We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Time to change Stamp Duty Levels?
Comments
-
It helps both the seller and the buyer. It will increase the number of buys and sells which increases liquidity and that has a lot of benefits to stability. Prices tend to move over the stamp duty levels with little resistance so it won't do much to notably alter prices.I don't think it will do much to 'help people move'
About a million homes are sold a year there is already a lot of movement
Plus as someone already noted reduce a stanp duty of say £10k and you will likely find that house prices go up more than x as people use their former stamp duty payments to bid up prices and leverage that £10k stap duty saving via a 25% mortgage into £40K worth of extra bidding room
of course that would not be the case if thrre was ample supply in the uk eg 500k units a year but there isn't. We are in a shortgage so abolish stamp duty will just more than add it to prices0 -
Nice easy tax to collect. No different to VAT on new cars. The more you can afford to spend the more tax you should contribute.
Now is not the time to be cutting tax anyway. Still a large hole to be filled.0 -
There may well be huge amounts of waste there but only someone completely lacking in common sense could think that we can just click our fingers and eliminate it. If we could, then why didn't we last year or the year before.
Who's saying we just click our fingers? As the election looms we'll hear more about politicians willing to take 'tough'decisions - once that unpleasantness is out of the way it'll back to the status quo.You might as well say we should remove all taxes and make government a charitable affair because the huge growth this would cause would lead to more government revenue. They're both about as realistic.
You've let yourself down there. I wouldn't have expected you to build such obvious straw men.
I can build them too - you might as well say that we've reached the peak of democracy and found the optimal level of tax, spending and government interference in daily life. 2014 - the closest we get to utopia.0 -
Well considering Kensington with about 1/20th the housing stock as Scotland is paying more in stamp tax then it seems not many are avoiding it.
That conclusion is based on a pretty simplistic reading of the data. Plenty could be avoiding, or minimising, it and it could still work out to be more
it is very progressive.
It's generally progressive, which I never disputed, but it's flawed even by that measure. Our household income is higher than my sister's yet she is paying a considerable amount of stamp duty on her property in London and I paid none on my property in the Midlands. I'm currently looking at flats as possible BTL and won't pay any stamp duty on those either. Stamp duty punishes you for moving, and for living in expensive areas. The second normally correlates with your wealth but it's a pretty shoddy foundation for progressive taxation.Having a signature removed for mentioning the removal of a previous signature. Blackwhite bellyfeel double plus good...0 -
Who's saying we just click our fingers?
You. Your position is that we cut government spending in the next budget (the original premise of this thread) and that it would happen by eliminating waste alone. There is no reason to think that if you cut government spending at this time that is how it would happen (even if sufficient waste exists) and considerable reason to think it isn't. There's also no reason what so ever to expect we're going to get a new government after the next election that will be any better at effectively routing out public spending inefficiency.
Cut government spending now and it will lead to cuts in provision of vital services (and some proportion of waste reduction). It'd be nice if it wasn't true, but I'm not inclined to base my opinions on wishful thinking; otherwise known as a 'nirvana fallacy'.You've let yourself down there. I wouldn't have expected you to build such obvious straw men.
It wasn't a strawman, I would have expected you to be able to tell that. I compared your view to it, perhaps you are confusing 'straw man' with 'false analogy'? Though I'd also disagree with that position as it was obviously intended to be hyperbolic and emphasise the absurdity of your position.Having a signature removed for mentioning the removal of a previous signature. Blackwhite bellyfeel double plus good...0 -
If my income falls I can try and earn more or spend less or a mix of the two.
Politicians have convinced you that there's only one side to this equation. i.e. the only solution to lost income is to raise it somewhere else. It's called brainwashing.
There are indeed many chances to reduce spending but politicians don't because they have their pet projects and votes to buy.
I think the overseas aid budget should be severely cut, whilst we are running a defecit and can't afford to invest.. We are a rich country so we can afford it apparently. Isn't that set to be 50% more than recovered by SDLT? Many will object to my stance.
The tiers rates need to be incremental, with a revised start point and a degree of levelling in the bands perhaps.
The bigger you can afford to buy the incrementally higher the tax. Many have no qualms paying out higher VAT on a nice piece of German imported autobahn Panzer. What is the VAT on a depreciating 6X?
Not sure the affect on mobility is as massive as made out. For those who wish to trade and speculate in residential property rather than as a home it is a PITA no doubt."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
You. Your position is that we cut government spending in the next budget (the original premise of this thread) and that it would happen by eliminating waste alone. There is no reason to think that if you cut government spending at this time that is how it would happen (even if sufficient waste exists) and considerable reason to think it isn't. There's also no reason what so ever to expect we're going to get a new government after the next election that will be any better at effectively routing out public spending inefficiency.
Improved efficiency of government is a good thing i.e. we pay the same tax to get the same level of service. It's unrealistic to expect this to happen at the click of a finger but not to expect year on year improvements. However, it's not my position that savings for tax cuts/ deficit reduction come from cutting waste alone.Cut government spending now and it will lead to cuts in provision of vital services (and some proportion of waste reduction). It'd be nice if it wasn't true, but I'm not inclined to base my opinions on wishful thinking; otherwise known as a 'nirvana fallacy'.
Why can't the money spent on non-vital services be cut? Why is current government spending (somewhat more than they receive) 'just right'.It wasn't a strawman, I would have expected you to be able to tell that. I compared your view to it, perhaps you are confusing 'straw man' with 'false analogy'? Though I'd also disagree with that position as it was obviously intended to be hyperbolic and emphasise the absurdity of your position.
A rose by any other name.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »There are indeed many chances to reduce spending but politicians don't because they have their pet projects and votes to buy.
We get the politicians we deserve.grizzly1911 wrote: »I think the overseas aid budget should be severely cut, whilst we are running a defecit and can't afford to invest.. We are a rich country so we can afford it apparently. Isn't that set to be 50% more than recovered by SDLT? Many will object to my stance.
I'm supportive of the foreign aid budget but wouldn't lose any sleep over it being cut or scrapped. My issue is that cutting it is seen as a cure all...
- we could pay for better flood defences
- it could repair the recent flood damage
- it could pay for stamp duty to be scrapped
- it could cover a couple of months of deficit each year
- it could pay for A&E improvements
- it could pay for subsidised electricity bills
- etc
The expectation of how far this money can go is amazing.0 -
you scrap the stamp duty on your main/only residence. You increase it on BTL and double the CGT on BTL. That will have a double whammy effect of stopping people buying too many BTL's and therenby helping lower house prices
Example:
Main residence £300k - stamp duty 0%
BTL flat - £250k - stamp duty 6%
Selling main residence - 0% CGT
Selling BTL for £300k - 50% CGT on gain. - So 50% of £50k = £25k.
The Govt would make more and it would be investors/speculators paying on their GAIN rather than families moving home to give their children a bedroom!!!
Lousy tax brought in by a lousy govt.0 -
Why is current government spending (somewhat more than they receive) 'just right'.
:T Well done, you do know what a strawman argument is after all it seems.
Stop trying to salvage your own position for a second and consider that I haven't made any claims that there isn't waste in government spending or that I think the current level of government spending is correct.A rose by any other name.
Would be called a tulip by you, and you wouldn't feel the slightest bit embarrassed by your ignorance if your posts here are anything to go by.
But if we're quoting the bard then more of your conversation would infect my brain.Having a signature removed for mentioning the removal of a previous signature. Blackwhite bellyfeel double plus good...0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards