I see your point on point one but I also the position of the speculator - its still a risk and they have to stump up the money which will cost them.

One concern I would have is pension funds that have large land holdings including commercial property - rents are already driving businesses off the high street more tax will not help and empty premises will not help pension participants - maybe I am being too insular

It's not MORE tax, it is a redistribution of tax, the method of collecting it and from whom.

Another potential benefit, is to encourage building of more houses. There is no doubt that there is a chronic shortage of houses in the country. If housebuilders and other land-bankers suddenly found that they were liable for the tax on land that they'd bought and were sitting on until "the market was right". Tax that was levied at the "developed potential" instead of just an empty field, they might get their fingers out and start building the houses they already received planning permission for.

The main thing is, unlike, income, corporation or even capital gains tax, it cannot be avoided by offshoring or transferring assets into "trusts" (LOL). The land is clearly there, it is definable, as is the owner. It's simply something that cannot be avoided. Surely that has to be a good thing?

You never know, it could even lead to a means to abolish employers' NI

[url=http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/29/why-do-we-pay-more-council-tax-than-knightsbridge-oligarchsHere's an article of how broken the council tax system is[/url

When we get to the point that an oligarch can pay lower tax on a £100m+ apartment in London than a teacher would on a £200k house in Blackburn, we really do need to look at an alternative way of taxing land

At least [url=http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/03/landowners-scotland-britain-feudal-highland-springScotland looks to change the nature of land ownership and taxation[/url

Did the teacher in Blackburn cough over 9m quid in stamp duty when he bought his house?

The teacher in Blackburn will almost certainly make use of council services. The rich fool who overpaid massively for that apartment probably doesn't make any use of council services whatsoever.

So you are confortable with oligarchs driving up the prices of property in London to the extent that a teacher, fireman, policeman, nurse cannot even afford to actually live in the city?

The stamp duty argument is fatuous beyond belief, it's a once only hit, paid only when a property is sold. So the oligarch doesn't drive on any of London's streets, have his refuse collected, take advantage of anyone who has been educated in a London school?

Have you bothered reading much of this thread at all, or just done the usual and jumped in at the end?

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 [is[/ihit 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.

[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30309468[/url HMRC seem to confirm that the new rules kick in at exchange rather than completion, although if you've already exchanged before today then you have the choice of which charge to go for, one of my daughters jobs is to prepare the final accounts at completion so you can imagine her delight at this ruling yesterday

Please explain how you reach that conclusion



It's a dynamic system, you don't apply a value and leave it alone for decades



Without transparent country-by-country reporting, there's absolutely zero chance of effectively tracking income and corporation taxes. Land doesn't move, its use may change but try convincing the tax authorities that the parcel of land you've just purchased in the City of London is an allotment and you intend growing leeks



No one is arguing against national assets being developed and paid for from central funds. Perhaps you could explain how the DLR benefits a sheep farmer in Cumbria

Just spoke with my solicitor. It's as I thought, everyone in our chain will have to give their solicitor instruction as to which system to use today prior to completion.
It's been a total mess, and HMRC have not been much help.

Have to be out if here by 1pm and not heard anything about completion yet.

The Super Rich and Us on BBC 2 last night was probably one of the most important financial documentaries of recent years. It explained how today's massive inequality has been created from the 1970s right up to the present day by the wealthy cashing in on the debt of the poor. An interesting stat emerged from the 2008 banking bailout. If the £375 billion had been evenly spread across Britain it would have meant £24,000 landing on every door step. Instead it made its way into the hands of the top 1%, a minority who were already rather well off.

Worth a watch but be prepared for your pi$$ boiling.

Agreed a very thought provoking programme - what I get from it is Capitalism is the without a doubt the best vehicle for wealth generation but the wealth needs spreading out in a more equitable nature.

I can't ever see it changing, it will always be the same money in the same hands. My old man always says "when the bird $hit$ it $hit$ on the biggest pile".

The classic car feature was the most interesting for me. I've followed classic car prices for as long as I can remember and they have never been as mental as they are now. Even classics at the very bottom end of the market that could once be picked up in the Auto Trader for 10 grand, and we're only talking 10 years ago, are suddenly fetching 50 grand with demand and price rises ever pushing them out of the reach of genuinely fanatical average Joes. Last year a Ferrari 250GTO, considered the holy grail among many, sold at auction in California for just shy of £23 million! Just when did that become possible? A lot of the classic car auctions have now become pi$$ing contests for the super rich. Wealthy buyers will often have a collection of cars in the hundreds that just sit in storage, undriven, as collected trophies of their obscene wealth flaunted at auction.

The crash of 2008 may have left many of 'us' in disarray but the 'super-rich' have never had it so good.

Jeez SP.


You are sailing into unchartered waters. Are the lifeboats manned?
You have just taken a positive move from 14 to 13 on the litmus scale.
Keep up the good work.

The problem with "investments" such as these is that they are worth precisely £0 until you can find another "super rich" person to give you more than £23million for it, only then will your "investment" be worthy of the name, until then its just a VERY expensive car sitting in your garage that, if you were honest with yourself, you didn't intend to pay quite so much for had it not been for that day in that auction house and in that buying frenzy, and you just hope that that situation can be recreated at the time when you need to cash in your "asset", otherwise its going to get very embarrassing.

But we're talking about the super rich here. What's £23 million when you're a billionaire? It's barely even a drop in the ocean.

It's the investors at the bottom end who will suffer if/when the bottom drops out of the market. A lot of those bottom end prices are false and are relying on the wealthy keeping the equally false prices high at the top end. The bottom has dropped out before, it will happen again.

Oh I think £23million is a little more than a drop in the ocean even to a billionaire - the thing with most billionaire's is that they don't just throw around £23million as if its you or I spending £5, most billionaires made their billions themselves as there weren't many billionaires from the last generation to pass it on as inheritance and in being so most of them have a fairly good idea about accountancy - the phrase "the cost of everything and the value of nothing" springs to mind and I'm pretty sure that most of them know that £23million is a hell of a lot of money to gamble on a car and the fact that you need another punter just as daft as you in order to turn a profit.