What would happen if stamp duty was abolished

just dreaming, it will never happen

This is an outrageous tax

But one can live in hope

 

Property becomes bull then frequent ups and downs like stocks. Currently entry and exit cost is high.

 

i would buy and sell!

 

They are slowly getting rid of it in the ACT and really ramping up rates. I would rather take a one off hit.

 

Rates are an operational expense; can claim against income.

Stamp Duty is a capital expense; can only claim if/when one sells.

Prefer operational expenses over capital expenses, every day of the week (if I must incur them).

 

@kierank it’s a bit of a bummer when it’s your ppr. I don’t think I would have an ip here at the moment as land tax is also a shocker. Better returns in other markets.

 

Dan Andrews (Victorian Premier) would need to find alternate funding for his facebook page!

 

I prefer one off tax as well but if stamp duty was gone, I would do sandwich deals but they are not without risks.

 

If stamp duty was abolished or even significantly reduced, governments would need to find alternative revenue sources.... ie. Other taxes would increase.

Simple as that....

 

Hard decision - levy stamp duty on 2% of property which changes hands each year or a small land tax charge on 100% of properties (guaranteed to upset everyone).

 

Stamps suck, 99% of it is a revenue stream now !

If you could justify a relocation/move closer to work then I see no reason why you should have to pay such an exorbitant amount for a title to be rubber stamped.....

It isn't the 60's or 70's when you got a job for life, these days people change jobs, employers and location of work regularly, no wonder many choose to rentvest

 

Totally with you.

A couple of years ago I bought a property and the stamp duty was nearly $140.000 .

Totally rude and totally obscene!!!

... and I didn’t even get a thank-you letter from the Queensland Government .

 

I think Australia will eventually follow NZ and abolish stamp duty , then remove land tax , cancel the CG tax and then finally reduce the income tax to 33%.
However it will need to increase GST to 15pc to replace the lost revenue

 

Hope so
Kwis got it right

We are backwards in oz, not investor friendly

 

Yes, a broad based tax is always going to be a more stable proposition however the issue here in Australia is that you’re talking a mix of State & Federal revenue which complicates things considerably.

Whilst it seems logical to follow suit, just consider the recent debacle that was GST revenue redistribution to the states.... Hence, I can’t see the States giving up the huge honey pot that is Stamp Duty on a promise from Federal government to redistribute fairly any counter balancing taxation. Too many states & too much recent bad blood.

 

Stamp duty is universally slammed by economists as or worst tax. One day it will be reformed across the states, who knows if any of us will still be alive though. If I recall, the GST was supposed to support a phase out of stamp duty... that was 20 years ago. State budgets are just too dependant on the revenue and, in a world of rising house values softening the blow of the cost via increased equity, there just hasn't been the public demand for change.

I think the current falling market will however turn people's attention to the issue when they feel the full pain of paying many tens of thousands of dollars tax out of their own pocket with no expectations of capital gains to quickly make up for it. Just for the privelidge of buying property. Hopefully this helps build some public interest and political momentum around making the big change

I think a palatable and economically sensible way to make up the revenue is probably a combined approach. Something like:

1. Retaining a smaller stamp duty, but at perhaps 1/3 the current rate
2. Make up 1/3 from an increased ongoing land tax, based on the unimproved value of the land (applying to all property - no PPOR etc exemption)
3. Make up 1/3 via a capital gains-based duty that is levied on the sale of a property, based on the difference between the original purchase price and the final sale price. So you only pay this if you've made money out of the property.

The exact proportion each should make up I'm not sure, and you would need transitional provisions to facilitate a phased changeover, but I think something like this would make sense. Swapping over to have all the revenue currently collected from stamp duty met 100% by land tax is probably too significant an impost.

 

Australia has it pretty good, stamp duty here in Barcelona is a flat 10%.
Then there's wealth tax over 500k, inheritance tax, no gct discount, no super, no negative gearing, etc...

 

I don't think so, not for investors.

So many taxes, capital gains, stamp duty, gst,
If you are a developer they take a bite at each end.... its a killer.

For example, US is very much investor friendly, don't pay stamp duty and capital gains can be deferred forever if you like. Huge savings for investors

 

Well someones gotta pay for all the fraud, abuse and waste.

 

I'd be very happy if they did that.

I don't see them abolishing stamp duty without replacing it with increases to land tax. I think land tax is far worse than stamp duty as it has a nasty habit of increasing over time. I can also see that investors would be charged far more than owner occupiers.