New tax if selling house in Scotland

[EddieReadersglasses]

Just wondering if anyone knows the ins and outs of this new tax.
We agreed to buy a house in January this year but it won't be built till July 2015. Tax changes mean it could cost us tens of thousands of £s more which makes it completely unaffordable. However we will conclude missives prior to the change in system. Does anyone know whether this means we will pay current stamp duty rates or still be stung with new higher tax rate (10% of sale price!)
Causing a huge amount of worry for us as currently looking like our dream house will just not happen

Trawling the internet for information but not much to be found

On that example and in cash terms she may well be for that period she is paying for childcare worse off. This is the interesting difficulty the state has in making work pay.

What is full time childcare for three children under 5 where the mother works full time in Edinburgh these days then if we want to export our working single mother on £100k there? That would be three nursery places full time 8 - 7 or three child minder places or daily nanny.

People on benefits with children are not necessarily poor. For doing 16 hours a week minimum wage, you can get £15k net, after housing costs and council tax. And potentially secure tenure.

Working in London and paying commuting costs/private rents is a mug's game unless you are well into six figures.

She's not our working single mother...I said that someone on a wage large enough to borrow £400 000 could live in my house, with my DC, my outgoings and save enough to buy my house in cash in a couple of years and so yes, I consider that pretty wealthy seeing as I'm not doing without necessities.

Given that I'm not single, I've never had 3 children under 5 and I don't live in London and in fact commute to Edinburgh...I'm no longer sure where you're going with your woman tbh, lol.

Her children get funded part time nursery places from 3 yrs though, if that helps you work out why she's not actually wealthy even though I was comparing my very different situation?...

We could all be wealthy all we have to do is......
uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Buy-to-let

God I feel for anyone trying to survive and build a life in this country at this time

She's suddenly in London because that's where all the poor people on £100K plus per year live. Violins out.

People on £100,000 a year are not necessarily poor.

Anyone earning £100.000 a year are not poor they are rich
Tell anyone on minimum wage you are poor on that money . How ridiculous

According to Retties Estate Agents, people buying houses costing between £325,000 and £500,000 are going to pay £6.1 million more in total, in tax under the new system, whereas people buying houses over £1 million are only going to pay an extra £3.6 million in total - so the bulk of this new tax is not being raised from the super-rich.

Did Retties say how many house-purchases fit into each of those groups?

(I think I can guess the pattern)

I wonder why the range £500,000 to £1m was omitted?

Not in the report I read, PigletJohn - though yes, it would seem logical that there will be more houses sold in the £325,000 to £500,000 band than in the £1 million+ band. It still means that far more of the money being raised by this new tax is being paid by people who aren't the richest in society.

And I don't know why the range you mention was omitted - the Times failed to tell me that either. Should I write a Stiff Letter to the Editor?

Oops - I pressed post before coming up with the phrase that sums up what I was trying to say.

Retties' figures suggest to me that too high a proportion of the new money that this new tax will raise is coming out of the wrong pockets - I would rather see it coming out of the pockets of those who can afford to buy million pound+ houses - which genuinely could be defined as mansions, in my lexicon, rather than people buying fairly ordinary houses.

I wonder how much tax, in total, will be paid by the vast number of people buying less expensive homes.

I think it's misleading to call it a New Tax. It is fundamentally Stamp Duty, with a new name, the bands revised, and charged graduated rather than flat rate (which I am sure is better).

The only thing left to argue about is whether the bands have been set in a way that people agree with. Naturally, winners say yes, and losers say no.

SDT the Retties analysis adds to the evidence that once again it's the 'squeezed middle' who are again being hit hardest.

by the "middle," do you mean the people earning more than 90% of the population, or do you mean those earning more than 95% of the population?

What do you think "middle" means?

Having 3 children in childcare is a choice - we're stopping at 2 because that's all we can afford and we've got a gap that means there will be less than a year where we are paying two lots of nursery fees.

I also think if this tax discourages people from buying second homes in rural Scotland so much the better. Where I'm from locals are priced out of buying homes as a result and I can think of one community in particular where only the minority of houses are lived in year round. But as it's only an increase over £325k I don't think it will actually have much impact.

And the £100k salary will still be coming in once the nursery fees are unnecessary. Most working women with preschool children I know look at it as an investment for the future - my salary won't cover 2 sets of fees but I know we'll be better off longterm.

Our house (Glasgow inner city suburb), if we were to choose to sell, would fall into the £325-£500k bracket. If we were to buy another house in the same bracket, then I accept that this is a tax we would have to pay and would factor that it into the equation of affordability. So even though technically I am a "loser" in the new regime, I am not complaining.

A house is a home, not an investment vehicle. If you buy additional houses to let, then accept that there may be taxes involved (and I am considering doing so, as my savings are essentially declining in value in the bank).

I have often said that I am happy to pay the higher rate of income tax. I can't then be hypocritical and cry crocodile tears about an incremental tax designed not to hit the poorest hardest.

I'm not sure I think this tax is a good idea for the housing market in general. But I don't think it's an unfair tax as the better of people who can afford the prices will just have to pay more or buy a less expensive house.