Reforming stamp duty would remove obstacles to first-time buyers

SIR – Boris Johnson (Comment, August 13) is right to identify stamp duty as a major obstacle to creating a vibrant property market that provides affordable homes for first-time buyers and sensibly priced larger houses for those moving up the ladder.

Most people stretch themselves to the limit when buying houses, particularly in the early days, and the idea of paying thousands of pounds to the Government on top of the purchase price is a real disincentive.

Surely it would be fairer to tax the profits made by the seller, provided that any sums spent on improving the property could be deducted before tax was applied.

David Kidd

Petersfield, Hampshire

SIR – Stamp duty impairs efficient use of the existing housing stock. The hoarding of plots with planning permission restricts the provision of new housing.

The Chancellor can solve both problems, while maintaining or enhancing his revenue, by replacing stamp duty with an annual duty on unused building plots. Professor Ralph Benjamin

Exmouth, Devon

SIR – Mr Johnson is right to describe Britain’s current housing settlement as a “disgrace”. He is also right to note that the main driver of this broken market is unaffordability. So I am surprised that his proposed remedies include removing affordable housing requirements on new developments.

We need to build 145,000 affordable homes every year to meet demand, according to our recent research. But, as well as meeting the needs of struggling families and young renters, high levels of affordable housing make practical business sense.

Mr Johnson suggests that this is an “ideological obsession” of “Lefties”, but an independent review by Sir Oliver Letwin – his colleague on the Conservative benches – has found that homes for sale on the private market are built faster if more affordable housing is included in a development. David Orr

Chief Executive, National Housing Federation

London WC1

SIR – It is said that we built 300,000 houses a year in the Seventies. This is true, but it was for a brief period.

However, a huge slum clearance programme was also taking place. Once the modern practice of adding homes to the market by converting commercial or agricultural buildings is taken into account, the net addition to the stock of dwellings is similar now to what it was 50 years ago.

SIR – Mr Johnson supports kicking property developers. Does he not realise the consequences this could have? Perhaps, for their protection, developers should wear burkas.

Margaret Webster

Menai Bridge, Anglesey