지지 외연 넓힐까 좁힐까…‘종부세 동맹’의 정치경제학

The upcoming real estate tax reform under the Je Je-myung government was initially anticipated to be a minor adjustment, introducing a new tax rate for high-priced housing. However, the finalized reform turned out to be a complete redesign. Unlike a partial fix, this reform moves closer to a redesign. From the perspective of taxation theory, the significance of this reform lies in two aspects.

First, it changed the basis of taxation for the comprehensive real estate tax (comprehensive real estate tax) from housing quantity to housing value, thereby clearly expressing its progressive nature. The current comprehensive real estate tax mixes benefits-based local taxes and individual-based national taxes based on ability. Moreover, it has been used as a means to regulate multi-property owners.

Consequently, some multi-property owners with lower-income housing in Seoul pay higher taxes compared to high-income housing owners in Seoul. This reform directly addresses this issue. The comprehensive real estate tax, by considering asset value, increases the burden for higher asset values, promoting vertical equity. This reform is more in line with the principle of fair distribution.

The second aspect is the imposition of strict limits on capital gains for first-time homeowners. This reform aims to prevent the concentration of wealth in a single property. The signal sent to the market is straightforward but powerful. The message to single-family home owners is clear: if you want the benefits, you must be a homeowner.

This sends a clear message to the market that homeownership is necessary to receive the benefits. This approach could potentially stabilize the Seoul high-end housing market. Although the direction is right, implementing tax policy requires legislative changes, which is a political matter. The concept of the "Comprehensive Real Estate Alliance" comes into play here.

This reform, encompassing both comprehensive real estate tax and inheritance tax, raises questions about how the distribution of benefits and burdens will affect the alliance's reach. The largest beneficiaries of this reform are single-family homeowners with a property value between 20 billion and 30 billion won (equivalent to 12-14 billion won in market price).

However, the alliance concept is not as simple as it seems. Even single-family homeowners who do not live in the property will face increased burdens, particularly in the long-term special allowance (long-term allowance). The level of burden faced by these individuals is more than just a financial concern; it can reach the level of "psychological deprivation."

The people who would be pushed out of the alliance due to increased tax burdens outnumber those seeking to join. If the property ownership condition is not addressed, the tax burden becomes unjustified, as labor income is taxed over multiple years, while capital gains are taxed in a lump sum. The redesign of the tax system has already caused unintended consequences, such as the "Pinset regulation paradox," where a focus on a specific price range (20-30 billion won) may inadvertently encourage price movements within that range.

The involvement of second-hand market participants could lead to a shift in the focus of the reform. The government's ability to stabilize the housing market depends on the rate of increase in burden, which could lead to increased resistance to taxation. Just as the minimum wage hike in the previous government led to decreased participation in the rental market and price increases, the tax burden increase in this reform could also affect the rental market.

The reform does not provide enough measures to increase transactions. While increased transactions could potentially stabilize the housing market, the current reform has limited measures to stimulate transactions. The housing market's stability could further increase the burden. However, the combination of target group, tax rate, and exemption limit could exacerbate this situation.

Just as the minimum wage hike was perceived as a political issue rather than an economic one, the comprehensive real estate reform faces similar challenges. The government must carefully consider the scope and pace of the reform to prevent political backlash.