We should also be looking at increasing the amount of tax charged on property transactions. I know stamp duty is unpopular, but let’s be clear about this. Something has got to be done to reprice property to make sure that young people can afford it when at present. Most think they never will.
Why not, erm, have a tax actually on property, rather than property transactions, if you want to lower the price of property?
Or even just build some more properties?
Let’s make property cheaper by adding more tax! Genius!
I was so staggered at the idea Mr Murphy apparently believes making buying a property more expensive will make that property cheaper, that I went and read the original in the assumption there was a transcription error between here and there. But, no, this is really what he claims, although he provides no warrant, nor evidence for this claim.
All this tells you is that he isn’t planning to move.
Murphy’s first law – taxes should be increased on everybody except him.
“Something has got to be done to reprice property to make sure that young people can afford it”.
Yeah. Let’s make it even more expensive for older people to move out of houses that are too big for them once their kids leave home. That will help the young.
I often think he can’t get any thicker, yet am always wrong.
I suggest a form of window tax so that people who occupy properties with more rooms than is reasonable are charged an annual wealth tax.
The tax free allowance would be 1 per occupant (bedroom) + 3 (kitchen, living room and khazi).
So, as a totally random example, a single occupant of an end terrace (to give this a bit of colour let’s say somewhere in the Fens) with 4 bedrooms , 3 public rooms and 1 khazi would face a penal annual charge of 4 excess windows.
This might encourage such a blatantly selfish cvnt to move to a smaller home. It would also be green as their heating and lighting emissions would fall.
Or even just build some more properties?
Just stop promising the third world free housing if they come over here “legally” or illegally . It’s really that simple.
BF
Don’t give the bastard any ideas! We know he reads this blog despite his denials!
He’ll be advocating a ‘Brick Tax’, ‘Wallpaper Tax’ and ‘Glass Tax’ as well…..
Why should property be cheaper for young people?
Why shouldn’t it be cheaper for older people?Or sick people?Everyone?
Every time the government interferes with the so-called property market it makes things worse
And it got much worse with the Town and Country Planning Act
AIUI Stamp duty originally existed to fund the registration and administration of legal documents like property titles.
Not as a money spinner for government, seem to me it has no purpose existing
More property sales in a less restricted property market would generate far more revenue for government – greeter employment flexibility, more VAT from property refurbishment/services etc
And it might be worthwhile for investors to get into social housing, or at least more affordable high density housing suitable for the hallowed ‘young people’
Deliberately making property more expensive by restricting building and encouraging millions of new occupiers seems to be the hallmark of every government since WW2
Young people are important because if they don’t see a future in the economy (getting on the housing ladder), they’ll be even less inclined to participate by taking paid work.
Yes, it’d be hard for them to be less inclined as many of them are self-entitled twats who expect it all to be given to them on a plate. I blame their grandparents in the 60s who started the trend that just got worse as time went on.
If the tax base craters, the country will be even more fucked than now – hard as that is to imagine.
All the clever schemes to make housing cheaper only benefit particular groups at the expense of everyone else.
The only solutions are more housing or fewer people.
@starfish
Stamp duty was invented to pay for the 1694 war against France.
https://napb.co.uk/blog/the-history-of-stamp-duty-land-tax/
I think it is the most unfair tax.
If I earn more than others there can be justification for me paying more tax.
If I have a more expensive house there can be justification for me paying more tax.
Why should I pay tax for moving?
Also of course the more expensive moving is the less transactions – that does not help anyone.
@ David
If I earn more than others there can be justification for me paying more tax.
If I have a more expensive house there can be justification for me paying more tax.
What justification? Because those who won’t be affected are in the majority?
If you have a more attractive wife, do we all get a go?
‘The only solutions are more housing or fewer people.’
Yes Pat!!
I must confess I’m coming to the conclusion that all illegals should be conscripted to construct the housing. That’d attack the problem from both sides.
BF. They don’t build those rabbit hutches with a single khazi. It’ll probably have 3. 1 en suite, one open access, cloakroom on ground. Minimum will be two. B/R+C/R
@David
“I think it is the most unfair tax.”
Too right. When I got divorced we sold the shared home and both bought our own places. And the fuckers in government taxed us for that.
@BraveFart
Window tax is and was delt with by bricking up windows. Not a pleasant solution but taxation causes behavioral change. Of course the outcome would depend on the implementation detail e.g. do all windows count equal or would two small ones equivalent to one big one, and does a four section bi-fold door count as one or four “windows” or even zero as it is a door?
must confess I’m coming to the conclusion that all illegals should be conscripted to construct the housing.
That’s pretty much what happens in the Gulf States and you don’t hear a murmur about it from our great and good – who are not at all averse to expressing their discontent about events in another part of the Middle East.
Why not, erm, have a tax actually on property, rather than property transactions, if you want to lower the price of property?
Unless I misunderstand you, a tax on property would hit a lot of elderly people who just happen to be living in houses they bought many years ago very hard.
Presumably it would also increase the price of property lower down as millions of impecunious old folks scrambled to buy smaller?
It might be balanced somewhat by the scramble to buy ‘up’, but one side would need to sell and the other merely like to sell; I expect those in the less desperate situation would be able to wait their counterparties out.
It’s unclear to me why people who have bought houses out of taxed income should be expected to carry on paying to live in their houses, beyond a bit for services – especially when they haven’t planned nor budgeted for it.
Is it too much to ask that – particularly on a blog like this – we call always and only for less government spunking?
If even we are tacitly accepting the need to find more tax the whole thing really is fucked.
I know stamp duty is unpopular, but let’s be clear about this.
Nice sentence fragment.
This isn’t about Murphy being stupid – although he is – it’s about Murphy wanting more tax revenues for the Courageous State. He doesn’t actually give a shit whether young people can afford housing. What he cares about is The State. It’s the only thing he cares about.
Interesting, Interested!!
They’re whining here in Oz about the cost of supporting white haired old bastards like me. The latest proposal is to let us stay in our homes and just provide occasional support.
Of course this doesn’t mean I don’t think they’d be stupid enough to tax us out of our property and then whine that we old buggers are dumping the cost of our existence on them.
Come on, Bogan, just self-identify as indigenous, and scoop up a slice of the moolah on offer!
;~)
@Joe Smith
“What justification? Because those who won’t be affected are in the majority?”
Which one are you unhappy about it? I think most people believe those who have more should pay more – at least because a poll tax to fund everything is impractical.
@Sean OConnor
“Too right. When I got divorced we sold the shared home and both bought our own places. And the fuckers in government taxed us for that.”
Stamp duty unlike other taxes causes problems in life like divorce having to move for work more tricky.
The young need to be able to afford a house – so let’s make them more expensive by charging more tax on buying one?
starfish said:
“AIUI Stamp duty originally existed to fund the registration and administration of legal documents like property titles.”
Nope, it was always a money-grab. Brought over by the Dutch Usurper, who had done similar in the Low Countries.
Stamps Act 1694 – “An act for granting to Their Majesties several duties on Vellum, Parchment and Paper for four years, towards carrying on the war against France”
I thought it was brought in as a way for the King to raise money without Parliament (the enforcement mechanism was that unstamped documents could not be used as evidence in court, and the Crown controlled the courts), and that it only later became statutory. But I can’t find any evidence for that.
One of you old buggers might know this:
Did there used to be some sort of tax (in the UK) on having a fully-tiled bathroom?
I can half remember my parents mentioning something like this. The way to avoid it was leaving a section of one of the walls untiled.
This would have been in the early 70s or maybe earlier.
Whenever I’ve had a bathroom tiled I’ve had to really pester the tilers to actually tile all the way to the top of the wall. It’s as though they are trying to minimise the number of tiles they cut to fit, but having a 1.5-tile gap all along the top of the wall ideally placed to catch condensation and direct it down behind the tiles is a real annoyance.
@ David
Which one are you unhappy about it? I think most people believe those who have more should pay more – at least because a poll tax to fund everything is impractical.
I was asking what the justification is for both. Most people believing those who have more should pay more is the majority rules I mentioned (Because those who won’t be affected are in the majority?).
Now, if you are suggesting that everyone should pay an equal amount (taxing each individual ala the poll tax), that’s different to everyone paying the same percentage of their income. I support a flat rate (of let’s say 30%) irrespective of your income. Not only does in remove the need for complex rules and HMRC inspectors, it’s fair.
What doesn’t work is basing the amount you pay on some arbitrary progressive taxation rate (higher, highest rate). The Great Potato thinks taxation should be used to enforce fairness and he’s a demonstrably demented fuckwit.
Why should property be cheaper for young people?
Obviously Spud’s eldest has got to the age where he’s thinking of buying.
‘Come on, Bogan, just self-identify as indigenous, and scoop up a slice of the moolah on offer!’
Good idea, Davidsb. I certainly feel as though I’ve been here for thousands of years!!
BiND
You have got it spot on!
I hope Spud isn’t reading this thread otherwise he’ll start recommending new taxes for the promise of a war with France. Such a popular course of action will ultimately be subverted when such a war fails to materialise or ends prematurely.
It occurs to me that, if the state puts a heavy tax on property sales, it can then exempt from that tax its own chosen friends and family, making property much cheaper as a reward to the right people.
But I would have to be very cynical to believe such a theory. Right?
@Boganboy – “illegals should be conscripted to construct the housing”
I’m sure there are many who would be delighted to do it voluntarily, but since we make it illegal for them to work they don’t.
@Joe Smith
” I support a flat rate (of let’s say 30%) irrespective of your income. Not only does in remove the need for complex rules and HMRC inspectors, it’s fair.”
And
“If I earn more than others there can be justification for me paying more tax.”
Are not contradictory. I am agnostic about flat rate – I can see the pros and cons. (Although I would say there should be a minimum before people pay tax just to avoid the cost of collection).
However I can’t see why moving should be something that is taxable.
Assuming that property should be taxed then it should be ownership of property not moving.
BTW I don’t support Richard Murphy.
Charles seems to be labouring under the delusion that those who are here illegally will obey the laws of the land.
@Chris Miller – “Charles seems to be labouring under the delusion that those who are here illegally will obey the laws of the land.”
I don’t know how you came to that conclusion. Are you aware that emplyers must verify their employees right to work, and people are presumed guilty until proven innocent, so an employer must keep records to show that they have checked? There’s quite limited scope for employing people illegally on a highly visible project like building a housing estate.