G
Guest107
Guest
I did not advocate abolition . I would think the increments would also help in a downturn ...not exaggerating movements downwards or upwards towards the 'next band.
Unfairness of stamp duty
- Thread starter Ballyman
- Start date
How about increasing the rate at which council homes and affordable houses were built, so that people wouldn't be in such a tizzy about buying?
How about increasing the security of tenure of tenants, so that they are not at the mercy of their landlords? (now, what were the demands of the Land League in the 1800s.......Fair Rent, Security of Tenure and what was the last one? Have we actually achieved this since Daniel O'Connell held his Monster Meetings?)
How about increasing the security of tenure of tenants, so that they are not at the mercy of their landlords? (now, what were the demands of the Land League in the 1800s.......Fair Rent, Security of Tenure and what was the last one? Have we actually achieved this since Daniel O'Connell held his Monster Meetings?)
Gordanus said:
80,000 built last year, 85,000 to be built this year. These numbers are unprecedented, outside of wartime, in the western world.
Gordanus said:
http://www.prtb.ie/
G
Guest107
Guest
outside of post wartime you mean.Howitzer said:
Yes Art I knew we agreed but I added the downturn scenario as well.
The banding tendency , or can I call it a "snap to band tendency" , would cause the 350k house (today) to rapidly plummet to 316k in a downturn ...ie below the next threshold below and could therefore exaggerate a downturn . You would tend to have a 10% drop very quickly in that example. That kind of drop can cause panic and develop a negative feedback mechanism and the tax system will be responsible . The drop would probably not be as great if the stamp duty savings were incremental for the buyers as they bottom fed or bought in.
Either way I feel that any tax which encourages wholesale fiddling from the way its structured is a stupid tax and is inherently difficult to police properly meaning that those who do get caught feel they are unfairly singled out.
When CGT was 60% all sorts of shenanigans went on, once it dropped to 20% in 1997 people did not waste their energies on the fiddle and used their energy to generate more wealth and flip it because the tax aspect was not as significant. Wealth creators should be allowed to do what they are good at and not spend their time avoiding or evading the exchequer.
Another example is the residential property tax which taxed the owners of homes worth above a certain amount up to 1997 as well, once your house hit (300k IIRC) and your income was 25k as well you were tapped.
The government makes more CGT at 20% than they ever made at 60% and the punters are happier to pay it. And its simple. Stamp duty is not.
I believe that stamp duty the way it is brings taxation and its overall purpose into disrepute and I speak as one who will not pay stamp duty again for a long time until my bottom feeding instincts are reawakened that is
Glenbhoy said:
Well the PD's must be amazingly good at negotiating to be able to convince a party the size of FF that these are appropriate policies if they themselves didn't agree with them. I'm talking about their previous tax policies which have formed the basis of the current administration.
And similarly I haven't heard many dissenting voices, apart from SF, from opposition parties, or indeed posters to AAM. We all like to have a few extra quid in our back pockets whilst at the same time moaning about the state of schools/roads/hospitals. It's handy that the party proposing these rates is small because the we can then disassociate ourselves with them.
I fully support stamp duty on property but I think it has to be paid by the wrong people. The buyer is usually up to his neck in debt when he's buying a new property, and has to stretch himself even further to pay a tax he cancan barely afford. He ususlly has to borrow to the limit of his ability pay the tax. How fair is that?
Why is stamp duty not levied on the seller of the property instead, after all the seller is the one left holding all the money at the end of the sale.
The Government would still take in the same amount of money. Problem solved!
(Of course, knowing the D/Finance, they might see it as more equitable to charge both the seller and the purchaser stamp duty)
Murt
Why is stamp duty not levied on the seller of the property instead, after all the seller is the one left holding all the money at the end of the sale.
The Government would still take in the same amount of money. Problem solved!
(Of course, knowing the D/Finance, they might see it as more equitable to charge both the seller and the purchaser stamp duty)
Murt
Exactly right. The points made above proposing more of a sliding scale system are good. The rest of the thread, i.e. the suggestion that stamp duty adds to the cost of the house, is rubbish. If anything the fact that banks will not lend to pay it is a factor in keeping house prices lower.RainyDay said:
Murt10 said:
Different sort of tax called CGT is paid on a disposal assuming not a PPR
I think stamp duty is very fair if you are able to afford the property you can afford to pay stamp duty if the house is new there is no SD but you pay the VAT assumming owner occupier. If you are investor you pay both and so you should.
Stamp duty IS really paid by the seller!
As a buyer in a sellers market, if I have €500k to spend on a house as my absolute maximum I will have to factor in stamp duty, so the maximum price I can bid on the house is ~€460k. Assuming it is accepted, the seller gets €460 and we (via the government) get €40k (approx. numbers only).
If there was *no stamp duty* I would bid €500k, the seller would get €500k and the government would get zero.
I don't see the problem with stamp duty really:
- It is a tax on transacting property, preventing people from turning over property very quickly, driving prices higher.
- If the sellers don't pay this tax, where will the tax money come from? (Yes, I also agree with VRT)
- It is based on wealth. If you can afford to buy a €5M house, you pay a greater tax, irrespective of your income (offshore, tax avoided etc.)
I do agree with a previous author. There should be full stamp duty on new property... currently the developer can price the stamp duty into the "new" price and keep the lot! This might have been ok years ago, but not now.
And yes, I have paid stamp duty - and was happy about it
As a buyer in a sellers market, if I have €500k to spend on a house as my absolute maximum I will have to factor in stamp duty, so the maximum price I can bid on the house is ~€460k. Assuming it is accepted, the seller gets €460 and we (via the government) get €40k (approx. numbers only).
If there was *no stamp duty* I would bid €500k, the seller would get €500k and the government would get zero.
I don't see the problem with stamp duty really:
- It is a tax on transacting property, preventing people from turning over property very quickly, driving prices higher.
- If the sellers don't pay this tax, where will the tax money come from? (Yes, I also agree with VRT)
- It is based on wealth. If you can afford to buy a €5M house, you pay a greater tax, irrespective of your income (offshore, tax avoided etc.)
I do agree with a previous author. There should be full stamp duty on new property... currently the developer can price the stamp duty into the "new" price and keep the lot! This might have been ok years ago, but not now.
And yes, I have paid stamp duty - and was happy about it