Printable View
apparently stamp duty has changed. By my maths, if you're under £500k purchases you're better off. Over £500k worse off with no real change at £500k itself.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-30249297
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30291460
edit: My maths was a little out. The above is true in that no real change at £500k, or the £250k threshold, but the tipping point is more like £1m beyond which you are definitely worse off.
old rates (flat rate based on total sale value) source http://www.theguardian.com/money/201...-duty-land-tax
• £125,000 – £250,000 = 1%
• £250,001 – £500,000 = 3%
• £500,001 – £1m = 4%
• £1m – £2m = 5%
• More than £2m = 7%
New rates (see 13:26 post in the BBC timeline, link as above)
Mr Osborne spelled out the new stamp duty rates.
No tax on the first £125,000 paid
2% on the portion up to £250,000
5% up to £925,000
10% up to £1.5 million
12% on everything above that.
He said:"As a result stamp duty will be cut for the 98% of homebuyers who pay it."
+ Will help some first time buyers onto the ladder. Bit of pre-election PR and it helps keep the housing market buoyant.
- The last crash was largely fuelled by a housing market bubble. I'm not convinced this isn't trying to reinflate that bubble again.
More progressive. Better IMHO. Takes a chunk out of opposition points.
Don't think it's going to have much material affect on buying or selling though.
I think that takes the system from WTF to merely stupid.
In the past I have been put off moving closer to my job because of the costs of selling up and moving. It really is eye watering amounts of money. Stamp duty was a very significant slice of that. Coming up with thousands, even adding it to the mortgage, is hard. So you keep buying petrol and commuting. I probably did 8K miles per year more than necessary for 15 years. If I cost that at 20p/mile (because I could only afford to do that by driving old cars), that is about £24K spent over that time. That is more than the cost of moving house, but moving house is an up front cost and commuting is pay as you go. It is like a debt trap. During all those hours on the road, you can see people driving the other way. Some of them are doing roughly the opposite commute to you.
Just scrap the damned tax, please. I might never move again so it isn't something I would gain from, but for the sake of humanity empty our roads and cut our carbon emissions by letting people move to where they work.
Trouble is, Dances, governments have to get tax from somewhere, and if they scrap this, something else has to go up to compensate. What?
After all, ANYBODY buying a house is relatively affluent, compared to a lot of people, that can't afford to buy with or without SDLT.
Sure, this adds a large chunk of cash to the cost of the process, exactly at a time when most people can least afford it. But, roll it into the cost of the house, buy with a view to a long-term home, and it becomes pretty irrelevant for most people, I.e. sub £250k, because it's a one-off cost over many years of ownership. You just have to factor it in to the total purchase cost of the property, and forget about it.
As for the change, a considerable improvement over the old slab system, IMHO.
Some quick charts comparing the rates (approximate, disclaimer, not thoroughly checked, use at your own risk, I accept no responsibility for errors or omissions etc)
http://s2.postimg.org/5n5uacjpl/stamp_duty.jpg
full chart here: http://postimg.org/image/ycvj2h42z/
Worse than that, if people stopped commuting so far then they wouldn't pay all that petrol duty so government would be hit twice. People might be happier, less stressed and so less likely to need medical treatment, spend less time in cars so probably getting more exercise. But happiness doesn't pay the taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
We have lots of housing problems in this country. Affordable first housing, affluent people buying second homes in rural/coastal areas that are empty most of the year driving out the locals. People forced to rent because they can't find a house to buy because all the houses are bought by people who are buying to let so they are only available to rent. Rents are stupidly expensive too.
I just want to know, what does stamp duty solve?
what does it solve? nothing in itself. But it is a form of tax on transactions, just as VAT is for buying goods. Any reduction in stamp is welcome however. It means you need less deposit to buy - a real help for first time buyers. This could save me between £1-2k depending how much I eventually end up having to pay. that is a new fridge freezer, oven and dishwasher (in the sales)Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
and for once it is the rich who are hit by the change. Look at the difference collected on 2m+ property values
Wonderful news. My other half and I are in the process of buying a new place and our stamp duty bill has just dropped by over £3k. Nice.
If it causes an increase in market activity, then the reduction in average stamp duty could be balanced out by increased volume?
Its also (IMHO) partly a sop to the 'mansion tax' idea cobbled up by Ed Balls - up, in his ivory tower.
It's a smart move. Now, tell the NIMBYs in this country where to go and start building more houses.
I say this as a home owner that stands to lose out if they build enough houses.
One thing's for sure, the old system was ridiculous. Having a system that causes a property £1 more expensive than another cost an extra £5,000 in tax was insane.
And given that the vast majority will benefit from reduced rates (myself included), whilst those that can afford to take the hit will pay more... yeah, I'm happy with that.
it's not nimbys. It's dumb ass councils preventing readily developed BROWNFIELD sites currently full of derelict office buildings from being redeveloped because they don't want to lose "commercial areas" despite the fact no-one is using them anyway. I could show you several places around London within the tube zones where large scale developments could go, but councils are blocking them. It is also the farce of letting people buying for "investment" be that overseas investors or buy to let maniacs ahead of normal people who just want somewhere to live. In a housing shortage there ought to be a priority system to home grown buyers who are paying their taxes over rich foreigners pricing everybody else out.Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
there may also be a tacit acknowledgement that the majority of movement in the housing market at the moment is in the £1m+ bracket, so actually even with no increase in volume the treasury is still making more money. Look at the graphs and how they diverge past £1m. I don't think that is by accident!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonatron
It makes much more sense, and as someone who's looking to be purchasing a property in the 250-275k price bracket in the next 18 months or so, this has just saved me around £4600 (based on 270k). I've been hoping for a shake up of stamp duty given house prices were generally increasing so it's best news I've heard from the government, for my personal circumstances, in a long time.
ditto. is it really that much? I guess it is. Suddenly that gaming laptop sounds like a more realistic prospect.... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by cptwhite_uk
No thanks - the country is a polluted, overpopulated and congested cesspit already thanks to breeders and so-called developers.Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
People aren't going to stop having children just because the NIMBYs oppose a new set of houses in their area. They're already in the towns etc., they just have to pack in more densely.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
On the other hand, more houses where people can work would entail less commuting and a reduction in congestion and pollution.
But in that price bracket specifically, is it really going to save you money? Under the new system, without the massive step in stamp duty, that pressure to keep properties at or under £250k is no longer there. Gone are the days where sellers of £250k-£270k houses would list them at, or accept an offer of, £250k knowing that nobody would pay the increased asking price in addition to the stamp duty hike.Quote:
Originally Posted by cptwhite_uk
yes, there will be a lot of revaluing in the next few days I think!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagnaj97
Which is a good thing - price now will reflect actual value, not artificially squeezed in or using tricks like fixtures+furnishings to get around stamp duty thresholds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagnaj97
It will reflect actual value, yes, but for buyers in that bracket they may well be worse off. Whereas before they could potentially have got a £260k house for £250k+£2.5k SD (because the sellers would realise nobody would pay £260k+£7.8k SD), they'll now pay £260k+£2.7k SD.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
Overall it's a good and much needed change, but for people buying a property just over the old threshold they've lost a huge negotiating point in their favour. They will have less stamp duty, but may well end up paying more for the property.
Before they would have paid £250k+£10k fixtures+fittings (or lost the house to someone who would). Now they pay £260k.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagnaj97
This was my first thought - all well and good (and probably worth ~ 1% at the next election), but do we really want an (semi-)artificially inflated housing market? It's hard to argue against it being better than the old system (although how much better will depend entirely on what size of house you want to buy and where you live), but I'm not sure what the aim of it is. Is it just a sop to people who wanted some kind of mansion tax (who will be interested to note the little inflection at around £1m where the new system actually reduces stamp duty), is it intended to stimulate the housing market (at which point the affluent buy-to-letters will be rubbing their hands with glee at the range of £250k+ houses that just got noticably cheaper for them to buy)?Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
What it almost certainly doesn't do is help the majority of first time buyers (most of whom I'd guess will be in the sub-£250k bracket, where this reduces the total cost of their purchase by well under 1% - and most northern FTBs will be well under stamp duty limits anyway); it's clearly nicest for purchasers just over the old inflection points, particularly £250k and £500k (plus, as I say, a small abberation at £1m). So, AFAICT it's a sop to middle-class, middle-England homeowners who can afford the deposits on £250k and £500k houses, that will happen to catch a few middle-class/wealthy northerners and some middle-England FTBs (at the £250k margin). It might also benefit some buy-to-let landlords, giving us even more rental properties without any proper regulation or control of the rental sector. Joy.
Has to be said, it's electioneering at it's best. A Conservative policy that largely benefits middle England but is unarguably better than the policy it replaces. Genius...
Did anyone expect any different with a general election next year?Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
Electioneering, I expected. Something quite that well planned, not so much. Now I'm just waiting for the Lib Dems to take credit it for it once we get into the campaign proper ;) I mean, it's got to be a Lib Dem policy, right? It's far too progressive for the Tories.... :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonatron
You mean people who want to move from a small house because they now have a family (and hence probably lost one income)?Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
£250K will get you an OK 2 bedroom house around here, that is seven times the local average salary. I have no idea how people survive in the likes of London.
Edit to add: I think it is the word "afford" that got me there. "Can somehow manage" is probably closer to the truth, feels like an out of control rollercoaster ride with a gun to my head with a mortgage hanging over me that won't be paid off until I am seventy years old.
So, middle England then. That'll get you a nice 4 bed semi around here, and I don't live in the cheapest bit of Manchester (you can get 5 and 6 bed properties for < £150k if you don't mind what area you live in). But that's kind of my point. The biggest benefits will be felt by middle England, where both the Tories and the Lib Dems get a lot of their votes, and by the upper middle classes in the North (again, good vote-winning options for those parties). And the people who would feel any sting will be the extremely rich who can afford to cover it and will probably vote Tory whatever, and can potenitally be appeased by something in the main budget. It's a beautifully judged policy in terms of benefiting the people who might vote for the existing government.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
It reduces the SDLT, which is an absolute, set in stone, with no ability to negotiate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagnaj97
At least if sellers try to increase the price, it's subject to negotiation which, as ever, depends on market conditions and the relative negotiating skills of the two parties.
ik9000, I have no idea where you've got your information from but London is losing industrial land at an alarming rate. What you define as derelict sites may well be hosting valuable businesses. My local council and the GLA made a similar mistake when they assessed a piece of land in my local area to host a tram depot as part of the Crossriver tram project. Fortunate for us, a local campaign helped safeguarded local businesses. Now the area is featured regularly in newspapers and magazines as a place to visit.Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
I fully agree with you about overseas investors buying real estate in London which exacerbates the housing crisis and the proliferation of tall buildings that ruins our skyline. There is the issue of social cleansing in the northern part of my local borough. In fact, social cleansing is happening in other parts of London as well.
Not sure where you got the idea that all councils are against tubes. Currently there is a Bakerloo extension consultation in my local area where the route is likely to pass through two Labour controlled local authorities and one Tory local authority. The Tory local authority is against the idea as it means losing their rail service but the two Labour local authorities are broadly supportive of the extension. I doubt if TfL is considering other tube extensions as all of the lines are full to capacity. However, there is a suggestion that there may be a southern extension to the Victoria line once Crossrail 2 has been completed.
As for stamp duty, I'd like to see its return to its original format. High stamp duty impedes freedom of movement and economic activity. While it's argued stamp duty raises a certain amount of money, the Treasury would have received the money anyway through economic activity in my opinion. The purpose of raising stamp duty was to stop rising house prices but we all know this has failed and the stamp duty thresholds has not kept pace with house price inflation.
Top Gun I'm not against tubes. I said within the tube zones. I.e. within zones 1-6. Particularly zone 3-4. And the land is not valuable industrial land. NO-ONE is using old 50s-70s ribbon windowed brick factory buildings in the areas I'm talking about. There is no demand. They are too far from the economic centres and infrastructure routes. Instead they sit empty with squatters trashing what is left and ripping out the copper cables. And it isn't just in London, though that is mainly where I deal with. Far better to build houses on them and not on green field.
Tube extensions are expensive, particularly going south because of the ground strata that way. More surface gravels and silts and less clay, further out you hit the chalks. There were plans to extend the picadilly south in the 60s/70s. they even built the linking platforms at aldwych though how far south is unclear. Possibly just to waterloo. Now they are most likely to link Aldwych into the DLR maybe. There were also plans to build a deeper northern line with fewer stops and faster trains, but after building a load of the stations they pulled the plug. Its unclear how much of this was due to cost and how much due to its secondary function as atomic shelters being made redundant by the power of the H bomb. Scale model tests in Canada showed the thing would offer no real protection to those! The bits that were built now house a variety of stuff, from archives to undergound switch rooms, and the like.
ik9000, I know you're not against tubes. What you actually said all councils were against tubes. I've simply made a statement to say this isn't true after hearing your bizzare reasoning.
I'm well connected with other community planning groups in London so I'd say my understanding of the issues is that much greater than yours. There is evidence of some land owners are deliberately running down industrial land as they know they can make money a killing on building homes at the expense of having a sustainable community. There has to be a balance on industrial land so that people have somewhere to work and facilities to serve the local population and businesses. I would gladly support legislation to take land from these selfish owners and bring it back to community usage.
London has a particular problem with land banking. Planning permissions have been granted to 200,000 applications but these land owners are simply banking the land and in turn worsening the housing crisis.
Also, your understanding of building tubes is out of date. The proposed Bakerloo extension will involved drilling through London clay. Modern TBMs are capable of drilling through clay.
No, that is not what I wrote at all. You are quite wrong, and I have already clarified this once before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Top_gun
see above. The only bizarre reasoning is yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Top_gun
You have no knowledge of my understanding, and it is arrogant to say your "connection" with planning groups is greater than mine when you do not know the facts on which to make such a statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Top_gun
What evidence? present it. While this may occur, I can also take you to several sights where the owner is trying to develop them and being blocked by the council.Quote:
Originally Posted by Top_gun
Not everyone is land banking. It often takes 2 years to get through planning on moderately large scheme, more for really big ones. The Heygate estate and surrounding sister projects have taken the best part of 15 years to get through plannnig. One mans land banking is another mans planning struggle. They are finally on site now though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Top_gun
Really? Again, my understanding is "out of date"? Did the ground suddenly change while I wasn't looking? Did thousands of years of geological history just turn on a whimsy? Either my understanding is wrong or it's right. It can't be out of date. And I stated the difficulties lied with GRAVELS AND SILTS, then further out CHALKS. Again, try actually reading my posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Top_gun
By the way, take a guess what my job is before you try to advise me on building tube tunnels. Seriously take a long hard guess. TBMs love clay. It's a lot harder in gravels and chalks. If you really ask me nicely I might let you to see one in action.
Right, that is as much I can care to respond to your rude and spurious post, mainly for the benefit of anyone else reading this thread.
I am now blocking your posts like I considered doing a few months ago. I gave you the benefit of the doubt then, but I see you are continuing to not read posts properly, and still arrogantly dismiss others just as before. I am now convinced you are not interested in sensible conversations, and am mindful of the Proverb "Like grasping water with the hand is trying to reason with a fool."
Is it just me thinking "Now that sounds like a day out"? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
Don't bother, it's not worth it, it's like playing chess with a chicken so to speak...Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
(also can I see a TBM :D)
It seems your original remark has disappeared.Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
I doubt it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
God forbid, I do not ever want to have your understanding of matters. Yes, I do have connections with planning groups and the information is of very high quality, greater understanding of issues and have political and academic links.Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
I don't have the exact locations but the information was presented as square metres by a planning academic about a year ago. As for "several sights" rather it should read "several sites" there are local planning policies to protect some industrial land of strategic importance.Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
Here's London Councils talking about the issues of land banking http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/new...il.htm?pk=1672 .Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
It seems you're very confused over the Heygate estate. Land Lease was signed up as a developer for the Heygate Estate in 2010. Then you have to allow time for evictions and CPOs. That is not the same as planning struggles.
I know Southwark Council very well and know many of the planners on first name terms. Unfortunately their consultation processes are very long and drawn out affair and it's apparent you're confusing the consultation process with the planning application process.
Better tell TfL with your knowledge then. There is a Bakerloo consultation happening now and ending on 7 December. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29422425Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
And the area where the extension is passing through is London clay. I very much doubt you're an expert in these matters. Surely someone with an Engineering background ought to know the difference between "sights" and "sites".
Frankly, you've told me. Like telling me to visit several sights LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
ETA: I only responded to your earlier post as it reminded of a talk given by someone in the Charlton area where some people would talk about developing land into homes and retail without realising what the existing industries were providing valuable services to the rest of London. Fascinating stuff but I very much doubt you'd understand it with your simplistic reasoning skills.
Stop doing that, or I'll stop you. That's not the way we talk here, and you should know it. If it carries on, and I have to review the thread to see who started it, I'll suspend anybody, on either end, that's lobbing insults.Quote:
Originally Posted by Top_gun
Sorry, the statement was not intended as an insult but to highlight why they think in the way they do. I've seen it time and time again, especially in my local area, where you'll get people who feel they're on a crusade to clean up their local area only to discover they lack understanding of planning matters, businesses offering value to the community and buildings meriting architectural interest. A local building, assume derelict by people who should have known better (Southwark & GLA), was actually hosting a large number of valuable enterprises.
As for the TBMs cutting through clay, it's widely known that TBMs are capable of cutting through London clay so I'm extremely surprised by iK9000 statement and his claim. Crossrail uses two types of TBMs. One type capable of cutting through London clay.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z38JIqGDZVU
TfL often cited London clay as a reason for not extending the tube into SE London but the argument is no longer valid due to the advancement of TBMs.
I may have a video, buried in thousands of emails, how a senior British tunnelling expert managed to tunnel through difficult subterranean in other parts of the world. Not sure where the video is as I watched it a few years ago.
I think the difficulty for iK9000 is that he's against someone who is very knowledgeable. Hence his swift exit from discussions while giving out disparaging personal remarks.
Councils nowadays are very pro development as they know they can obtain a large amount of money from section 106s and Community Infrastructure Levy. It is these two funding mechanisms which are accelerating the loss of industrial land. So it's very rare for industrial land not being converted to housing unless there's a very good reason. As for tube extensions, TfL (with Treasury agreement) and not councils have the final say if there's going to be an extension.
Ok, managed to find the video where the British tunnelling expert gives a lecture. Note his credentials and experience.
http://royalsociety.tv/rsPlayer.aspx?presentationid=355
Here's some more information on the Crossrail TBMs and in particular the unusual cutting face which helps it to cut through clay. http://www.londonreconnections.com/2...rossrail-tbms/
There you go:Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
http://www.littleonesreadingresource...ackageZoom.jpg
They can tunnel through clay you know!
Here's some more info on the Crossrail TBMs where most of machines are specific to cutting through London clay.
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/construct...ling-machines/
It seemed quite clear to me that ik9000 said that tunneling through gravel and silts was the problem. Really, we all seem to be in agreement that tunneling clay isn't a problem. Can we go back to poking politicians please?Quote:
Originally Posted by Top_gun
It wasn't clear to me DWL but I'm happy to move on.
It may not have been intended, but then, I suggest a little more attention to exactly what was said, to how you phrase it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Top_gun
I am certainly not going to even try to arbitrate on who knows what, or who's right. You two can settle that between you, or not bother. But if you do carry on, it better be without snippy remarks about not "understanding it" due to "simplistic reasoning skills".Quote:
I only responded to your earlier post as it reminded of a talk given by someone in the Charlton area where some people would talk about developing land into homes and retail without realising what the existing industries were providing valuable services to the rest of London. Fascinating stuff but I very much doubt you'd understand it with your simplistic reasoning skills.
This thread has been a bit tart in tone, several times, and I'd rather not step in, but that remark forces me to draw a line to prevent it getting even tarter.
I thought the remark was the right thing to say in context to my experience & knowledge and iK9000's responses. To strip out the context means another unfair decision towards me. Nor do I expect anyone to arbitrate unless they are able to replicate my experience and knowledge in planning matters relating to London. I shall heed your warning and tread more carefully than usual as it seems my smallest comment attracts attention while other people gets away with their more personal comments towards me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
iK9000 gave a link to the wiki page for the Heygate Estate as evidence for slow planning process. The reality is that its developer, Land Lease, as yet to submit a full planning application for the site. I know one local site where a developer got full planning consent to build 333 homes 18 months ago but has yet to lay the first brick. The site was fully cleared of housing stock about five years ago so there's no reason why building works couldn't start. The stamp duty overhaul is a white Elephant in providing affordable housing in London since the duty is only a small amount as a proportion of overall cost of housing. As I said before, land banking is one of the main reasons for rise in London's house prices. We're not building homes quickly enough to meet a rising population and that is nothing to do with the planning process.
/Sigh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Top_gun
Okay, I'll have another go.
That remark was as blatant an insult as I've seen in a very long time, and you're lucky I didn't suspend you on the spot. Try to justify it is not helping your cause, as is in fact making me reconsider that decision not to.
If you think you are being picked on, feel free to report THAT to any other Admin, or the board owner.
I pick up remarks I see, but I do not read every post. If you have specific insults addressed to you, report those, but please, pick another Admin, because you clearly think you're being picked on by me.
Look back at the warning I gave and it clearly says BOTH sides are to knock off the snide remarks. All I wanted was for ANYONE making snide remarks to stop doing it. I don't want to suspend anyone, including you, and I pointed out that, IF NECESSARY, I'll go through that thread and suspend anyone breaking our rules. That is not picking on you. However, I'm now very close indeed to simply doing that, and suspending both you and anyone else involved that knows our rules and thought they could ignore them.
If you think you're being picked on, COMPLAIN TO THE OWNER. he will remove me if he agrees.
Otherwise, stop insulting other members, and stop implying I'm picking on you. I've had enough of it, and one more remark along those lines will see you getting a substantial suspension.
So either complain to the board owner, whose decision I am perfectly willing to accept, or knock off the whinging. My patience with it is at an end, and ANY further remarks along those lines will see you suspended.
No more warnings.
/\ that
will big bronze bells.....
over n out
I understood straightaway the warning applied to both sides so it was not a case of misunderstanding. Nor have I accused you of picking on me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
You really don't know when to drop it, do you? And not for the first time.
Suspended for 30 days.
There appears to be an odd form of the Dunning-Kruger effect going on, I don't mean doublethink, nor a kind of cognitive dissonance. This is just clearly ignoring things that don't apply, the other isn't even recognised. For instance ik's original comment about tunnelling difficulties, it wasn't remotely confrontational, didn't prove anyone wrong or similar. However it clearly did not say what was interpreted, we can all make mistakes, speed reading heck I'm so dyslexic I make all kinds when I'm not being careful, but to stick with it, it's an interesting trait. We know it's not been edited after all.
I mean, it was amazingly taken out of context, and despite the evidence there, no oh I took that to mean xyz comes.Quote:
Tube extensions are expensive, particularly going south because of the ground strata that way. More surface gravels and silts and less clay
Just how can knickers be got in such a twist over this, it's not even been mentioned as impossible, just that it's expensive, which I think everyone surely agrees on.