印花税是否令英国房地产市场窒息？（英文版）.pdf

Kath Scanlon, Christine Whitehead and Fanny BlancA taxing question: Is Stamp Duty Land Tax suffocating the English housing market?Report for Family Building Society November 2017 LSE London, 2017 You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium under a Creative Commons licence. This document/publication is also available on our website at lse.ac.uk/geography-and-environment/research/lse-london/LSE-London or lselondonhousingAny enquiries regarding this document/publication should be sent to us at:LSE London London School of Economics and Political Science POR 3.01 London WC2A 2AElselondonlse.ac.ukFor all our latest news and updates follow us onSocial iconCircleOnly use blue and/or white.For more details check out ourBrand Guidelines.LSE_LondonLSELondonGeographiesLSE LondonForeword The UKs housing market is a shambles. Young people still really want to get on the housing ladder and most cant. Rents charged by landlords from their parents generation, the “buy to let” generation, add to their burdens. Of course, fundamentally this is a supply side issue. The countrys widening demand/supply imbalance, which has gone on for a generation, is why prices are so high. Sorting out this imbalance will inevitably take years, decades. Part of the supply side could be answered if existing housing were better distributed. Perhaps the greatest impediment to a more dynamic, liquid housing market is the glue known as Stamp Duty Land Tax. Stamp duty is suffocating the market. In addition to the burden of saving a deposit, first time buyers now have to find many thousands of pounds in stamp duty, a much greater amount, proportional to after-tax income, than past generations faced. Potential downsizers resent paying huge sums to HRMC to move. They cant buy something that costs the same as their original house without spending money on the taxbut can stay where they are for nothing. As they are not likely to move significant distances, any offset from increases in value over time are likely to be minor. If you are going to spend on a tax why not spend on a new kitchen instead? Equally some may want to move to smaller but similarly priced properties for reasons of convenience or particular facilities. The cost of stamp duty would then become a significant factor in their decision to move or stay where they are. Families that want to move decide to extend properties rather than pay a new tax. Stamp duty can also be an impediment to social mobility. Why move for a job that might not last, or may be just a short-term career stepping stone, and incur huge expense? Or, if they do move jobs, many people end up with longer commutes, with the result stress on the transport network and themselves. This adds to the economic and productivity challenge facing the country. Finally, the period since the financial crash has seen record low interest rates. This has led to mortgages being “affordable” by historic standards around 17.5% of income both for first time buyers and home movers. This factor has also driven prices. Paying stamp duty on an asset that you think may go up is one thing you may “get it back” through the value increase. As interest rates go up, and mortgage rates go up, prices may weaken. Paying stamp duty on an asset that you think may go down, is even harder to stomach. The glue that is stamp duty may become cement. One answer would be for the government to cut some people a break downsizers, family formers or job movers. Better still the government could cut rates for all buyersor even do away with the tax entirely. These are big issues and will stimulate much debate. Thats what this report is intended to do. And the most powerful voices in it are real customers of the Family Building Society. Their words are in this report. The next question must be “Is anyone in government really listening?” Mark Bogard CEO Family Building Society 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 2 Introduction . 4 Methodology . 4 The history of SDLT and the current position . 5 Slab to slice reform . 5 How much would the median buyer pay? . 6 Stated reasons for reform . 8 How much money does it raise? . 9 Who pays the tax? Buyers and sellers; regional and value distributions . 10 Is SDLT a good tax? . 12 Effects of SDLT on behaviour . 13 2014 changes . 14 Landlords vs owner occupiers . 14 SDLT as a down payment multiplier . 15 Effects of SDLT on the housing market . 16 Knock-on effects on the wider economy . 17 Alternatives to SDLT . 18 Is there a Laffer effect? . 20 The customer survey. 21 The effects of SDLT on the decision to downsize . 25 How SDLT affects young peoples ability to buy . 28 How would parents help? . 28 How SDLT affects purchases of buy-to-let properties and second homes . 29 Discussion . 30 Conclusions . 31 References . 32 Appendix: Historic rates of stamp duty . 35 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This research looks at how SDLT has changed and its impact on household behaviour; on the housing market; and the national economy. Key findings: Stamp Duty Land Tax raises more than 8 billion per annum for the Treasury, but is a heavy, immediate tax on transactions that contributes to Englands dysfunctional housing market. Revenues from SDLT have been rising steadily since 2008/09 as a result of increasing house prices, higher tax rates on more expensive properties, and the 3% surcharge imposed in 2016 on investors and second-home buyers. Housing-market transactions on the other hand remain weak: the annual number of transactions fell by more than half after the 2008 crash and in 2016 were still 38% below levels seen in the early 2000s. Twenty years ago, buyers of median-priced homes paid less than 1000 in stamp duty and that was true in London, as well as in England overall. Since then SDLT on a median-priced home in England has more than quadrupled, and in London it has gone up by a factor of more than 12. The gap between London and the rest of the country continues to grow. Because of higher property values in London and the South East, these regions account for more than 23 of SDLT revenues, whereas they account for only around 30% of dwellings. The tax is highly progressive at least in terms of dwelling values: in 2016/17, a fifth of receipts came from the purchases of properties in the highest tax band, although these properties accounted for well under 1% of transactions. Even so, the majority of revenue comes from sales of much more typical homes, particularly in the South East: 58% of revenues were from properties worth between 250,000 and 1 million. Importantly, people paying average house prices in all four southern regions must now pay SDLT, while in London a purchaser must buy a home worth less than 13 the price of an average flat (and an even smaller fraction for a house) to avoid stamp duty. Our survey of customers of the Family Building Society, which has a well established reputation for lending to older borrowers, showed SDLT was now the second most important influence on their decision whether or not to downsize. Ten years ago respondents saw it as a much less significant factor. Downsizers must write a cheque to HMRC when they buy their new home. They cant buy something that costs the same as their original house without spending money on the tax but can stay where they are for nothing. Many therefore do stay, continuing to live in homes that may be highly unsuitable for their needs and imposing additional costs on health and social services. This lack of activity in turn reduces the demand for new housing that suits older households and means there is less choice for those who do want to move. The UK is almost alone in the developed world in having so few retirement communities which can help keep people healthier and connected. 3 Respondents with adult children said SDLT limited their ability to buy without parental help. SDLT increases the already difficult deposit requirement; in addition, because it makes older households less likely to sell, there are fewer suitable homes on the market. This makes it difficult not only for first-time buyers but also for families and second steppers to get the housing that is best for them. SDLT contributes to reduced household mobility. Having bought a home, people are unwilling to move again soon and waste money by paying SDLT twice over. This is costly for individual households as they are less likely to take up new job opportunities (or, if they do, may need to commute long distances); it is costly for the economy because it inhibits the efficient allocation of labour, and consumer expenditure and housing investment are lower than they otherwise would be. There is near-consensus among economists and policy experts that an annual tax on property or land value or indeed an improved version of council tax could o raise at least the same revenue as SDLT, o distort the housing market much less, and o provide incentives that aligned with housing-policy objectives instead of undermining them. Inevitably there would be winners and losers from any tax change, but carefully designed transitional arrangements could mitigate negative effects on individual households. The phased reduction in mortgage interest tax relief over thirty years, and its eventual abolition in 2000, show that sensible tax change is possible. A brave government should at least start the process of shifting taxation away from transactions that are necessary to ensure a well operating housing market. 4 Introduction In one form or another Stamp Duty Land Tax has been a feature of the English taxation system for hundreds of years. It raises significant revenue for the Exchequer, is easy and cheap to administer, and does not affect most taxpayers. However there is increasing concern within policy circles that Stamp Duty Land Tax as currently configured is a major deterrent to housing transactions. The consequential silting up of the property market is making it more difficult for first-time buyers, families seeking larger properties and downsizers, especially in higher-cost areas of the country. The induced sluggishness of the housing market limits labour-market mobility and reduces the consumer expenditure associated with home moves, with knock-on effects for the economy as a whole. This report examines existing knowledge about the effects of SDLT on the housing market and the wider economy, and presents new survey evidence about the impact of the tax on consumer behaviour. We summarise proposals about how to raise the same amount of tax revenue from property, but without distorting the housing market. Our research question is: What household types and geographical areas of England are most affected by Stamp Duty Land Tax as currently configured, and what does this mean for housing transactions, the housing market and the wider economy? We look in particular at how SDLT affects two subsectors of the market: older potential downsizers and first-time buyers. The report was commissioned by Family Building Society. Methodology We conducted a desk-based policy, literature and data review to identify what is known about how SDLT, and the various changes in the tax, have affected government revenues and the housing market. The review covered academic as well as professional and grey literature, and looked at relevant international experience with residential property-transaction taxes and fees of various kinds. We also conducted 15 semi-structured interviews of informed stakeholders in the UK and abroad. To enable interviewees to express their views frankly we have not named individuals in this report. Interviewees included Developers and house builders Government officials Academics Estate agents Finally, we carried out a web-based survey of customers of Family Building Society to explore how SDLT affects the decisions of potential buyers and sellers. Illustrative quotes from interviews and survey respondents appear in boxes in the text. 5 The history of SDLT and the current position SDLT (known until 2003 simply as stamp duty) is a very old tax, dating to 1694. It applies to commercial property as well as residential; there is also a separate stamp duty on transactions in stocks and shares. In earlier generations, relatively few home buyers paid SDLT as it was charged only on purchases of more expensive dwellings. For example, in 1968 the average house price in England was