View Full Version : How much should ABSD be for Singaporean 2nd property?
With an aging population and low yield environment, rental income is a still a viable option for retirement planning. Would you think policy makers should encourage Singaporeans to own 2nd property? The current "temporary" rate is 7%. How much should ABSD be for Singaporeans to buy 2nd property?
Numer of votes: 2
Mode: 3% (the most voted number)
We need more votes - and you never know that the policy makers big data tool will pick it up!
Singaporeans should not be penalized for owning properties in their own country as long as it is within the tdsr framework.
Singaporeans should not be penalized for owning properties in their own country as long as it is within the tdsr framework.
I agree. Mistakenly voted 3% thinking that was the normal stamp duty.
bargain hunter
25-07-16, 10:16
Singaporeans should not be penalized for owning properties in their own country as long as it is within the tdsr framework.
yeah! yeah!
yeah! yeah!
Private property is not HDB (subsidized housing)
should leave it to mkt forces
yeah! yeah!
I think the purpose is to prevent the rich from hoarding to more properties. if this is the purpose, 2nd property should be 0% but when it comes to 3rd property, increase from 10 to 15% or even 17%. Like that at least give the middle income group a chance to own an investment property. The TDSR is already in place to ensure that the middle income group are not over stretched.
Today's newspaper with a clear view of our Minister of Finance on taxes and a section on property taxes, and why property-based taxes are preferred by the Govt.
http://www.straitstimes.com/business/economy/growing-incomes-for-all-key-to-inclusive-fiscal-policy-tharman
Property tax is a second priority in tax policy, said Mr Tharman, as it is the least damaging to income growth. He noted that there is scope in many economies to increase taxes on immovable property - land as well as developed real estate - but in a progressive way, such as providing allowance for properties of low value and higher tax rates for properties of high value, as well as making the distinction between owner-occupied residences and investment properties for taxation purposes.
Taxes on property transactions, such as through stamp duties, "have been especially useful in the Asian context, where speculation in the property market is almost a habit".
While these taxes can be varied depending on the state of the property cycle, "they are also an essential part of the permanent landscape of taxes - always distinguishing purchases for owner-occupation from those for investment".
His remarks suggested that some cooling measures such as the additional buyer's stamp duty - levied on foreign home buyers and Singaporeans who own more than one residential property here - could become a permanent feature.
A second priority in tax policy concerns property taxes. It is the most efficient tax; that is, the least damaging to income growth — that’s a long-standing tenet, and it’s backed by the evidence internationally. There is in fact more scope in many of our economies to increase taxes on immovable property: Land as well as developed real estate.
But we also have to make property tax progressive, and there are examples of how this can be done. We need to provide allowance for properties of low value, and provide higher tax rates for properties of high value. And to distinguish between primary or owner-occupied residences, which should be taxed less, and investment properties.
That’s our approach in Singapore. And we must tax land, even when it is not developed. In many countries, private land ownership is heavily concentrated, held mainly by the wealthy. From a growth and equity point of view, there is hence a good economic case for taxing land adequately.
There is also a role for taxes on property transactions (such as through stamp duties), besides taxing ownership. The traditional, theoretical view is that taxes on transactions are distorting — they distort market decisions. But I would say it is the right sort of distortion. Not all distortions are bad.
Taxes on property transactions have been especially useful in the Asian context, where speculation in the property market is almost a habit. Taxes on property transactions can be varied depending on the state of the property cycle.
But they are also an essential part of the permanent landscape of taxes — always distinguishing purchases for owner-occupation from those for investment. They are a better way to collect tax than income taxes, with less harm to growth, and more likely to encourage an economic culture conducive to innovation and entrepreneurship.
http://www.todayonline.com/commentary/using-taxation-drive-innovation-inclusive-growth
Kelonguni u beat me in posting it, i share the sentiments. So is it an additional tax revenue or so called cooling measure?
If it’s a tax on wealth then removal of ABSD is remote unless PPI index needed a resuscitation. :cold:
Thanks. I read the hard copy of Today paper on this but when I googled only the ST copy came out. But the meaning is largely the same.
These reinforce my previous posts on the roles these property taxes play, and my thoughts that in future, such taxes are likely to be raised further, rather than be reduced at all.
One thing not mentioned by Tharman was that the population at large also supports such taxes. Ironical and paradoxical but true.
A second priority in tax policy concerns property taxes. It is the most efficient tax; that is, the least damaging to income growth — that’s a long-standing tenet, and it’s backed by the evidence internationally. There is in fact more scope in many of our economies to increase taxes on immovable property: Land as well as developed real estate.
But we also have to make property tax progressive, and there are examples of how this can be done. We need to provide allowance for properties of low value, and provide higher tax rates for properties of high value. And to distinguish between primary or owner-occupied residences, which should be taxed less, and investment properties.
That’s our approach in Singapore. And we must tax land, even when it is not developed. In many countries, private land ownership is heavily concentrated, held mainly by the wealthy. From a growth and equity point of view, there is hence a good economic case for taxing land adequately.
There is also a role for taxes on property transactions (such as through stamp duties), besides taxing ownership. The traditional, theoretical view is that taxes on transactions are distorting — they distort market decisions. But I would say it is the right sort of distortion. Not all distortions are bad.
Taxes on property transactions have been especially useful in the Asian context, where speculation in the property market is almost a habit. Taxes on property transactions can be varied depending on the state of the property cycle.
But they are also an essential part of the permanent landscape of taxes — always distinguishing purchases for owner-occupation from those for investment. They are a better way to collect tax than income taxes, with less harm to growth, and more likely to encourage an economic culture conducive to innovation and entrepreneurship.
http://www.todayonline.com/commentary/using-taxation-drive-innovation-inclusive-growth
Kelonguni u beat me in posting it, i share the sentiments. So is it an additional tax revenue or so called cooling measure?
If it’s a tax on wealth then removal of ABSD is remote unless PPI index needed a resuscitation. :cold:
Really?
Since the HDB property price is heavily subsidized, they should just increase the HDB property tax 5x and see whether the population at large still support or not........ :sour:
Thanks. I read the hard copy of Today paper on this but when I googled only the ST copy came out. But the meaning is largely the same.
These reinforce my previous posts on the roles these property taxes play, and my thoughts that in future, such taxes are likely to be raised further, rather than be reduced at all.
One thing not mentioned by Tharman was that the population at large also supports such taxes. Ironical and paradoxical but true.
This is a very important policy shift. In the past, govt wants to make investment in real estate attractive so that people (including foreigners) have a permanent stake in the country. Now property investment is deemed as passive and will divert money from businesses and innovation.
They must have learned much from 2011 elections.
The left shift for the source of tax plus seeing the affluent groups grow rich and decreased income productivity as a whole.
It's siong but healthier now.
This is a very important policy shift. In the past, govt wants to make investment in real estate attractive so that people (including foreigners) have a permanent stake in the country. Now property investment is deemed as passive and will divert money from businesses and innovation.
Really?
If so why we don't see the government do anything to rein in the rentals of commercial properties owned by the REITs, JTC, Keppel Land, Capital Land, CCT, CMT, Mapletree etc to enable more money to be diverted to businesses and innovation???????????????
The commercial properties' rentals have been jacked up frequently and the SMEs are feeling great pain, rental costs are now a very big portion of their business costs..........
Just to point out that the fact that the rentals of prime retail space in regional malls are now almost the same as Orchard Malls (some even more than obscure Orchard Malls)! :tsk-tsk:
This is a very important policy shift. In the past, govt wants to make investment in real estate attractive so that people (including foreigners) have a permanent stake in the country. Now property investment is deemed as passive and will divert money from businesses and innovation.
Soon we might get quad key units and penta key units in the market ha ha.
yah.. then we can use it for AirBnB.. good idea
Number of votes: 9
Mode: 0
Number of votes: 10
Mode: 0
Weighted average: 1.7%
Hellobicycle
27-07-16, 19:10
Singaporeans should not be penalized for owning properties in their own country as long as it is within the tdsr framework.
Yeah... you are absolutely right.
Yeah... you are absolutely right.
Private is ok , not HDB
realestateagent
03-08-16, 01:22
No to ABSD for 2nd Property for Singaporean.
Let us stay in one, buy 2nd to collect rent for old age or sell 2nd Property to cash out during old age.
http://kingsfordwaterbaycondo.sg
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.