Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Endinburgh Council
 
 
Saturday, 7th November 2009 Change Date

Ministers can kick-start housing market with tax holiday

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 03 June 2008
Temporary break from stamp duty is badly needed, says Scott Brown
STAMP duty levels should be temporarily suspended to help kick-start Scotland's stagnating property market. I believe dramatic action is needed to revitalise the market, particularly with first-time buyers, who are experiencing the worst effects of
the credit crunch.

The Government needs to send out a positive message to embattled buyers and sellers either by freezing all payments or, at the very least, dropping the first £125,000 tier of stamp duty so that the tax only applies to properties costing more than £250,000. There is a precedent in 1992 – when Tory Chancellor Norman Lamont introduced a holiday from stamp duty for eight months – which proves such a move is feasible.

The Scottish property market remains resilient with prices and valuations, particularly in Edinburgh, remaining positive, which confirms what many property commentators in Scotland have been saying – that the recent spate of confidence-sapping negative reports largely apply only in England.

However, what we are finding is that sellers are becoming increasingly reluctant to buy first, then sell. When this is added to the slowdown in sales of entry-level properties – caused by the typical first-time buyer's inability to get a mortgage – the market stagnates. That is not a good position for anyone – from the individual homeowner to the Scottish economy in general.

That's why we need a short and sharp "shot-in-the-arm" injection of a freeze on stamp duty to revitalise the market. There are a lot of people out there who are either trying to sell or wanting to buy, who are being affected by the current position in the property market.

Give first-time buyers access to extra funding to make their first purchase less of a financial burden and it will release owners of entry level properties to move up the property ladder.

If properties in this sector start moving again, it will help to get things moving up all levels of the property ladder once more.

In 1992 – with the property market slowing and the economy struggling with recession – John Major's government decided to act on stamp duty, increasing the minimum threshold from £30,000 to £250,000, thus exempting the majority of purchases.

The idea was to reinvigorate the market and prevent a total collapse. By the middle of the year, transactions had nearly doubled. Although activity fell off again, industry experts believe the policy helped put a floor under things, preventing an even worse slump.

Labour has been enjoying a stamp duty bonanza in recent years, thanks to the increasing number of homes whose value has crossed the £250,000 threshold. Before Labour came to power in 1997, stamp duty was worth just £675 million a year. A decade later, it is worth a staggering £6.4 billion.

Scott Brown is estate agency partner with Warners





The full article contains 489 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 03 June 2008 10:01 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Mortgage and property news
 
1

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 03/06/2008 11:07:22
Probably the last thing we need to ignite is another spate of house-buying activity and ridiculous prices brought back, and at the taxpayers' expense. It's maybe no accident then that the author of this piece is an estate agency partner!
2

JayJay,

Right here 03/06/2008 11:17:54
There are a great deal of things ministers could do. They could, for example, instruct the larger councils to urgently re-jig their local plans, release some good quality land, and build affordable housing on a large scale. That way, people struggling to get on the housing ladder, could have a ready supply of decent quality housing together with sensible prices. Good grief, they could even underwrite the mortgages (ensuring that the old measures of affordability of mortgages were respected) - such action would, at least, deal with the grim reality now that average salaries are as much as one tenth of average house prices in certain areas.
Regrettably such an action would require a bit of lateral thinking, some difficult local decisions for councils and a bit of innovation. And as we all know, our politicians don't do that - instead, they raise taxes, fail to regulate banks properly and, when the banks have utterly ruined the economy with reckless lending, they through the very people who have created the crisis even more money to bail them out!
3

Plodjfriss, Hammer of the Numpties,

Edinburgh 03/06/2008 12:18:27
The best possible thing that could happen for first time buyers would be for prices to fall dramatically. It looks as if that's exactly where things are headed, so perhaps the government should just let matters take their natural course.
4

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 03/06/2008 12:22:05
"Before Labour came to power in 1997, stamp duty was worth just £675 million a year. A decade later, it is worth a staggering £6.4 billion."

Which says it all really doesn't it?

In 1992, Major increased the threshold from £30,000 to £250,000. In the context of the spiralling property market, Brown should have lifted it once again to about the £1 million mark. Did he? Did he hell.

It is about time we got rid of these idiots for good.
5

Steven P,

edinburgh 03/06/2008 12:30:17
There is a simpler solution Mr Brown.
Sellers have to drop their price to attract the buyers you say are out there.
Housing stock is way over-valued. A price correction of 20/30% would not be out of order.
Whether stamp duty is a valid or fair tax is separate issue, but reducing it merely to keep estate agents in a job is not the answer.
6

,

03/06/2008 12:31:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

Steven P,

edinburgh 03/06/2008 12:36:26
Why is stamp duty paid by the buyer and not the seller?
Why not tax the party with the cash instead of the one without?



8

,

03/06/2008 12:37:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

DagdaFan,

Tollcross 03/06/2008 13:21:05
This article could basically be titled "I can't afford a holiday this year so why doesn't the taxpayer prop up my business?"

Wouldn't such a move remove £6.4billon from the public coffers for a year? What services does Scott Brown think should be cut to prop up the grotesquely overblown hosuing bubble? As an estate agent he may well have reason to be thankful for the DSS in the coming months. That said, the way things are going the £6.4 billion will be lost anyway.
10

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

, Newington 03/06/2008 13:24:18
The bubble was the problem and the credit crunch is the cure. Time to quit resisting and take our medicine.
11

Sanny,

Glasgow 03/06/2008 13:31:55
Stamp duty is just another unjustified tax and should be removed and the same with the stamp duty on Shares.
Like all markets the housing market is subject to the constraints of supply and demand and the correct price for a house is the price a buyer is prepared to pay. Let the free market resolve this issue.

Government can assist by making suitable land available for construction and encouraging Council to once again build council houses for rent only. In addition the government can control borrowing.

A return to my young days, in the fifties, when to buy a house I needed a deposit of 10 to 20 %. To get a mortgage I needed to have had a savings account with the building society for a set period and demonstrated the ability to put away a sum each month. Then my mortgage was limited to 2.5 to 3 times my Proven Salary and some lenders would allow an addition of half of the spouse’s salary. This process limited the supply side of the purchase power and hence the price of property. In the fifties most houses values were less than four times the annual salary of the occupants.

It is only with the stupid free-for-all of recent years that house prices and debts have risen out of control. A return to the principle “if you can’t afford it, Don’t buy”, will see stability return to the economy.
12

antifa,

03/06/2008 13:57:41
If you got rid of stamp suty all that would happen is that the price of houses would go up by 1%. So rather than the money going on public services, it would go to sellers (and their estate agents of course).
13

ccc,

03/06/2008 14:03:14
Scott Brown will be unemployed soon. Good - he deserves it. He is self centered and selfish. He is not thinking about first time buyers, he is thinking about his own pocket.

Get used to working in a low paid job Scotty. Only months away now for losers like you. If you cant handle the ups with the downs then you shouldn't be in business.

:)
14

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

, Newington Anarchist Society 03/06/2008 15:10:33
Sanny starts off brilliantly with:

"Like all markets the housing market is subject to the constraints of supply and demand and the correct price for a house is the price a buyer is prepared to pay. Let the free market resolve this issue."

Indeed, and the worst interference with free markets solving the problem has been government bailouts for Northern Rock and other banks. let bad bankers go to the wall and good bankers will move in to take their
business.

Sammy then fluffs a pass with:

"Government can assist by making suitable land available for construction and encouraging Council to once again build council houses for rent only. In addition the government can control borrowing."

Council flats and imposts on borrowing are hardly free markets now are they? Agreed that government should quit regulating land use though.

Then a sudden interception from Sammy nets:

"A return to my young days, in the fifties, when to buy a house I needed a deposit of 10 to 20 %. To get a mortgage I needed to have had a savings account with the building society for a set period and demonstrated the ability to put away a sum each month. Then my mortgage was limited to 2.5 to 3 times my Proven Salary"

That's how it was before the credit bubble began and that's how it will be again. The mortgage securitisation market will either die of its own stupidity or be regulated out of existence and the banks will be back to depending on depositors for cash.

For a few years though, I suspect deposits closer to 50% will become the norm as banks desperately seek to protect themselves from further losses.
15

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

03/06/2008 15:14:00
#13: One really has to wonder whether the local estate agents have some sort of rota for writing articles for the EN in order to talk up housing markets. Perhaps it's all part of an advertising agreement?

That might not look so clever when folks in negative equity start looking for who was to blame for talking them into it in the first place...
16

Plodjfriss, Hammer of the Numpties,

Edinburgh 03/06/2008 16:53:02
FoFP: have you seen the astonishing writings of William Frame of Braemore Property Management? Here's a couple of examples:

http://business.scotsman.com/loans/Reports-of-the-death-of.3927057.jp

http://business.scotsman.com/personal-finance/It39s-going-to-hurt-a.4138628.jp

Truly inspired lunacy.
17

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

, Newington 03/06/2008 17:32:12
I'm indebted to #16 for the two links.

The first seems to claim "Everything's OK - if you're a millionaire", which is perhaps true to an extent. That said though, Santa Barbera house prices (where Hollywood stars live) are down 39% year-on-year (California Association of Realtors numbers) while The Hamptons outside New York (where the serious bankers and politicians have their weekend homes) have now started to see reposessions (Case-Shiller analysis).

Those places survived the first two years of the US's now 37 months old housing crash (UK now in 8th month). These numbers indicate that it's too early to conclude that the millionaires aren't going to have to sell their yachts.

The second link seems to be more or less sound analysis in saying that it all looked too good to be true on the bubble, and that sound investment in property does require some sacrifice to save a large deposit and sound planning to ensure payment.

To saving a 20% or 25% deposit, I'd have added that nobody should buy without also having a year of their salary tucked away in the bank (this covers folks until state aid is available to pay a mortgage in case of job loss).

Also, it's time we admitted that there are a bunch of people who are just too poor to ever own a house and we should quit encouraging them into financial suicide by trying to do so. We've hit 70% ownership and trouble, so I'm figuring that around two-thirds of the population are up to running their finances in a stable enough fashion to run a mortgage and the other third just aren't. It looks round about the same for the US.

The sooner we let these people escape the social expectation to become a property owner, the better for them and for us. If there's one thing I am cheerful about, it's that the primary asset in bubbles doesn't repeat, and so when the next credit bubble kicks off in 2060 or so, at least it won't be housing we go nuts about. Maybe it'll be something harmless, like tulip bulbs.
18

,

03/06/2008 17:55:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
19

Rollo Tommasi,

03/06/2008 18:54:34
Antifa (12) is right. Getting rid of stamp duty won't make homes any more affordable. It will just mean that money goes to sellers (and their estate agents....purely coincidentally), instead of on public services.

That said, if we had a property tax, we could get rid of stamp duty and council tax. A property tax, valued as a % of the value of a home, would make homes less attractive as an investment, helping to reduce and stabilise demand for housing.
20

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

, Newington 03/06/2008 19:38:18
#18 asks concerning people who can't buy:

"But what housing should be provided for these people and how is it to be paid for?"

Many can use BtL landlords. Of the others, if they're working, then taxpayers could supply Council housing. If they're unworking, then provide a room in a Hall of Residence style building.

We owe people a roof over their heads, but the unworking should have a room and not a whole house or flat. It's unfair on those working taxpayers who are still living in a room in a shared flat for people on benefits to live better than they do. The upside is that it would be an incentive to get work to be able to move their family from a room to a house.

21

truthsleuth,

03/06/2008 20:04:22
There is a simple but absolute law of economics that applies to us all

LIVE WITHIN YOUR MEANS or it will END IN TEARS.

We should not use taxpayers hard earned cash to bail fools out of their greed.
22

,

03/06/2008 20:18:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
23

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

, Newington 03/06/2008 21:27:37
"But Btl/private rent is not affordable for many. Searching on ESPC I could find nothing under £500. only 2 properties under £500 and less than a dozen under £600. This of 120 properties."

So don't hire the whole place. Hire a room and share. Plenty taxpayers do that - why shouldn't those who live off their charity?
24

,

03/06/2008 22:32:38
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
25

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

, Newington 04/06/2008 01:11:56
#25: If you have an argument that amounts to more than schoolkid insults, do get back to us. Until then, best get back to your hundreds, tens and units homework...
26

,

04/06/2008 08:05:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
27

Green booger,

04/06/2008 11:23:26
Common Purpose (CP)

- a hidden menace in our government and schools



Common Purpose is the glue than enables fraud to be committed across government departments to reward pro European politicians. Corrupt deals are enabled that put property or cash into their pockets by embezzling public assets.



Although it has 80,000 trainees in 36 cities, 18,000 "graduate" members and enormous power, Common Purpose is largely unknown to the general public.



It recruits and trains "leaders" to be loyal to the directives of Common Purpose and the EU, instead of to their own departments, which they then undermine or subvert, the NHS being an example.



Common Purpose is identifying leaders in all levels of our government to assume power when our nation is replaced by the European Union. Unlike current leaders, CP leaders are taught to rule without democracy, and will bring the EU police state home to every one of us.



It has members in the NHS, BBC, the police, the legal profession, many of Britains 7,000 quangos, local councils, the Civil Service, government ministries, Parliament, and it controls many RDA's (Regional Development Agencies).



Cressida Dick is the Common Purpose senior police officer who authorised the "Shoot to kill" policy without reference to Parliament, the law or the British Constitution. Jean de Menezes was one of the innocents who died as a result. Her shoot to kill policy still stands today.



Common Purpose trained Janet Paraskeva, the Law Society's Chief Executive Officer. Surprising numbers of lawyers are CP members. It is no coincidence that justice is more expensive, more flawed and more corrupt. And no surprise the courts refused to uphold the law, when a challenge was made to the signing of the six EU treaties, which illegally abolish Britain's sovereignty.



Common Purpose is backed by John Prescott's "Office of the Deputy Prime Minister" (ODPM), and its notional Chief Executive is Julia
28

jimb4abobor2,

edinburgh 04/06/2008 22:28:55
Ha Ha the cost of houses now is regulated buy the fat cat not the goverment to a sense. The thing is you see if u dont buy then prices will fall to intise u to buy and will keep dropping till a sale is met. The housing and rented market are ridiculously priced i'ts like everthing else in the U K over priced and under funded, if they cant make money from it there not interested houses are constructed for a lot less than £225.000 im sure they should be priced buy size and have a set limit that any one company should charge and if they are seen to go over that amount then tax them a bit more they can well afford it for example 1Bed=£50.000,2 Bed £60.000, 3 Bed £70.000 and so on this would make things a lot simpler. and if you can afford to buy two properties or more then you should pay more this would give more people equal oppertunities or equal rites yes equal rites not heard of very often in the U K. if u have ££££ then please take more from the poor to help the rich in there lifestyles succeed even more or in retirment a place on the lords.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.