House sellers 'should pay stamp duty'

[Taf]

I'm in two minds over this.

I think a tax on selling your house is fair, especially since you are liable to have made a fat profit these days. But isn't the profit liable to Capital Gains Tax or whatever?

Buying a house is hard enough for many, so I think the level at which the tax is levied should rise in line with house prices, so that not more and more buyers are liable to pay it. But house prices vary with the area, so perhaps it should be based on the Council Tax rate or something?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39139128

[Julian]

Originally Posted by Taf

I'm in two minds over this.

I think a tax on selling your house is fair, especially since you are liable to have made a fat profit these days. But isn't the profit liable to Capital Gains Tax or whatever?

Buying a house is hard enough for many, so I think the level at which the tax is levied should rise in line with house prices, so that not more and more buyers are liable to pay it. But house prices vary with the area, so perhaps it should be based on the Council Tax rate or something?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39139128

Not if it is your main home

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Taf

I'm in two minds over this.

I think a tax on selling your house is fair, especially since you are liable to have made a fat profit these days. But isn't the profit liable to Capital Gains Tax or whatever?

Buying a house is hard enough for many, so I think the level at which the tax is levied should rise in line with house prices, so that not more and more buyers are liable to pay it. But house prices vary with the area, so perhaps it should be based on the Council Tax rate or something?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39139128

Stamp duty does rise depending on the house price. I'm not sure I agree with this, are they going to refund people who've recently bought houses? No, thought not....

Also, dependent on area there is quite a few first time buyers who would be paying no stamp at all

[SimpleSimon]

If the rate has not increased since 2006 then it is about time it was looked at again and raised/lowered as required.

[Kursk]

But won't the consequence be:

....that a seller facing the extra tax burden would simply add that cost onto the asking price of the property, and that this would have little effect overall on affordability.

?

[tweetiepooh]

I thought the banding had been changed so there isn't the silly big step any more.

The old band had a change from 1% to 3% at 250k but the figure applied to the whole so at 250k you paid 1% (2.5k) and at 251k you paid 3% (7.5k). The new method increased the percentages but it's a bit more like income tax so you'd pay the higher percentage only on the portion over the cut off. It's why you didn't see houses for sale at 255k.

This could all be male bovine excrement or wishful thinking.