A change in the way people own property?

economic

Herzlos wrote: »

It's not destroyed, it goes back in the tax pot. But I agree it's a (potentially) large transaction fee with no visible benefit to the buyer.

It goes back in the tax pot? The money was never in the tax pot to begin with.

Once it goes into the tax pot, much of it does indeed get destroyed.

economic

My sibling and his fiance are looking to buy a house in London. they are looking for a nice affluent area and are looking to spend 7-800k on a 3 bed house in London. Whilst supply is difficult its not impossible. And this is in a really nice area of London. The poorer areas will have a lot more supply.

But they are first time buyers, no home to sell and so paying the stamp duty doesn't matter to them that much. For downsizers ever few thousand pounds matters as that's the whole point of downsizing usually - to release equity. Stamp duty is one of the problems.

The other problem more recently introduced is the increase in inheritance tax allowance over the next few years. It will be raised to £1m but £350k of it must be from the primary residence. So if a couple do not have a primary residence and they pass away, they can only pass on £650k inheritance tax free. It is of course the rationale thing to do to not downsize (to a property worth less then £350k) for couples before they pass on to make full use of this £350k housing allowance. You also want to be quite comfortably over the £350k in case prices fall. So a London home worth £500k would not make sense to downsize at all given the costs and potential to not use up the full IHT allowance.

Of course the best thing would just be to scrap inheritance tax so you would not have any of these problems or any admin/legal/tax department costs (paid by the taxpayer) to deal with estates.

westernpromise

Inheritance tax has actually been increased for larger (i.e. London) estates. Over £2 million the "extra" IHT allowance is withdrawn and there's now a £20,000 probate fee. In total estates much above that level are worse off.

zagubov

We need to build more housing to European standard or better and stop pretending we're an overcrowded country.

We're the most cramped country in Europe for housing space.

And no, we'll not limit our families to fit the houses! We don't even limit our car sizes to fit our garages!

ukcarper

zagubov wrote: »

We need to build more housing to European standard or better and stop pretending we're an overcrowded country.

We're the most cramped country in Europe for housing space.

And no, we'll not limit our families to fit the houses! We don't even limit our car sizes to fit our garages!

In UK less than 20% of people live in flats in Germany that figure is about 60% in fact the only country in EU that has fewer people living in flats is Ireland. So should we be building more flats.

westernpromise

ukcarper wrote: »

In UK less than 20% of people live in flats in Germany that figure is about 60%.

This was the work of the RAF.

zagubov

ukcarper wrote: »

In UK less than 20% of people live in flats in Germany that figure is about 60% in fact the only country in EU that has fewer people living in flats is Ireland. So should we be building more flats.

Absolutely.

For a start the Campaign to Protect Rural England would approve of housing above shops etc. They want car parks to be relocated underground.

There was a plan to built more housing and supporting transport infrastructure in the belt between Oxford and Cambridge, centred on Milton Keynes. Great idea! Same with development around Southampton and Portsmouth.

Plus we need better connections between and within Britain's conurbations outside London.

I wouldn't be surprised if the leasehold tenure system puts people off buying flats in England and Wales so maybe that needs reforming (another of my pet peeves).

ukcarper

zagubov wrote: »

Absolutely.

For a start the Campaign to Protect Rural England would approve of housing above shops etc. They want car parks to be relocated underground.

There was a plan to built more housing and supporting transport infrastructure in the belt between Oxford and Cambridge, centred on Milton Keynes. Great idea! Same with development around Southampton and Portsmouth.

Plus we need better connections between and within Britain's conurbations outside London.

I wouldn't be surprised if the leasehold tenure system puts people off buying flats in England and Wales so maybe that needs reforming (another of my pet peeves).

The culture in UK is different and most people want a garden. But I agree building more flats could be they way forward. The things that put me off are maintenance charges that in general you have no control over and length of lease. The other thing that prevents me downsizing into a flat is the lack of storage especially outside the flat, my hobby involves having a fair amount of equipment that need to be stored.

I also agree transport between conurbations is also required this is just as true surrounding London where travelling between towns by public transport often means going in and out of London.

There is a lot of development going on near me and a lot more is planned but the infrastructure is already strained and there are no improvements planned which in the long run is unsustainable.

zagubov

ukcarper wrote: »

The culture in UK is different and most people want a garden. But I agree building more flats could be they way forward. The things that put me off are maintenance charges that in general you have no control over and length of lease. The other thing that prevents me downsizing into a flat is the lack of storage especially outside the flat, my hobby involves having a fair amount of equipment that need to be stored.

We've all theoretically got about an acre each if it was all shared out equally.

There have been revised guidelines to expand the floorspace in new London dwellings. This needs to be replicated or exceeded everywhere. We need proper planning to include infrastructure.

And as for the housing stock, I wonder how much of it is under-or over-occupied compared with other countries?

ukcarper

zagubov wrote: »

We've all theoretically got about an acre each if it was all shared out equally.

There have been revised guidelines to expand the floorspace in new London dwellings. This needs to be replicated or exceeded everywhere. We need proper planning to include infrastructure.

And as for the housing stock, I wonder how much of it is under-or over-occupied compared with other countries?

I agree we need a more joined up planning system.

I don’t know about compared to other countries but I would guess it’s quite high, in my road there over 14 4 bed houses and the majority of those only have 2 people living in them.