Would you be offended if someone offered under asking price?

ukcarper

You could just increase rate above £250k even to 6% but apply it to amount above £250k at least that would make it more progressive.

　

thequant

TANCRED!

Rightmove link please

Tancred

ukcarper wrote: »

You could just increase rate above £250k even to 6% but apply it to amount above £250k at least that would make it more progressive.

　

A sensible idea - maybe someone should suggest it to Mr Osborne.

DRP

Tancred wrote: »

I have 9 viewers in the first week of marketing - doesn't seem to be a depressed market to me.

nor me. :T

GreenSaints

Hi all,

Well, this is an interesting subject. Me and my boyfriend are currently looking for a new house and of the houses we have seen and are suitable we have never offered anywhere near asking price. This may be due to the fact we just happen to get recommended houses that need a lot of work doing to them.

There was one house we saw which went on the market in April 2012 and needed a lot of cosmetic work doing. It was originally listed at £149k, then £139k and now at £129k. To make it work for us, we needed to do some extending but our offer didn't reflect our wants, if that makes sense. We offered (in the end) £108k as we said to keep the house as it was it needed that money to make it liveable.

They rejected that saying they wanted £120k. We were the highest offer they had received (the other highest was £90k!) This was about a month ago, but have come back and said they would take anything between £115k and £120k, so it pays to stick to your guns.

In the end we aren't going to go for this, but it all depends on your seller, the area and who else is interested.

Now, there's a house we've seen and love - its practically perfect, and I'm thinking I don't want to offer too little so they are insulted!

DRP

Tancred wrote: »

I don't agree. There would be no disastrous effect if SDLT was raised to 2% for all the <500k market - you adapt and you live with it. It would at least offer a level playing field, which is not what we have now.

How did you arrive at a figure of 2% ?

Or is it totally arbitrary ?

Tancred

DRP wrote: »

How did you arrive at a figure of 2% ?

Or is it totally arbitrary ?

Arbitrary. I just took the halfway between 1 and 3.

DRP

Tancred wrote: »

Arbitrary. I just took the halfway between 1 and 3.

Unless the revised SDLT theshold/rate gives the govt the same revenue as the existing system, then starving children will have their school milk taken away from them and the unemployed won't be able to afford sky TV.

It would be interesting to calculate what % SDLT would be required to match the current system...

Tancred

DRP wrote: »

Unless the revised SDLT theshold/rate gives the govt the same revenue as the existing system, then starving children will have their school milk taken away from them and the unemployed won't be able to afford sky TV.

It would be interesting to calculate what % SDLT would be required to match the current system...

The government actuaries could calculate that quite easily. The point is that if SDLT had thresholds like income tax it would be easier on the housing market than the current system, where the tax is payable on all the amount. I wonder what they do in other countries.

DRP

Tancred wrote: »

The government actuaries could calculate that quite easily. The point is that if SDLT had thresholds like income tax it would be easier on the housing market than the current system, where the tax is payable on all the amount. I wonder what they do in other countries.

I wonder about that - at the moment the tax is 'top-loaded' towards the minority of wealthier individuals. I think I would agree that the thresholds should be modified, but i think a major benefit of the current system is to assist the majority (poorer buyers) to get onto the housing ladder.