millions, some will stay near their loved ones and where their way of life can continue.

Stop them (those who do) from exploiting loopholes, plug the gaps in the system (eg non-dom status) that allow them to pay less than they should, but also stop suggesting that their lives can be mapped onto the behaviour patterns of the rest of us - they can't.

Germanshepherdsmum

That’s exactly what Labour have done though, Doodledog. Much of their spending is predicated on receiving tax from non doms, whose numbers are decreasing.

Well if they are decreasing that's good, surely? Doesn't that mean that they will now be paying tax here?

Having a separate law for those who choose to live here but register for tax elsewhere seems to me sensible. It is not sensible to base a whole taxation system around them though. My point was that the likes of MJ is a rarity, yet he is the one trotted out to illustrate what some see as the unfairness of having universal benefits, or what might happen if taxes rise.

When he and the other Stones moved away to escape 90% tax it was a different world for one thing, and for another his actions were not typical so he doesn't illustrate much there either.

Not all popstars are tax exiles. One very well know guitarist owns a house in Holland Park where he has lived since 1972. Another member of the group lives in Worcesterhsire. Eric Clapton lives in Surrey. They appreciate what the UK offers and are not all tax exiles.

annodomini

The Tories always refer to "hard working families. Are these the same as Starmer's 'working people'?

I think so. People who work for a living. These are the people on whom the current tax burden falls. I think he was suggesting that he does not intend for that burden to get worse, but instead he will tax those whose income is not derived from work.

What he said about the cheque book will have been said because Every Bloody Thing he says has to be defined, redefined then redefined again, and he was asked to define the term 'working people', rather than be allowed to talk about his tax policy.

As ever, people are concentrating on the definition of a term instead of what he said. I don't know about you, but it would drive me mad if everything I said were scrutinised in the way it is with KS, and I would struggle to communicate.

Has anyone done that exercise where you have to describe something familiar to you (eg your sitting room) but you can't use words containing the letter T? It's often used to show how difficult it can be for speakers of English as a second language. Try it if you haven't been on an Equality and Diversity course lately - it's really difficult after a few sentences, but it is fun. It shows that people become hesitant and uncomfortable when they can't use the word that comes naturally. They can't be witty, they can't show nuance, they can really struggle when they are having to second guess every word. I think that KS is playing this game every time he speaks to the press.

Germanshepherdsmum

I agree. 19/6 in the £ was disastrous.

The majority of people didn;t pay that. Plus you are forgetting all the reliefs that they got before the tax was calculated.

That’s exactly what Labour have done though, Doodledog. Much of their spending is predicated on receiving tax from non doms, whose numbers are decreasing.