Avoid stamp duty with house swap? (With top-up)

Cornucopia

What is it that makes you think "your" money is actually yours?

At best, your wealth is a proxy allowing you a share of the nation's resources. And why would you think it morally acceptable to have control over more resources than everyone else?

Maruka

davidmcn wrote: »

I don't really follow why this tax is "worse" than others, other than the fact it becomes due in hefty lumps. What does, say, earning a salary, or buying goods or services have to do with the state?

I quite agree David - nothing. But I see this as worse for several reasons:
a) It's levied on money that has already been taxed (or will be, as you pay off your mortgage).
b) As mentioned, it's forcing me to take on more debt which means I will incur more in interest. It seems almost malevolent to add thousands in cost to the one purchase the vast majority of people will have to incur debt for.
c) Having a portion of your income removed is at least a relatively fair way to distribute the burden - everyone who earns the same pays the same. This is unfairly punitive on people who, for whatever reason, choose to move house regularly (perhaps their job requires it of them?).

Maruka

Cornucopia wrote: »

What is it that makes you think "your" money is actually yours?

At best, your wealth is a proxy allowing you a share of the nation's resources. And why would you think it morally acceptable to have control over more resources than everyone else?

I think our philosophical viewpoints are so far apart there's not much point in me attempting to answer this! :rotfl:

I will ask you this: Do you own your body?

If I killed your dog or smashed up your car, who is responsible? Who should bear the cost/consequences?

And so on...

Cornucopia

Maruka wrote: »

I think our philosophical viewpoints are so far apart there's not much point in me attempting to answer this! :rotfl:

Yes, I suspect that is true.

I will ask you this: Do you own your body?

Yes.

If I killed your dog or smashed up your car, who is responsible? Who should bear the cost/consequences?

And so on...

Not sure what your point is. Having rights over my possessions or a duty of care towards an animal does not commit me to despising taxation (and I don't). I recognise the general principle of shared services paid for by taxation. I could quibble about some of the detail, but that's about it.

I also think Governments have had an unfortunate tendency to conflate several different motivations into their tax policy (but this has been going on for centuries, so probably no chance to change it now).

If you want to exercise greater control over your own tax payments, you need to understand the rules. If not, or if your lifestyle precludes it, then you are stuck with the tax rules as they are.

Pixie5740

Maruka wrote: »

I quite agree David - nothing. But I see this as worse for several reasons:
a) It's levied on money that has already been taxed (or will be, as you pay off your mortgage).
b) As mentioned, it's forcing me to take on more debt which means I will incur more in interest. It seems almost malevolent to add thousands in cost to the one purchase the vast majority of people will have to incur debt for.
c) Having a portion of your income removed is at least a relatively fair way to distribute the burden - everyone who earns the same pays the same. This is unfairly punitive on people who, for whatever reason, choose to move house regularly (perhaps their job requires it of them?).

a) How does that make SDLT any different from VAT?

b) As already explained you are not being forced to take on more debt, you are choosing to take on more debt.

c) People, like myself, who move house regularly for work, rent because it is cheaper and gives you more flexibility than buying somewhere.

If you want to buy your dream house then you're just going to have to suck it up and pay the SDLT.

Person_one

Maruka wrote: »

I accept that (begrudgingly!). Is there some official way to determine the (supposed) market value of my house, or is it done by any old estate agent?

No one is going to persuade me that cash grabs like this are morally justified. That every country does it does not make it right. And neither is it up to the state to decide the difference between what I need and what I want. But I realise this is an ideological position not everyone will hold!

How would you suggest we fund public services?

Do you have similar issues with VAT which is also charged when you buy something you want, or does that seem like less of an issue because the sums are smaller?

Maruka

Gosh, you guys are well-trained state apologists! Richard Murphy would be proud! Are you seriously telling me that "well, you don't HAVE to do X/Y/Z" is a perfectly good reason for the government to tax it?! So literally anything other than eat the minimum number of calories I need to survive (in the form of gruel), have access to basic shelter and sanitation - anything else is fair game?

More than two pairs of socks? (One to wash and one to wear.) More than one pair of shoes? (you only WANT to go running, or get dressed up for a night out - you don't NEED to!)

Cornucopia

Not really apologists... in fact I do manage my affairs for various aims including low taxation.

More like realists... recognising that some things are best organised and paid-for centrally, and that is just a principle of Government.

As I said before, you need to understand the rules and then you can both criticise from a position of strength and subvert from a position of confidence (if you wish).

Pixie5740

It's your bleating on about being "forced" to take on more debt that I disagree with. You are not being forced to do anything. No one is holding a gun to your head and making you buy another home. It would be like me bleating on about the high amounts of VED I pay because of the car I choose to drive. I like my car, I went into the purchase with my eyes wide open knowing how much VED I'd have to pay and how much duty I'd pay because it's a thirsty beast. I could have chosen a Toyota Prius instead but I didn't so I don't whinge about the additional tax.

I am glad to see the end of the tampon tax though.

foxy-stoat

Maruka wrote: »

Gosh, you guys are well-trained state apologists! Richard Murphy would be proud! Are you seriously telling me that "well, you don't HAVE to do X/Y/Z" is a perfectly good reason for the government to tax it?! So literally anything other than eat the minimum number of calories I need to survive (in the form of gruel), have access to basic shelter and sanitation - anything else is fair game?

More than two pairs of socks? (One to wash and one to wear.) More than one pair of shoes? (you only WANT to go running, or get dressed up for a night out - you don't NEED to!)

You are;
taxed when you earn your money
taxed when you spend your money
taxed when you save your money
taxed when you live
taxed when you die

As for your idea to somehow reduce the amount of tax you have to pay due to the law of the land, no, you are not able to sell your house for £1 and buy another house for the difference in the prices to reduce the tax. Nice idea if both parties were on board with it, but HMRC have already thought about this, I am guessing when the whole part exchange business came in with the new houses.