Scotland fixes stamp duty, the most broken tax in the nation

Now when will the rest of Britain follow suit?

Good news if you're Scottish: your government is fixing one of the most ridiculously broken parts of the British tax system! (If you aren't Scottish, you're going to have to hold on a bit longer).

Stamp duty, the fee paid upon purchase of a house worth more than £125,000, is set to be devolved to the Scottish government. It will be the first time that Holyrood has exercised the powers given to it in the Scotland Act 2012 to amend the duty on land and property.

Under the existing regime, stamp duty is one of the last taxes left in the world which features a tiered rate structure based on the entire value of the thing being taxed. That is: on a property worth £125,000, you pay 0 per cent stamp duty, but on a property worth £125,001 – exactly on the threshold – you pay a tax of 1 per cent on the entire value of the house. That's over £1000, just for a £1 increase in the sale price.

It gets even worse at higher levels. At £250,000, the duty raises from 1 per cent to 3 per cent, meaning a £1 change in house price costs an extra £5000 in tax. At £500,000, the cost of the £1 change is another £5000; at £1m, it costs £10,000; and at £2m, it costs a whopping £40,000. (Admittedly, few will weep hot tears for the people selling £2m houses).

That imposes a massive distortion onto the housing market. Take a look at this chart, from estate agent Savills, of the distribution of sale prices in London. Do you see the massive anomaly for houses priced between £250,000 and £260,000? That's entirely due to the stamp duty threshold:

If your house is surveyed at £255,000, you will actually take home less money selling it at that price than if you knocked £5,000 off the sale price (this isn't strictly true; the tax is techincally paid by the buyer, not the seller. But it's the easiest way to explain why it's stupid). And that imposes a distortion all the way up the market: if your house is surveyed at £260,000, you're having to compete with people who are selling theirs at over £5,000 below the asking price to avoid a tax. So you have to drop your price a bit as well.

Compare that to income tax, which is what's called a marginal tax: if you earn £155,000, you only pay the 45p rate on the last £5000 you earn, meaning there's no motivation to keep your earnings to £149,999.99.

The reason for Stamp duty being so unbelievably poorly designed is because it actually pre-dates our understanding of why it's a bad idea: the so-called marginalist revolution of the mid-to-late 19th century. That was when economists first started to realise that people make their decisions on the margin: that, for instance, when you are about to buy your tenth pair of shoes, you don't think "how much do I need ten pairs of shoes?"; you think "how much do I need this pair of shoes?"

Stamp duty was introduced in 1694 (and was literally a fee payable to the crown for placing its stamp on legal documents), and was first graduated according to value in 1808. Over time, we've come to realise how stupid that is, but no-one's actually had the guts to do anything about it. Although a decade ago the name was changed to SDLT, so that's something.

So congratulations to Scotland. The proposed tax will now be charged only on the value of the home above £180,000, and will be set at 7.5 per cent up to £1.5m, and 10 per cent above that. That leaves people selling houses worth less than £300,000 better off; but more importantly, it also fixes the broken structure of the old system entirely.

Hopefully the rest of Britain will follow suit – and soon.

A man walks a saltire past Holyrood. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty
Show Hide image

Is it true that a PR firm full of Blairites is orchestrating the Labour coup?

Portland Communications has been accused of conspiring against Jeremy Corbyn. It's not true, but it does reveal a worrying political imbalance in the lobbying industry.

The secret is out. The Canary – an alternative left wing media outlet – claims to have uncovered the story that the lobby missed. The website has discovered “the truth behind the Labour coup, when it really began and who manufactured it”.

Apparently, the political consultancy and PR firm Portland Communications is “orchestrating” the Labour plotting through its extensive network of Blairite lobbyists and its close links to top media folk. Just when we thought that Tom Watson and Angela Eagle might have something to do with it.

Many Canary readers, who tend to be Jeremy Corbyn supporters, have been lapping up and sharing the shock news. “Thank you for exposing this subterfuge,” said Susan Berry. “Most helpful piece of the week,” enthused Sarah Beuhler.

On Twitter, Mira Bar-Hillel went even further: “It is now clear that @jeremycorbyn must remove anybody associated with Portland PR, the Fabians and Lord Mandelson from his vicinity asap.”

The Canary's strange, yet popular, theory goes like this: Portland was set up by Tony Blair’s former deputy communications chief Tim Allan. On its books are a number of Labour types, many of whom dislike Corbyn and also have links to the Fabian Society. The PR firm also has “countless links to the media” and the BBC recently interviewed a Portland consultant. Err, that’s it.

The author of the piece, Steve Topple, concludes: “The Fabians have mobilised their assets in both the parliamentary Labour party, in the media and in the sphere of public relations, namely via Portland Communications – to inflict as much damage as possible on Corbyn.”

To be fair to Topple, he is right to detect that Portland has a few active Blairites on the payroll. But on that basis, the entire British lobbying industry might also be behind Labour’s coup.

Rival lobbying firm Bell Pottinger employs paid-up Blairites such as the former prime minister’s assistant political secretary Razi Rahman and his ex-special adviser Darren Murphy. Bell Pottinger also has former News of The World political editor Jamie Lyons.

Are Rahman and Murphy also telling docile Labour MPs what to do?  Is Lyon busy ensuring that his old mates in the lobby are paying attention to the Labour story, just in case they get sidetracked or don’t fancy writing about the official opposition imploding around them?

And what about Lodestone Communications, whose boss is a close pal of Tom Watson? Or Lexington Communications, which is run by a former aide of John Prescott? Or Insight Consulting Group, which is run by the man who managed Andy Burnham’s recent leadership campaign?

Having tracked down the assorted Blairites at Portland, Topple asserts: “It surely can be no coincidence that so many of the employees of this company are affiliated to both Labour and the Fabians.”

Indeed it is no coincidence – but not in the way that the author suggests. Since the mid-1990s, Labour lobbyists have tended to come from the pragmatic, Blairite ranks of the party. This is largely because Labour spent the 1980s ignoring business, and that only changed significantly when Blair arrived on the scene.

Whisper it quietly, but Portland also employ a few Tories. Why don’t they get a mention? Presumably they are also busy focusing on how to destroy Boris Johnson or to ensure that Stephen Crabb never gets anywhere near Downing Street.

What is certainly true is that Corbynites are incredibly hard to find in public affairs. As one experienced Labour lobbyist at another firm has told me: “I know of nobody in the industry  or indeed the real world – who is a Corbynite. All of my Labour-supporting colleagues would be horrified by the accusation!”

David Singleton is editor of Public Affairs News. He tweets @singersz.