The adjustment in housing acquisition costs would not only have a negative fiscal impact—with estimated revenues of US$37 million versus potential losses of up to US$95 million—but would also restrict market access, especially for individuals with monthly incomes below US$1,500, who would effectively be unable to purchase housing. This was revealed in the study 'Impact of Applying a 2% Transfer Tax on First Homes,' which was based on mortgage credit data from the Superintendency of Banks and the National Institute of Statistics and Censuses (INEC). Economist Eric Molino Ferrer, leader of the study, stated that the analysis suggests that while the tax would generate revenue in an optimistic scenario, the slowdown in construction and consumption would imply failing to collect approximately US$131.5 million in revenue, far exceeding the expected income. Molino Ferrer clarified that these figures were based on positive scenarios simulating sales similar to those projected for 2025. In terms of access, it is estimated that at least 462 credits would not be issued in the first year due to increased costs, pushing some buyers out of the mortgage market. The impact would be even greater in the preferential interest segment, where the down payment would increase from approximately US$3,000 to US$4,500. For individuals with incomes below that level, the analysis warns that not only does saving become more difficult, but they would be completely denied access to purchasing a home under these conditions. Additionally, a displacement effect of about 6,700 credits to the following year is projected, due to the additional time required to complete the down payment, which would affect the construction sector, employment, and associated revenue collection. The result would be a combination of reduced economic dynamism and decreased housing access, particularly in lower-income segments. They explained that one of the problems with this tax is that it is not 'financiable'; the bank or entity providing the credit does not finance it for either the seller or the buyer because it is not part of the property's value, which serves as collateral. Chapman responds On the other hand, last Wednesday, April 8, while attending the inauguration of the Chamber of Commerce and Industries of Panama, Minister of Economy and Finance Felipe Chapman stated that he has not discussed the tax issue with the guild and has not seen the study, but hopes to be able to do so and is willing to listen. However, he clarified that he expects to see an analysis that adds value and helps solve the issue with proposals that do not affect tax revenues, of course, while being willing to listen. He recalled that the tax existed, but what has been done now is that the exemption that was in place has expired. However, the next day, when approached by the media upon leaving the Assembly, he said that the tax was not new, but that in the reform of the preferential interest law, increases in benefits were introduced, and one had to choose between two things: maintaining the exemption and making it compatible with the level of benefits at the preferential interest rate. 'The request was to increase the benefits of preferential interest, especially in the interior of the republic, which made it incompatible with the tax,' he stated. He added that they had to 'forcibly' eliminate that exemption and that his initial recommendation was not to do it, but it was the agreed-upon decision. Convivienda warns of the impact The president of Convivienda, Norberto Delgado, maintains that the 2% transfer tax is not a neutral measure, but an upfront cost that limits access to housing, especially for lower-income households that cannot cover the down payment. He warns that this reduces effective demand, affects credit placement, and slows down construction activity, with direct impacts on employment and the economy. Therefore, he argues that housing should be understood as an economic engine, and that such decisions must be evaluated based on their comprehensive effect on growth and housing access. This increase of US$1,500 would represent a significant barrier for buyers. For those with monthly incomes close to US$1,500, raising that additional amount could take up to 10 months.
