Frank Salt’s Talking Point ‘An unfair tax on property’ (November 24) poses a series of hypothetical scenarios pulled out to suit the interests of estate agents. They are bereft of so many potential variables which, if they were factored in, would put paid to his criticism of the new Budget measure.

His first scenario is of a couple who, because “the property market is good, but not that good” would never sell their property for a price greater than what they paid plus all expenses. It is only Salt who is saying this. Such couples may and often do separate but they can also consider holding on to the property in joint names pending market change. Isn’t timing an unavoidable element of the property market?

Salt’s second scenario has new neighbours who cannot be lived with. But isn’t this a risk inherent in all property purchases? Should a government desist from legislating, or changing a fiscal law, only because of such a possibility?

Scenario three is the one-bedroom flat whose buyers will, on growth of the family, always be selling at a loss, according to Salt. But couldn’t a buyer turn up wanting precisely that type of property? Why say the sale will always be at a loss?

The next scenario, a company which buys a shop and then fails, really takes the biscuit. Isn’t property one element that any business winding up must take into consideration when moving out or liquidating – therefore, a normal business risk?

It is simply ludicrous to use these circumstances to pronounce the planned budgetary measures as “unfair” property taxing.

Of course, tax legislation can be drafted in such a manner that real, true and unavoidable losses will not be taxed. But serious documentation (contracts, accounts, real expenses) would have to be produced.