Should stamp duty be abolished to help the housing market?

[Dorothyperky]

Nothing is selling in our area over £500k (south).

Every agent near us is seeing less sales and fewer instructions.

Also would it make a difference to you?

I was simply refuting the pp's comment that 'IHT is 40%' when it's actually nothing for the great majority of estates.
I completely understand what you have said and agree with you. I would be more in favour of a lower percentage starting at a lower figure but closing of all the loop holes so that more people actually contribute. In terms of income tax, I feel more strongly. Earlier on this thread, I said that the whole tax system needs a massive overhaul. I can't see the point in tinkering with SD but ignoring the rest of the tax system, which generally disincentivises productive workers and encourages speculation and asset hoarding. Younger people are just giving up because the whole system is so messed up-see NEETs conversations

It's up to 500k for your main home and up to 1 million for a couple. That's a very generous amount imo.

None of the things you mention are unique to downsizing. They apply to upsizing too!

It might seem that the cons outweigh the pros when you are 62 and probably fairly fit and active. Things might seem very different in 10/15/20 years, particularly when you are not fit enough to actually make the move to a property more suited to your needs. It may or may not apply to you but some older people living in large houses seem to cut off their nose to spite their face, for example, refusing to downsize to where their adult children live because they don't want to pay SD or can't sell their home to do so because they won't lower the price. I've seen these sort of scenarios in my extended family. Your comment about blowing the 20k on heating isn't a sensible one but I think that we shouldn't unnecessarily overuse resources like that and some others obviously disagree.

Why should they have to do that, it is their home?

But someone in their 80"s with no savings in a house they bought 50 years previously can"t pay that maybe, a working person can pay council tax?

They don’t have to.

And? If they have no savings to pay the current council tax, same issue.

Yep, seller should pay.

So would the 1% property tax be based on the price at the point you bought it or on the price it is now?

Both are a bit unfair. So my parents bought a house in 1979 for £34,000. Do they get to pay £340? While their neighbour's who bought last year for market value of £900k pay £9k a year. How is it fair to make them pay either amount?

Surely the current amount of £1.3k per year for everyone is much more reasonable.

That’s insanity! Imagine paying that much and having no central heating! And why on earth haven’t they updated that like 10
or 20 years ago?! And yes the 90s was when I remember everyone upgrading to double glazing. Their EPC cert will be pretty bad. You’d hope as it’s their kid selling it they’d have a clue about the type of stuff people expect in a house nowadays.

In the US, it is based on current market price, so also changes if you extend the house. Note - 1% is just an example figure, could be 0.3%.

So in your case, both houses would pay roughly same amount, regardless of when bought. If the neighbour's house had been extended, they would pay more (assuming higher market value)

Also gets rid of the present situation, where a 250k house in different parts of the country can pay very different amounts of council tax.

And about 25% of the council tax everyone pays goes to pay public sector pensions

I don't see why it's a problem that people pay different amounts in different parts of the country. That's going to happen with a % based tax as well. It will just make rich areas richer and poor areas poorer

No particular difference between the 2 houses other than prices at the time of purchase

No, less so. This would increase the tax in rich areas (compared to stamp duty/ council tax) vs poor areas.

My sister's place in London is about 3 times the price of my mother's place in Glos, but the council tax is considerably lower.

Socialists are quite keen to round old people up and stick them back in the workhouse, so forcing them out their houses would be the first step towards that.

So do you get some back if you go into negative equity?

If you did that 4 times a year, HMRC would want their share as you would be classed as trading.

It's partly inertia and partly the politics of envy. Inertia in terms of the civil service taking years to do the simplest of things, i.e. it took years to get rid of the tax free luncheon vouchers which were literally just pence per day and completely worthless. Politics of envy in that the lefties think that someone on £100k or more doesn't need free childcare and deserves to pay 62% tax because they don't "deserve" the tax free personal allowance. The lefties simply don't understand the damage things like that cause, i.e. people working part time, such as doctors, thus increasing NHS waiting times, etc. Like VAT on school fees, no logic/reasoning, just politics of envy to "punish the rich".

VAT on school fees is a (excellent) conscious decision to stop parents putting their children into sub par private schools where they receive an inferior education just because their parents are dumb enough to have a few quid they are prepared to sacrifice at the expense of everything else the economy needs them to purchase.

It isn't 'Lefties' though is it? The Left haven't been in power for decades. The Tories and New Labour have created this income tax situation. They have decided that most people think that 100k is such a huge salary that people earning it can afford whatever they like and however much tax the state chooses to impose. Your example of doctors is a good one. Senior doctors and other senior professionals reduce working hours because, as I already said above, huge tax rates are a disincentive to work harder. They make absolutely no sense and should be removed.
Your example of VAT on private school fees is a completely different example with a completely different principle.
'The Politics of Envy' is a vacuous statement, often used by the wealthy to try to get out of paying anywhere near the same rate of tax as those hard working doctors and other professionals who are paying through the nose.

You could equally say that the 'Capitalists' want to round up young people and stick them back in the workhouse, without even allowing them a home in the first place.
Both would be rather stupid, hyperbolic statements though.

To answer OP, yes, if it was abolished (or even lessened) we would move. But it’s not, so we can’t.

They may have had their money from equity release years ago in which case the property will sit there unsold until the market supports the required valuation. These corporations will go to great lengths to ensure there is no correction that they dont benefit from

So how long do you think that will be, 5 years, 10 years or maybe never.