Stamp Duty abolished immediately for all first time buyers for home purchases up to £300k

37
37 Comments
Yes because if you can afford a 300k house you are really in dire need of help. (I struggled to get a 100k mortgage).

Score one for the poor again.
Original Poster
There's even concern that property prices will increase because of this. I think overall it's a good thing though.
Damn my timing, I completed 2 weeks ago. Ah well.
I wish there was something for people moving homes with nly one proeprty>.<
MrMan20112 m ago

I wish there was something for people moving homes with nly one …I wish there was something for people moving homes with nly one proeprty>.<


Maybe in the future when they want to keep prices up :P
OllieSt26 m ago

There's even concern that property prices will increase because of this. …There's even concern that property prices will increase because of this. I think overall it's a good thing though.


The last time this was done it was deemed to be a failure.

The Office for Budget Responsibility say this will push prices up and help those that already own property, not first time buyers.

That it doesn't help anyone is not the point though. The point is that people discuss this and ignore the fact that the Government will be spending more on Brexit 'planning' over the next few years (3bn) than they will on the NHS (2.8bn)
Original Poster
It's still cheaper to buy/sell in the UK compared to the rest of the EU

Info link
LOL my comment was deleted. Pathetic.
I don't think it applies in scotland, tbh a 300k house is only taxed less than 5k here anyway as long as it is a single purchase and not an additional house.

England looks like it is slightly more for a 300k house but still not exactly massive savings.
Edited by: "CoeK" 22nd Nov 2017
Josh.Rogan58 m ago

..... spending more on Brexit 'planning' over the next few years (3bn) …..... spending more on Brexit 'planning' over the next few years (3bn) than they will on the NHS (2.8bn)


Err, sorry to pick you up on your figures for a second time, Diane, but the NHS budget alone for this financial year is £124 billion, and due to rise in 2018/19 onwards.
Saturn1 h, 54 m ago

Err, sorry to pick you up on your figures for a second time, Diane, but …Err, sorry to pick you up on your figures for a second time, Diane, but the NHS budget alone for this financial year is £124 billion, and due to rise in 2018/19 onwards.


While i think you are being pedantic over my wording, and you knew perfectly well what i meant, i concede I perhaps wasn't clear:
They will be increasing Brexit 'planning' by 3bn
They will be increasing NHS funding by 2.8bn
Uilleam171 h, 17 m ago

https://www.ftadviser.com/mortgages/2017/11/22/stamp-duty-cut-benefits-sellers-more-than-buyers/So,that makes it about as much use as a fart in phone box, if you're buying


Help to buy ISAs, lower taxes, right to buy, higher minimum income tax threshold - just what more do liberals expect - a free house at the age of 18 for everyone?

We have a capitalist system with some social benefits, partly because LINK:
1.Socialism does not reward hard work, you want to earn twice as much as the next guy then work twice as hard.
2. Socialism does not generate innovation. Bill Gates/Mark Zuckerberg/Steve Jobs etc. were partly motivated by capitalism.
3. Socialism promotes instant gratification, provide a free house, free healthcare, dole money, make working less rewarding than sitting on your behind and you reward sitting on your behind.
Quick question

If someone has sold a house and is buying another with partner who is a first time buyer would they be eligible for any reduction?
splatsplatsplat5 h, 12 m ago

Yes because if you can afford a 300k house you are really in dire need of …Yes because if you can afford a 300k house you are really in dire need of help. (I struggled to get a 100k mortgage).Score one for the poor again.


Depends where you're from.£300k doesn't get you much of a house where I'm from.
Maybe a 1-1.5 bed flat.
We completed 15 days ago, paid 2130 in stamp actually had to borrow this from family and by borrow I mean actually pay back but half my new neighbors won't have to worry about it! I'm proper pissed there was no warning of this as I would of held the completion off if I knew it would be worth while
te7219 m ago

We completed 15 days ago, paid 2130 in stamp actually had to borrow this …We completed 15 days ago, paid 2130 in stamp actually had to borrow this from family and by borrow I mean actually pay back but half my new neighbors won't have to worry about it! I'm proper pissed there was no warning of this as I would of held the completion off if I knew it would be worth while


If you had to borrow that to complete the deal you probably should have held off buying a house. Doesn't sound like you could afford it.
Original Poster
teh.arn6 m ago

If you had to borrow that to complete the deal you probably should have …If you had to borrow that to complete the deal you probably should have held off buying a house. Doesn't sound like you could afford it.


In my humble opinion, getting on the ladder is the right thing to do. £2,130 in the overall scheme of things is a drop in the ocean.
When borrowing the last 2k meant we could buy the last available house in the development and save 15k off of the same house in their 2nd development just 2 miles closer to town, it made sense, thanks for your input
I am far from being a socialist but.... my days, this is some pile of nonsense...

davewave3 h, 39 m ago

1.Socialism does not reward hard work, you want to earn twice as much as …1.Socialism does not reward hard work, you want to earn twice as much as the next guy then work twice as hard.


Socialism, does not reward hard work - how? financially?

Were it the case that Capitalism rewarded hard work financially then surely every nurse*, every fire fighter and everyone who currently works 2 or three jobs to make ends meet would be a millionaire, single mothers, working shifts would be driving SUV's - thats not happening.

Certain Socialist models may not reward hard-work financially, but i fail to see any models that do. What socialist models do, is look after those who do work, and those who cannot work, which is more than can be said of current capitalist models in Britain and particularly the USA.


davewave3 h, 39 m ago

2. Socialism does not generate innovation. Bill Gates/Mark …2. Socialism does not generate innovation. Bill Gates/Mark Zuckerberg/Steve Jobs etc. were partly motivated by capitalism.


Tetris.

Ok, that was a joke, but your examples are... lacking.. in fact Mark Zuckerberg? really - facebook is what passes for innovation? Yes, he has been very successful by capitalist metrics but innovator?

Now, the three you mention are interesting because they have made their money in software and technology. This is a whole field that has been made possible by Open Source Software, while not socialism, its a lot closer to that thatn capitalism. The top 500 super-computers in the world are running open source software, this web-site is built on open-source software, pretty much every website is running open-source software, the reboot of the Mac operating system was built on open source software, facebook was built with and on open source software. Microsoft wasn't. It kinda shows.

Pretty much every technological innovation of the past 20 years has been made possible by OSS, not by capitalism. Companies such as Tesla, who are truly pushing the envelope in battery design have open sourced their patents.


davewave3 h, 39 m ago

3. Socialism promotes instant gratification, provide a free house, free …3. Socialism promotes instant gratification, provide a free house, free healthcare, dole money, make working less rewarding than sitting on your behind and you reward sitting on your behind.


No. As you, and others on here are quick to demonstrate, It promotes stigmatization. Again, while not socialism, the welfare state also promoted unbelievable creativity in Britain, from the great modern artists of Britain's 80s and 90s scenes to the bands of that time. What have you got now? Mumford & Sons and Coldplay. Capitalism does not promote creativity.


[edit]
* pre-empting some kind of 'tHE nhs iS cOMMUNISM!!11' type comeback from the type of person who links to zerohedge, yes, i could have chosen better examples, but my point remains the same, capitalism does not reward hard work in anything like the way it thinks it does - it's pure survivor-bias
Edited by: "Josh.Rogan" 22nd Nov 2017
Original Poster
Uilleam1718 m ago

Out of a population of approx 56million in England and Wales, this is the …Out of a population of approx 56million in England and Wales, this is the net benefit for first time buyersThe Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) said the main beneficiaries would be existing homeowners, rather than first-time buyers, because it expects all house prices to rise by 0.3% as a result of the change. It also estimates that it will result in only an additional 3,500 first-time buyer purchases.


The real issue with the housing market and stamp duty is not first time buyers. The increase in 1st time buyer transactions 2011-2016 increased by 75%. During the same period home-mover transactions increased by 14%.

A wider reduction in stamp duties would increase transactions across the entire property market and have a knock-on benefit for first-time buyers, explained Ms Brennan. "For a first-time buyer to get a house, you need the people in that house to sell, and the people above them to sell, and so on. Then there are pensioners downsizing, who also face stamp duty," she said.
Edited by: "OllieSt" 23rd Nov 2017
teh.arn13 h, 12 m ago

Depends where you're from.£300k doesn't get you much of a house where I'm …Depends where you're from.£300k doesn't get you much of a house where I'm from.Maybe a 1-1.5 bed flat.




Sure, but my point was not what you can buy, but the wages those people must be on.

Minimum of £7.50 * 40hours = £300 a week (£600 a week combined income) £15,600 a year each.

According to Halifax mortgage calculator those two people could get a £148,200 mortgage. (Nationwide £140k)

For a couple to afford a 300k house, they would need to be earning at least £30k a year each. (£14.40ph) or have a good deposit.

Not exactly what I would call "struggling". (I haven't earned more than 10k a year in over 10 years).
Then again, I would not expect anything different from the Tories. You'd think they would change their stance a little considering their grip lessened at the last election.
splatsplatsplat11 m ago

Sure, but my point was not what you can buy, but the wages those people …Sure, but my point was not what you can buy, but the wages those people must be on.Minimum of £7.50 * 40hours = £300 a week (£600 a week combined income) £15,600 a year each.According to Halifax mortgage calculator those two people could get a £148,200 mortgage. (Nationwide £140k)For a couple to afford a 300k house, they would need to be earning at least £30k a year each. (£14.40ph) or have a good deposit.Not exactly what I would call "struggling". (I haven't earned more than 10k a year in over 10 years).Then again, I would not expect anything different from the Tories. You'd think they would change their stance a little considering their grip lessened at the last election.


£30k per year really isn't that much. Sure it's alot if you live in some little village up north.
But where I'm at it's barely above average.
This deal is : swap public services income for private personal gains

Fact check:-
Labour slogan : For the many, not the few
Tory slogan : Build a country that works for everyone

A bit more detail: personal gain could be 52% buyer and 48% seller (percentage split is for illustrative purpose but is unlikely to be 100% and 0% split... wait a moment could it be prices would go up meaning 100% seller gain, 0% for buyer?)

; public income = negative to the value of the personal gains.

Edited: added "wait a moment...."
Edited by: "splender" 23rd Nov 2017
Original Poster
There is no real solution to the problem.

Lenders will surely be aware of historical problems when property prices fell and borrowers would hand back their keys when they were faced with a mortgage on a property worth considerable less than the value of the property. There was a time where an average mortgage was 90-95% LTV and some lenders were offering up to 110%. Lenders are not landlords and the repossesion stock they dumped only helped the freefall in prices which made the lender's situation worse. They won't go there again. Hence the requirement for 20% deposits. However 20% deposits on £300k is a lot of money, so people want to see price reductions.


The homeowners that have plenty of equity in their property could afford a price reduction. Those that have bought in the last few years would really suffer if property prices reduced dramatically. Their LTV would be pants and that would have a big impact on their ability to renegotiate a decent rate after their current deal ended or when they wanted to move.


Is there anyone here that has bought a property in the last 5 years that would be happy to see property prices drop by
30-50%?
teh.arn55 m ago

£30k per year really isn't that much. Sure it's alot if you live in some …£30k per year really isn't that much. Sure it's alot if you live in some little village up north.But where I'm at it's barely above average.




I'm not up north, I'm as south as you can get. Minimum wage is the reality for most people and for a lot of people you are lucky to get full time hours (saw a local job here for 0.5hrs a week!), point is why support people on double this wage? What is their motive I wonder?
OllieSt49 m ago

There is no real solution to the problem. Lenders will surely be aware of …There is no real solution to the problem. Lenders will surely be aware of historical problems when property prices fell and borrowers would hand back their keys when they were faced with a mortgage on a property worth considerable less than the value of the property. There was a time where an average mortgage was 90-95% LTV and some lenders were offering up to 110%. Lenders are not landlords and the repossesion stock they dumped only helped the freefall in prices which made the lender's situation worse. They won't go there again. Hence the requirement for 20% deposits. However 20% deposits on £300k is a lot of money, so people want to see price reductions.The homeowners that have plenty of equity in their property could afford a price reduction. Those that have bought in the last few years would really suffer if property prices reduced dramatically. Their LTV would be pants and that would have a big impact on their ability to renegotiate a decent rate after their current deal ended or when they wanted to move.Is there anyone here that has bought a property in the last 5 years that would be happy to see property prices drop by 30-50%?


There are plenty of solutions, they are the modelling predictions from macro and micro economic models. Comes down to which economic policy outcomes (predications) the politicians put in their shopping basket (shopping for personal benefits or shopping for a bigger family).
Edited by: "splender" 23rd Nov 2017
Original Poster
splatsplatsplat23 m ago

I'm not up north, I'm as south as you can get. Minimum wage is the reality …I'm not up north, I'm as south as you can get. Minimum wage is the reality for most people and for a lot of people you are lucky to get full time hours (saw a local job here for 0.5hrs a week!), point is why support people on double this wage? What is their motive I wonder?


Because there is a large % of people that are on 'double this wage'.

2015 FIGURES

Owner occupied is up 23% since 1967
Social rented is down 40% since 1967


32521049-szMmv.jpg

The population has increased from 1967 by 19% which quite obviously required more social housing instead of a reduction.
I don't understand why the limit has only been raised for 1st time buyers, its only going to benefit people in London and surrounding areas. Typical Westminster thinking again, everything is about London.
123thisisme12 m ago

I don't understand why the limit has only been raised for 1st time buyers, …I don't understand why the limit has only been raised for 1st time buyers, its only going to benefit people in London and surrounding areas. Typical Westminster thinking again, everything is about London.



Why wouldn't it benefit first time buyers in other places?
123thisisme7 h, 33 m ago

I don't understand why the limit has only been raised for 1st time buyers, …I don't understand why the limit has only been raised for 1st time buyers, its only going to benefit people in London and surrounding areas. Typical Westminster thinking again, everything is about London.


Why is it only benefitting London?
123thisisme19 h, 59 m ago

I don't understand why the limit has only been raised for 1st time buyers, …I don't understand why the limit has only been raised for 1st time buyers, its only going to benefit people in London and surrounding areas. Typical Westminster thinking again, everything is about London.


Take your tin foil hat off.

Great that this has finally come into play. Would have saved us £1100 when we got our first place 2 years ago. Stamp duty is such a scam.
CoeK23 h, 18 m ago

Why wouldn't it benefit first time buyers in other places?


Because in most places 1st time buyers wouldn't be looking at paying any where near £300K.
darkstryder3603 h, 35 m ago

Take your tin foil hat off.Great that this has finally come into play. …Take your tin foil hat off.Great that this has finally come into play. Would have saved us £1100 when we got our first place 2 years ago. Stamp duty is such a scam.


So in what area did you pay over £250K for your 1st house. I just dont see why its only for 1st timers and not across the board.
123thisisme39 m ago

Because in most places 1st time buyers wouldn't be looking at paying any …Because in most places 1st time buyers wouldn't be looking at paying any where near £300K.


I'm a first time buyer in Scotland and would save a few k.
123thisisme36 m ago

So in what area did you pay over £250K for your 1st house. I just dont see …So in what area did you pay over £250K for your 1st house. I just dont see why its only for 1st timers and not across the board.


I'm looking at 250k first time house outside Glasgow.
CoeK57 m ago

I'm looking at 250k first time house outside Glasgow.


Then you sir are lucky enough to earn well above the average wage me thinks. I have nowt against the threshold going up, just dont see why its limited to 1st timers.
123thisisme11 m ago

Then you sir are lucky enough to earn well above the average wage me …Then you sir are lucky enough to earn well above the average wage me thinks. I have nowt against the threshold going up, just dont see why its limited to 1st timers.


Because first time buyers won't have any equity.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text

    Top Discussions

    Top Discussions

    Top Merchants