£53k Increase in Stamp Duty For Me

tonyinessex

suicidebob wrote: »

You claim you're putting your own money into the system. I take it you didn't create it out of thin air....

Surprised such simplistic logic appeared to go right over your head...

Actually, you're not far off. I'm a professional gambler, so I didn't create anything material or provide any services in exchange for my money. I merely had an agreement to exchange money with someone based on the outcome of an event.
Don't see the relevance anyhow.

tonyinessex

happylucky wrote: »

tony, I think you raise a perfectly valid point. Of course asset market values are directly related to total acquisition costs. Your offer was placed on one set of costs, now things have changed.

If I were your vendor, it would be no shock if you raised this issue to me....I personally think that the 1-2M market will be hit significantly at least in the short term. Chains will fall apart if they exist if any participant can't come up with the extra stamp duty in cash at pretty short notice. Plenty of people in that bracket can afford it, but there are also many, many who are relying on massive mortgages and won't be able to find the additional cash in time, however much they want to.

Over 2M, I don't think it will be such a big deal, this buying group are much less likely to care about 50 or 100K here or there...it's the 1-2M band that will be hit hardest and so you may find that you get much more for your budget if you can hold off buying for a bit.

Just my humble opinion. Good luck to you.

Another thing here is the psychological aspect of getting 'value'. Fair enough if house prices increase, buyers feel like they are 'getting more for their money' in that the house is now worth that extra £x0k and that will be realised if they ever go onto sell.

This extra £53k tax is, as far as a buyer is concerned, going nowhere (please don't debate socioeconomics suicidebob), we're not getting anything for it. The previous £100k tax had been dealt with in our heads and we've come to terms with it being a cost. To add £53k to that for nothing in return I think could reduce houses in this bracket by more than £53k, if that is possible.

I am a first time buyer too, so I was shocked to find out I'd have to pay £100k tax in the first place a few months ago. It now seems more attractive to me to buy a much smaller house and to do it up..

patanne

The only people who care about house prices are those who don't own one, and have my sympathy and understanding, and those who own more than one and frankly that is their problem. The rest of us just try to KEEP the roof over our heads

nzseries1

tonyinessex wrote: »

But I'm not debating that, I am asking what the changes are going to do to house prices.

Then you should post in the "Debate House Prices" board instead.

specialboy

What a load of bitter, jealous b4rstewards there are on here now days, just because you can't afford a £2m property you start getting bitter at those who can, I trout the was about money saving.

Pablosammy

specialboy wrote: »

I trout the was about money saving.

This sentence smells fishy to me...

moneyistooshorttomention

tonyinessex wrote: »

Actually, you're not far off. I'm a professional gambler, so I didn't create anything material or provide any services in exchange for my money. I merely had an agreement to exchange money with someone based on the outcome of an event.
Don't see the relevance anyhow.

Then in that case (ie being a professional gambler) that means you know that everything in life is a gamble basically. You win some. You lose some.

Personally, I would have said that with all this talk that has been going on for some time re Mansion Tax that it was a pretty certain bet that this would happen at some point and the only question was exactly when (rather than whether) this would happen.

Going back to when I sold my starter house and bought my current one last year and my guess was that the stamp duty payable on my present house would go down at some point (being a cheaper level house), but my estimate was that I would lose this house if I hung around and waited to buy it until that happened. I was correct = stamp duty on my house HAS gone down, but I would have lost the house whilst waiting for it to do so. That was a gamble and I backed the "best horse in the race" and have duly winced that I lost that stamp duty I could have saved if the house had only "hung on and waited for me", but whatcanyado?

Other gambles were other people had their eye on my current house and it would appear they gambled and waited for it to be on the market so long that the price would be slashed. They lost...because, whilst they waited/hoped and downright gambled on it..I came along and bought the house.

The buyer of my last house gambled that they could wait a while before coming along to look at it in the first place and hope I'd do a drastic price slash and then they planned to come and have a look. I found a way to "flush them out of the woodwork" and they lost their gamble and had to buy the house without a drastic price slash:).

It's all a gamble and you, more than anyone, should know that fact and that housebuying is (more than many things) a gamble. This gamble you lost...and the question is as to why you didn't put in a bid for this house sooner (as it was pretty obvious that this stamp duty change was going to happen at some point fairly soon).

ShawUK

Saved us £1,010 on our first property! :-)
If all goes through...

Mortgage_Mark_2

Pablosammy wrote: »

This sentence smells fishy to me...

Don't carp on about it thought, you're giving me a haddock.

LandyAndy

This is not the plaice for levity.