I recently spent a few days in north Norfolk and was so taken with the scenery and the charm of the people I started researching property on RightMove. Then I looked up how much stamp duty I would pay. This money would go straight to the government to pay for hotels to house economic migrants. I said to my wife we will have to wait four years, because Reform would likely get in and reverse this tax on productivity and how annoying would that be to have paid a defunct tax. Instead I have bought your new book and am ready to settle in a comfortable chair with book in one hand G&T in the other. My money will remain tied up in our current property until these idiots have been booted back into the ideological long grass.
The real scandal with Angela Raynor IMO is how she transferred her stake in her former marital home into her disabled son's Trust at a rather punchy valuation. She then had use of some of the cash that formerly belonged to the Trust. Was this move really in her son's best interests...?
When making the purchase for the trust from the Rayners (initial 50%) and from Angela alone (recent 25%) the trustees will have been required to assess whether the transaction was (a) in accordance with the trust deed and (b) in the interests of the beneficiaries of the trust. And obviously they would be required carefully to take account of any conflicts of interest.
Who are the trustees? We don’t know but it would be very surprising if the trustees are not the parents of the disabled child who is the beneficiary, ie Mr & Mrs Rayner.
Trustees under trust law are not permitted to make a profit out of the exercise of their trustees’ duties. Buying a house wearing their trustee hats from themselves at an over valuation would be a blatant breach of trust which would require them to repay the profit to the trust.
Similarly the trustees would need to consider whether the loss of other investment income on the trust fund used to buy the property was adequately compensated by the rent being paid by those who sold the property to the trust while still living in it. One assumes that rent was paid, wasn’t it……
Of course this is all speculation. The trust might be professionally managed with properly minuted assessments of why these transactions were in the interests of the trust and should happen. But if this doesn’t apply and conflicts of interest led to breaches of trust and extraction of value by means of secret profits, then stamp duty is only half of the scandal.
After hearing that the story came from inside No.10, I suspect she was set up and the cabinet reshuffle is intended to stop our unpopular PM from being ousted at the party conference.
Bye eck, these Socialists are bloody greedy! This is the argument nobody ever has, The left versus right argument, the socialist versus capitalist argument.
Nobody wants that argument. You never here it. The Capitalist will never speak openly about his agreement for Capitalism because he has been trained from a young age to believe that it is bad. The left have peddled it to death, along with every media outlet in the UK for the past 50yrs. How bout them bankers bonuses eh?
Truth is, these Socialists are the biggest Capitalists out there. I was taught Socialism is about sharing the wealth? Then how come every Socialist in power ends up stinking rich? A rich Socialist is a contradiction in terms. Its the opoosite of what they preach.
Whilst the Capitalist is unapologetic about his intentions, (Although less so nowadays). He wants to get rich using the resources available. He might want to be your boss. He wants to make money. Thats it.
But your Socialist is sly and underhanded. He too wants to be rich. But he/she will claim that they are doing for you.
Kinnock in the seventies, going round the Social clubs... vote for me.. I am doing this for you! And where is he now? And where are you? Have you been through Tredegar lately? He lives a millionaires lifestyle in Hampstead whilst Tredegar dies on it arse.
Every Labour Minister becomes a millionaire whilst claiming to share the wealth. I think they mean share other peoples money.. not thiers.
But they hate Capitalists who make themselves rich?... Go figure??..
A good example. Years ago Branson wanted to sue the NHS for breach of contract. That greedy Capitalist wanted 10 million off the taxpayer. The News outlets hammered him, sueing the NHS. Thats taxpayers money!😡😡
But when the Socialist Niel Kinnock took 10 million off the taxpayer, nohing was said. Everyone just walked away hands in thier pockets whistling whilst staring up at the sky. As if they were walking awsy from a particulary potent fart.
Dont be surprised at Rayner, didnt Lammy try to claim parliamentry expenses for a second home 7 miles from Westminster.
Or, abolish Stamp Duty completely. And replace with an annual property value tax (calculated as a % of the current value of the property indexed from date of purchase). The Duke of Westminster would be getting a very large bill each year. This would encourage people living in over valued houses they don’t need to downsize and help redistribute the utterly unearned capital gains of those lucky enough to get on the housing ladder a long time ago. It might help to close the gap between the unhoused and the unearned.
It would be good to hypothecate the proceeds to build affordable homes for the next generation. Fat chance.
I doubt the Duke of Westminster would pay anything more than he pays now. He would find an exemption clause or have one written up by his chums at Parliament.
Do you think Prince Charles paid inheritance tax on his mums vast estate? I doubt it somehow, a nominal agreed fee perhaps, or nothing at all. Nah, some taxes are designed for the masses, not for the cream of the crop.
I don’t think the Duke of Westminster would personally pay anything. All the property associated with him is owned by the Grosvenor Estate, which I believe is a long established trust in which he has a beneficial interest without actually owning the property.
As it would be the Estate which pays this tax, thus reducing the value of the Duke’s interest pari passu, it is perhaps a distinction without much difference!
As this government does not understand human beings, family, community, 😞 incentives or responsibilities, they will not abolish or reduce a tax; they cannot appreciate that a tax reduction or simplification might increase the tax paid in.
How about replacing Stamp Duty, with its archaic steps, with a flat rate Home Purchase Tax of, say, 0.5% or double that if the seller has been resident for less than the preceding, say, 3 years? Could this help to encourage movement in the housing market, and so Growth, as well as social stability and higher revenues?
Bit confused as I thought that she had to pay £70K tax and not £40K tax because it is classed as a second home as she is keeping her first home. Most people if they were moving home would be selling the first home in order to move to a new home so would not be paying the higher figure. BUT you are right Dominic having to pay a tax just to buy a home wether the first one or subsequent ones is ridiculous! The sooner it is abolished the better!
She did sell her first home. When she bought the Hove property she apparently owned no other property so in normal circumstances there would be no question of second home stamp duty applying. What she didn’t take account of was the anti avoidance provision whereby if you sell your first home to a trust to benefit your minor child you are still deemed to own the property.
I recently spent a few days in north Norfolk and was so taken with the scenery and the charm of the people I started researching property on RightMove. Then I looked up how much stamp duty I would pay. This money would go straight to the government to pay for hotels to house economic migrants. I said to my wife we will have to wait four years, because Reform would likely get in and reverse this tax on productivity and how annoying would that be to have paid a defunct tax. Instead I have bought your new book and am ready to settle in a comfortable chair with book in one hand G&T in the other. My money will remain tied up in our current property until these idiots have been booted back into the ideological long grass.
A perfect exanple of the immobilising effects of Stamp Duty. Many thanks for the nice comments Greg
The real scandal with Angela Raynor IMO is how she transferred her stake in her former marital home into her disabled son's Trust at a rather punchy valuation. She then had use of some of the cash that formerly belonged to the Trust. Was this move really in her son's best interests...?
When making the purchase for the trust from the Rayners (initial 50%) and from Angela alone (recent 25%) the trustees will have been required to assess whether the transaction was (a) in accordance with the trust deed and (b) in the interests of the beneficiaries of the trust. And obviously they would be required carefully to take account of any conflicts of interest.
Who are the trustees? We don’t know but it would be very surprising if the trustees are not the parents of the disabled child who is the beneficiary, ie Mr & Mrs Rayner.
Trustees under trust law are not permitted to make a profit out of the exercise of their trustees’ duties. Buying a house wearing their trustee hats from themselves at an over valuation would be a blatant breach of trust which would require them to repay the profit to the trust.
Similarly the trustees would need to consider whether the loss of other investment income on the trust fund used to buy the property was adequately compensated by the rent being paid by those who sold the property to the trust while still living in it. One assumes that rent was paid, wasn’t it……
Of course this is all speculation. The trust might be professionally managed with properly minuted assessments of why these transactions were in the interests of the trust and should happen. But if this doesn’t apply and conflicts of interest led to breaches of trust and extraction of value by means of secret profits, then stamp duty is only half of the scandal.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15068815/Angela-Rayners-home-valued-higher-neighbouring-properties.html
Very mucky indeed!
After hearing that the story came from inside No.10, I suspect she was set up and the cabinet reshuffle is intended to stop our unpopular PM from being ousted at the party conference.
Ciould be - hadn't thought of that
Bye eck, these Socialists are bloody greedy! This is the argument nobody ever has, The left versus right argument, the socialist versus capitalist argument.
Nobody wants that argument. You never here it. The Capitalist will never speak openly about his agreement for Capitalism because he has been trained from a young age to believe that it is bad. The left have peddled it to death, along with every media outlet in the UK for the past 50yrs. How bout them bankers bonuses eh?
Truth is, these Socialists are the biggest Capitalists out there. I was taught Socialism is about sharing the wealth? Then how come every Socialist in power ends up stinking rich? A rich Socialist is a contradiction in terms. Its the opoosite of what they preach.
Whilst the Capitalist is unapologetic about his intentions, (Although less so nowadays). He wants to get rich using the resources available. He might want to be your boss. He wants to make money. Thats it.
But your Socialist is sly and underhanded. He too wants to be rich. But he/she will claim that they are doing for you.
Kinnock in the seventies, going round the Social clubs... vote for me.. I am doing this for you! And where is he now? And where are you? Have you been through Tredegar lately? He lives a millionaires lifestyle in Hampstead whilst Tredegar dies on it arse.
Every Labour Minister becomes a millionaire whilst claiming to share the wealth. I think they mean share other peoples money.. not thiers.
But they hate Capitalists who make themselves rich?... Go figure??..
A good example. Years ago Branson wanted to sue the NHS for breach of contract. That greedy Capitalist wanted 10 million off the taxpayer. The News outlets hammered him, sueing the NHS. Thats taxpayers money!😡😡
But when the Socialist Niel Kinnock took 10 million off the taxpayer, nohing was said. Everyone just walked away hands in thier pockets whistling whilst staring up at the sky. As if they were walking awsy from a particulary potent fart.
Dont be surprised at Rayner, didnt Lammy try to claim parliamentry expenses for a second home 7 miles from Westminster.
Socialism is a grift.. and a lie
Ooof, rushing that out I hit a fee spelling mistakes there😅 I wanted to bang it out early before my day starts.. Aaron Spelling😂
Fee😅😅 did it again.. slow down Lud.. deep breaths
Great that's gone though Dom :-) :-)
Indeed
Or, abolish Stamp Duty completely. And replace with an annual property value tax (calculated as a % of the current value of the property indexed from date of purchase). The Duke of Westminster would be getting a very large bill each year. This would encourage people living in over valued houses they don’t need to downsize and help redistribute the utterly unearned capital gains of those lucky enough to get on the housing ladder a long time ago. It might help to close the gap between the unhoused and the unearned.
It would be good to hypothecate the proceeds to build affordable homes for the next generation. Fat chance.
I doubt the Duke of Westminster would pay anything more than he pays now. He would find an exemption clause or have one written up by his chums at Parliament.
Do you think Prince Charles paid inheritance tax on his mums vast estate? I doubt it somehow, a nominal agreed fee perhaps, or nothing at all. Nah, some taxes are designed for the masses, not for the cream of the crop.
I don’t think the Duke of Westminster would personally pay anything. All the property associated with him is owned by the Grosvenor Estate, which I believe is a long established trust in which he has a beneficial interest without actually owning the property.
As it would be the Estate which pays this tax, thus reducing the value of the Duke’s interest pari passu, it is perhaps a distinction without much difference!
As this government does not understand human beings, family, community, 😞 incentives or responsibilities, they will not abolish or reduce a tax; they cannot appreciate that a tax reduction or simplification might increase the tax paid in.
How about replacing Stamp Duty, with its archaic steps, with a flat rate Home Purchase Tax of, say, 0.5% or double that if the seller has been resident for less than the preceding, say, 3 years? Could this help to encourage movement in the housing market, and so Growth, as well as social stability and higher revenues?
Yup
Bit confused as I thought that she had to pay £70K tax and not £40K tax because it is classed as a second home as she is keeping her first home. Most people if they were moving home would be selling the first home in order to move to a new home so would not be paying the higher figure. BUT you are right Dominic having to pay a tax just to buy a home wether the first one or subsequent ones is ridiculous! The sooner it is abolished the better!
Yes, that's right - it's got muddled up.
She did sell her first home. When she bought the Hove property she apparently owned no other property so in normal circumstances there would be no question of second home stamp duty applying. What she didn’t take account of was the anti avoidance provision whereby if you sell your first home to a trust to benefit your minor child you are still deemed to own the property.
Lovely stuff Dominic. And you’re right. We haven’t remotely heard the last of Big Ange.
thank you!
Didn't Gordon Brown blame advisors when he sold a chunk of our gold reserve?
Probably!