Andy Burnham’s chronicles

[jem]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

about the same as 20,000 years ago

20,000 years ago, what is now Cleethorps would have been buried under some 50-100m of ice.

[RichardCoulter]

If the Government want to encourage people to use solar panels they should skew any subsidies so that younger people get less (or none), because they will have the time to recoup the financial gains. The older a person is, the less viable it becomes, so subsidies need to be more generous to encourage take up.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

If the Government want to encourage people to use solar panels they should skew any subsidies so that younger people get less (or none), because they will have the time to recoup the financial gains. The older a person is, the less viable it becomes, so subsidies need to be more generous to encourage take up.

But surely when a young person buys the deceased older person’s house, they would benefit from any subsidy given to the older person - the circle of life…

I would think most young people are unlikely to even afford a house these days, nevermind solar stuff.

[damien c]

Originally Posted by Paul

I would think most young people are unlikely to even afford a house these days, nevermind solar stuff.

With the way Solar is going, they will be more able to build a house from solar panels than buy or rent a house.

Average salary iirc needed for a single person to buy a house under the age of 40 is £75K a year, after 40 iirc it increases by $10K every 5 years.

That £75K is to allow for putting £10K away for 4 years to be able to put down a £48K deposit as houses are going up and up in price.

If you don't need to save a deposit, perhaps you have already been saving then you "only" need to be earning £56K a year, far beyond what is possible for most people, even renting is going to require more than £30k a year soon!

Where I live, 6 years ago houses were £130K they are now £200K+ on average and only increasing, which is a bonus for those who will be able to pay the tax that thieving reeves will demand, but for those that can't they will lose the house and any money from it, as the government will just take it because you fail to pay your "fair share" and the fines, interest etc will be made to take the full value.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Hugh

But surely when a young person buys the deceased older person’s house, they would benefit from any subsidy given to the older person - the circle of life…

They would and that's a good thing. Without a decent subsidy, it's unlikely that the house would benefit from solar power, but if one were to be given, the younger person would actually benefit from it indirectly.

I guess it depends on the time lapse, do solar panels last indefinitely?

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

They would and that's a good thing. Without a decent subsidy, it's unlikely that the house would benefit from solar power, but if one were to be given, the younger person would actually benefit from it indirectly.

I guess it depends on the time lapse, do solar panels last indefinitely?

Nothing last indefinitely

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Nothing last indefinitely

my solar panels had a 25 year life span ,they get less effective every year, so you could pass on a bit of a starmer as someone will have to fund new ones

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by damien c

With the way Solar is going, they will be more able to build a house from solar panels than buy or rent a house.

Average salary iirc needed for a single person to buy a house under the age of 40 is £75K a year, after 40 iirc it increases by $10K every 5 years.

That £75K is to allow for putting £10K away for 4 years to be able to put down a £48K deposit as houses are going up and up in price.

If you don't need to save a deposit, perhaps you have already been saving then you "only" need to be earning £56K a year, far beyond what is possible for most people, even renting is going to require more than £30k a year soon!

Where I live, 6 years ago houses were £130K they are now £200K+ on average and only increasing, which is a bonus for those who will be able to pay the tax that thieving reeves will demand, but for those that can't they will lose the house and any money from it, as the government will just take it because you fail to pay your "fair share" and the fines, interest etc will be made to take the full value.

Which tax are you referring to ? SD ?

[Taf]

Blair warns Burnham to not increase capital gains tax. I would have thought that Blair's millions would be secreted-away offshore?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b3009140.html

[damien c]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Which tax are you referring to ? SD ?

That would be inheritance tax depending on the value of the house and who it's left to and the value of the house.

If my mum and dad were to leave me their house, and one of them passed and the house was worth £550k (it's not) but I would have to find £20K from somewhere, if I couldn't find it, and the remaining parent couldn't, the house would be taken, we would lose it because we would be forced to sell it, to pay the inheritance tax.

Now I know that is not Reeves who set that, it was done before her, but she could have changed it to increase the value of home before paying it, but no, she kept it as it is and instead decided to implement policies that actually caused a bloke to commit suicide, someone who potentially is a relative of mine, but I am not sure as I have not done a family tree.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by damien c

That would be inheritance tax depending on the value of the house and who it's left to and the value of the house.

If my mum and dad were to leave me their house, and one of them passed and the house was worth £550k (it's not) but I would have to find £20K from somewhere, if I couldn't find it, and the remaining parent couldn't, the house would be taken, we would lose it because we would be forced to sell it, to pay the inheritance tax.

Now I know that is not Reeves who set that, it was done before her, but she could have changed it to increase the value of home before paying it, but no, she kept it as it is and instead decided to implement policies that actually caused a bloke to commit suicide, someone who potentially is a relative of mine, but I am not sure as I have not done a family tree.

This isn't correct. Allowances above the standard £325,000 exemption are made for spouses and children.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by damien c

That would be inheritance tax depending on the value of the house and who it's left to and the value of the house.

If my mum and dad were to leave me their house, and one of them passed and the house was worth £550k (it's not) but I would have to find £20K from somewhere, if I couldn't find it, and the remaining parent couldn't, the house would be taken, we would lose it because we would be forced to sell it, to pay the inheritance tax.

Now I know that is not Reeves who set that, it was done before her, but she could have changed it to increase the value of home before paying it, but no, she kept it as it is and instead decided to implement policies that actually caused a bloke to commit suicide, someone who potentially is a relative of mine, but I am not sure as I have not done a family tree.

I’m sorry to hear that , and thanks for explaining.

[jem]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

This isn't correct. Allowances above the standard £325,000 exemption are made for spouses and children.

Spouses yes, they are exempt for CGT on a property, children not so.

[Dingbat]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

This isn't correct. Allowances above the standard £325,000 exemption are made for spouses and children.

And when both parents pass, it becomes £500,000.

https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax/passing-on-home