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

Maruka

Cornucopia wrote: »

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.

But you don't seem to believe I have rights over my possessions. You said it yourself:

"why would you think it morally acceptable to have control over more resources than everyone else?"

I own my body. I reserve the right to exclusive benefit of the actions of my kidneys. The same goes for my brain, arms and legs. They're just body parts, after all.

If you think that it's OK for someone else to help themselves to the fruits of my work (my brain/arm/hand function), why can't I help myself to your kidney function? Lots of people out there need kidneys. You've got two (I'm assuming) when you only need one! You have control over 200% more kidney resources than many unlucky people. State-sanctioned redistribution of kidneys, anyone?

There are plenty of ways to pay for things communally that are voluntary and aren't based on coercion/threat of prison.

Brock_and_Roll

SDLT, in fact all stamp duties worldwide are hard to like due to their nature...however the UK raises £3.75bn per annum.


So given that the government spends all (and more) than the money raised on services (and debt servicing) then if SDLT was abolished, the money would have to be raised elsewhere.


As it happens, £3.75bn is approximately the figure that would be raised from a 1% rise in income tax.....I know what I would rather have!

Maruka

Pixie5740 wrote: »

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

I don't see why - don't NEED tampons, you could use a moon cup (And with that we really have strayed a little far from the subject at hand...!)

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

Maruka wrote: »

I don't see why - don't NEED tampons, you could use a moon cup (And with that we really have strayed a little far from the subject at hand...!)

What on earth is a moon cup?

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays wrote: »

What on earth is a moon cup?

Actually I don't think I want to know.

Pixie5740

Also considered a luxury item until recently but I can tell you from personal experience that there's nothing luxurious about them.

Cornucopia

Maruka wrote: »

But you don't seem to believe I have rights over my possessions. You said it yourself:

There are two underlying points: one, that our monetary system is created and owned by Government. The money you possess is very much "on loan" from Government, and if they decide they need some of it back, then that's very much how it's going to be.

The other point is that I talked about "wealth" not possessions, as I don't regard them as quite the same thing, even though they are somewhat interchangeable. I also talked about having more wealth than average, or using wealth as a proxy, greater access to resources than others. As a simple matter of fairness, that seems questionable.

I am not opposed to you holding wealth or possessions, subject to the laws of the land, which include that they may be taxed.

I own my body. I reserve the right to exclusive benefit of the actions of my kidneys. The same goes for my brain, arms and legs. They're just body parts, after all.

I already agreed that you own your own body, though it doesn't really make sense to regard it as a possession, if that's what you mean.

When you earn money, you (generally) pay tax on it. That is true of individuals and companies, and it is what runs our Government expenditure. I think our system is probably slightly fairer than an outright Wealth Tax, which is the other main possibility.

If you think that it's OK for someone else to help themselves to the fruits of my work (my brain/arm/hand function), why can't I help myself to your kidney function? Lots of people out there need kidneys. You've got two (I'm assuming) when you only need one! You have control over 200% more kidney resources than many unlucky people. State-sanctioned redistribution of kidneys, anyone?

That's something of a stretch. You want to compare kidneys, which are intrinsically part of our bodies to wealth that is the man-made creation of Governments?

It seems that part of your issue is to regard the money you are given by your employer/customers as yours outright, a reward for a job well done, when in fact, it's more akin to them giving some of their money loaned from Government to you, subject to the understanding that it wasn't actually theirs in the first place.

There are plenty of ways to pay for things communally that are voluntary and aren't based on coercion/threat of prison.

Such as?

I think you misunderstand (in common with many of your Tax=Theft brethren (are there any women who think this?)). The threat of penalties for tax evasion is because it is regarded as theft from the State and from Society (rather than the other way around as you would have it).

I can tell you from my perspective that no one is holding a gun to my head to make me work or to claim benefits, so I do neither to any great extent. I have the huge privilege not to have the financial need to do so, and in not doing so, I cut out a huge area of personal taxation. That route is presently open to anyone with the means, subject always to the long-term view of Government who may change their minds if enough people adopt it.

Maruka

Wealth is certainly not created by governments. "Our current monetary system" may be, but only in the sense that they have taken it upon themselves to monopolise currency. The idea that they can ask for it back any time with no compensation because the physical notes and coins technically belong to the Bank of England is pretty absurd; if that was the case, historically no one would ever keep money, they'd buy gold etc. as soon as they got paid.

Likewise, other countries who's currency is tied to the dollar, or yet other countries in which dollars are used just as readily as their domestic currency - do their governments not tax them on any transactions made with dollars?! Come on.

Their are various characteristics that make an ideal currency. Portable, imperishable, easily divisible and so on. It is as you say a proxy, a common medium of exchange to remove the issue of not being able to find someone who wants to make a direct trade of goods.

I have found someone who wants to make a direct trade of goods (sort of). Even if I agreed fully with you about government "owning all the money", surely I should only have to pay their tax to the degree that I am using "their" money?
Maybe the vendor accepts Bitcoin...

Cornucopia

Maruka wrote: »

Wealth is certainly not created by governments.

I didn't say it was.

"Our current monetary system" may be, but only in the sense that they have taken it upon themselves to monopolise currency.

I can't think of any modern society where the State did/does not control the currency - can you? Since control over money supply is considered vital to the health of the economy, that makes sense. In Scotland, bank notes are printed by commercial banks, presumably under some kind of State control.

The idea that they can ask for it back any time with no compensation because the physical notes and coins technically belong to the Bank of England is pretty absurd;

That's not entirely what I mean. The State owns the physical money, yes, but more importantly it owns the entire monetary system, and again, if you want the advantages of that system, you have to accept the disadvantages.

if that was the case, historically no one would ever keep money, they'd buy gold etc. as soon as they got paid.

Sometimes they do...

Likewise, other countries who's currency is tied to the dollar, or yet other countries in which dollars are used just as readily as their domestic currency - do their governments not tax them on any transactions made with dollars?! Come on.

I'm not close enough to any economy with US Dollar parallel circulation to know how it works. Certainly, AIUI, UK-based Local Exchange Trading Systems can circulate "currency" and are not subject to tax when used for the low-value exchange of labour for value.

Their are various characteristics that make an ideal currency. Portable, imperishable, easily divisible and so on. It is as you say a proxy, a common medium of exchange to remove the issue of not being able to find someone who wants to make a direct trade of goods.

I have found someone who wants to make a direct trade of goods (sort of). Even if I agreed fully with you about government "owning all the money", surely I should only have to pay their tax to the degree that I am using "their" money?
Maybe the vendor accepts Bitcoin...

I think you are confusing two different concepts. The tax payable on your salary is payable because you have earned that income. The currency within which it is paid is a separate matter.

ThePants999

Never mind the philosophy. There are much simpler practical reasons why stamp duty is a bad tax.

Taxes explicitly have three purposes: raise revenue for the government, redistribute wealth, and manipulate markets. Stamp duty raises revenue, sure. But:
- It isn't effectively redistributive. Yes, it has a progressive element to it with the different bands, but ultimately it isn't a tax on what you have, it's a tax on what you do. A rich person who inherits a mansion and lives in it their whole life will pay no stamp duty. A less well off person who needs to move often will pay lots of stamp duty. (And if you point out that they could rent instead of owning a home, I consider that another point on this side of the argument!)
- The way it manipulates incentives is bad instead of good. It is in the country's, and government's, interest that people can move home as freely as possible. It lets people follow jobs, providing a more flexible labour market, and it helps ensure homes are occupied by appropriately sized families and so our housing stock isn't under-utilised. Stamp duty is a disincentive to this.

Personally I'd abolish all transaction taxes like stamp duty. Hike income taxes as needed to replace the lost revenue.