Petition to extend the SDLT holiday to be debated in Parliament on Monday

mortgage_noob

Seashell517 said:

NameUnavailable said:

I'm not sure why any tax payer should be subsidising anyone's home purchase.

The housing market is booming if you beleive the reports from Nationwide etc., so it is hardly in need of help.

Because it's a regressive tax and there's plenty of evidence that removing it leads to increased receipts for the treasury from other sources as well as increased spending in the local economy? 

From a quick google: https://www.financialreporter.co.uk/finance-news/permanent-stamp-duty-cut-could-provide-139m-tax-boost-for-treasury.html

I fail to see how Stamp Duty can in anyway be seen as a regressive tax. As @numbercruncher8 says, it's quite clearly a progressive tax; it increases based on the value of the home.

The Stamp Duty cut benefits only those who can afford to buy more expensive homes either because of higher income, or because they already have equity in an existing property.  It's been a boon for BTL investors, and those 'upsizing' but has obliterated the LTVs of first time buyers who now need to have a considerably larger deposit or borrow more because house prices have disproportionately increased relative to stamp duty savings, which they wouldn't have paid anyway. 

Seashell517

mortgage_noob said:

Seashell517 said:

NameUnavailable said:

I'm not sure why any tax payer should be subsidising anyone's home purchase.

The housing market is booming if you beleive the reports from Nationwide etc., so it is hardly in need of help.

Because it's a regressive tax and there's plenty of evidence that removing it leads to increased receipts for the treasury from other sources as well as increased spending in the local economy? 

From a quick google: https://www.financialreporter.co.uk/finance-news/permanent-stamp-duty-cut-could-provide-139m-tax-boost-for-treasury.html

I fail to see how Stamp Duty can in anyway be seen as a regressive tax. As @numbercruncher8 says, it's quite clearly a progressive tax; it increases based on the value of the home.

The Stamp Duty cut benefits only those who can afford to buy more expensive homes either because of higher income, or because they already have equity in an existing property.  It's been a boon for BTL investors, and those 'upsizing' but has obliterated the LTVs of first time buyers who now need to have a considerably larger deposit or borrow more because house prices have disproportionately increased relative to stamp duty savings, which they wouldn't have paid anyway. 

It's regressive because the banding system means that people purchasing cheaper properties pay more relative to the value of the property than people purchasing more expensive homes. 

The fact that mortgage lenders require higher deposits because of the current economic circumstances is not directly related to SDLT... And people up sizing can be a benefit to FTBs because it means properties at the lower end of the price spectrum become available.

Anyway, the government will do as it likes regardless of the British public at large or this forum, so that's enough academic debating for me.

numbercruncher8

I think your definition of regressive is wrong.

Someone buying a £125k home pays no stamp duty.
Someone buying a £250k home pays £2.5k stamp duty = 1% of the value
Someone buying a £500k home pays £15k stamp duty = 3% of the value
Someone buying a £1m home pays £43.75k stamp duty = 4.75% of the value
Someone buying a £2m home pays £153.75k stamp duty = 7.7% of the value

That increase is caused by the banding system you talk about. You seem to have it upside down.

grumiofoundation

Seashell517 said:

mortgage_noob said:

Seashell517 said:

NameUnavailable said:

I'm not sure why any tax payer should be subsidising anyone's home purchase.

The housing market is booming if you beleive the reports from Nationwide etc., so it is hardly in need of help.

Because it's a regressive tax and there's plenty of evidence that removing it leads to increased receipts for the treasury from other sources as well as increased spending in the local economy? 

From a quick google: https://www.financialreporter.co.uk/finance-news/permanent-stamp-duty-cut-could-provide-139m-tax-boost-for-treasury.html

I fail to see how Stamp Duty can in anyway be seen as a regressive tax. As @numbercruncher8 says, it's quite clearly a progressive tax; it increases based on the value of the home.

The Stamp Duty cut benefits only those who can afford to buy more expensive homes either because of higher income, or because they already have equity in an existing property.  It's been a boon for BTL investors, and those 'upsizing' but has obliterated the LTVs of first time buyers who now need to have a considerably larger deposit or borrow more because house prices have disproportionately increased relative to stamp duty savings, which they wouldn't have paid anyway. 

It's regressive because the banding system means that people purchasing cheaper properties pay more relative to the value of the property than people purchasing more expensive homes. 

The fact that mortgage lenders require higher deposits because of the current economic circumstances is not directly related to SDLT... And people up sizing can be a benefit to FTBs because it means properties at the lower end of the price spectrum become available.

Anyway, the government will do as it likes regardless of the British public at large or this forum, so that's enough academic debating for me.

No it doesn't (numbers posted above).
Only flat fee is for those purchasing second homes.

Getting_greyer

Thrugelmir said:

Getting_greyer said:

Crashy_Time said:

numbercruncher8 said:

Laughable really.

But pretty symptomatic about a lot of the people who have signed the petition, f-all to do with the merits of taxation revenue in the whole country, all about myself and my finances.

House prices have turned a significant part of the population into 'I'm alright jacks'. For instance, improving affordability would be better served by slightly lower (10-20%) prices at the lower end instead of endless props which simply make prices more expensive, and force people to buy a property which almost immediately declines in value due to the new build premium.

Selling that to the public would be impossible for any party, despite it making sense. 

Not so sure, the public nowadays are much more aware of what the scam of big debt for basic shelter is about and who it benefits, much more so than a few years ago.

The deposit is out of reach for many but it's the banks fault for not lending 100%. 

Next month it will 13 years since Northern Rock was nationalised. Still being run off today. History isn't going to be allowed to repeat itself.  

That was just me paraphrasing an argument i regularly hear.  It's not what I'm saying.

sammyjammy

I would rather start a petition for the opposite, we need all the tax income we can get and will do for years to come and we certainly have better uses for the money that it would have earned if there had never been such a SDLT holiday

blue_max_3

sammyjammy said:

I would rather start a petition for the opposite, we need all the tax income we can get and will do for years to come and we certainly have better uses for the money that it would have earned if there had never been such a SDLT holiday

Perhaps doubling it?

mortgage_noob

numbercruncher8 said:

I think your definition of regressive is wrong.

Someone buying a £125k home pays no stamp duty.
Someone buying a £250k home pays £2.5k stamp duty = 1% of the value
Someone buying a £500k home pays £15k stamp duty = 3% of the value
Someone buying a £1m home pays £43.75k stamp duty = 4.75% of the value
Someone buying a £2m home pays £153.75k stamp duty = 7.7% of the value

That increase is caused by the banding system you talk about. You seem to have it upside down.

Numbercruncher living up to their name!

BikingBud

Paying all the stamp duty is not obligatory though. If people were not hell bent on forcing HPI then HMRC would not be taking the vast sums they are.

We seem to believe our house is worth more and therefore feel the need to inflate the asking price. The house we buy next has also done the same and we end up chasing ourselves into a frenzy, committing a greater sum of money that we must borrow over a longer period and to service that over inflated debt we must forego other pleasurable aspects of life. In the mean time the govt and the bankers sit back and laugh.  

It's a very strange human quirk that drives this game! 

Crashy_Time

BikingBud said:

Paying all the stamp duty is not obligatory though. If people were not hell bent on forcing HPI then HMRC would not be taking the vast sums they are.

We seem to believe our house is worth more and therefore feel the need to inflate the asking price. The house we buy next has also done the same and we end up chasing ourselves into a frenzy, committing a greater sum of money that we must borrow over a longer period and to service that over inflated debt we must forego other pleasurable aspects of life. In the mean time the govt and the bankers sit back and laugh.  

It's a very strange human quirk that drives this game! 

Just a matter of time before sellers have to pay it IMO.