It's paid by the buyer when the property is bought.



The lack of affordable housing for ordinary people in London has precisely NOTHING to do with oligarchs spending 100m quid on mansions and apartments in Kensington and Chelsea.

Simply not true.

The property market is all about chancing you arm and trying to get as much as you can for the property you are selling. As London prices rocket in the premium areas, it has a knock on effect to the areas surrounding them as they all want a slice of the action.

Buyers also start to look at other areas in an attempt to get a better deal. Look at once unfashionable places like Hoxton and Shoreditch. Trendy youngsters identified cheap property years ago and moved in. As the area has been gentrified over the last few years it's suddenly become quite a hub for hipsters and creatives. It's also become much more expensive to buy property there.

As an area becomes more attractive, the prices start to go up pretty quick. Kids who were born in these areas before they became what they are, simply can't afford to live there, hence they have to move even further out.

It's been going on for years, most notably in areas of natural beauty where rich city folk buy up property for holiday homes and raise the prices for the locals looking to stay in the area. Unfortunately there's no sentiment for locals in the property market.

Speaking of stamp duty, big thanks to that bell end Gideon who pretends he's running the economy for giving everyone buying and selling their house tomorrow literally no f*******g time at all to sort out their changes.
It's bound to c**k up at least one of the 6 people in our chain in the morning when we are scheduled to complete.

The speed solicitors deal with paperwork requires at least two weeks just to read an email, let alone re-work a tax bill.

Cheers. It's not that buying and selling houses in this country isn't already stupid and stressful enough.

Apart from the fact that he did say buyers could choose which system suited them best?

I hate the 2@ but even I got that bit

My eldest isn't that impressed with him either, she's one of the people who do all the legal stuff on your chain of purchasers and their department deals with the high end buyers, some of their clients will have got a shock today and will be getting some pleasant phone calls in the morning. poor loves

One thing she did mention in passing, if I heard this right, is that it applies at exchange not completion, might have got that wrong though.

No shit Sherlock!

When something is sold, there usually has to be a buyer and a seller. It matters not who pays stamp duty, it's still only a one-time hit at the point of sale



If you believe that then you really are away with the fairies. There's really no point in trying to explain the push/pull of property prices to you because you're obviously too dumb to understand

Very unlikely your last point - I can see that being increased further - you can't avoid that by offshoring your HO

One of the problems I see is that overtime someone wants to build on green belt the locals are up in arms - so the increased tax could surely only be paid once planning permission is granted?

For the company that owns the land they have to feel comfortable that they can sell the houses at a price that gives a suitable return - paying your LVT maybe the less of two evils compared to selling at a low margin?

I got that bit as well. But as we are supposed to complete tomorrow morning along with 5 others in the chain, that's 6 extra decisions that need to be made by 6 solicitors in a couple of hours. Even with weeks to sort out paperwork our solicitor completely missed the fact that we hadn't signed the property transfer document until yesterday, when the temp spotted it and sent us an email, not a phone call, a bloody email.

A couple of days notice would have been nice. Someone is bound to screw something up or be unnavailable etc.

Just read that. Hope it's the case. Already stressed out.
Movers seem to have issues with "resources" , ie. two guys turned up 2 hours late this morning and there is still far more left to pack and load than I am comfortable with.
The one thing I paid through the nose to not be worried about is now another nightmare .

You can tell I'm in a good mood .

A land tax is an invitation to corruption on a vast scale. Its also really hard to administer a system which keeps pace with sociological changes. Twenty years ago in most towns the highest priced real estate would have been in the town centre. Now its likely to be nowehere near as valuable as the best residential areas.

A land tax has to take into account cashflow, and the value of alternative uses, which is the biggest problem with it. Like it or not, its far easier to track, and tax, actual cash flow. The problem with corporate and income tax as an approach isn't the basic tax, its the loopholes which are allowed to develop (some originally for legitimate reasons such as to encourage investment).

Also, yes, if a an asset is of national benefit, everyone should pay a share for it, even those who don't use it. You cannot have a workable tax system where people can choose to opt out. In fact if you allow that you end up in the ultimate free market universe.