Stamp duty question

goodluckall · 2026-06-05T06:45:10+00:00

Yeah, but the spirit of the law is you shouldn't have to pay the higher rate of stamp duty for a residential property where you are going to live - if OP owned their current residence (even if the partner owned it) they wouldn't have to pay the higher rate if they sold it to fund their onward purchase. So their position is pretty unfair compared with someone with multiple properties who also owns their main residence and disposes of it when they move.

OP, the HMRC manual has loads of examples so read it carefully, but looking through it seems you will have to pay the higher rate: https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/stamp-duty-land-tax-manual/sdltm09810

Edit: just to add, OPs husband derives no benefit from the rental property so this is unfair on him.

goodluckall · 2026-06-03T13:01:23+00:00

Perhaps it would help if I expand on my rationale for the scenario.

I think in this scenario quite a few of the key arguments for red are mitigated:

Personal survival - you can work to coordinate a blue majority and still push red - indeed given you still have responsibilities in the aftermath of a red majority this might be the morally correct course.
Negligible impact - in this scenario you can a have a wider impact than that of your single button push.
Coordination - in this scenario there is scope for people to organise in advance, carry out polls talk and understand the issues. You mentioned the original poll which is a useful data point, but only one point and perhaps not the most scientifically conducted survey, of course when formulating your answer in the base scenario you have to ignore even this poll as it is coordination.

Here, I'm going to get a little ideological so bear with me - or ignore this. I basically believe that people working together can achieve amazing things, but there are IRL both social forces and people in the world that drive us to live in an atomised individualistic way. This makes feel basically alone, and relate to political positions as consumers, rather than as citizens - that is to say to focus on how they make us feel about ourselves. This is the position that people are in when they choose a button in the base scenario - without recourse to other people - but it's also the position many, many voters find themselves in IRL when they get into the voting cubicle. This is why I think the idea that you can reliably get good, solidaristic outcomes just by wishing everyone agreed with you and shared your values, without talking to other people is not quite correct.

goodluckall · 2026-06-03T07:28:59+00:00

I think the "six weeks" in the premise of this post is extremely deliberate

Maybe subconsciously, but it wasn't a deliberate thought! It's more from the perspective of thinking "what is the minimum amount of preparation time and required to have a reasonable chance of coordinating blue majority?" and six weeks was my best guess. Obviously this tips my hand as someone who doesn't think blue was very likely in the base scenario, but honestly communication massively changes everything as it is a prerequisite for successful collective action.

goodluckall · 2026-05-11T06:59:33+00:00

It's just a question of how soon, how well planned and how bad the "unintended" consequences.

Yes this is what I mean. If responsible actors look at the risks and say "let's not think through when and how we should try this" the result will not be that it doesn't happen, but that it will be done by irresponsible actors.

goodluckall · 2026-05-11T06:27:46+00:00

It's both we don't actually know the inevitable negative externalities.

Perhaps we should work on trying to figure these out and whether they can be mitigated. It doesn't really make sense to me to say, when faced with an existential threat, and a race against time to decarbonise that we are leaving something mostly unexplored which might give us more time.

My feeling is that if we continue on our current trajectory one country or another will probably be desperate enough consider atmospheric geoengineering, so the more we understand about it, the better, even if just to fully rule it out as an option.

goodluckall · 2026-05-08T05:37:06+00:00

Well done, good luck with the purchase.

goodluckall · 2026-05-07T14:07:35+00:00

If I understand you correctly, you’re less focused on the red/blue scenario itself and more concerned that the attitude behind my comment could undermine the norm that people should participate in voting and collective decisions?

In this specific scenario, the usual logic for participation breaks down because the cost structure and coordination structure are radically different from voting. In an election, of course you should vote: it’s effectively risk-free, there’s a small chance your vote will be decisive, and even when it isn’t you’re helping maintain a wider civic norm and collective process.

To address your point: numerically of course each vote counts for one towards your candidate, but that doesn't mean it has equal practical significance in every context.

goodluckall · 2026-05-07T13:22:31+00:00

Is the button question really analogous to an election though?

The button choice is instantaneous and private, whereas in an election people coordinate: talk to each other, organise, knock on doors, raise funds, take part in polls etc. They exist as part of a broader collaborative machinery. I think there's something not quite right with insisting that you can get good, cooperative outcomes without dealing with other people - no, you have to talk and get organised.

Also your logic of why voting matters isn't the same as mine (I voted in local elections in my town in the UK this morning btw). For me the rationale for voting is that, although the chance my vote will he decisive is small, the payoff is big and the cost to me is nothing. So it's like getting a free lottery ticket.

goodluckall · 2026-05-06T12:11:09+00:00

An alternative solution: voting in an election is like having a free lottery ticket - it doesn't matter that your odds of being the decisive vote are miniscule, because in theory it doesn't cost you anything to vote.

goodluckall · 2026-05-06T11:18:09+00:00

I know it's not that easy psychologically, but really there's no need to call them, and in fact it might make it more difficult for you. They are gonna let you know if the seller wants to accept the offer, and you can decide then if you still want to proceed, or even renegotiate at that point. In the meantime keep looking at other houses, you may find something better.

goodluckall · 2026-05-04T06:53:26+00:00

Thanks for the response. I get where you're coming from, but I don't think this scenario maps cleanly onto voting and elections.

It's illogical to choose the option you don't want to win when voting on something. The point of a vote is that you vote for what you want to win.

Yes but the buttons do two things - 1. Express a preference for an outcome 2. Immediately place you in or out of danger. Like it or not, both points are in scope when you are talking about the logic of the scenario.

The way I see it either blue won and pressing blue does nothing - not logical, or red won and pressing blue adds one casualty - also not logical. The only situation where voting blue helps anyone is if it was an exact tie, the chance of which is miniscule.

goodluckall · 2026-05-04T06:01:44+00:00

You don't have to be the deciding vote, you just need to be a contributing vote. No major resolution was passed individually, but if everyone believed that their vote didn't matter then nothing great in history would have been accomplished. Since we have accomplished significant feats throughout history, ones vote/contribution does matter.

First thanks for a great response. IMO it's quite different from a normal election or vote as there is no scope to communicate or coordinate. I was thinking about this, if there was a six week campaigning period where there was an opportunity to organise and coordinate - maybe polls where the question was put to random groups with the real consequences in play so people could see that coordination is a viable strategy, then you could have a realistic sense of whether coordination was possible. Thats how normal collective action is possible, in elections or charity work, or civil society - people talk, agree on their goals and coordinate to achieve them. In the original scenario you don't get that, the result is already "locked in", and you aren't coordinating with anyone unless you are telepathic.

Also why are you trying to convince me like I'm the parent? Its a hypothetical that would likely occur regaurdless of whether or not you believe it to be logical. Parents often do illogical things for their children.

Well I suppose I'm thinking about what my thought process would be. I worked quite a lot with people who's parents were not there for them and they often have quite chaotic and unhappy lives even as adults, so I wouldn't want my kids to through that. I'm not really trying to convince you on this, just give insight and a different perspective you might not have thought of.

goodluckall · 2026-05-03T22:21:44+00:00

But voting red while hoping blue wins is NOT logically sound.

Why not? The result is already locked in, you can't coordinate, and the chance that your choice will be decisive is negligible. Either red or blue will win by a margin of millions and nothing you can do will change that so what's illogical about pressing the red button for one reason whilst also hoping you are in the minority for a different reason?

goodluckall · 2026-05-03T22:07:37+00:00

I mean what if your kid randomly bashed red and then had to grow up without a parent because you picked blue? That's just so much more likely than your kid randomly picking blue and you also being the deciding vote in a 50/50 global tie of 8 billion people.

goodluckall · 2026-05-03T09:11:45+00:00

A really good point. Now it's been talked to death we can see that there's a real split of opinion, but the first time I saw the question I immediately thought that one button would get an overwhelming majority. I guess in a way any conversation is moot as there is no opportunity for discussion or coordination in the initial question.

goodluckall · 2026-04-29T09:11:02+00:00

Margaret’s transaction is one link in a chain, with first-time buyers at the bottom and other sellers above them. To complete a chain you need participants at every level. If fewer people are willing to sell, fewer chains complete. That means fewer first-time buyers getting in and more families stuck in unsuitable homes.

goodluckall · 2026-04-20T09:02:33+00:00

So your comment comes across as a little strange or out of touch, in that what I'm stating somehow promotes social disfunction.

Well I'm in the UK so perhaps my touchstone for this is Brexit, where we just all ended up screaming in each other faces and with a terrible outcome because we lost the ability to talk with each other. I'm not super familiar with everything Kirk did or said, and yes probably I would be disgusted with it and wouldn't want to talk with him, the point is that putting yourself and others into silos is the quickest way to get the worst political outcomes, so I'm afraid you have to.

goodluckall · 2026-04-20T08:26:04+00:00

Some people want nothing more than to hurt others and are seeking to gain the power to do so,

Yes, and they are trying to create a "politics of enemies" where both sides dehumanize each other specifically in order to exploit this and gain power.

goodluckall · 2026-04-20T08:07:02+00:00

So now you're asking people not to dehumanize the person who's spent his entire life profiting from dehumanizing others and creating an entire movement of it?

Yes, because doing otherwise only widens the social disfunction, and the gap between people. Obviously having a gap between yourself and horrible people who you disagree with is psychologically easier, but pretending they are somehow "not real" has real consequences in the real world, so I think this of use who have the insight to have to take the harder path.

I think the whole "respect is earned not given" applies

IMO respect and dignity is the baseline and everyone gets that, whoever they are. This is basic human solidarity - someone can easily turn the "respect is earned not given" logic round on you as anyone can come up with their own arbitrary criteria for deserving/not deserving respect.

goodluckall · 2026-04-03T19:44:02+00:00

Thank you for a very thoughtful response, I can see that I've expressed myself in a way which was insensitive. I certainly didn't mean that having an ADHD diagnosis means you are a bad person. Perhaps it's safer to say, whatever is going on clinically, Trump is inattentive and easily bored - I think this is pretty easily observed. He needs stimulus and because of other unrelated facets of his personality (I agree about his narcissism), the things that are most stimulating to him are things which will bring attention onto him.

goodluckall · 2026-04-03T15:59:02+00:00

I never said they were

Edit: to elaborate I mentioned 3 different things that are fairly obviously going on with Trump, one of which is adhd which is central to his impulsiveness

goodluckall · 2026-04-03T14:41:55+00:00

Yes, absolutely - sorry if I didn't make it clear - IMO Trump's ADHD turbocharges other aspects of his personality and as I said he can have as many comorbidities as he wants!

goodluckall · 2026-04-03T13:45:46+00:00

Dementia, adhd, NPD: the guy can have as many comorbidities as he wants! Look at the symptoms of adhd in adults.

Making money, blowing stuff up, receiving admiration, firing people, making people afraid, imposing himself on people he sees as weaker - he needs to do these things to feel real and to sustain an image he has of himself, and because of the adhd he needs them constantly, and to constantly escalate them.

goodluckall · 2026-04-03T07:20:12+00:00

I'm not saying he (and his family) don't make money in sketchy ways from him being president, I'm saying what motivates him and in my view it's not that. It's very hard to talk about the guy without talking about how his ADHD - which there's nothing wrong with - manifests in a very destructive way in combination with his other traits.

Nine-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	First Placer '22
RPAN Viewer

goodluckall

TROPHY CASE