Government to introduce 2.25% Levy on Sale of Investment ppty's

Hello Forumites,

Government will try and introduce a Levy on the sale of investment ppty's and abolish stamp duty on first home buyers. I can see an immediate benefit to first home buyers, although on the flip side investors do not only have to pay capital gains tax but also a levy??? I think this is a bit much....How else do you see that the introduction would affect investor pyschology???

Learner.

Here is the extract from The Daily Telegraph, sorry haven't become familiar on setting up the links.

""""Stamp duty win for first home buyers


April 6, 2004

STAMP duty will be abolished for almost all first home buyers in NSW under changes introduced in the NSW government's mini-Budget today.
More from our Afternoon Edition


But those seeking to sell their second homes will cop a 2.25 per cent stamp duty levy.

NSW Treasurer Michael Egan told a specially convened state parliament that the NSW government will run a deficit of approximately $300 million in 2004/05.


Mr Egan said an overheated property market was not good for the economy, the community or for young people and families battling to buy their first homes.


He said those owning a second or investment property could afford to pay a 2.25 per cent stamp duty on selling.


The duty would not apply to the sale of a person's principal place of residence and would not apply to the sale of farms, he said.


Legislation for the new duty would be introduced in May, with the levy to apply as soon as possible but no later than July 1, Mr Egan said.


The treasurer said the measures would raise $690 million a year and most of the proceeds would cover some of the $376 million lost in commonwealth grants.


As a counterweight to the 2.25 per cent stamp duty on the sale of an investment or second property, stamp duty will be abolished for almost all first home buyers.


"There will be a complete exemption for homes costing up to $500,000, with the concession phasing out between $500,000 and $600,000," Mr Egan said.


The treasurer also announced a major overhaul of the land tax system, with the land tax threshold of $317,000 being abolished.


"From July 1, the threshold will be abolished and fairer and lower rates will be introduced," Mr Egan told parliament.


The new land tax arrangement would provide businesses with a significant reduction in land tax bills, he said.


Mr Egan said the number of area health services would be reduced and their administration amalgamated to cut the cost of providing corporate services to frontline staff.


Health funding would be immediately boosted by $50 million, while the health budget for 2004/5 would rise by $572 million.


The mini-Budget contained $600 million for health capital works and an extra $241 million over the next four years for mental health.


The treasurer also announced a massive overhaul of the rail system, with an extra $300 million going towards passenger rail in 2004/05.


There also will be $1 billion worth of projects, with the existing 14 CityRail lines being separated and reconfigured into five stand-alone lines.


"These new works will create five independent lines with more reliable and frequent services and reduced congestion and delays," Mr Egan said.


Education also received a boost with the mini-Budget containing an increase of $356 million next year and a pledge to continue the government's promise to recruit more teachers and reduce class sizes.


Funding for the Department of Community Services will increase by $41 million next year, which includes money to employ more than 150 caseworkers.


The Department of Ageing Disability and Home Care will get a funding boost of nearly $88 million to expand residential accommodation.


Mr Egan said the government also would establish a new Department of Primary Industry by amalgamating the Department of Agriculture, NSW Fisheries, the Department of Mineral Resources and State Forests, to reduce expensive duplication of services.



AAP"""
 
My read on this is that there would be fewer sales. If it costs you more to sell, you will delay selling (if you can) or simply not sell at all.

This could push up prices and may push up rents to compensate.
 
PT_Bear said:
My read on this is that there would be fewer sales. If it costs you more to sell, you will delay selling (if you can) or simply not sell at all.

This could push up prices and may push up rents to compensate.

I would agree with you PT that sale of inv. homes will be delayed and for those homes well beyond the exemption ie >$600k, i believe that some landlords will pass this onto the tenant.

Learner
 
Possibly expect some rushed settlements and conveyancing overload before the deadline, perhaps some cheaper deals from those already on the market wanting to beat the deadline . . . . if it all comes to fruition. :cool:
 
ocelad said:
Don't sell.

Cheers

ocelad
"Don't sell" is OK to avoid the stamp duty- but they've also changed land tax calculations. Many people with land value of IPs below $300,000 will now be liable for land tax (at 0.4%).

I suspect this will also help them solve the problem of collecting. It might be a bit hard for them to determine that an investor has 4 properties totalling over $300K- now all they need to determine is whether or not it's a PPOR (as is the system in the ACT).

Many already paying land tax will be paying a lower amount now.
 
crest133 said:
Possibly expect some rushed settlements and conveyancing overload before the deadline, perhaps some cheaper deals from those already on the market wanting to beat the deadline . . . . if it all comes to fruition. :cool:

For first home buyers contracts had to be signed since saturday midnight .Big incentive to break and remake contracts for first home buyers awaiting settlement. I would be really pissed if I had exchanged contracts on a 90 day settlement last month and had to pay $12K stamp duty.

From my reading the "selling" 2.5% duty will apply ASAP but no later than 1-July....but when? so ready, set, go will it be a mini boom or a mini bust (many sellers will be motivated)? bargains should be available !!!!! Great time for IP sellers and first home buyers!

For full details of the mini-budget read this
 
Aceyducey said:
To make this clear - it's a NSW government initiative.

PPORs and farms are exempt.

Cheers,

Aceyducey

Actually I think you will find, Aceyducy, that the exemptions are for PPoR's less than $500,000. That means that probably 40% of Sydney will be affected in a bad way. Great news for those buying their first house in regional locations though.
 
A stamp duty saving for a first home owner means that they have more money. If they're borrowing 90%, this can potentially push their buying power up by 10 times the saving.

As a precedent, the first home owners grant cost the first home owner a lot more than what it saved them. At the end of the day, this won't benifit the first home buyers much...
 
How @#$*ing stupid is this government??!?!?! :mad:

The immediate impact will be to reduce sales. What will reducing supply do? Increased demand. What will increased demand lead to? Higher prices.

Equally, what will people who want to sell going to do? A complete pass through to the buyers - so up go prices again!!!!

Of course, the flip side of this is that if you can access your equity without selling you'll win both ways... :D

The stupidity and short sightedness of pollies never ceases to amaze me...seems like another way to ensure the rich get richer and the poor get poorer... Just make sure you're in the right group.
 
So how would this work if you sold your PPOR and then moved into your IP you had for (lets say) 5 years - then moved on again and again every 5 years?
 
Nigelw - I suspect the government knows excactly what the ramifications are.

Policies are usually aimed at the average punter, give them a warm and fuzzy feeling once in a while. I'm interested to see what other changes are coming in the near future - give with one hand take with the other kinda thing.

Either way - as an investor you should be able to structure your affairs in a way that benefits your situation no matter what policies come along. Land tax can be managed by holding ips in multiple trusts. Mind you - I know that if i'm paying lots of land tax, as far as my financial journey goes it generally means I'm doing something right :) I dont mind paying a bit of tax, gotta fund schools and hospitals somehow.

Dont forget pollies invest too, so they arent going to cripple themselves. ever.
 
crest133 said:
Possibly expect some rushed settlements and conveyancing overload before the deadline, perhaps some cheaper deals from those already on the market wanting to beat the deadline . . . . if it all comes to fruition. :cool:

If I were buying under these conditions, I'd be trying to do this. If I were selling an IP, not a chance because I wouldn't want to pay the extra tax...

JumJones, you're absolutly right. For those who are serious about what they're doing, they'll roll with it and turn it to their advantage. This is little more than a political ploy to buy votes from those who really don't understand it.
 
Last edited:
1) IMO Levies/grants/differentiated taxation - all are bad.

2) It may be seen as an early attempt to stop the price crash in its early stages - more money for reluctant buyers, less initiative for worried potential sellers to sell.

3) It can also be seen as a government's "trap" for investors to keep them on subsidizing a comparatively cheap and low yielding rental market.

4) Something inside tells me that:
a) Nobody can beat the market, even the local government (LOL).
b) Government manipulations usually exacerbate the current market situation.
 
JumJones said:
Land tax can be managed by holding ips in multiple trusts.

JumJones,

Actually trusts already have no exemption amount ie: they pay land tax from the first dollar. My annual land tax bill for one of my props this year was just short of $1000, with a land value of just $54,000. Do the new changes mean that I'll only be up for .4% instead of the current 1.7%, as GeoffW as indicated?

I agree with Nigel here, in that this change will simply fuel demand, as well as decreasing supply. After all, if I was thinking of selling, I'd hike on the extra cost of stamp duty straight away to cover myself.

I have to laugh at the govt and their assumptions:
"Mr Egan said an overheated property market was not good for the economy, the community or for young people and families battling to buy their first homes.

He said those owning a second or investment property could afford to pay a 2.25 per cent stamp duty on selling".


Yeah, right! Like we're all the rich mongrels who can afford to throw hard earned money away. Geez, if it's not enough already with purchasing stamp duty, capital gains and land tax.......
What's next? Negative gearing advantages abolished?!

I might just take up the pokies instead..... getting very disillusioned here... !
 
Whadup dog? said:
Actually I think you will find, Aceyducy, that the exemptions are for PPoR's less than $500,000. That means that probably 40% of Sydney will be affected in a bad way. Great news for those buying their first house in regional locations though.

really?

I can't find that clause in the budget statement.

you're talking about the sale 2.25% levy?
 
Yeah I think you are right - got mightily confused there.

Thanks for sortin it out for me.

BTW, if you currently have IP's in two names, does that mean you can double the landtax threshold ie. if you have two properties both in two names, with a combined land value of $150,000 you are safe?
 
spark said:
1) IMO Levies/grants/differentiated taxation - all are bad.

2) It may be seen as an early attempt to stop the price crash in its early stages - more money for reluctant buyers, less initiative for worried potential sellers to sell.

3) It can also be seen as a government's "trap" for investors to keep them on subsidizing a comparatively cheap and low yielding rental market.

4) Something inside tells me that:
a) Nobody can beat the market, even the local government (LOL).
b) Government manipulations usually exacerbate the current market situation.
Interesting viewpoint Spark.

What price crash?

How are governments 'trapping' investors? How would trapping them make them choose to subsidise the market?

Cheers,

Aceyducey
 
One thing I learned in high school economics is impact and incidence of levies/charges/etc.

Generally this is spoken of in negative terms, eg higher insurance premiums (the incidence), affect consumers (impact).

It can also applied in the positive context:

The incidence in this concession is on the buyer, but the impact will be on the vendor. Even thought the stamp duty will be abolished, market forces should ensure that the prices will rise to fill that gap. Therefore, it would appear that while the target benficiary is the first home owner, the real winner is the vendor of a sub 500,000 property.

What are your thoughts on this?

c.
 
Back
Top