Stamp Duty

Mr Kobayashi said:
Sounds like we should increase taxes then. Not give huge tax breaks to millionaires buying million pound houses. :)
Click to expand...
Ah, the taxes on "other people but not me". Yes those are always popular aren't they.

How about we raise the basic rate to 25p. I'd vote for that. Would you?
 
Chippy_boy said:
Ah, the taxes on "other people but not me". Yes those are always popular aren't they.

How about we raise the basic rate to 25p. I'd vote for that. Would you?
Click to expand...

Because one tax is progressive and the other is regressive.

How about putting the higher rate up by the same amount and put the additional rate over 50%.

Now stop ranting like a small child at wealthy people having a little less to spend on ski holidays and fox hunting.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
Because one tax is progressive and the other is regressive.

How about putting the higher rate up by the same amount and put the additional rate over 50%.

Now stop ranting like a small child at wealthy people having a little less to spend on ski holidays and fox hunting.
Click to expand...
How about you piss off with your insults.
 
inbetween said:
We are two completely different economies so it makes a lot of sense that the end results would be completely different. You however only have to travel a mile from Germany into France and the debt burden is worse than ours. So yes the planning around spending decisions and that kind of thing is at fault but we're not unique in that.

Personally I'm not attacking the debt itself, I'm attacking our policy to load up on debt to spend money on the wrong things. If we borrowed to invest in education then brilliant that would make a difference but we don't do that. HS2 is the best example of spending policy gone wrong, it is extremely expensive and extremely limited in what it will achieve.

The cost of these decisions means that important spending decisions on actual useful projects are lost because we can't borrow more to pay for those too. Those projects however would make a difference and they would even be a lot cheaper but we suffer because of the burden of other shambolic spending decisions.

The tax burden has never been greater and we've still never spent so much yet amazingly we get so little back.
Click to expand...

The 140 million spunked (so far) on Rwanda exemplifies your last paragraph (depressingly) perfectly.
 
metalblue said:
I don’t see the problem with stamp duty.

You pay it when you buy a house. You then “reclaim” it when you sell that house from the sale price. You don’t (usually) pay CGT on your main house when you sell it so it’s really just moving money during your life time until you downsize.

That strikes me as fair.
Click to expand...
Suppose someone owns a £1m house - just picking a number. They work hard for the next 5 years, earning a decent whack of say £100k a year and pay around £170,000 in income tax and national insurance. Quite a lot of money by nearly everyone's standards.

Then they need to move to a slightly larger house down the road so one of their 5 kids can have their own bedroom. The new house is £1.1m. They have to pay (In addition to all the other moving costs) ANOTHER £50,000 in tax out of their savings that have already been taxed.

God help them if they wanted to move every 2 or 3 years because of their job, paying £50,000 every time.

Honestly, I think it's ridiculous and people being worse off than them, does not make it sensible.

People really need to think about the effect of our crippling levels of taxation and the long term effect it has. In the UK, we've seen around a 10% rise in the FTSE since Jan 1st 2000. A miserable 10% over the last 23 years. Shockingly awful.

For example compared to a 300% rise in the Dow Jones over that same period. The US having much lower sales tax (often zero), similar or lower income tax and - incidentally - a stamp duty rate of zero. People being allowed to keep more of their money and spend/invest it more wisely than any government ever could.
 
Last edited:
Chippy_boy said:
Suppose someone owns £1m house - just picking a number. They work hard for the next 5 years, earning a decent whack of say £100k a year and pay around £170,000 in income tax and national insurance. Quite a lot of money by nearly everyone's standards.

Then they need to move to a slightly larger house down the road so one of their 5 kids can have their own bedroom. The new house is £1.1m. They have to pay (In addition to all the other moving costs) ANOTHER £50,000 in tax out of their savings that have already been taxed.

God help them if they wanted to move every 2 or 3 years because of their job, paying £50,000 every time.

Honestly, I think it's ridiculous and people being worse off than them, does not make it sensible.
Click to expand...

Could they not just move a bit further away and get more for their money?
 
My problem with this "tax" is the rate rather than the duty itself, rather like inheritance tax. Some people really can get clobbered financially.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I'm not blaming you for anything. I merely said your comment about me keep banging on about the 20th century was a bit weird, given you quoted my post that didn't mention the 20th century!!! Anyway, clearly you knew what I meant. If you want to be a jerk and make a big deal over it, knock yourself out.



Year 1
Debt = £100
Deficit = £10

Year 2
Debt = £110

VS

Year 1
Debt = £100
Deficit = £15

Year 2
Debt = £115

Yep, that's pretty obvious.
Click to expand...


I said:
Vic said:
No idea what the 20th century has to do with the rate of stamp duty in 2010.
Click to expand...
You said:

"Yes you have, it's just it doesn't fit your narrative, so you choose to ignore it."

Can you really not just admit a mistake?

As for the rest, your table is not obvious, just simplistic. Austerity meant loads of people laid off, not paying tax and getting benefits. It did nothing for growth.

ourfuture.org

See WHY Austerity Can't Reduce The Deficit | OurFuture.org by People's Action

Austerity -- cutting government benefits and services -- is not the path to fixing deficits. In fact, economists warn that trying to fix a sluggish economy by cutting government spending will just...
ourfuture.org ourfuture.org
 
Last edited:
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.