Category Archives: Taxation

10 years of anti-landlord legislation from Tony Blair to Theresa May

10 years of anti-landlord legislation. Why?

What a difference a decade makes!

At the time of writing (2017) over 100 new pieces of landlord legislation have been introduced since 2007 to make life more difficult for the small private residential landlord, whilst favouring major corporate ones like insurance companies. Why have there been 10 years of anti-landlord legislation?

It used to be The Bankers (and rightly) but increasingly since 2007, private residential landlords have been the target for a relentless onslaught of legislation by central and local government. I think that no other group in society has been attacked so relentlessly and unjustly and there is a reason for this.

Tories join in the landlord bashing

Labour politicians have always hated private landlords and have passed legislation to control rents and other aspects of letting ever since the 1960s. It’s in their DNA. But in recent years, the so-called Conservative Party has enthusiastically joined in the game. They have proclaimed that evil greedy private landlords are preventing ‘young first-time buyers’ from getting on the proverbial property ladder by snapping up available property.

But I suspect that these crocodile tears for dispossessed first-time buyers are really there to hide their true aim. And that is to corporatise the private rented sector. For years, City institutions have looked on enviously at the returns private landlords were achieving and have been upset that such investors have shied away from their rip-off pension funds. Add to this the derisory interest rates of recent years and you can see why so many people have felt that investing in buy-to-let was their only viable option.

Now, whilst I totally support legislation that genuinely tackles rogue landlords, the problem is that much of the new legislation and regulations actually hit the decent law-abiding landlord. Rogue landlords don’t give a damn about HMO rules and registration etc. And if they want to get a tenant out they don’t bother with Repossession Orders etc they just go round there and intimidate them until they leave.

List of 10 Years of Anti-Landlord Legislation

Here is a list (not in chronological order) of only the most prominent anti-landlord legislation of the past 10 years.

  • In 2007 the government introduced the law requiring landlords to deal with security deposits in a prescribed manner. Generally I believe this was good thing but it does add to the bureaucracy involved in starting a tenancy. And if you don’t comply it can lead to the landlord having to compensate the tenant with up to three times the deposit amount and also forfeit the right to issue a Section 21 Notice.
  • Recently the government made it a legal responsibility for all landlords to issue tenants with their How To Rent booklet.
  • Landlords also now have to check on a prospective tenant’s RIGHT to rent. The landlord is supposed to act as an unpaid immigration official and check that the tenant has the right to live in the UK. Saves on immigration officers though I suppose.
  • Since October 2015 all landlords have a statutory obligation from day one to supply and install working smoke an carbon monoxide alarms on every floor that may be used wholly or partly for accommodation. They have to demonstrate how to use them and then get the tenant to sign to say that they have been shown how to use them!
  • Any property of 3 or more floors and/or housing five or more people not living as one household is classed as an HMO (House of Multiple Occupation). And every HMO (unless you’re a rogue landlord of course) requires guess what? A Licence from the local authority.
  • And talking of licences and ways local authorities can prey on landlords, many local authorities now require EVERY let property to be licensed and of course that costs more money. They don’t actually DO anything except take the money off the landlord and eventually email him or her a certificate – a nice little earner indeed.
  • By Law, all tenants have to be supplied with an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC). Who the hell reads those things anyway?
  • From April 1st 2016 Boy George introduced some draconian disincentives to landlords before he was finally sent packing by Mother Theresa. It is very complex but the first tax change was a gradual lessening of the allowable mortgage interest expenses on buy-to-let mortgages. This will eventually drive many landlords away from buy-to-let completely – depending on how heavily leveraged they are.
  • Osborne also introduce legislation that means that anyone buying a buy-to-let property has to pay 3% more Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) than if they were buying for owner occupation. However, if you – or should I say, a large company, buys six properties or more simultaneously then the SDLT is significantly LESS than even an owner occupier would pay. It’s classed as a ‘commercial purchase’ for tax purposes. Guess who that benefits?
  • He also made changes to WHEN a landlord has to pay capital gains tax on a property he or she sells. Originally you had until the next tax year but now I think it has to be paid within three months of completion. You will need to check on the precise period as I am not sure.

Complexity of Anti-Landlord Legislation

You see, the main reason that these 10 years of anti-landlord legislation favours corporate landlords is the fact that it is so labrythine! It’s so complex that even small professional landlords find it hard to navigate. However, if you are The Prudential or similar then you just employ a specialist landlord and tenant lawyer full-time – easy!

So how long before landlords decide enough’s enough?

The only reason that so many small private landlords are continuing is that there nowhere else for them to invest. Stocks and shares are doing well at the moment but they are risky. Pension schemes are notorious for ripping-off people and who is going to invest their money in a so-called safe bank and get 1% interest if they’re lucky?

I predict though that if interest rates do eventually move upward by even a relatively small amount it will cause a massive earthquake in the UK property market because there are many older reluctant landlords who would much rather get at least a modest return on their savings than endure these increasing attacks from government.

More than ever Landlord Rent Guarantee Insurance matters

Given the mounting anti-landlord legislation it makes more sense than ever to have Landlord Rent Guarantee and Legal Expenses Insurance. It costs just over £100 for 12 months cover per property from LandlordsandLetting – this covers up to five named tenants in that property.

 

LandlordsandLetting

Affordable landlord insurances

Landlord Taxes – Is this REALLY a Conservative Government?

image of George Osborne as Boy George

Boy George and landlord taxes

When Boy George was Chancellor under the Cameron government, he introduced a whole new raft of landlord taxes aimed at ‘helping first-time buyers get on the property ladder’. But did he really want to help them? The PR theme was that demand from landlords was making it difficult for first-time-buyers to enter the property market. And as usual it had a nice ring to it.

However, I would assert, as I have before, that George was more interested in letting the City have a bigger piece of the Buy To Let Pie as the new rules did not hit large corporate bodies in the same way as small private landlords – Prudential has bought into it in a big way.

Mother Theresa dismisses Boy George

Then we all breathed a sigh of relief when Boy George was sent packing by Mother Theresa and welcomed the somewhat less boyish Phillip Hammond, assuming he would actually start acting like a Conservative chancellor. Well it seems we rejoiced too soon, because so far he still seems keen on more landlord taxes and is continuing with the policies of scrapping of tax relief for interest on buy-to let mortgages and the increased Stamp Duty for buy to let properties.

They now talk about ‘level playing fields’ – don’t politicians love metaphors? They say that mortgage tax relief for landlords gives them an unfair advantage over first-time buyers. They forget that the incredibly low interest rate environment and mass immigration has meant that buying to let is just about the only game in town that’s left for individual investors. Also, they forget that when you sell a buy-to-let property, unlike permanent private residence, you have top pay a shed-load, or rather a house-load of Capital Gains Tax. But then again, the MPs Expenses’ Scandal showed they knew only too well about the importance of flipping a property to avoid CGT.

No Opposition at All

The thing is that Mother Theresa and her chums are no longer faced with any opposition at all. Jeremy Corbyn has managed to effectively reduce Labour to a student debating society in which Diane Abbott seems to be an all purpose minister for just about anything and probably even handles any small plumbing emergencies at Labour HQ. By claiming he was present at many events he wasn’t and knew people he didn’t, Paul Nuttall managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for UKIP in the Stoke by-election. And the Liberal Democrats…well they’re still very Liberal and Democratic and that’s about it.

So, the Conservatives realise that Landlords represent a very small section of their natural constituency, have become folk villains, have nowhere else to turn and as such their wishes can be safely ignored.  They are now going for the ‘middle-ground’ to further increase their majority by tempting soft Labour voters away from Jeremy.

Residential Landlords Association

As I write this, the Residential Landlords Association (RLA) have mounted a last ditch attempt before The Budget to persuade Chancellor Phillip Hammond to scrap Boy George’s tax changes that stop landlords being able to offset mortgage interest against income from buy to let properties.

Let’s wish the RLA luck.

 

Landlords and Letting – Affordable Landlord Insurance

After Brexit, George gets his P45 – time to reverse anti-landlord taxes?

0sborne_P45

In April this year, a raft of anti-landlord measures came into force – courtesy of George Osborne. There was the increased Stamp Duty hike of 3% on buy-to-let properties and the beginning of the phasing out of interest on buy-to-let mortgages as allowable business expenses for landlords. The latter, I believe, is currently being challenged in the courts.

Now George is gone and Brexit’s here

I for one was pleased that Mr Osborne was given his P45 by Theresa May in the tumultuous weeks that followed our decision to leave the EU. I think he had it coming but maybe that’s just me being spiteful!

Personally, I am pretty sure that although Osborne’s tax changes were sold as help for first time buyers, they were really aimed at giving The City a piece of the buy-to-let pie. This is because some of the legislation specifically excluded large scale investors and of course large financial institutions are not as dependent on borrowed money as are small-time landlords.

Uncertainty is now adversely affecting the property market

The RICS and other institutions are now reporting a significant slowing of the property market following the decision to begin leaving the EU. How long this uncertainty will last is anyone’s guess but it’s a given fact that uncertainty almost always affects markets badly. And since the negotiations are going to be long and complex this uncertainty probably won’t be short-lived. Add to this the fact that, assuming we do get a significant reduction in immigration, demand for housing will slacken. I personally would welcome this, even though it might hurt my pocket, because the UK really is becoming uncomfortably overcrowded and the quality of life really is being affected.

It’s time to reverse Osborne’s tax changes

The phasing out of mortgage expenses as an allowable business expense was an outrage and, whilst I agree with the extra 3% on second or additional homes, it is wholly unjustified to penalise people who buy property to let in this way, and for many it is their main livelihood.

The fact is that Brexit has naturally caused great uncertainty and that uncertainty has caused a slowing in the property market, so I think it would not only be right to reverse Osborne’s outrageous tax changes but it would also be financially prudent.

Malcolm James Stretten

Landlords and Letting – affordable landlord insurances

 

What do YOU think?
[yop_poll id=”1″]

New Government Plans for Future Buy-To-Let Landlord Laws?

Now Theresa May’s government has its sights set on The Evil Landlord.

NOTE: None of these new regulations are expected to apply to limited companies holding more than 100 properties.

After Dave and George had exhausted benefits claimants and the disabled as their chosen targets for blame, they found Buy To Let Landlords, who are now fast becoming the nation’s favourite bêtes noir, after bankers, estate agents and journalists of course. Now Theresa May’s government is following in the footsteps of its predecessor.

Following the current torrent of anti-landlord legislation from our so-called Conservative government, these are some futuremeasures I can imagine being considered by The Treasury and the Ministry for Communities and Local Government, plus a new government quango being set up – see below.

2019. Psychological Assessments for Landlords
This will make it mandatory for all existing and prospective landlords to undergo Psychological Assessments for Landlords (PAL) to verify their fitness to be a landlord. These will take up to two hours, to be carried out by qualified Government Approved Psychologists. Cost estimated at around £490.00 plus VAT. Note that private landlords will not be able to claim back the cost of these PALs and furthermore they will not be an allowable business expense.

The tests themselves

The tests will include the famous word association test where subjects are asked to interpret what they see in random ink blot shapes. For example, they will be shown a photo of a student and if they say something like, ‘Cash cow to be exploited and degraded at every opportunity’ or something to that effect they will be marked down.

Where landlords fail the tests, in some cases they will be offered ECT (Electro Convulsive Therapy). This would be supervised by qualified psychiatrists and could last a fortnight and cost up to £7400.00. At the end of this they could then re-take the PAL – if they were still conscious that is.

Those that refuse the PAL will be required to sell their properties within 12 months or face an additional surcharge of 15% CGT, or a maximum of 6 months Community Service, whichever causes them the greater suffering.

2019. Mandatory CRB Checks for Residential Landlords

All existing and prospective (if there are any by then) landlords will be forced to undergo a full Criminal Records Bureau check.

Projected for 2020. New maximum age limit of 55 for all new landlords

No one over the age of 55 will be allowed to become a landlord and all those currently over that threshold age will be required to dispose of their existing properties within 12 months. Those not doing so will be subject to a 15% CGT levy or a maximum 6 months imprisonment.

Landlords who fail the PAL (see above) will also be required to walk around a designated local area for up to 4 hours over a period of one week, carrying sandwich style boards with big red lettering saying ‘I AM A LANDLORD AND I AM AN UNFIT PERSON’.

Authorised people, ie local government officers, MPs, members of Generation Rent and registered tenants will be allowed to pelt them with rotten eggs and tomatoes – no solids will be allowed. In some cases it will also be permissible to beat landlords with rolled up copies of The Guardian or New Statesman – but not both at once.

Rent Controls

Before any flat or house is let, a local authority officer will be required to inspect it and set a maximum rent for the next 12 months.

A Rent Assessment Visit (RAV) will take place within 2 months of application by the landlord, at a cost of £275.00 per property.

This, combined with all the other anti-landlord laws is expected to lead to a decrease in available rented accommodation and thus a consequent rise in demand over supply. So, anticipating this, where a landlord is advertising a property for what will be far below the market rent and receiving applications of more than 500 prospective tenants, then the landlord will be required to raffle the property or alternatively arrange a 100 metre sprint to see which of the prospective tenants shall be permitted to rent it.

Penalties for Landlords

Penalties for transgression of any of the above will range from an extra 15% CGT on the disposal of a buy-to-let property, to fines of up to £20,000 or 4 years’ imprisonment. Boroughs will also be allowed to set up Landlord Pillory Facilities where repeat offenders will be chained for up to 24 hours while rotting vegetables, soft fruit and insults will be hurled at them.

Bureau for the Administration of Landlord Legislation and Supervision (BALLS)

From 2020, the Government is proposing to set up a new quango called the Bureau for the Administration of Landlord Legislation and Supervision (BALLS), with an expected staff of 4000 people. BALLS will oversee all this new legislation and will consider future controls should they be deemed necessary.

I know it all sounds far-fetched but back in 2000 so would all the anti-landlord legislation that exists today.

Landlords and Letting – Affordable Landlord Insurance

 

Osborne bashes buy-to-let to boost his City pals

GeorgeOsborne

I trust that by now most small buy-to-let landlords will have woken up to the fact that Osborne and the so-called Conservative Party are out to get them.

Before the last election we all feared that Ed and his Band of Brothers would get in and introduce more anti-landlord legislation. We all hoped that shiny face Cameron & Co would ride to our rescue. But as the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for!

The Tories’ Anti-Landlord Legislation – Where we are now

These are the main anti-landlord changes that have been introduced by this ‘Conservative’ Government since they won the last general election, admittedly courtesy of the undemocratic first-past-the-post system…

  • A gradual reduction in the allowable financial costs of purchasing and owning, particularly mortgages, a buy-to-let property. By 2020 relief will only be available at the 20% rate, no matter what your total taxable income.
  • And in Osborne’s Autumn Statement from April 2016, he outrageously increased the Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) by 3% specifically on buy-to-let properties and additional home purchases. So for example, the marginal SDLT on a property costing £400,000 will increase from 5% currently to 8% – on buy-to-let and additional property purchases only. The marginal rate above £250,000 for non buy to let purchasers will still amount to £7500, but for the Evil Buy To Let Investor it will be £12,000.
  • Landlords will have to pay any CGT due on selling an investment property within 30 days, as opposed to the current arrangement where it is in the January following the tax year of disposal.
  • And the tell-tale bit… Commercial Investors with more than 15 properties are expected to be exempt from Osborne’s changes.
  • Finally, although not directly instigated by central government, many local authorities (Labour and Conservative) have introduced compulsory registration schemes for private landlords. They pretend these schemes are designed to root out rogue landlords but in reality they are of course just more money making schemes because they charge landlords for registration.

‘I want to help more young couples buy their own home’

So kindly uncles George and Dave are really concerned about struggling first-time buyers are they? These are the same people who introduced draconian reductions in benefits for people on Disability Living Allowance, introduced a poorly conceived so-called ‘bedroom tax’ and wanted to strip away tax credits from people on very low incomes before any increase in the minimum wage kicked in. True, Osborne backed away from this in the Autumn Statement, but only because of huge opposition from both inside and outside the Conservative Party.

The fact is that PR politicians like Cameron love to use phrases like ‘more help for working families’, ‘getting more bobbies on the beat’ and ‘helping struggling first-time buyers’.

So what is REALLY going on?

It is my firm belief that the Conservatives are just trying to help their friends in The City and dressing it up as wanting to help first-time buyers, by hitting the Evil Buy To Let Investor, who has for years now become completely demonised.

The Tories and others claim glibly that buy to let investors are now the main cause of the unacceptable rise in the cost of owning your own home. No they are not. The causes are complex and based mainly on supply and demand. Not enough homes are being built to satisfy an out of control demand for all kinds of housing, caused mainly by uncontrolled immigration. But at the same time if we just build more homes without the related infrastructure then the country will literally grind to a halt and become a hideous place in which to live. Finally, the reason so many older people have been resorting to buying to let, is the ludicrously low rate of interest they can get by leaving their savings snoozing in the bank or trapped in a poor performing pension fund.

You see, for years now the big City institutions have been jealously looking at the level of returns private investors have been getting in the buy-to-let market. This has naturally choked off money that would otherwise have gone into their pension schemes and rip-off investment funds – where they earn high management fees.

On a personal note, I am not opposed to making life more expensive for people who wish to indulge themselves in second homes. But I am totally opposed to this continued demonisation and financial attacks on people who have bought property to let out as their business. Just increase interest rates and you’ll soon see people backing away from buy to let with all the stresses it can entail.

In short, The City wants a piece of the Buy-To-Let Pie, and Osborne plans to give it to them.

Sign The Petition

A petition has been set up to oppose the planned reduction in tax relief for buy-to-let landlords. I did not create this petition but I have signed it. This link takes you to it.

Vote!

Are the Conservatives attacking small landlords mainly to benefit The City?

YES
NO
Other
Please Specify:

online poll creator

Landlords and Letting – Landlord Insurances

How Labour WASTED £12.4 billion on NHS IT System

UPDATE MAY 2017

I originally wrote this article over two years ago, but I am re-publishing it in the light of the latest success of the worldwide hacking attack that has hit the NHS so hard.

This blog is essentially about property and general money matters, so admittedly this is a little out of its normal scope. However, it certainly IS also about money and, given that Labour are endlessly preaching about spending more of our money on their sacred cow, the NHS, I feel compelled to try to remind people of Labour’s incredible ability to waste massive amounts of our money on it.

The way the NHS has been affected by the latest worldwide hacking attack underlines the low quality of senior management in the NHS. This though is not a party political failing, more one of complacent and inefficient management.

NHS Computer System – what was it?

Simply put, it was envisaged that it would be a national patient record IT system, linking health professionals, hospitals, GP practices etc. The project was originally started in 2002, with a total budget of £2.3bn envisaged! Imagine you asked a builder to estimate for some work on your house and he quoted £50,000 but when he gave you the bill, it was for £269,000!

In 2005 a government agency, grandly called NHS Connecting for Health was formed to administer the project.  Various private IT companies were subsequently awarded contracts by the Department of Health and the whole bloody fiasco was presided over by a succession of ever so well-meaning Labour Secretaries of State for Health. So let’s remind ourselves of those names…

The Ministers Responsible

Alan Milburn  (October 1999 – June 2003)
John Reid  (June 2003 – May 2005)
Patricia Hewitt (May 2005 – June 2007)
Alan Johnson  (June 2007 – June 2009)
Andy Burnham (June 2009 – May 2010) (as of December 2014 – current Shadow Secretary of State for Health)

Yes Minister

As usual, it seems impossible to uncover all the names of the useless senior civil servants in the DoH and this is the way they always work, by remaining effectively shadowy and anonymous. Thus we have phrases like ‘The DoH decided that’ or ‘The DoH awarded the contracts to’ etc etc.  It’s as if a huge stone building in Whitehall actually signed off poorly drafted contracts. Various names are available however, such as David Nicholson (associated with the Mid Staffs scandal), Richard Granger, Gordon Hextall, Richard Jeavons and Harry Cayton.

Saving contractors money

Richard Granger is of particular interest. He was the Director General of IT for The NHS, on a basic salary of around a £280,000 a year. And that was back in 2006 when £280,000 a year was good money. The ridiculous costs for this project should have been lessened by clauses in their contracts which made the contractors liable to pay massive compensatory sums to the DoH in the event that they withdrew from the projects.  Accenture, just one of the contractors, withdrew in 2006 and, instead of charging them £1 billion, as their contract allowed, it’s reported that Richard Granger charged them just £63 million – a massive saving for Accenture of about £937 million – and an extra cost of £937 million to all of us! Granger apparently started his career with Andersen Consulting…which subsequently went on to become Accenture. Interesting.

The project was FINALLY abandoned on 2013 with total costs of around £12.4bn – a revised cost that had already been predicted by the National Audit Office as far back as June 2006.

‘Doctors and Nurses…Doctors and Nurses’

When justifying yet another raid on our pockets in the form of higher taxes, the Labour Party are fond of endlessly talking about ‘Doctors and Nurses, Doctors and Nurses’ and that if we want enough ‘Doctors and Nurses’ we must pay even more tax.  So, next time you hear the lovely Andy Burnham bleating about ‘creeping privatisation’ by the Tories and  preaching about ‘Labour’s Commitment to properly funding the NHS’ and that the NHS is only ‘safe in their hands’…remember The Great NHS Computer System Scandal. Mr Burnham admittedly came in on the tail end of it but it WAS a Labour project from the start.

This Labour Government Project WASTED £12.4 billion of OUR MONEY. They might as well have stuffed it all down the nearest drain – except of course that it made a few (private) IT companies very rich indeed and helped pay the mortgages of a number of obscenely overpaid civil servants like Dave Nicholson (‘Sir David’ to the sycophants in our society), Richard Granger and many others.

£12.4 billion – How else could they have spent it?

I’ve done a few back of fag packet calculations (as Nigel Farage would say). Naturally they are very approximate, although nowhere near as approximate as government estimates of costs!

  • Assuming an average salary of £22000 pa…approximately 563000 nurses for a year or 28000 nurses for 20 years!
  • Assuming a very generous salary of £100,000 pa we could have employed 124000 GPs for one year.
  • Don’t know how much a hospital costs but I reckon we could have a had a few of them for £12.4 billion.

And finally, if they hadn’t WASTED this mountain of money maybe the inappropriately named NIHCE would have been able to license more expensive life-saving drugs and therapies.

Of course, this scandal is symptomatic of how government and the civil service waste our money on an industrial scale. I seem to remember that Phillip Green was commissioned by the Government in 2010 to find ways of saving cash. He estimated that up to £20 billion a YEAR could be saved with more focussed and aggressive procurement strategies.

I have to credit the majority of the informational details here thanks to the great Wikipedia. So if you don’t believe me, just check it out. Of course I want a great NHS that is free at the point of delivery only to settled citizens of this country, but we don’t have to pay more tax for it, they just have to stop wasting our money.

As a footnote, when I entered the search term £12.4 billion NHS Computer System into Google, even Google couldn’t believe it and said ‘Did you mean £12.4 million?’

 

Landlords and Letting

Time to reform Stamp Duty Land Tax?

Stamp Duty Land Tax, more commonly referred to as Stamp Duty is not only yet another iniquitous government tax on property, it is a tax designed by idiots – but no surprise there!  See our Poll below…

Stamp Duty Thresholds on Residential Properties (October 2014)

  • £0 to £125,000 – No Tax
  • £125,001 to £250,000 – 1%
  • £250,001 to £500,000 – 3%
  • £500,001 to £1 million – 4%
  • Over £1 million to £2 million – 5%
  • Over £2 million – 7%

Look at the Stamp Duty thresholds above.  This shows the real idiocy of Stamp Duty.  As soon as a property transaction exceeds a specific amount – even by a £1.00, the WHOLE of the transaction is subject to the next level of tax!  Thus if you buy a property for £250,000 you will pay £2500.00 in Stamp Duty, whereas if you paid £250,001 you would pay £7500.03 in Stamp Duty!

As far as really expensive property is concerned, it’s even more ridiculous. Take an example of a property selling for £2 million the Stamp Duty would be an incredible £100,000.  But – if that same property sold for £2,000,001 the Stamp Duty would be…£140,000.07!  In other words about £40,000 more.

Distorting the market

Apart from being an outrageous amount of money, this of course badly distorts the property market, with sales just above one of the thresholds being incredibly hard to achieve.  So, a property valued at £250,000 really achieve £300,000 before you can get the real value when you sell, because buyers will be put off houses that are advertised for say £265000 and will try everything to push them below the threshold.

Dodgy Dealing

Of course, because this tax, via fiscal drag, now accounts for such a huge amount of money, people try to avoid it.  There are various schemes dreamed up by clever property lawyers that involve arcane and complex procedures to avoid SDLT but they are of course risky.  Also, some people claim that part of the price includes fixtures and fittings such as kitchens – but really there is no way to safely avoid this scurrilous tax.

What we need is for politicians to wake up to the stupidity of this tax and if it really has to be at these levels then it should work in the same way as income tax and tax the marginal amount by which a sale price crosses a threshold.  An example would be say a property selling for £260,000 would bear 1% on the first £250,000 and 3% on the final £10,000.  Also, why on earth does it jump from 1% to 3%!

In conclusion, the reason this tax exists in its present form is because it does.  Civil servants and politicians often are incapable of original thought and just go on doing something in the way it’s always been done – just because that’s the way it’s always been done.

Tell us what YOU think

See our Stamp Duty Poll below…

Does the current UK Stamp Duty system need reform?
YES
NO

Poll Maker

Landlords and Letting Landlord Insurances