New stamp duty rules

Dr Jack · 3 Dec 2014 at 19:31

krooton said:
Well one way to look at it, if a property (for whatever reason) gets sold 3 times over the course of a year, the government gets 3 payouts for doing absolutely nothing.

And?

I don't see why that's a bad thing.

McBain · 3 Dec 2014 at 19:34

Mr Jack said:
And?

I don't see why that's a bad thing.

You don't see a problem with the government fleecing people of their hard earned, for literally nothing?

Own your own house?

SpeedFreak · 3 Dec 2014 at 19:41

Long overdue, but will the bands now rise with house price inflation?

Dr Jack · 3 Dec 2014 at 19:43

McBain said:
You don't see a problem with the government fleecing people of their hard earned, for literally nothing?

This isn't "fleecing"; it's a form of taxation. In this case it's a form of taxation levied on the sale of property. What, exactly, makes that an unreasonable thing to tax? Why would it be better to tax purchases, say, or income instead?

Own your own house?

Yes, and I paid stamp duty on my first house back when it went down it was levied down to £60k.

McBain · 3 Dec 2014 at 19:45

Mr Jack said:
This isn't "fleecing"; it's a form of taxation. In this case it's a form of taxation levied on the sale of property. What, exactly, makes that an unreasonable thing to tax? Why would it be better to tax purchases, say, or income instead?

A taxation for nothing, that's fleecing in my book.

It's unreasonable because it shouldn't exist, the reason it was introduced in the first place no longer exists, unless of course we're still fighting the French, in which case forget everything i've just said.

Why don't they bring back the window tax?

Dr Jack · 3 Dec 2014 at 19:47

McBain said:
A taxation for nothing, that's fleecing in my book.

What do you mean 'for nothing'?

How is a house sale being taxed fundamentally different to a purchase being taxed? Or a pint of beer?

It's unreasonable because it shouldn't exist, the reason it was introduced in the first place no longer exists, unless of course we're still fighting the French, in which case forget everything i've just said.

This is very weak argument; every tax was introduced to pay for something or other.

McBain · 3 Dec 2014 at 19:48

Mr Jack said:
This is very weak argument; every tax was introduced to pay for something or other.

Not weak at all, it's fact.

Why not bring back the window tax then? Or any of the other ridiculous taxes that were introduced, and abolished when their purpose was served.

Dr Jack · 3 Dec 2014 at 19:51

McBain said:
Why not bring back the window tax then? Or any of the other ridiculous taxes that were introduced, and abolished when their purpose was served.

Because of problems with the window tax. Namely that it was easily, and rather ridiculously, avoidable and that it taxed something that didn't track in a sensible fashion with anything and thus appears unfair.

If you could address the first part of my last message, then we could perhaps learn what it is about stamp duty which seems so bad.

McBain · 3 Dec 2014 at 19:55

Mr Jack said:
Because of problems with the window tax. Namely that it was easily, and rather ridiculously, avoidable and that it taxed something that didn't track in a sensible fashion with anything and thus appears unfair.

If you could address the first part of my last message, then we could perhaps learn what it is about stamp duty which seems so bad.

I've already said what makes it so bad, the fact it shouldn't exist, what more reason need there be? What possible, fair reason could there be for a tax to still exist after it's purpose is served? Other than, because they can?

However, my take on what you posted above is, a pint of beer is a luxury, so should be taxable. Some might say buying a house is a luxury, but in my eyes having somewhere to live is a necessity and buying makes financial sense. If you think that makes it fair, and right to tax someone then that's your opinion, it certainly isn't mine.

[TW]Fox · 3 Dec 2014 at 20:00

McBain said:
A taxation for nothing, that's fleecing in my book.

What about VAT then?

McBain · 3 Dec 2014 at 20:01

[TW]Fox;27298798 said:
What about VAT then?

What about it?

[TW]Fox · 3 Dec 2014 at 20:06

McBain said:
What about it?

Presumably you feel the same way about that?

Nitefly · 3 Dec 2014 at 20:06

Seems like a good idea to me, the system was long due an overhaul. Can't help feel sorry for my friends who just lost about £4k from completing yesterday!

McBain · 3 Dec 2014 at 20:10

[TW]Fox;27298824 said:
Presumably you feel the same way about that?

VAT I don't have a massive problem with, necessities are 0% and what are considered luxury items are charged....

VAT on electricity and the likes however, can't say I feel that's particularly fair.

cheesyboy · 3 Dec 2014 at 20:12

Mr Jack said:
This isn't "fleecing"; it's a form of taxation. In this case it's a form of taxation levied on the sale of property. What, exactly, makes that an unreasonable thing to tax? Why would it be better to tax purchases, say, or income instead?

Yes, and I paid stamp duty on my first house back when it went down it was levied down to £60k.

It's levied on the purchase, not the sale.

It's a little unusual, as a tax, in that it is levied on a private transaction; selling or buying chattels/possessions between individuals is not ordinarily taxable. It's like government taking a cut when you sell a car, or an old sofa.

McBain · 3 Dec 2014 at 20:14

Moses said:
Because the tax goes into a pool, not towards a defined purpose. Getting rid of that particular tax would just mean they had to raise the money through introducing a new tax, or raising the amount they receive through an existing (eg. by altering income tax rates and/or allowances).

Taxing people when they buy houses doesn't seem particularly awful - I mean it's not as though people chop and change much. It sucks for anyone who relocates for work, but then that's just an expense of that/they should factor it into remuneration negotiations. It's better than more regressive forms of tax, at least.

If there has to be a tax it would make more sense for it to be on the seller in my view. For a start, they're likely in a better financial position than someone who has just had to scrape a deposit together, not to mention the costs incurred, but they're also probably making a nice profit. I appreciate they're all assumptions, but not out of the question for that to be the case the majority of the time.

Obviously the problem with that is, the seller would just add the stamp duty onto the price of the house and the buyer ends up paying it anyway

With the buying situation as it is, rising house prices, larger deposits needed for a reasonable mortgage rate, new mortgage lending rules etc it seems like it's harder than ever to actually get on the ladder, stamp duty is just another reason for that.

McBain · 3 Dec 2014 at 20:19

Moses said:
I read the first half and was going to say something about the latter... but obviously you covered it. It's still retarded to say you don't have a problem with it 'cause it's just luxuries... and then to go on and say electricity is vatable (and gas, etc, even if they're a lower rate).

Is it the same with Stamp Duty, okay sometimes and not in certain circumstances? Or are you at least consistent with that?

Well yeah, I do have a problem with it when electricity and the like is concerned.

Stamp duty isn't OK, regardless of the circumstances.

Moses said:
Does it matter? If it was levied on the seller instead then house prices would just go up that much to cover it, no? It wouldn't have a real world impact. People don't buy a £500k house and then wonder where the stamp duty money's coming from... that's factored into their budgets.

Check my edit, I added that exact point.

Dr Jack · 3 Dec 2014 at 20:25

cheesyboy said:
It's levied on the purchase, not the sale.

I tip my hat to your pedantry, sir, touché

It's a little unusual, as a tax, in that it is levied on a private transaction; selling or buying chattels/possessions between individuals is not ordinarily taxable. It's like government taking a cut when you sell a car, or an old sofa.

This is true. However, houses are pretty unusual as purchases, as well, so I'm not sure that makes it unreasonable.

Skillmister · 3 Dec 2014 at 20:26

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pt12fjABlvqjg9afQ7bE5JFccf1Rf1ENdPbWomW286I/edit#gid=0

Dr Jack · 3 Dec 2014 at 20:28

McBain said:
VAT I don't have a massive problem with, necessities are 0% and what are considered luxury items are charged....

VAT on shoes: 20%

VAT on feminine sanitary products: 5%

VAT on Jaffa Cakes: 0%

Are you sure about that?