House prices and stamp duty

[DimPrawn]

Thanks for the replies.

I understand the sarcasm from some of you. But I should say that we are in a reasonably well to do part of London, and I'm not sure things are quite as bad here as in some places. There certainly still seems to be a fair amount of activity on the market.

Maybe you are all correct, once I get a valuation I may be in for a shock. However, if it has reached as low as 250 at least it solves the stamp duty problem!

It doesn't really matter what the values are to be honest - our problem is finding something we want at an affordable price. So the lower they go, I suppose the more chance there is that we will. The biggest problem, as you say, is going to be finding buyers.

Does it come complete with a fully functional Kebab shop underneath?

[expat]

You're right, I do know that. Just pointing out that dang65's argument SHOULD, in a fair society, work both ways.

No, not at all. You do not pay council tax on the value of your property, not like you pay VAT on the price of something you buy. In that case the tax is actually about the item price; in council tax, it is just a way of assessing tax liability.

You pay your share of council tax, and the size of your share relative to others' shares is assessed by looking at the value of your property relative to others' properties. If all property does up or down in value proportionately, there is no change in anyone's tax.

You are falling into the classic trap of describing as "fair" what you might like to see.

[scooterscot]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7556887.stm

[scooterscot]

3 bed for £825k cheap as chips, I agree though a little shabby in my opinion... not fit for a contractor.

[wonderwaif]

No, not at all. You do not pay council tax on the value of your property, not like you pay VAT on the price of something you buy. In that case the tax is actually about the item price; in council tax, it is just a way of assessing tax liability.

You pay your share of council tax, and the size of your share relative to others' shares is assessed by looking at the value of your property relative to others' properties. If all property does up or down in value proportionately, there is no change in anyone's tax.

You are falling into the classic trap of describing as "fair" what you might like to see.

This is all well and good, and I'm impressed with all you deep thinkers, but my original question was simply that I thought the government had proposed re-evaluation on Council Tax on the grounds that house prices had been rising. Am I wrong in thinking that? If so, fair enough, if not I go back to my sauce for the goose.

[The Lone Gunman]

This is all well and good, and I'm impressed with all you deep thinkers, but my original question was simply that I thought the government had proposed re-evaluation on Council Tax on the grounds that house prices had been rising. Am I wrong in thinking that? If so, fair enough, if not I go back to my sauce for the goose.

The council tax rebanding exercise was to see if any properties (or whole areas) had gone up or down (like that is ever going to be recognised) since CT was introduced.
It was not linked to the rise in property values per se, The bands would stil be A, B, C, etc, but some properties may have crossed from A to B or C to D (low to high whichever way round that is).
So sauce for the goose..... would only apply if your property had fallen in value disproportionaly to others in your band. If all property falls by 50% then all properties will remain in the same band even if those band labels change. The amount payable will still be the same per band not matter the value of the property.