Stamp Duty

hilts said:
Can I just thank Badenoch for giving @Chippy_toryboy a huge erection.

A rich person could save £153,000 yes Kemi yes Kemi yeeessssss KEMIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!

Best wipe the velvet curtains before the wife gets home.

:-)
Click to expand...
Get back to your cardboard box. Leek and potato at the soup kitchen today!
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
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.
Click to expand...
The simple reality perhaps, given the state of the economy. But taking more and more money off people has never made any country better off in the long run. It's fundamentally a daft - if sometimes unavoidable - idea.
 
Chippy_boy said:
The simple reality perhaps, given the state of the economy. But taking more and more money off people has never made any country better off in the long run. It's fundamentally a daft - if sometimes unavoidable - idea.
Click to expand...
Not sure how something can be adequately described as daft if it’s unavoidable.
 
Chippy_boy said:
The simple reality perhaps, given the state of the economy. But taking more and more money off people has never made any country better off in the long run. It's fundamentally a daft - if sometimes unavoidable - idea.
Click to expand...
Thatcher once said we are a nation of shop keepers. We'll we are increasingly a nation of retired shop keepers. Ones that didn't pay enough into pensions and are reliant on the NHS for ever more costly forms of treatment.

Difficult choices ahead.
 
Chippy_boy said:
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.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

It should be based on value / square footage / bedrooms or similar.

All you are doing in your analogy is moving the problem away from more affluent areas.

This focus is benefitting them through reducing stamp duty costs - and reducing families who are then able to buy a family house.

Just doing it on similar value houses does not help the above.
 
Remove it and replace it with CGT.

Stamp duty is a tax on profit - but where you charge the buyer, not the seller who actually made the profit.
 
MorrisonToAguero said:
Remove it and replace it with CGT.

Stamp duty is a tax on profit - but where you charge the buyer, not the seller who actually made the profit.
Click to expand...
I’ve never applied my mind to this before, partly because the status quo is such a sacred cow, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense, as long as it’s not set at a punitive rate I guess. Maybe at the basic rate of income tax. Use the money raised to build more affordable housing.

Might lead to an adjustment in the housing market, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing if it makes house buying more affordable for the young.

I expect there are some counter arguments I haven’t considered.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I’ve never applied my mind to this before, partly because the status quo is such a sacred cow, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense, as long as it’s not set at a punitive rate I guess. Maybe at the basic rate of income tax. Use the money raised to build more affordable housing.

Might lead to an adjustment in the housing market, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing if it makes house buying more affordable for the young.

I expect there are some counter arguments I haven’t considered.
Click to expand...
I think the ‘getting stuck’ argument is likely to be even more prevalent than it is with stamp duty. However, there’s no reason why the final house sale, following death, could not be subject to CGT. Houses account for an enormous amount of unearned wealth, just sitting there and not doing much. If CGT was applied to all final disposals (death, nursing home, moving abroad) I’m not sure there’s any real argument against.

Of course, because all politicians lack any imagination and backbone, whatsoever, they just rule everything out, rather than think creatively, about anything.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
I think the ‘getting stuck’ argument is likely to be even more prevalent than it is with stamp duty. However, there’s no reason why the final house sale, following death, could not be subject to CGT. Houses account for an enormous amount of unearned wealth, just sitting there and not doing much. If CGT was applied to all final disposals (death, nursing home, moving abroad) I’m not sure there’s any real argument against.

Of course, because all politicians lack any imagination and backbone, whatsoever, they just rule everything out, rather than think creatively, about anything.
Click to expand...
The problem with any tax resulting from death or needed care is its unpopularity. Its why no party despite promises have managed to sort social care, i personally think its wrong that certain illnesses get treated with taxes paid for by a pool of money given by society but others its just pot luck if it takes every penny off you.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
I think the ‘getting stuck’ argument is likely to be even more prevalent than it is with stamp duty. However, there’s no reason why the final house sale, following death, could not be subject to CGT. Houses account for an enormous amount of unearned wealth, just sitting there and not doing much. If CGT was applied to all final disposals (death, nursing home, moving abroad) I’m not sure there’s any real argument against.
Click to expand...
Completely agree with your analysis here mate, about that growth being unearned and in a sense unwarranted. Reckon my mum and dad’s house has increased in value about thirty fold since they bought it 45 years ago and my dad likes to take credit for that in a way that isn’t really justified. House prices have risen exponentially in that time, and he’s been a beneficiary of that, far more than it being down to any prescience on his part; although the house was pretty derelict when they bought it so maybe the true multiplier is about 20, but even so.

And actually my mum and dad are symptomatic of the problem. Two elderly people, clinging on to a house that is far too big for them, while their grandson, my son, cannot reasonably expect to buy a house until his thirties. I am grateful that they are both alive and healthy enough to live in a house together, but I personally wish it wasn’t that one. I feel it’s someone else’s turn, but it’s hard for humans to give up what they feel they’ve earned, even if the truth is that it’s mainly down to forces completely out of their control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top