Is there an award for economically illiterate ideas?

tara747

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

As much as I would have loved not to pay stamp duty on my property, I disagree with you.
Properties are easy to tax because they cannot be hidden away; and, well, the money to pay for the NHS and all the other services we hold dear must come from somewhere.
Zero stamp duty would not be a good idea for two reasons: it would not be fair because it would reduce tax revenues too much, benefiting those who can afford to buy a property, to the detriment of those who cannot; and it would risk exacerbating housing bubbles, because one of the impacts of transaction costs like stamp duty is to disincentive excessive short-termism. In other words, it terrifies me to think how much worse the housing bubble would have become without stamp duty.

I couldn't agree more.


I would only support the abolition of stamp duty if it were replaced by an annual land/property value tax.

westernpromise

martinsurrey wrote: »

SDLT payment is NOT a requirement for the registration of land, you could buy land, register it in your name with the land registry , and NOT pay the SDLT, you would get sued and fined, but you would still own the land.

They are pretty much identical, but you seem to want to treat them all differently.

Sorry, but your post is just rubbish. The price for having legal title is the SDLT and that arises from transactions, including those where there is no consideration (eg if I gift property).

If SDLT were like VAT I would be able to offset SDLT I have paid against SDLT I have charged.

martinsurrey

westernpromise wrote: »

Sorry, but your post is just rubbish. The price for having legal title is the SDLT and that arises from transactions, including those where there is no consideration (eg if I gift property).

If SDLT were like VAT I would be able to offset SDLT I have paid against SDLT I have charged.

Again confused.

Legal title, and SDLT are 100% separate.

VAT and SDLT are not 100% alike, but they are more alike than you seem to want to admit, the reliefs and allowances may be different but the basic premise is the same.

paddyrg

zagubov wrote: »

Anything that helps buyers rather than sellers is a good idea. After all, we buy houses more often than we sell them.

I know that was said slightly jest, but it's probably absolutely true!

Housing stock in the country is increasing with developers selling to buyers with no private seller in the chain, plus people buy their own first house but don't sell their last after they die, plus bank reposessions and other auctioned properties... It may not be by a huge margin, but I think you're absolutely spot on with the maths ;-)

steampowered

martinsurrey wrote: »

Again confused.

Legal title, and SDLT are 100% separate.

I don't think you can get legal title without paying SDLT.

Legal title to registered property in the UK (almost everything is registered these days) is determined by who is the registered owner on the land register.

My understanding is that, in order to register a transfer of property with the land registry, you are required to submit a land transaction return certificate from HMRC confirming that stamp duty has been paid.

See the Land Registry's guidance here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/registered-titles-whole-transfer-tr1/guidance-completing-form-tr1-for-the-transfer-of-registered-property.

This is also the case with regards to shares. If you buy shares in a company, and the transaction is subject to SDRT, you do not acquire legal title to those shares until the stamp duty is paid (and cannot exercise for example your voting rights as a shareholder until the stamp duty has been paid).

wotsthat

tara747 wrote: »

I couldn't agree more.

I would only support the abolition of stamp duty if it were replaced by an annual land/property value tax.

I've never understood the logic whereby if a government reduces a tax people think they (a) need to increase tax as well and (b) that tax increase should be in a similar area.

SDLT is a stupid tax so should be abolished and doesn't need to be dependent on the introduction of another property based tax. An alternative could be for the government to spend less.

The government are getting some tax rises in under the radar as it is without giving them ideas. When Gordon Brown was doing this we called them stealth taxes but it seems people aren't even noticing what the Tories are up to.

tara747

wotsthat wrote: »

I've never understood the logic whereby if a government reduces a tax people think they (a) need to increase tax as well and (b) that tax increase should be in a similar area.

SDLT is a stupid tax so should be abolished and doesn't need to be dependent on the introduction of another property based tax. An alternative could be for the government to spend less.

The government are getting some tax rises in under the radar as it is without giving them ideas. When Gordon Brown was doing this we called them stealth taxes but it seems people aren't even noticing what the Tories are up to.

Productivity is over-taxed in the UK and unproductive assets are under-taxed. IMO this needs to change. So I would absolutely support a land value tax, as well as increases in CGT and similar.


Then perhaps income tax could be reduced?

wotsthat

tara747 wrote: »

Productivity is over-taxed in the UK and unproductive assets are under-taxed. IMO this needs to change. So I would absolutely support a land value tax, as well as increases in CGT and similar.

Then perhaps income tax could be reduced?

I'd get rid of SDLT, wouldn't bother with a land value tax and would reduce income tax as well. You or I (depending on our circumstances) might gain or lose but, ultimately, SDLT/ property tax/ income tax/ VAT etc are different vehicles for raising taxes on consumption.

I expect Mr Hammond has other ideas involving complicated methods of taxing anything that moves so the government can continue overspending.

antrobus

tara747 wrote: »

Productivity is over-taxed in the UK and unproductive assets are under-taxed. IMO this needs to change. So I would absolutely support a land value tax, as well as increases in CGT and similar.
Then perhaps income tax could be reduced?

Does that mean to say that you regard property and land as an 'unproductive asset'? And how is productivity taxed?

Besides, the UK already has the highest property taxes in the developed world. I'm not convinced it would be a good idea to have even more property taxation.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/12/uk-has-highest-property-taxes-developed-world/

SouthLondonUser

Highest property taxes in the developed world is a highly misleading title. Those who go through the trouble of actually reading the article will find that in 2014 the UK property taxes accounted for ca. 12% of total taxation, vs an OECD average of 5.6%. Without more details, however, this doesn't really tell us much: to what extent are these figures driven by higher taxes, and to what extent by a higher number of property transactions? In other words, the % could be higher in the UK that in a country with higher taxes if the UK has more transactions.

Just to make an example, in many US states there is an annual property tax on the value of your property. Not in the UK (no, council tax is not the same thing). In the US capital gains above a certain threshold on your main residence are taxable. Not in the UK.