Experts say Scottish Government’s property tax is ‘flawed’

Thrugelmir

Self governance isn't so easy as it appears.

Experts commissioned by the Scottish Government have blasted its stamp duty replacement scheme, describing the modelling as “ill-suited” and “poor.” The review of Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (LBTT) says the SNP’s methodology is not robust enough to make proper predictions for how much revenue will be raised.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/experts-say-scottish-government-s-property-tax-is-flawed-1-4429291

Shakethedisease

Scotsman as per, a bit behind the curve with this poor analysis.

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Scotsman as per, a bit behind the curve with this poor analysis.

Let's shoot the messenger, eh?:)

Did you not bother reading?

Experts commissioned by the Scottish Government have blasted its stamp duty replacement scheme, describing the modelling as “ill-suited” and “poor.” ...Alma Economics’ study ‘A Review of Tax Revenue Forecasting Models for the Scottish Housing Market’ described the methodology used by ministers as “ill-suited for scenario analysis and fiscal impact costing”

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/experts-say-scottish-government-s-property-tax-is-flawed-1-4429291

The Scotsman newspaper has conducted no anlaysis. The Scottish government has paid a bunch of economists to carry out an anlaysis of their new Land and Buildings Transaction Tax, which has apparently concluded that the method they used to predict how much the tax would raise was, well, b0llox.

Since LBTT only started in April 2015 could you please explain, why this Review of Tax Revenue Forecasting Models for the Scottish Housing Market is "behind the curve" and why it is a "poor analysis"?

Perhaps then you explain why the Scottish Government has spent money on what you claim to be a pile of carp?:)

michaels

To be fair it is not only the Scottish govt who have made a hash of taxing property....

Shaka_Zulu

antrobus wrote: »

Let's shoot the messenger, eh?:)

In Natland all messengers are shot if they do not follow the party line, surely you know that

buglawton

Tax should be collected on a little and often basis if you don't want us to become a nation of (legal) tax avoiders. Stamp duty type taxes are the opposite and people will change their behaviour accordingly. In London recent changes have practically halved transactions. The BTL tax changes will cut new brownfield developments drastically, this will lead to wider taxpayers being tapped to subsidise new developments instead once the politicians start to feel the heat.

antrobus

michaels wrote: »

To be fair it is not only the Scottish govt who have made a hash of taxing property....

Yes, very likely.

Except that this review isn't about the mechanism for taxing property, it's about the mechanism the Scottish government adopted for forecasting how much this tax would raise.

The Scottish government asked some economist type persons to have a look at the mechanism they used, and said economist type persons have said it's b0ll0x. This might mean that the tax itself is also 'flawed', or it might just mean they have made some 'wrong' assumptions. I don't know. I haven't read the review. And I'm not going to. Life's too short to worry about the details of Scottish property taxes. Unless you happen to live in Scotland.

Shaka_Zulu wrote: »

In Natland all messengers are shot if they do not follow the party line, surely you know that

Indeed I do. But it also appears that the messengers are being shot be people who don't even understand the message.:)

michaels

antrobus wrote: »

Let's shoot the messenger, eh?:)

I blame Putin, he was the first to demonstrate that you can achieve and maintain a grip on power through 'alternative facts'. Trump, Sturgeon (May?) are only following on from his success.

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

Let's shoot the messenger, eh?:)

Did you not bother reading?

Experts commissioned by the Scottish Government have blasted its stamp duty replacement scheme, describing the modelling as “ill-suited” and “poor.” ...Alma Economics’ study ‘A Review of Tax Revenue Forecasting Models for the Scottish Housing Market’ described the methodology used by ministers as “ill-suited for scenario analysis and fiscal impact costing”

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/experts-say-scottish-government-s-property-tax-is-flawed-1-4429291

The Scotsman newspaper has conducted no analysis. The Scottish government has paid a bunch of economists to carry out an anlaysis of their new Land and Buildings Transaction Tax, which has apparently concluded that the method they used to predict how much the tax would raise was, well, b0llox.

Since LBTT only started in April 2015 could you please explain, why this Review of Tax Revenue Forecasting Models for the Scottish Housing Market is "behind the curve" and why it is a "poor analysis"?

Perhaps then you explain why the Scottish Government has spent money on what you claim to be a pile of carp?:)

I read this story days ago in the Times. I'll leave it to someone else who covered this story three days ago. The Scotsman is well behind, they have to be on the ball a lot quicker than this if they're to gain any traction from politically spun stories debunked with checkable sources days before they publish them.

The paper’s #2 Scotland story today, on the Scottish Government’s replacement for stamp duty, took two reporters to write yet at no point actually identifies the “experts” quoted in its own headline. The piece rambles on for almost 700 words without ever providing the names of the people who allegedly used the terms “ill-suited” and “poor” to describe the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (LBTT).

We can hear your weeping and rending of garments from here over the thought that people buying a SECOND home for £500,000 (more than three times the average Scottish house price) might get landed with a hefty tax bill.

(LBTT purposely penalises second-home purchase in order to reduce taxes for people buying smaller properties to actually live in. The tax on a £500K primary home would be just £23,350 – only £8000 higher than the figure for the rest of the UK.)

So we can chalk that one down to political spin – most people only own one home (at the most), so quoting the much higher tax for a SECOND home is a deliberate attempt to create a misleading impression, and one which is particularly disingenuous when foreign-owned “investment” homes that nobody actually lives in are widely held to be largely responsible for the UK’s housing crisis.

You might not like the source ( Wings ), but at least he's given a proper analysis and context. One which will probably be read by about 30 x more people if not more than the poor failing Scotsman or the behind the paywall Times will.

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I read this story days ago in the Times.

But preferred not to highlight the story to others........;)

Ignoring bad news simply makes those that endlessly spin look stupid.

michaels

23,350, only 8k higher than in rUK....so there we have it, the good burgers of Scotland are so prosperous that eight thousand pounds is an 'only'