| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 52:13:59 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,139 |
| D/L today: |
83 files (1,822K bytes) |
| Messages: | 111,533 |
The very first thing to argue about is how to index the purchase price.<snip>
It is indisputable that something higher in value than one Pound
Sterling today was one Pound Sterling yesterday. It is apparently
acceptable for currency to be deliberately devalued by two percent a
year, and it has certainly been more than two percent in all of the
last few years.
On 13/08/2025 14:54, Joe wrote:
The very first thing to argue about is how to index the purchase price.<snip>
It is indisputable that something higher in value than one Pound
Sterling today was one Pound Sterling yesterday. It is apparently
acceptable for currency to be deliberately devalued by two percent a
year, and it has certainly been more than two percent in all of the
last few years.
Tax paid on interest in investments is paid on the interest with no
index linking. While we have high inflation and high interest rates that
can be considerable - even when the interest rate is less than inflation.
I've probably made a "profit" on my house, but I still own the exact
same house. I am no better off. The only way to cash it in is to sell up
and live in my car.
I have no doubt that such a scheme would not allow for all the money we >spent doing it up either - new roof, new wiring, new heating, new garage...
I thought CGT was originally indexed for inflation - checksMy understanding too. Indexation > taper relief > no relief at all. I incurred some CGT liability recently and the acquisition cost was,
Wikipedia - yes, looks like until 1998. Then until 2008 there was
some relief for long-term assests. I assume both of those were
abolished because they drove undesirable behaviour of some kind.
well, what it cost.
snipped for brevity.
My understanding too. Indexation > taper relief > no relief at all. I
I thought CGT was originally indexed for inflation - checks
Wikipedia - yes, looks like until 1998. Then until 2008 there was
some relief for long-term assests. I assume both of those were
abolished because they drove undesirable behaviour of some kind.
incurred some CGT liability recently and the acquisition cost was,
well, what it cost.
I told you already, next will be HMRC's Non-Employee of the Year Award!
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 12:44:33 +0100, Davey <davey@example.invalid>
wrote:
snipped for brevity.
My understanding too. Indexation > taper relief > no relief at
I thought CGT was originally indexed for inflation - checks
Wikipedia - yes, looks like until 1998. Then until 2008 there was
some relief for long-term assests. I assume both of those were
abolished because they drove undesirable behaviour of some kind.
all. I incurred some CGT liability recently and the acquisition
cost was, well, what it cost.
I told you already, next will be HMRC's Non-Employee of the Year
Award!
I don't know whether this is good or bad :-)