Postby TFP » Thu Dec 04, 2014 1:05 pm
Yeah.
Basically you're:
(a) paying very fractionally more tax if buying above the new '5% marginal' band @ £925k but below the old '4% uniform' band @ £1m;
(b) paying a litte less between £1m and £1.1m;
(c) thereafter paying more, rising to about £55k more @ £2m;
(d) at £2.1m paying only about £20k more, rising to, well, e.g. about £65k more at £3m.
I always preferred the idea of a mansion tax to super-high stamp duty.
Osbon saying that the former is unacceptable but the latter acceptable is, to me, saying:
On why mansion tax is unfair - "some people with fairly normal jobs or who maybe are retired have earned hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, by virtue of owning a house in a particular area... of course we have a responsibility to let them keep every last penny of those gains, anything else would be unfair"
On why really high stamp duty is OK - "some people are putting together loads of money they've saved from having a highly paid job + several hundred grand more that they've borrowed from a bank, obviously we need to tax the sh-t out of such reprehensible behaviour".
this smacks to me of pandering to the grey vote, just for a change.
imagine that people in expensive houses move once every 10 years on average. levying [crude average] 10% stamp duty on just those people who move house will raise exactly the same money as charging everyone 1% p.a. [as per, crudely, the current labour proposals] regardless of whether they move or not. to my mind the latter is much fairer. is moving something house that needs to be clamped down on, penalised?