SNP Stamp Duty changes

[sauzee_4]

Just wanted to know what everyone's thoughts were on this? Both the good and the bad.

Personally I can't see too many downsides and it will certainly benefit me personally if I ever do buy a property.

£325,000 appears to be the point at which you would actually pay more in tax when buying a home than you would under the current system.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b7fc726e-4fc1-11e4-a0a4-00144feab7de.html#axzz3I7uW5K6d

[RyeSloan]

Just wanted to know what everyone's thoughts were on this? Both the good and the bad. Personally I can't see too many downsides and it will certainly benefit me personally if I ever do buy a property. £325,000 appears to be the point at which you would actually pay more in tax when buying a home than you would under the current system. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b7fc726e-4fc1-11e4-a0a4-00144feab7de.html#axzz3I7uW5K6d

While I like the fact it is progressive thus removing the ludicrous clustering around stamp duty levels you won't be surprised to hear I think 10% and 12% tax levels are just rude...to me just another popularist move by the SNP and a mansion or wealth tax by the back door.

Really governments should reduce the transaction costs of buying a house substantially...that way they increase supply in one stroke as people move more often. The trend to increase stamp duty has had a direct impact on the number of transactions completed, further increasing the pressure on prices that are already far too high (mainly due to government imposed planning rules, including the totally outdated green belts)

Still it's a cash cow for the government so why would they look to take sensible steps, much easier to dress it up as being 'fair'.

[Colr]

Just wanted to know what everyone's thoughts were on this? Both the good and the bad.

Personally I can't see too many downsides and it will certainly benefit me personally if I ever do buy a property.

£325,000 appears to be the point at which you would actually pay more in tax when buying a home than you would under the current system.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b7fc726e-4fc1-11e4-a0a4-00144feab7de.html#axzz3I7uW5K6d

I agree with the progressive approach that gets rid of banding. Tax is too high, though. Gordon Brown started this freecing of home owners unfortunately politicians are now addicted to it.

[sauzee_4]

While I like the fact it is progressive thus removing the ludicrous clustering around stamp duty levels you won't be surprised to hear I think 10% and 12% tax levels are just rude...to me just another popularist move by the SNP and a mansion or wealth tax by the back door.

Really governments should reduce the transaction costs of buying a house substantially...that way they increase supply in one stroke as people move more often. The trend to increase stamp duty has had a direct impact on the number of transactions completed, further increasing the pressure on prices that are already far too high (mainly due to government imposed planning rules, including the totally outdated green belts)

Still it's a cash cow for the government so why would they look to take sensible steps, much easier to dress it up as being 'fair'.

Does it not help the environment if people move less often though?

[marinello59]

I reckon the SNP have got this one just about right.

[RyeSloan]

Does it not help the environment if people move less often though?

In what way??

[allmodcons]

In what way??

Less removal vehicles on the road :0)

[Sergio sledge]

In what way??

People are more likely to invest in energy saving measures in their house if they are going to be there long term. Encouraging people to move more will lead to less investment in solar panels, energy efficient boilers etc.

[Colr]

People are more likely to invest in energy saving measures in their house if they are going to be there long term. Encouraging people to move more will lead to less investment in solar panels, energy efficient boilers etc.

Less likely to move into new energy efficient homes (?).

[RyeSloan]

People are more likely to invest in energy saving measures in their house if they are going to be there long term. Encouraging people to move more will lead to less investment in solar panels, energy efficient boilers etc.

Rather tenuous i would suggest!

To support a 10% and 12% tax on house transactions as somehow a 'green tax' is just silly I would say.

Same old with governments tho..they get their sticky paws on everything and can't help but take more and more.

Don't forget worker mobility is a key economic driver, these taxes (not just the SNP) version actively counter that. They also result in higher housing costs resulting in more and more capital being tied up in non producing assets.

Add in the UK government actively increasing public exposure to mortgage debt with right to buy etc and it's clear our politicians of all stripes see the housing market as a cash cow and a political lever while ignoring any suggestions of what might actually be useful policy for the country in the long term.

[Future17]

While I like the fact it is progressive thus removing the ludicrous clustering around stamp duty levels you won't be surprised to hear I think 10% and 12% tax levels are just rude...to me just another popularist move by the SNP and a mansion or wealth tax by the back door.

Really governments should reduce the transaction costs of buying a house substantially...that way they increase supply in one stroke as people move more often. The trend to increase stamp duty has had a direct impact on the number of transactions completed, further increasing the pressure on prices that are already far too high (mainly due to government imposed planning rules, including the totally outdated green belts)

Still it's a cash cow for the government so why would they look to take sensible steps, much easier to dress it up as being 'fair'.

Surely people moving more often has the same effect on the demand as it does on the supply and therefore has a negligible (if any) effect on the availability of property and pricing? I can't access the article in the OP, but this policy was originally billed as a means to fund the construction of more affordable housing IIRC.

There is also an argument that a reduced number of transactions results in lower overall property prices, not higher ones.

[RyeSloan]

Surely people moving more often has the same effect on the demand as it does on the supply and therefore has a negligible (if any) effect on the availability of property and pricing? I can't access the article in the OP, but this policy was originally billed as a means to fund the construction of more affordable housing IIRC. There is also an argument that a reduced number of transactions results in lower overall property prices, not higher ones.

No less people moving restricts the supply...restricted supply increases prices.

It's strange to think that until 1997 stamp duty was a flat 1%....how things have changed!

You think house prices have rocketed since then well the tax cost has increased by almost double the rate of house price inflation.

Stamp duty is a perfect example of a transaction charge impacting the market price and an even better example of how all wealth taxes suffer fiscal drag to end up capturing more and more people in its clutches.

Something everyone should be aware of the next time they hear a politician assuring them only the rich will pay their latest tax wheeze to squeeze more blood from the stone. Their statement may be true today but you can bet your bottom dollar that it won't be true tomorrow....