homebuyers are increasingly choosing to refurbish their own homes instead of moving

[Deleted User]

I'd increase SD on second homes to 20% and on 1st homes over £1.5 million to 10% and invest the proceeds into social housing, but then i am a socialist (and proud to be so).

westernpromise

venison wrote: »

I'd increase SD on second homes to 20% and on 1st homes over £1.5 million to 10% and invest the proceeds into social housing, but then i am a socialist (and proud to be so).

I think we worked that out, from your appetite for taxes on other people intended to benefit yourself. That is shameful, abject moral incompetence.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

No that is not what causes it. For instance you could have prices forced up by regulatory inflation and you could have prices go up as people invest in their homes like extensions or replacing a basic kitchen with a great one

Also what would you do for the opposite? People who buy houses in an area that loses value, do you refund them? What about during a recession if people buy at a high and sell at a low at 50% of the price does the government have to hand the person a huge capital loss rebate?



Too complicated, and what do you do about people who just spend it
You correctly identify you cant tax them while they are alive else they cant buy housing
You then have to trust them to keep aside a certain amount for a tax that is payable on death...how many people with 6 months to live are going to keep £200k in their bank account to sort out the governments cut why not spend it and when your dead they can send hell an invoice

lol i like how you said hell!

PasturesNew

For me, the biggest driver to staying put is the hassle of having to get the house "ready for sale", tidy it up, make it look like a normal person lives here (not a hoarding hermit) .... and then all the inconvenience of viewings (tidying up/going out/missing tea or changing what I eat as I'm walking round the block for viewings) .... and then the uncertainty of knowing if/when it'll sell....and if/when it'll complete ...and if they'll pull out at the last minute.

All the time having to have the house laid out "for a normal person" and not the dossing hoarding hermit that I am ....

And for what .... a similar house elsewhere that'll also have annoyances. Better to stay put, have a bit of a revamp and not have all that hassle.

I might move in 4-5 years though... or this might be it.... and I'll just stay here. I'd prefer a "home swap" marketplace, where you buy a house from your buyer and there's a cash difference that changes hands. I know somebody that did that, bought from their buyer.

LydiaJ

You can do that if you've got a council house:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/who-wants-my-council-house

chucknorris

venison wrote: »

I'd increase SD on second homes to 20% and on 1st homes over £1.5 million to 10% and invest the proceeds into social housing, but then i am a socialist (and proud to be so).

It is very nice of you to suggest reducing stamp duty for those who buy their first homes for over £4.4m, but are you sure that they need your help? Wouldn't it be better to invest that marginal money into something like social housing, rather than give it to the wealthy?

Ronaldo_Mconaldo

steampowered wrote: »

Stamp duty does seem a bonkers way of taxing property.

Why should someone who wants to move house be taxed more for their property than someone who stays put?

Surely an annual property tax (i.e. higher rates of council tax) would be a better way of taxing property.

And then all the renters can pay it too

westernpromise

Ronaldo_Mconaldo wrote: »

And then all the renters can pay it too

You don't understand. Renters want all the benefits of where they live but none of the costs.

steampowered

Thrugelmir wrote: »

If you think of another cost efficient way then you should be working for the Treasury.

It isn't rocket science. You could name pretty much any other developed country anywhere in the world and would find they have a more effective way of taxing property than we do.

In fact we already have a reasonable way of taxing property - council tax. Council tax is also a deeply flawed - having being introduced as an emergency substitute to the poll tax and never properly thought through - but at least taxing occupation of property makes far more economic sense than taxing people for moving from one property to another.

What prevents the stamp duty system from being reformed is political will power. Not the technical complexity of changing the system.

Ronaldo_Mconaldo wrote: »

And then all the renters can pay it too

Renters pay council tax.

I am not quite sure why or how you think renters should pay stamp duty, given that they do not own the property.

One could also point out that the costs of being a landlord are taken into account by rents. As landlords frequently tell people over and over again each time something affecting landlords is announced in a budget.

steampowered

venison wrote: »

I'd increase SD on second homes to 20% and on 1st homes over £1.5 million to 10% and invest the proceeds into social housing, but then i am a socialist (and proud to be so).

You are conflating two completely separate concepts: (1) how tax should be raised, and (ii) how much tax should be raised.

Even if you are a socialist and believe that the social housing budget should be increased enormously, you should want that money to be collected in the most economically efficient and fair way possible.

Stamp duty is a very bad choice. Punitive rates of stamp duty disincentivise people from moving and that is in nobody's interest. For example it makes it more difficult for people to move house for work. And it makes it very expensive for people to downsize after their children leave the family home.

Raising money through stamp duty also has the very strange effect that people who inherit millions from their parents (and therefore move into an expensive house at a young age) pay much less tax than people who worked for it (by starting off in cheaper homes and upsizing as they become more successful, and therefore move more times during their lives). That is a very strange outcome for someone who claims to be a socialist.

It would be much better for the money to be raised from some sort of property tax or land value tax - i.e. taxing people for occupying big properties, and landlords for the profits they make - rather than taxing people at the point of sale.