U turn on HIPs?

[Phil]

[google]

refusing to have anything to do with them. The rest of the HIP is still required, deeds, local searches, etc. The HCR was probably the most expensive part, though.

[Jonathan Pearson]

from

, states "However, plans now are for a report to just contain an energy efficiency rating, searches and title deeds, the cost of which is thought to amount to perhaps only £150" - which makes much more sense

Jon

[Brian Sharrock]

I've edited your prose inserting the missing word(s) ... as Cameron quizzed the PM today; - if the PM is interested in saving peoples' money when they're purchasing houses; why doesn't he ask his (Scottish) neighbour to cut Stamp Duty?

[Tony Bryer]

Because any economist would point out that a cut in stamp duty would probably lead to a corresponding increase in house prices.

[Brian Sharrock]

house prices with respect to date? Can you plot on the same graph (with a second X Axis), the rate(s) of Stamp Duty? Notice any correlation? You either have no knowledge of house prices prior/post 1 May 1997 or you really do think 'things can only get better'; has any dodgy looking tanned bloke offered to play tennis with you at his London pad? Has your missus started to doodle 'Lady Bryer' on her stationary?

[Tony Bryer]

Stamp duty went up a bit but mortgage interest rates tumbled. So house prices went through the roof. People tend to bid house prices up to what they can afford (and then some more if current statistics are to be believed) and stamp duty is one small factor in that equation.

My home would sell for somewhere in the mid £200K bracket: the current stamp duty regime would probably force me to sell for £249,999. Remove that distortion and the price I could get would go up, probably by more than the stamp duty since the latter has to be paid and a price increase can (potentially) be borrowed.

[Ed Sirett]

AIUI when then is a step change in a complex system such as house prices and conveyancing tax (called stamp duty) the system is likely to respond with a change over time to a number of variables.

So the tax means the gov't won't have as much income which they will have to find from elsewhere (which means people moving house will be favoured against whoever needs to pay the alternative revenue generator).

Stamp duty taxes conveyancing, this means that removing it will make that process less costly this will lead to an increase in house moves. So solicitors, surveyors and estate agents will pick up some (much?) of the boost. So also will parts of the economy which are influenced by house changing (curtains, carpets, decorators, diy stores).

However the balance between move or re-model will be shifted against remodel, so this will cause a down turn in loft converters and medium sized builders... (The economics of loft conversion on a 500K house versus moving means that stamp duty gives a 15k bias to the conversion!).

Overall it will make house owning a little cheaper which might cause prices to rise but how much? Not one for one but some I would guess.

[Brian Sharrock]

Your original post implied that if Stamp Duty went down then house prices would go up! {most economists ... ] . Historical data has shown that House Prices have risen since Gordon and Prudence hefted Stamp Duty. Either Stamp duty is irrelevant to house prices _or_ folks are demanding more dosh when selling their house to fund the stamp duty on their next house.

[Mark]

Stamp duty really distorts the market. Because of the £250K threshold there are no houses with asking prices between 250K-275K. When I was looking for a house there was nothing big enough below 250K and I could not afford 275K.

Mark

[Tony Bryer]

It is a factor in house prices, but IMO a relatively small one as compared with the willingness of lenders to advance money, interest rates, people's earnings and their expectations of future earnings and house prices.

[Brian Sharrock]

As you didn't comment on the following (snipped) part ... folks must be demanding more from the sale of their house to enable them to pay the Stamp Duty on their next purchase ... presumably you agree with my point - increased Stamp Duty has increased the price of houses. { no mater what the weighting in the 'factors in house prices' it's acting as a multiplier } Most economist ... ! If every economist was richer than Croesus one might begin to believe they had a clue!

[Tony Bryer]

No, because the buyer couldn't care less how much stamp duty you're paying on your next house. And they don't care about the fact that if you're selling your late granny's house you have to pay a chunk of IT, or if you're selling a second home you probably have a CGT liability.

[Brian Sharrock]

But- Logic 101.... the _vendor_ increases his demands to cover the cost of the Stamp Duty he's expecting to fork out to meet Gordon Brown' iniquitous tax. So it doesn't matter what the _buyer_ cares about; it's what the _vendor_ cares about that counts.

Totally irrelevant to the point that Stamp Duty increases the price of houses at market. Why are you arguing that a Tax -any tax- doesn't increase price? Are you so bamboozled by Prudence's wiles ... it can't be because of Gordon's smiles, can it?

[Tony Bryer]

Some taxes do, but in markets where the supply side can respond to price and demand changes and where pricing is basically on a cost-plus basis. The housing market is one where the seller has to take what the buyer will pay and the more money you take out of the buyer's pocket in taxes etc the less they will bid. If you put Stamp Duty up to 10% the price of houses would go down, not up. If you brought in Special Car Tax at 10% the price of cars would go up. Different markets, different rules.