Who will buy these homes?

At least you don't pay stamp duty when inheriting a house, only when you buy one.
I wonder how long that will last? Shh!

I agree, Allira. I definitely think that it could create two almost separate markets - below £500k and well above £500k, and that these markets would be very different in different parts of the country, where half a million buys very different houses. I don't know whether that's the way to balance the current differentials, but I do think the differentials are bad for the country as a whole and should be tackled somehow. Arbitrary figures are rarely 'fair' though, and I hope there would be some way of protecting those who are already stretched to allow them to move if they need to.

Doodledog it requires a lot of thinking about, but one problem that could occur is that homeowners thinking of downsizing might decide to stay put if their property's value is above a £500,000 limit. That could cause different problems as there would be a lack of available properties for those wishing to upsize.

love0c

Labour are no longer even trying to hide what they are up to! If you have money, we will take it. If you own a house a bit bigger than you need, we will tax you. You will be educated only to the level we allow, as we wish to control you. Harder to control the educated! And so it goes on!!!!! Roll on the next few years!!!

Those that have money (wealth) can afford to pay more tax, those that do not can not afford to pay more tax.

Yes governments controls the population how did you think government worked, those that are most useful earn more, those that don’t contribute survive on the basics. Aiming for 50% graduates was never achievable because there are not enough jobs at that level. It’s all about chiefs and indians not everyone can or indeed wants to be a decision maker, with AI making the decisions that’s going to get worse.

It was a Labour government who aimed to get 50% of the population into higher education, and people complained about that, as their 'elitism' was threatened when degrees became more usual. They really can't win . I'm not aware that there is a Labour-induced cap on the level of education, though. I'd having a bit of a holiday from rolling news though, so maybe I've missed it?

I have long complained about the way those in power (and their supporters) claim to know what other people 'need'. It's such a mean-spirited outlook. Don't give bus passes to people who don't 'need' them. They have a small occupational pension so are a bit better off now than they would have been if they hadn't been worse off when paying in. Don't let people with gel nails use food banks, as the fact that they have spent a bit of money on their appearance means they can't be in 'need' of assistance from those who volunteer their time and donate the food. It goes on and on.

AFAIK (news avoidance notwithstanding) the proposed sales tax on houses is not predicated on 'need' though. It is about the value of the house, not whether it has 'too many' bedrooms (like the Tory bedroom tax) or is 'too large' for a small household. It would apply to a single person or a large family in a house selling for over £500k, and would not apply to a single person in a ten bed house if it sells for less.

Labour are no longer even trying to hide what they are up to! If you have money, we will take it. If you own a house a bit bigger than you need, we will tax you. You will be educated only to the level we allow, as we wish to control you. Harder to control the educated! And so it goes on!!!!! Roll on the next few years!!!

The practical consequence of Stamp Duty is to add to the cost, it just gets added to the mortgage in most cases and has to be taken into account. Reversing the tax to the vendor will just increase the value of the property by that much, for the vendor it reduces the price they can pay for the next house.

It is change for changes sake, if you want to help first time buyers give them a direct tax concession.

Allira

^If you moved home before April 1st 2025, you you didn't have to pay stamp duty on properties costing up to £250,000. However, starting from April 1, 2025, homes priced between £125,001 and £250,000 will attract a 2% stamp duty rate.^

Another sly tax by Reeves.

I assume that most buyers in that price range will be first time buyers, and therefore exempt, but I do think that if we have to have stamp duty it should kick in at a much higher level than £125k, which won't buy much in any area. As with many incremental taxes it is those on lower incomes who are impacted most. 'A few thousand' might be small fry to some, but it can be a lot to a young couple who need an extra bedroom for an expected baby, for instance.

Apparently there is talk of abolishing SDLT in favour of a sales tax paid by the vendor on houses selling for more than £500k. I don't know how it will work, but I assume the rates would have to be high to compensate for all the money lost at lower priced sales. What do people think about the idea? It might 'level up' (or down, depending on your POV) so that geographical mobility is a possibility for those who can't afford to take better paid jobs in the SE. I can imagine there would be a lot of houses capped at £499k and then a leap to the ones attracting stamp duty (or whatever it will be called) as vendors will add the tax to the house price if it is over £500k. I assume that it would add to IHT income too, unless the heirs plan to live in an inherited property.

I think it would be a good thing to level out house prices across the country, but if this new tax comes in I would hope that people who had recently paid SDLT as a buyer would be exempt from the new tax if they had to sell within, say, two years. Or longer depending on the rate of the tax.

It's tricky, as much as I want to see the UK become a fairer and more equal society, our homes are usually our biggest asset, and major changes to housing/mortgage rates and taxation always result in casualties, most of whom are not profiteering, but just people who need somewhere to live. I would like to see much higher tax on BTL properties, second homes and Air B&Bs though, and I think that would be a very popular move.

If you moved home before April 1st 2025, you you didn't have to pay stamp duty on properties costing up to £250,000. However, starting from April 1, 2025, homes priced between £125,001 and £250,000 will attract a 2% stamp duty rate.

Another sly tax by Reeves.

StripeyGran

*the higher stamp duty hasn't stopped us moving*

Hilarious really. It wouldn't would it? What is it, a few hundred quid?

A few thousand.

Norah

David49

It's not always a choice, though.

“People often have to move to more expensive locations for work.“

And get higher wages for working there

Usually wages are higher in expensive locations.

I'd think retired people wouldn't be impacted.

Usually wages are higher in expensive locations

So about £2,000 pa extra for a teacher in London is enough to compensate for London house prices?
A nurse? About the same.

We need these essential workers and they are priced out by the huge disparity in house prices.

We moved into a new build last year having previously lived in a HA property. We could have bought that property for a similar price to our new home but we didn’t feel right about buying socially housing. In addition the house needed a lot of work doing to it. They’re similar in size but we now have a garage and a smaller garden. We looked at older properties but the ones we could afford were mostly in need of modernisation, so we went for a new build which ticked most of the boxes for us.

4allweknow

Never have understood what an affordable home is. At one time I thought it was linked to government buying part and purchaser buying to rest with opportunity to buy back what government owned. There needs to be a lot more L.A. housing built. Currently it seems orivate builders only have to include a very small proportion of L.A. housing in a development. Why can L.As not build whole developments like they used to

Our LA have attempted that 4allweknow not one house built in the eight years since it started, £500m in debt.
A combination of arrogance, ignorance and an inability to admit they’ve been wrong and stop. LA’s are not house builders now, no in house expertise, so they contract out to people who tell them what they want to hear, take the ££££’s, state it’s unviable and walk.
I could go on, but won’t!

the higher stamp duty hasn't stopped us moving

Hilarious really. It wouldn't would it? What is it, a few hundred quid?

A lot of people are moving from London and greater London/Essex areas such as Dagenham right up to Braintree and buying up a good proportion of the new builds in the South Suffolk area. They can get more bang for their bucks and have a bit left over.

M0nica

We have just moved from an expensive area, and for most of this year the market has been ticking along very happily. 2024 was the disaster year, but even then the viewings kept coming in.

Our buyers did not complete until July, and seemed unaffected by the change in stamp duty. We complete tomorrow, we would have liked to have moved before April, but the higher stamp duty hasn't stopped us moving.

Logic at last.

Stamp duty is a very small portion to buying. We've never bought since the home we bought when we married, stamp duty innt stopping us.

We have just moved from an expensive area, and for most of this year the market has been ticking along very happily. 2024 was the disaster year, but even then the viewings kept coming in.

Our buyers did not complete until July, and seemed unaffected by the change in stamp duty. We complete tomorrow, we would have liked to have moved before April, but the higher stamp duty hasn't stopped us moving.

fancythat

^This is the sort of muddled thinking/twisting of the truth that underpins so much of the propaganda of the past few years. The term 'Illegal' when talking about human beings, applies to those who have been refused the right to stay. They are deported, so have no need of accommodation, whoever is the landlord. Asylum seekers are here legally, and it is not their fault if the process by which their claims are accepted or rejected is painfully slow. Anyone who has arrived 'under the radar' is also here illegally, but will never be offered housing or benefits of any kind, as they will have to declare their illegal status in order to make any sort of claim.

People who arrived here by boat, arrived illegally.

I'm not sure of your point. As I said Anyone who has arrived 'under the radar' is also here illegally, but will never be offered housing or benefits of any kind, as they will have to declare their illegal status in order to make any sort of claim.

People who arrive by boat are not going to get a house that a 'Brit' has had 'grabbed off them' as Cariadagain would have it.

David49

It's not always a choice, though.

“People often have to move to more expensive locations for work.“

And get higher wages for working there

Usually wages are higher in expensive locations.

I'd think retired people wouldn't be impacted.

David49

It's not always a choice, though.

“People often have to move to more expensive locations for work.“

And get higher wages for working there

Could you give me some examples please?

The wages of key workers are a little higher but nowhere near enough to cover the differential in house prices.

It's not always a choice, though.

“People often have to move to more expensive locations for work.“

And get higher wages for working there

David49

Allira

David49

The buyer pays the stamp duty but just like VAT it’s really a tax on sales because it’s taken into account on the overall cost of a property. If you’re downsizing to a smaller property stamp duty would be modest compared to that on your former home.

That is entirely dependent on area and property prices in that area, not size of property.
It's also dependent on type of property as a 3 bedroomed bungalow could cost the same as a 4/5 bedroomed house because of the scarcity value of the former.

Just the value of the property a one bed flat in London could be worth the same as 5 beds out in the sticks it all depends where you choose to live.

It's not always a choice, though.

People often have to move to more expensive locations for work.

Never have understood what an affordable home is. At one time I thought it was linked to government buying part and purchaser buying to rest with opportunity to buy back what government owned. There needs to be a lot more L.A. housing built. Currently it seems orivate builders only have to include a very small proportion of L.A. housing in a development. Why can L.As not build whole developments like they used to

David49

escaped

I used to think that the idea of home ownership was pretty unique and overrated in the UK - an English man and his castle - until I read that we are some way behind other countries like Italy, Spain, France, Romania etc and of course outside Europe too.
Yet, other countries aren't so hung up on the type of homeownership being a mark of financial success. I'm guessing owning a big or posh home is a sign of stability and good planning to most British people, but the constant climbing of the property ladder in our society has become all-consuming, and significantly detrimental to the way prices have increased.

That’s largely because of our taxation system where all gains on your home are tax free and inheritance tax has a very high threshold. It encourages putting most saving into your dwelling rather than pensions or other investments just because it’s not going to be taxed.

David49 is correct. Gains in home value aren't taxed thus people save excess cash in their homes - renovation, extension, additions, along the years they own. I think gains should be taxed on sale.

Housing costs are vastly different by location, size and type of home - there is no one fits all answer. People will muddle along as always.

Built a lot around Morton in Marsh, beautitful properties, no one bought them, they have got the infastructure to go with them.