Scottish houses over £250,000 will not sell!

LydiaJ

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Stamp duty has always seemed a very clunky tax, to me. Why isn't it like income tax bands? So if you buy a house for £310k, you pay nothing on the first chunk, then a smaller percentage on the next chunk, etc. It seems mad and artificial that you pay duty on the whole lot when you go over the next band.

I agree.

And according to Hamish's post above, that's what this new Scottish property tax is going to be like. If so, and a cursory reading of a few news sites suggests that Hamish is as well informed as one would expect him to be, then of course it won't stop houses over £250k selling. The Scots will get a lot more sales of houses between £250k and £260k than we do in England, because it won't have that idiotic massive step in stamp duty that we have at £250k. A house costing £251k will only have £100 more duty than a house costing £250k, rather than an extra £5030 as it is under SDLT.

MobileSaver

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

but in all probability people buying those houses can afford it.

The top earners pay more tax in one year than the average person pays in their lifetime so probably (and with some justification) think they pay enough in tax already.

The problem with punitive taxes like this is that these people are wealthy enough to vote with their feet and move to somewhere they perceive to be less vindictive.

I would have thought Scotland would be better served by encouraging high-performers and entrepreneurs to move or stay there rather than giving them good reasons to move elsewhere.

michaels

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Sort of... In all likelihood it'll cause different distortions to stamp duty but not really any better or worse overall. It might decrease HPI at the higher levels, but increase it at the lower levels.

Basically the vast majority of house sales in Scotland under £325,000 will now be cheaper. (and that also includes the majority of sales in Edinburgh)

I think from the initial proposals there were a couple of small distortions in there but no worse than the current bracket distortions.

The majority of sales above 325K will cost a little more, but not enough to really be an issue.

It starts to hurt a bit heading towards a million, and hurt a lot once you get into several millions, but in all probability people buying those houses can afford it.

It's basically another Scottish socialist 'soak the rich' policy.

And as in this case I'm not counted as one of 'the rich', I don't really care.;)

What if the impact is that no fewer cheaper houses are sold but tax take is down from lower rates and fewer expensive houses are sold so tax take is down because of fewer transactions despite the higher rates?

redcard

MobileSaver wrote: »

The top earners pay more tax in one year than the average person pays in their lifetime so probably (and with some justification) think they pay enough in tax already.

The problem with punitive taxes like this is that these people are wealthy enough to vote with their feet and move to somewhere they perceive to be less vindictive.

I would have thought Scotland would be better served by encouraging high-performers and entrepreneurs to move or stay there rather than giving them good reasons to move elsewhere.

This is the same argument MPs use for their £50K expense claims. Take away the expenses and they'll go work for ICI.

One entrepreneur leaves, another takes his place.

beecher2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

As has been the case in France. People will vote with their feet. If taxation policy is deemed harsh.

This is probably the tip of the iceberg. With income tax likely to follow a similar track.

Welcome to England!

You would have to also factor in house price differentials between England and Scotland. You get a lot more house for your money here - a property worth £1.5m would cost an extra £62,300 in taxes in Edinburgh over London but you'd get a much bigger and more substantial property.

Michelle Mone stamps her feet and says she'll leave Scotland at every opportunity, wonder what she'll come out with over this (she has a new Ultimo shop opening so she's bound to say somehting)

redcard

Letting the top earners away with paying minimal tax has not done much do the economy as it is, so why not wait and see what happens when they pay their fair share?

CLAPTON

redcard wrote: »

Letting the top earners away with paying minimal tax has not done much do the economy as it is, so why not wait and see what happens when they pay their fair share?

what exactly is a 'fair' share?
is it defined in a holy book or an economists calculator or Nicola's black book?
is it less than they pay now or more : is it always 'more'


presumably you are totally against 'enterprise zones' with low tax rates or any special subsidies to encourage more jobs in places of low employment ?
wouldn't be fair would it?

Cyberman60

Their housing market is going down the pan anyway as they will have lost a large proportion of potential buyers from the rest of the UK after showing their dislike for us foreigners in the referendum.

Stamp duty at 10% is clearly ridiculous so expect prices to fall as people buy outside of Scotland at 3%.

chucknorris

Cyberman60 wrote: »

Their housing market is going down the pan anyway as they will have lost a large proportion of potential buyers from the rest of the UK after showing their dislike for us foreigners in the referendum.

Stamp duty at 10% is clearly ridiculous so expect prices to fall as people buy outside of Scotland at 3%.

I don't think it is a good system and I agree that 3% to 10% is way too high a jump, but I don't think that it is enough to make people move, unless they were in two minds anyway. It will certainly reduce mobility though, people will think twice before trading up.

redcard

CLAPTON wrote: »

what exactly is a 'fair' share?
is it defined in a holy book or an economists calculator or Nicola's black book?
is it less than they pay now or more : is it always 'more'


presumably you are totally against 'enterprise zones' with low tax rates or any special subsidies to encourage more jobs in places of low employment ?
wouldn't be fair would it?

None of these entrepreneurs have left the country yet, so I can only presume they're absolutely delighted with the amount of tax they're paying.

So I would define 'fair share' as a bit more than they're paying just jow.