Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
rollover

Stamp Duty Should Start At £500,000

Recommended Posts

Stamp duty should be scrapped on all homes worth less than £500,000, a group of Conservative MPs has recommended. The Free Enterprise Group is also calling for the threshold at which people start paying higher-rate income tax to increase to £50,000. The MPs argue that middle-income households need more help to improve standards of living and that government can make more efficiencies. The stamp duty change would save taxpayers £2.4bn, they say. This comes as part of a £15.79bn package of tax cuts outlined by the group. Link

Election is coming, kick the can down the road for a little bit longer.

Edited by rollover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The group says options for making up the shortfall caused by the cuts could include ending the ring-fencing of education and health from spending cuts, halving the number of government departments and abolishing housing benefits for under-25s.

Reminds me of Logan's run, but exterminating people under 25...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am currently looking for house are 150k mark. I don't want to buy to let or buy for money just for to live in . Having to find another £1500 for nothing is big strain.

Maybe stamp duty should be not applied if it your first home and you intend to live in it.

As for buy to let. stamp duty should be set at 10% for anything over 50k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe there is a case for reducing stamp duty for people who buy houses to live in. However, anyone buying a second or multiple properties should pay higher stamp duty. It is a bit unfair that someone buying a house for £250,001 to live in pays £7.5k in tax while a buy to letter can buy as many properties for £125k without paying any stamp duty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am currently looking for house are 150k mark. I don't want to buy to let or buy for money just for to live in . Having to find another £1500 for nothing is big strain.

Maybe stamp duty should be not applied if it your first home and you intend to live in it.

As for buy to let. stamp duty should be set at 10% for anything over 50k.

Take heart: In a way it's not you who pays the stamp duty, it's the person selling the house. So as a buyer stamp duty doesn't really hurt you. Here's an analogy:

Let's say we're in a desert and you've got £20 and I've got £19 and we're both dying from thirst and there's one guy selling a bottle of water (that cost him £5) to the highest bidder. You would probably buy that water off him for £20 and he'd make £15 profit.

Now let's say the government had first come along and said '100% added tax on all water'. Now if the guy adds the tax onto the price you would have paid without the tax he's now charging £40 for his bottle. Niether of us can afford it and he sells nothing. His only option would be to still sell it to you for £20 and instead hand £10 to the governement. Now he's made £5 profit - in other words he pays the tax. In a system of bidding for a scarce resource (like housing) the price is set by the resources of the highest bidder. Any fixed costs (like a tax) are borne by the person selling, as those fixed costs reduce the amount of money the winning bidder has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible to insure against a future Stamp Duty Holiday?

eg - you pay an insurer a sum and receive your stamp duty costs back if there is a stamp duty holiday or the tax gets removed within a specified period

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some Conservatives calling themselves

The Free Enterprise Group

:lol:

They had to give themselves a name like that to distinguish themselves from the rest of the Conservatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clegg's quote about a 700k house in Lewisham Is interesting.

It certainly is. £700k is now obviously seen by government as the type of small amount that poor people should have to pay for a house.

How did we get to the situation where any house in Lewisham is worth £700k?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Free Enterprise Group website

Welcome

Britain’s success has been built on free enterprise. Yet Britain is now 83rd in the world for regulation, 94th for taxation and struggling to compete internationally on education and infrastructure. In many emerging economies markets are viewed as a source of liberation; in Britain they are regarded with scepticism. In the minds of the public the market is decoupled from meritocracy. Liberal economics have been blamed for everything from excessive bankers’ bonuses to misguided monetary policy.

Conservatives need to recast the argument about free enterprise for a new age, or risk losing the debate to a tide of anti-market socialisation. That’s why a new group of Conservative MPs “The Free Enterprise Group” has formed.

What being 83rd means is explained by reference to the World Economic Forum.

According to the World Economic Forum, the UK ranks 83rd out of 142 countries for the compliance burden it places on businesses and companies still tell us that they are not feeling the regulatory burden lift.

That's after after all the fraud helped by regulation lite under NuLabour and certainly not resisted by the Conservatives.

Less regulation might be a good thing - but not if it results in more fraud such as banking and pension fraud, more reward to the fraudulent and reckless, more penalties for the prudent, sensible and competent and more devastation to the UK's economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take heart: In a way it's not you who pays the stamp duty, it's the person selling the house. So as a buyer stamp duty doesn't really hurt you. Here's an analogy:

Let's say we're in a desert and you've got £20 and I've got £19 and we're both dying from thirst and there's one guy selling a bottle of water (that cost him £5) to the highest bidder. You would probably buy that water off him for £20 and he'd make £15 profit.

Now let's say the government had first come along and said '100% added tax on all water'. Now if the guy adds the tax onto the price you would have paid without the tax he's now charging £40 for his bottle. Niether of us can afford it and he sells nothing. His only option would be to still sell it to you for £20 and instead hand £10 to the governement. Now he's made £5 profit - in other words he pays the tax. In a system of bidding for a scarce resource (like housing) the price is set by the resources of the highest bidder. Any fixed costs (like a tax) are borne by the person selling, as those fixed costs reduce the amount of money the winning bidder has.

just seen a house for 135k i like. i will go and offer 124k and offer him 5k for his 1995 nissan bluebird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly is. £700k is now obviously seen by government as the type of small amount that poor people should have to pay for a house.

How did we get to the situation where any house in Lewisham is worth £700k?

Paying £700K for a house is fine...if you have £650K of unearned equity in the one you are selling to buy it with.

It's where the £650K of ponzi money comes from is the big issue :lol::lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's getting deafeningly clear there are elections on the way. They might even promise to do away with basic tax for savers :lol:

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Less regulation might be a good thing - but not if it results in more fraud such as banking and pension fraud, more reward to the fraudulent and reckless, more penalties for the prudent, sensible and competent and more devastation to the UK's economy.

I think this is talking about general regulation - not just banking.

Business is saddled with so much red tape that wasn't around a decade ago - especially around employment (bribery act etc.).

The problem is you could engage committees for months and not come up with a proposal to reduce it.

Maybe just removing all companies with less than 50 employees from bands of regulation is the solution.

If you think bankers gained most since 2008 you don't know any tax accountants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the face of it any tax decrease looks unlikely as the UK deficit is still vast. Bigger than most and not dropping very fast. However the markets don't seem concerned at it's continual rising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No....£500,000 is not a first time buyer home....£500,000 is a home for someone reasonably wealthy....taking away SD on that will only see the price added onto the cost of the house......price affordability is the TOTAL cost of buying inc fees and taxes, as well as interest rates. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are peoples thoughts on the effect of a removal of the lower bands?

Would it create an increase in prices? Particularly in the middle '2nd stepper' market?

Yes, will encourage people to try and sell their house for 125-140k rather than 125k and 251-280k rather than 250k.

If the conservatives genuinely make little money from stamp duty I'm surprised they haven't tried to abolish it already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, will encourage people to try and sell their house for 125-140k rather than 125k and 251-280k rather than 250k.

If the conservatives genuinely make little money from stamp duty I'm surprised they haven't tried to abolish it already.

That is why it should not be in bands....it should be a percentage of overall value much fairer. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   212 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.