Stamp Duty

[BobKowalski]

Where I agree with you here is on sharing wealth, that's fundamentally how the Scandinavian countries work. Surprise though inheritance tax does not exist at all in the likes of Norway or Sweden. Income and corporate taxes in those countries are generally the same as here.

In those countries they legislate to work with capitalism so that it ensures for example that workers are paid better and have good working conditions. As a result nobody is reliant on the state and it achieving a certain tax income to fill gaps.

It's capitalism with a heart and that's perhaps what we're missing.

Fair points.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Time for a bump, I think.

If people could, just for a moment, put their party-political loyalties aside — it’s actually a brilliant idea from the Conservatives to abolish stamp duty. Sadly, it has virtually no chance of becoming law, since they have no realistic chance of winning the next election. There’s perhaps a faint glimmer of hope that, if Reform don’t win an outright majority and need to do a deal with the Tories, this might still be on the table.

I’m assuming the plan refers to abolishing stamp duty on primary residences rather than across the board. It’s said this would cost around £4 billion — but I genuinely wonder if it would cost anything at all, once you factor in the wider economic benefits.

People would be free to move for better jobs, or to areas where their skills are actually in demand. That sort of flexibility is fantastic for both individuals and the economy.

Older homeowners could downsize without effectively being fined for doing so, freeing up family homes for younger buyers.

And every move triggers a wave of spending — new carpets, furniture, kitchens, windows, even things like a plumber fitting an outside tap. Paint, timber, screws — it all adds up and feeds straight into the local economy.

But with our current punitive rates of stamp duty, all of that activity is throttled. It’s a nasty, counterproductive tax that does far more harm than good. Here’s hoping some future government has the courage and sense to finally scrap it.

 

[mosssideblue]

Time for a bump, I think.

If people could, just for a moment, put their party-political loyalties aside — it’s actually a brilliant idea from the Conservatives to abolish stamp duty. Sadly, it has virtually no chance of becoming law, since they have no realistic chance of winning the next election. There’s perhaps a faint glimmer of hope that, if Reform don’t win an outright majority and need to do a deal with the Tories, this might still be on the table.

I’m assuming the plan refers to abolishing stamp duty on primary residences rather than across the board. It’s said this would cost around £4 billion — but I genuinely wonder if it would cost anything at all, once you factor in the wider economic benefits.

People would be free to move for better jobs, or to areas where their skills are actually in demand. That sort of flexibility is fantastic for both individuals and the economy.

Older homeowners could downsize without effectively being fined for doing so, freeing up family homes for younger buyers.

And every move triggers a wave of spending — new carpets, furniture, kitchens, windows, even things like a plumber fitting an outside tap. Paint, timber, screws — it all adds up and feeds straight into the local economy.

But with our current punitive rates of stamp duty, all of that activity is throttled. It’s a nasty, counterproductive tax that does far more harm than good. Here’s hoping some future government has the courage and sense to finally scrap it.

I agree, stamp duty is a huge burden and would be welcome, but it did stink of desperation in trying to attract voters.

If it is a great idea today when the financial landscape is so dire, it would have been a better idea to scrap it years back when the shit wasn’t as deep.

 

[Fred_Quimby]

Who benefits the most? Let me guess, those in large expensive homes owned by? Yes you guessed, the rich.

 

[mosssideblue]

Who benefits the most? Let me guess, those in large expensive homes owned by? Yes you guessed, the rich.

Maybe cap it at £500k

 

[1961_vintage]

It's totally irrelevant. They can say whatever they like as there is zero accountability for it.

Like all politicians, they just bullshit and lie their way to securing the most votes and once voted in anything and everything that got them there is completely forgotten.

 

[Fred_Quimby]

Maybe cap it at £500k

Not a chance. Remember who supports them.

 

[Chippy_boy]

If it is a great idea today when the financial landscape is so dire, it would have been a better idea to scrap it years back when the shit wasn’t as deep.

True enough. It's a stupid tax though irrespective of the state of the economy.

You want taxes to be two things: (1) As undamaging to the economy as possible, and (2), As unavoidable as possible. Stamp duty fails on both counts. It stifles the housing market, labour market and local economies. And people avoid paying it by choosing not to move house.

Should have been scrapped years ago. Maybe it would have been, had we not had Blairite governments for the past 28 years.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Who benefits the most? Let me guess, those in large expensive homes owned by? Yes you guessed, the rich.

The rich, scum of the earth eh comrade. Must stick in the craw watching those posh cars drive by as you waddle back from the soup kitchen.

 

[KS55]

Who benefits the most? Let me guess, those in large expensive homes owned by? Yes you guessed, the rich.

Not completely true in practice. The very rich tend to purchase their property via an offshore company. These will still pay stamp duty.
Most benefit will accrue to the millions of middle income families that move house.
Residential sales are currently about 1.1 million per year, an historic low.

 

[BridgyDids]

I think stamp duty should be waived for those purchasing smaller (lesser value) houses through.

That way there is the incentive for those who have had family move out and fled the nest, to downsize and allow those large family homes to be occupied by families.

Would benefit the elder community, but I think it could be beneficial to society as a whole.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I think stamp duty should be waived for those purchasing smaller (lesser value) houses through.

That way there is the incentive for those who have had family move out and fled the nest, to downsize and allow those large family homes to be occupied by families.

Would benefit the elder community, but I think it could be beneficial to society as a whole.

Also for house moves of no increasing value.

Suppose someone working say in Oxford wants to move to Manchester for a new job and wants to sell their £1m house in Bristol and buy a similar £1m house in Manchester. What possible moral justification is there that they should have to hand over £45,000 in cash to the government for doing this? It's ludicrous. And extremely damaging in many, many ways.

I don't own a £1m house btw, but in a way I am glad I don't. The stamp duty costs on house moves for people with houses of £1m or higher are frankly ridiculous.

On a £1.5m home, it's £93,000. And on a £2m home, £153,000. Someone in such a house probably has to earn nearly £300,000 gross (and pay £147,000 in tax - broad terms) to hand over another £153,000.

I know the cardboard box dwelling Marxists on here will have little sympathy. But as a thinking, non-bitter person, I do. It's just wrong.

 

[stonerblue]

Also for house moves of no increasing value.

Suppose someone working say in Oxford wants to move to Manchester for a new job and wants to sell their £1m house in Bristol and buy a similar £1m house in Manchester. What possible moral justification is there that they should have to hand over £45,000 in cash to the government for doing this? It's ludicrous. And extremely damaging in many, many ways.

I don't own a £1m house btw, but in a way I am glad I don't. The stamp duty costs on house moves for people with houses of £1m or higher are frankly ridiculous.

On a £1.5m home, it's £93,000. And on a £2m home, £153,000. Someone in such a house probably has to earn nearly £300,000 gross (and pay £147,000 in tax - broad terms) to hand over another £153,000.

I know the cardboard box dwelling Marxists on here will have little sympathy. But as a thinking, non-bitter person, I do. It's just wrong.

A £1m home in oxford is probably a nice 3 bedroom detatched bungalow with garden.
You can get them in my Manchester town for £250,000.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The rich, scum of the earth eh comrade. Must stick in the craw watching those posh cars drive by as you waddle back from the soup kitchen.

There is too much capital concentrated in the hands of the over 65s, with most under 35s not being able to afford to buy property, and in many cases even rent. And whilst the existence of stamp duty has done little or nothing to mitigate that, removing it altogether isn’t going to address the problem.

It requires something radical which I expect you would find raised your blood temperature far more than retaining stamp duty.

 

[Brewster's millions]

Also for house moves of no increasing value.

Suppose someone working say in Oxford wants to move to Manchester for a new job and wants to sell their £1m house in Bristol and buy a similar £1m house in Manchester. What possible moral justification is there that they should have to hand over £45,000 in cash to the government for doing this? It's ludicrous. And extremely damaging in many, many ways.

I don't own a £1m house btw, but in a way I am glad I don't. The stamp duty costs on house moves for people with houses of £1m or higher are frankly ridiculous.

On a £1.5m home, it's £93,000. And on a £2m home, £153,000. Someone in such a house probably has to earn nearly £300,000 gross (and pay £147,000 in tax - broad terms) to hand over another £153,000.

I know the cardboard box dwelling Marxists on here will have little sympathy. But as a thinking, non-bitter person, I do. It's just wrong.

As you say, it’s a nasty, counterproductive tax which punishes people for doing the right thing and providing a home for themselves and their families. It hinders mobility, impedes productivity growth across the economy and weighs down on aspiration.

It’s difficult to understand why any government, of any persuasion, would want to tax that. Taxes are often used to promote constructive outcomes, and to deter detrimental and damaging behaviour, but stamp duty in fact does the opposite.

 

[cookster]

Another headline tax reduction not costed.
Just like the NI reduction that is currently costing the indebted treasury 10Bn a year.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Another headline tax reduction not costed.
Just like the NI reduction that is currently costing the indebted treasury 10Bn a year.

The simple reality is that taxes need to go up to fund the way society is evolving. It’s simple maths and demographics, with a bit of Covid and Russia being cunts thrown into the mix.

 

[cookster]

The simple reality is that taxes need to go up to fund the way society is evolving. It’s simple maths and demographics, with a bit of Covid and Russia being cunts thrown into the mix.

Nobody's voting for that manifesto but, you're right.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

The simple reality is that taxes need to go up to fund the way society is evolving. It’s simple maths and demographics, with a bit of Covid and Russia being cunts thrown into the mix.

This. I really don’t understand why Starmer doesn’t come out and say we’re putting up the base rate of income tax to, say, 30%, we’ll increase the top rate to 44% and we’ll cut NI to 2%.
We’ll increase the tax bands to where they should be, thus pulling the poorer paid out of higher rates.
In return for this, you’ll get…

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Nobody's voting for that manifesto but, you're right.

I think people will eventually wake up to reality.