Land sale tax?
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4491558.stm
Is it just me or is Gordon Brown fairly dim witted 'cos the way I see it... if you slap a charge on land sale then sellers will want more money for their land. They'll want to sell at a higher price to the property development companies and guess what? That'll push up the price of the houses that are built on the land.
I think the government has proved that taking money in taxation to give it back in the form of benefits or assistance doesn't work 'cos they're so bl**dy inefficient and the managers and consultants just feed off the gravy train!
Grrrrrrr!
Is it just me or is Gordon Brown fairly dim witted 'cos the way I see it... if you slap a charge on land sale then sellers will want more money for their land. They'll want to sell at a higher price to the property development companies and guess what? That'll push up the price of the houses that are built on the land.
I think the government has proved that taking money in taxation to give it back in the form of benefits or assistance doesn't work 'cos they're so bl**dy inefficient and the managers and consultants just feed off the gravy train!
Grrrrrrr!
BliarOut said:
Agreed. They had the luxury of inheriting a healthy economy and they've pissed it up the wall. I was listening on breakfast TV that retail confidence is at a twenty year low. Does anyone else think it's gonna get very messy soon?
Its not going to be pretty when it happens. I wonder what excuse "the best chancellor this country has ever seen" is going to use
BliarOut said:
Does anyone else think it's gonna get very messy soon?
Without question.
And there are going to be a lot of New Labour converters who like to think of themselves as upper middle class who mortgaged at 100%, got equity, then remortgaged that are going to get smashed.
Which was nice.
Jaglover said:
At present there is already an informal 'tax' on obtaining planning permission for building on land, in the form of a requirement to build local amenities or provide 'affordable' housing.
Will this tax be on top of this informal tax or replace it?
How many taxes have you heard of that 'replace' another? Its rape-fest 2005, every tax is likely to be in addition to ones you're already paying. The only time another tax will be abolished is if there's a massive public backlash and Brown is forced to make some kind of token concession.
But, in true Labour spirit, its taxation of the non-vocal minorities. Land owners are not likely to stage a demonstration in London in their hundreds of thousands.
Next they'll tax hetrosexual marriages (they won't dare tax homosexuals, they are a very vocal minority). Then they'll go after people who travel regularly (I imagine they'll charge a tax for those seeking to travel outside of the EU). Then it'll be people who decide to have children. People who decide to wear jeans to work. People who decide they like eggs for breakfast. People who like the colour pink. Eventually, they'll have caught everyone with one kind of tax or another.
Plotloss said:
Does anyone else think it's gonna get very messy soon?
Without question.
And there are going to be a lot of New Labour converters who like to think of themselves as upper middle class who mortgaged at 100%, got equity, then remortgaged that are going to get smashed.
Which was nice.
Quite rightly so, I must admit to looking forward to seeing some on them stuck in negative equity for the rest of their born days. Think I might buy a house then.
Jaglover said:
At present there is already an informal 'tax' on obtaining planning permission for building on land, in the form of a requirement to build local amenities or provide 'affordable' housing.
Will this tax be on top of this informal tax or replace it?
You only have to provide affordable housing if you build more than 15 homes on a given plot.
Which is why you see developments of 14 properties...
"Ah yes, Auckland High Commission? You still have fuedalism, I believe..?" My parents are in the middle of selling a large plot of farm land for development (more than 100 houses) and the local government are shafting the developers big style. The contribution for affordable housing demanded by the council has increased by 350% in 6 months. And thats a 350% increase on a huge sum of money. If the council carry on the developers will look at their balance sheets and promptly bugger off.
The government agrees that we need more houses and then sets up legislation that stops them being built! Our local planning authority was told by the planning inspector that the area required ~1500 more houses in order for the local economy to grow. The council outlined areas where these house could be built and gave a time-limit of 2011 (this was in 1998). How many houses of the 1500 new houses has the council managed to get through in this time (7 years)? 0!
The proposals for my parents land have been to public enquiry and the deputy PMs Office and have been approved on both occassions but still the council are stalling to try and get a few more £ out of the developers
and breath...
The government agrees that we need more houses and then sets up legislation that stops them being built! Our local planning authority was told by the planning inspector that the area required ~1500 more houses in order for the local economy to grow. The council outlined areas where these house could be built and gave a time-limit of 2011 (this was in 1998). How many houses of the 1500 new houses has the council managed to get through in this time (7 years)? 0!
The proposals for my parents land have been to public enquiry and the deputy PMs Office and have been approved on both occassions but still the council are stalling to try and get a few more £ out of the developers
and breath......and after the government has finally bu££ered-up the countryside with thousands of identikit boxes, the now flooded housing market will stall, confidence will fall because no one likes to see the value of their house decline, they'll spend less and the economy will suffer.
Plus increased demand for electricity and water will cause problems, more flooding will occur....AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHH!
Plus increased demand for electricity and water will cause problems, more flooding will occur....AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHH!
Eric Mc said:
I thought it already existed - in the form of Stamp Duty LAND TAX!
No, that is a Tax for Buyers to pay. This is to get a bite from the Seller's cherry too.
Anyway we already have this, it's called Capital Gains Tax and that hits at 40%. So is this going to be on top of that or instead of?
The last time they tried a tax like this it only lasted a few years before they had to re-think - then again thinking is not one of this Governments's strong points....
anonymous said:
[redacted]
2-jags has also seriously meddled in South Bucks .... the Tescos at Gerrards X ( the one that collapsed
)- was refused planning locally , and most local residents don't want it .... Prescott gave in to Tescos. 
He also gave in to pressure for a service station at J2 M40 - in Green Belt land between Beaconsfield and Farnham Common (my family's home )- will ruin the area ..... just try getting permission for a single dwelling or extension in South Bucks ... bloody hard work .....but for some huge monstrosity ? .....Prescott will just overrule the County Council
This is going to hurt the smaller developer than the big players. The big companies will find a way around the problem - like setting up an off-shore subsidiary or something - and carry on regardless. Its the man in the street with a little bit of land (a plot or two plots perhaps) or the smaller developers that are going to struggle.
On a slightly separate note; someone said something about it being 15 units and above for Affordable housing - that's correct in some cases but 10 is usually nearer the case and when you hit AH thresholds some councils want 50% of the entire development put aside for social rented and shared ownership. Makes a big difference to what a developer can pay the vendor because typical revenues from AH are less than half the open market value of the private stuff.
On a slightly separate note; someone said something about it being 15 units and above for Affordable housing - that's correct in some cases but 10 is usually nearer the case and when you hit AH thresholds some councils want 50% of the entire development put aside for social rented and shared ownership. Makes a big difference to what a developer can pay the vendor because typical revenues from AH are less than half the open market value of the private stuff.
oi_oi_savaloy said:
This is going to hurt the smaller developer than the big players. The big companies will find a way around the problem - like setting up an off-shore subsidiary or something - and carry on regardless. Its the man in the street with a little bit of land (a plot or two plots perhaps) or the smaller developers that are going to struggle.
On a slightly separate note; someone said something about it being 15 units and above for Affordable housing - that's correct in some cases but 10 is usually nearer the case and when you hit AH thresholds some councils want 50% of the entire development put aside for social rented and shared ownership. Makes a big difference to what a developer can pay the vendor because typical revenues from AH are less than half the open market value of the private stuff.
Think you got it pretty much right there
Anyway, from what i was trying to 'translate' from it last night.
Also, Tonkers financial reasoning seem to hold water. Prescott trying to raise revenue for the Gordon Brown seriously depleted coffers
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff