Government ePetition - change the way stamp duty works

abankerbutnotafatcat

Signed. Current system is illogical.

new_owner

Would it not be fairer to start tax at 1% and then work upwards? Makes more sense to me and that way everyone contributes to the tax.

So;

Up to £125,000 1%
Over £125,000 to £250,000 2%
Over £250,000 to £500,000 3%
Over £500,000 to £1 million 4%
Over £1 million to £2 million 5%
Over £2 million from 22 March 2012 7%
Over £2 million (purchased by certain persons including corporate bodies) from 21 March 2012 15%

Waterlily24

agrinnall wrote: »

I don't know why you think the HMRC website isn't correct. This is what it says:

Up to £125,000 Zero
Over £125,000 to £250,000 1%
Over £250,000 to £500,000 3%
Over £500,000 to £1 million 4%

Over £1 million to £2 million 5%

Over £2 million from 22 March 2012 7%
Over £2 million (purchased by certain persons including corporate bodies) from 21 March 2012 15%

I think that's perfectly clear.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/sdlt/intro/rates-thresholds.htm

Sorry I misread one of the posts.

hazyjo

Signed. Agree it's utterly ridiculous how it currently stands. This is how I've been saying for years they should do it.

Jx

matrix1781

it is an inconvenient system for everyone. Does not help the sellers in valuation around these thresholds at all. Can we keep this thread on top of the list so that everyone can see and sign up

rpc

The main problem with changing it is finding the money to pay for it. The suggested change would cost a fair bit in lost revenue and that has to come from somewhere.

What else should be taxed, or what spending should be cut, to fund it?

I'd like to see the change because it doesn't make sense and distorts the market. But I don't see it happening any time soon. Tories are too busy saving money to cut this tax (it is a pretty low priority IMHO). Labour wouldn't cut it because they brought this arrangement in.

matrix1781

rpc wrote: »

The main problem with changing it is finding the money to pay for it. The suggested change would cost a fair bit in lost revenue and that has to come from somewhere.

What else should be taxed, or what spending should be cut, to fund it?

I'd like to see the change because it doesn't make sense and distorts the market. But I don't see it happening any time soon. Tories are too busy saving money to cut this tax (it is a pretty low priority IMHO). Labour wouldn't cut it because they brought this arrangement in.

Well the 100,000 signatures wont change the current thresholds but will get the House of Commons to discuss about this distortion. So first things first, let us try to bring this to their notice, then the debate about compensating the revenue can start.

martinsurrey

rpc wrote: »

The main problem with changing it is finding the money to pay for it. The suggested change would cost a fair bit in lost revenue and that has to come from somewhere.

What else should be taxed, or what spending should be cut, to fund it?

I'd like to see the change because it doesn't make sense and distorts the market. But I don't see it happening any time soon. Tories are too busy saving money to cut this tax (it is a pretty low priority IMHO). Labour wouldn't cut it because they brought this arrangement in.

if it is changed the change will be structured so that the tax take is the same in total, just allocated differently.

so a system such as this.

0-125k 0% (so no change)

More than £125k but below £250k 3%

- So a house at £126k pays £30, saving £1,230, but a house at £250K pays £3,750, £1,250 more

More than £250k but less than £500k – 6%

-So a house at £251k pays £3,810, a saving of £3,720 while a house at £500k pays £18,750, £3,750 more.

Etc etc

The above method would probably break even or increase tax take (as houses would not be limited to the thresholds) and would make the market more transparent. People just below a threshold lose out as compared to now, people just over, win, but as a country we don’t lose out.