Stamp Duty Changes

[Olivetti]

Isn't one of the principles of taxation that it is supposed to be fair, and that the tax payable therefore shouldn't vary greatly over time for similar transactions.

Rosita Boland had a piece in Thursday's Irish Times on what the recent changes in stamp duty had cost her personally, and I am thinking the same way.

From memory, the buyer of a €500,000 house in the last ten years could have paid €45,000 (9%), €30,000 (6%), €20,000 (4%) and now will pay €5,000 (1%). Differential between highest and lowest is €40,000 of after-tax income, or almost three years earnings at the average industrial wage level.

Shouldn't there be some kind of control to prevent wild gyrations like that in tax rates over what is a relatively short space of time?

 

[Bob_tg]

But is it fair to have a high tax which prevents people from moving their home? Times are a lot different now, so it seems to be quite obvious that having a high stamp duty rate is preventing transactions. This was not the case in the past.

 

[callybags]

I read her article and to me it smacks of whinging and begrudgery.

She was happy enough to pay the stamp duty at the time she bought her house, so that should be the end of it.

 

[huskerdu]

Yes, it does seem unfair to a lot of people who paid a huge amount of stamp duty, myself included. But I am not complaining, for a few reasons.

Sadly, lots of things in life are unfair. A lot of people, after the budget and the increase in unemployment, are wondering how to make ends meet, and have much worse financial worries than Rosita Boland or me.

The stamp duty regime was a very unfair tax. It was essentially a property tax which
was levied at a very high rate on those moving house. Therefore, some people paid far more than their fair share, and many people paid none.

It was also an unsustainable source of tax revenue.

It should have been changed years ago. The fact that it was unfair that some people had to pay an unfair tax, is a pretty poor reason for not abolishing it.