Stamp duty tipped for Autumn Statement shakeup

chewmylegoff

michaels wrote: »

Me? I'd remove scrap stamp duty but also remove CGT excemption on PPRs which seems too radical for most. I'd probably make the CGT deferrable until death though to prevent it from strangling the market.

If you're going to defer until death everyone will sell their last house for £1 to their kids creating a massive CGT loss to offset against their lifetime profits.

Fella

Stamp duty is a pointless tax on mobility & a horribly implemented (due to the ridiculous tiering) one at that. A vile tax that only exists because house purchases are so relatively infrequent no-one makes too much fuss they just take the hit. A move to the system suggested in the OP would be an improvement although it's still a tax that should not exist.

MFW_ASAP

As I said on other threads a while back, and which the government read and inwardly digested...

Stamp duty could be used to dampen down HPI hot spots like parts of London. A 10% stamp duty in places with high HPI and a 0% stamp duty in places with zero HPI would be a much more precise tool than raising a lowering interest rates that hit all areas at once, regardless of whether their prices are rising or falling.

It would also hit the rich who don't use mortgages, rather than the poor who do.

AndyGuil

Applying it to regions should be based on salary, earnings etc. regionally. That would cause London to appear similar to the rest of the UK. Average salary is nearly £50k, over £60k in inner London. A couple working could on average have £100k easily. I think £70k per household would be a reasonable minimum for FTB and most FTB properties are well within the multiples of that for lending.

CLAPTON

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

As I said on other threads a while back, and which the government read and inwardly digested...

Stamp duty could be used to dampen down HPI hot spots like parts of London. A 10% stamp duty in places with high HPI and a 0% stamp duty in places with zero HPI would be a much more precise tool than raising a lowering interest rates that hit all areas at once, regardless of whether their prices are rising or falling.

It would also hit the rich who don't use mortgages, rather than the poor who do.

I can see why this would massively reduce mobility and I can see why everyone would stretch themselves to the limit to buy the best possible house (so they would move less often)
but I can't immediately see why it would constrain the total amount of money spend on housing except that some would go to the government.

MacMickster

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

They have been reading my posts again. First I suggest getting rid of Child Benefit for high earners, then I suggested capping benefits so that they are not above UK national average wages and then I suggest using stamp duty to dampen down HPI hot spots, rather than the crude use of interest rates.

I'm practically a policy maker for the libcons!

All that in 77 posts in the last month?

Loughton_Monkey

chewmylegoff wrote: »

If you're going to defer until death everyone will sell their last house for £1 to their kids creating a massive CGT loss to offset against their lifetime profits.

Spoken as a true accountant.

But when I advocated selling the house for far less than Market Value, making it up by charging £250K for the curtains, I was told HMRC would be onto that like a Rottweiler!

So this would be dealt with by (a) a retrospective judgement for the kids to pay the tax anyway, (b) a 90% penalty tax on top, and (c) a 30 year jail sentence for tax fraud.

But like Michaels, I do prefer tax to be deferred until death. The dead don't complain too much about their tax bills. [Mind you, I assume the easiest evasion trick is simply to die abroad. Methinks those Swiss clinics would be rolling in it!]

jimmy_81

Having just bought a house for a relatively small amount over the SDLT threshold, that would be mightily frustrating for me if it were to change! :mad:

Mind you, by the time it's implemented, the way things are going prices will have risen anyway so can't complain too much.

Also despite being bitten by it this time we're probably not in this house for ever... So a fairer SDLT when we next move would be very nice.

As others have said though just depends what other tax is increased to make up for it!

michaels

chewmylegoff wrote: »

If you're going to defer until death everyone will sell their last house for £1 to their kids creating a massive CGT loss to offset against their lifetime profits.

I forgot to say, of course it should be indexed linked gains that are taxed rather than taxing inflation.

In general I don't see why housing transactions should be taxed at all - we don't tax second hand car sales. However due to the limited supply of building land, homeowners make a 'windfall gain' through having a house and this gain should accrue to the country as a whole rather than the individual as it is the country that has a limited supply of land and it is not really fair that only those with the capital and income to buy a property should benefit from this.

beecher2

grizzly1911 wrote: »

‘I think [Osborne] will move on it…because he will look stupid if he lets Scotland do it [and doesn’t change if for the rest of the UK},’ said Boulger.

Strange argument - there's a whole host of policies which are different in Scotland than in England, and I haven't seen any Westminster ministers 'shamed' into change.