Posts

Stamp duty rated as the most inefficient tax in Australia

Across all levels of government, whether federal, state or local, the current stamp duty regime is the most inefficient and should be abolished, according to Housing Industry Association chief economist Tim Reardon.

HIA recently joined a chorus of industry groups calling for the abolition of stamp duty after the NSW treasury proposed replacing the longstanding regime with an annual property tax.

Reardon pointed to the Henry tax review published in 2010 which found that the cost of stamp duty equated to 70 cents out of every dollar raised, making it, not only inequitable, but, the most inefficient tax in Australia.

“Almost any other form of tax will achieve a more efficient outcome,” he told MPA. While he wouldn’t comment on whether the annual property tax proposed by the NSW government would be the best solution, he said the abolition of stamp duty in the state was a good thing.

“The objective is to abolish stamp duty, and this certainly moves towards that outcome,” he said.

Stamp duty as it currently stands is both inequitable and unreliable, he explained. Those who were required to move last year to seek new education or employment opportunities because of the pandemic incurred a punitive rate of tax if they purchased a new home.

“With retirees or elderly Australians that might like to move to be closer to family or to be closer to medical services, they likewise would be penalised if they were to buy a home to locate to,” he said. “It’s unreliable – as we saw both in 2018 and again last year, at a time when the government needed a reliable source of revenue, stamp duty revenue fell away very quickly. It particularly happened in NSW in 2018 where a small slowdown in house prices led to around a $500 million reduction in stamp duty revenues.”

While not reviewed by the Henry tax review, an annual property tax could potentially reduce the efficiency costs that are currently involved through a number of factors, he said.

“Because it doesn’t distort household behaviour, such as influencing your propensity to move, the efficiency costs are significantly lower,” said Reardon. “Because it encourages efficient use of land, its efficiency costs are much lower. Because it then means for other factors, such as allocation of public health resources and the allocation of expenditure on infrastructure, because those two also become more efficient, you get a significant efficiency improvement over and above the stamp duty regime that currently exists.”

REINSW CEO Tim McKibbin recently commented that an annual property tax wouldn’t benefit all segments of the market, especially cash-poor retirees who may not be able to afford the extra yearly cost.

“We have people in properties that don’t respond to their current needs, but they are going to stay there,” he said. “Stamp duty or property tax is not providing any incentive to move.”

Reardon said the transition from stamp duty to any other form of tax would be difficult, but that the benefits of abolishing the current regime were clear.

“I think all political parties, governments and economists certainly agree that abolishing stamp duty is a good outcome, but it is that transition that is the difficult part,” he said. “The community benefit, the economy-wide benefit, from abolishing stamp duty is sufficient that any individual households that are worse off can be appropriately compensated.

“The ACT have provided the slow transition model and they are doing it over a course of 20 years. NSW are looking at an opt-in model, which would mean that only those households that elected to defer that payment would incur that ongoing annual cost – which would mean that the impact on retirees that are asset rich and cash poor would be minimised.”

by Kate McIntyre

Stamp duty reform, will it happen?

The conversation around stamp duty reform has gained momentum in recent weeks at both the state and federal level, with everyone from RBA Governor Phillip Lowe to Treasurer Josh Frydenberg to state politicians suggesting that land tax reform may have a role to play in Australia’s post-COVID economic recovery.

Reform could significantly aid homebuyers through reducing the amount of money they need to have saved up front, as they’re not able to borrow against stamp duty but instead must pay it in cash.

As reports continue to swirl that an overhaul to land tax may be imminent, Australian Broker unpacks what that change might look like. 

The current situation

While discussion around stamp duty reform swells and ebbs on a fairly regular basis, when it comes down to it, it’s widely viewed as “untouchable”– especially in Victoria where it makes up 40% of the state’s revenue, according to Damien Roylance, managing director of Melbourne-based Entourage.

“We’ve always talked about stamp duty reform, but the thing is the percentage of stamp duty hasn’t changed since the ‘70s when the median house prices were 30-odd thousand. It was never adjusted down as we moved into the 2000s and house prices obviously increased,” Roylance said.

Pre-COVID, it was projected that stamp duty would generate $9.5 billion in revenue for Victoria this year alone. 

However now, with the hope of reform feeling more like an actual possibility in recent weeks, buyer behaviour is being affected.

Roylance explained, “A lot of agents are screaming ‘Just make a decision on it!’ because if people think reform is coming, they’re worried they’re going to hold off buying. With a million dollar purchase, which is not uncommon these days, the stamp duty is $55,000. If people think change is coming, why would they buy now when they could save that much down the line?”

Possible approaches to the reform

Even with his pragmatic acknowledgement that a reduction in tax in one place almost surely equates to an increase in tax elsewhere, Roylance has considered several alternative structures for stamp duty which would take pressure off owner occupiers without depriving the state its revenue.  

“Paying stamp duty over a deferred period, say 10 or 20 years, would be a lot better for a lot of people from a cash flow point of view. Rather than paying $50,000 in one go, a homebuyer might instead pay $2,500 a year for 20 years,” he explained.

Roylance also outlined a credit system which would help address the way in which stamp duty sometimes discourages people from transacting more.

“Say you buy a home for $1m dollars, and you pay your $55,000 stamp duty. Then you upgrade to a home for $2m in the next few years, but you’re given a credit for the first move you already paid for,” he explained.

“The buying and selling of property is so expensive. If you’re able to have a credit system like this, young people moving up the property ladder can pay their stamp duty along the way. So when they buy their big home for $2m or $3m, they’ll have already paid a big chunk of that tax. 

“There’s a lot to flesh out there, obviously, but a credit system could help prevent people from having to pay it all again.”

While Roylance doesn’t necessarily feel stamp duty should be lowered or altered for investors, he does see significant room for improvement especially as it pertains to helping first home buyers into the market.

“The first home buyer stamp duty concession is pretty low, tiering between $600,000 and $750,000 in Victoria, but we have first home buyers buying for over a million. Times have changed; they’re now in their thirties, just got married and they’re not looking to buy a $600,000 apartment anymore,” he said.

What we’re most likely to see

While it’s interesting to model creative solutions which benefit both homebuyers and the government, tax reform is rarely radical.      

“Everyone expects the change to come in the form of a land tax increase,” said Roylance.

However, the managing director has also seriously considered the possibility that, despite the duty dominating the discussion of late, no change will be made at all. 

“Brokers aren’t seeing too many people drop off at the moment. Stock levels have been really down, so houses price haven’t really lowered. We’re seeing properties snatched up in days rather than weeks,” he said.

“If property prices are holding strong and people are still buying, do they need to do this? Obviously, reform is being considered as something to spark the economy and get things going again, but if it shows signs of life, why would they take away such a huge earner for the government?”

-By Madison Utely (AustralianBroker)