And no one did. You can rage against the system or take advantage of it.

And you can do both.

The fact that the government allows it to happen was probably not a bad idea when they introduced CGT discounts and negative gearing decades ago. But when that same concept transfers wealth upwards and women and children are sleeping in tents, shelters and cars then something has seriously gone wrong in Australia.

Notice how the progressive left is completely silent on the recent boat turnbacks, despite the same people accusing the former governments policy of being “inhhumane”, “cruel”, and “morally reprehensible”? Where are they will all their placards, twitter moaning and candelight vigils? So you have a choice…

a) the former LNP government was right to turn back boats and the Left was WRONG

or

b) Labor and the progressive left is in their own words, inhumane, cruel and morally reprehensible

And no, letting some bumfuck Sri Lanken economic migrant family stay doesnt absolve you of your hypocrisy.

I believe it was stated Labour party policy to not change the LNP's policy regarding boat turn backs. If you remember the Labour party was asked that, on numerous occasions during the elections, and they were happy to reiterate their position.

It was probably a factor for some progressives that voted elsewhere for Labour's lowest primary vote ever. 

To the Green's credit they are still blowing up about it.

'bumfuck Sri Lankens'. Nice.

Uh no it wasn't just Greens, it was large cohorts of the Labor party. Albo, Plib, Wong etc etc. More than that it was the progressive left, you know those nutters that dominate twitter, left mainstream press and the ABC,  they were VERY VERY noisy when it came to boat turnbacks and now suddenly they are very very quiet. A few token murmurs here and there but its basically radio silence. Now that the boats have started up again the issue isn't dominating like it did when the LNP took the reigns in 2013. In fact the bigger issue has been that non refugee Sri Lankan family who convinced everyone despite being non refugees they were in fact refugees, aided and abetted by mainstream media. Nothing like a feel good story to bury one that doesn't feel so good. 

The number that do in Australia is infinitesimally small. And even then its usually temporary. But then to connect that to the 50% CGT and negative gearing (bot of which is available to any investment class not just property) is utterly ridiculous.

Wealth always transfers upwards.  If you have more wealth, you can borrow more to increase that wealth.  That's a given and as it should be. It doesn't matter. What matters is how well most people live- not the outliers at the very top or at the very bottom. 

And how well do most Australians live?

At the top of the world.  Actually.

The dumbest justification I've heard for allowing them to stay was that their kids were born here.  What sort of people decide to start a family without evening knowing what country they will raise the kids in?  Well, ones who know there will be idiots fighting for them to stay "because their kids were born here".

It's disappointing you think this is as good as things could be.

Of course it's connected. It's all connected. When rents are sky high and people can't afford to pay rent AND save for a deposit then there's a problem. 

When rents are sky high because investment properties are a thing AND when the government spends half of what they did 20 years ago on social housing you get a situation where people sleep in cars and tents like they do now.

I'm not against CGT or negative gearing on investments. People should try and build wealth. I do think they should be scaled back with regards to housing though.

They should call it the unofficial 'if you were born here Visa'.  If you come to Australia and want to stay here permanently, simply have children and then refuse to leave the country under any circumstances, fake medical treatment if you have to, and one day, after many years, some bleeding heart will give you a family visa. That's the precedent Labor have now set.

Oh on the contrary I think things can be a lot better - for the tiny minority that are homeless (we don't have *real* poverty in Australia so I won't say poverty). 

We can do more by addressing the root causes of homelessness:

The number one root cause is the break down of the traditional nuclear family. We can help families stay together by addressing  drug abuse, alcoholism, mental illness, unemployment, lack of education (that then lead to violence, delinquency, school drop out honelessness and crime).  We can have specific programs that target certain groups such as indigenous males who are over-represented in those statistics.

None of this means we have an epidemic of permanent homelessness that will be fixed by a land tax on the family home, or removing the CGT concession or negative gearing.

Its interesting you want CGT and NG "scaled back"- NOW ie that you have already reaped their  benefits.  

Like I said you can rage against the system or take advantage of it. You can also do both. 

Thought you'd like someone like me setting up a self funded retirement and not sucking on the government teat.

I want CGT and negative gearing scaled back and something done about housing affordability because my kids, your kids, all young people are leaving or have left home and they are going to be (are) in a world of pain when it comes to housing themselves and their families. They have it way tougher then we ever did. 


As for housing affordability the problem is it's electoral suicide to introduce any sort of measure that will bring house prices down. There are 11 million home owners, only 150 -200 thousands first home buyers each year. Frankly no government cares enough to do anything about home ownership and they never will. Why would they?  

Australia is turning into a country of 'haves' and 'will never haves'. 

https://www.taxinstitute.com.au/insights/articles/property-tax-and-gst--changing-tax-policy-in-nsw

Plenty of analysis explaining why stamp duty is a bad tax.

So when are you going to condemn the NSW LNP for all this?

OK lets unpack Tax Institutes argument -because its all bullshit:

Stamp duties are an inefficient and inequitable tax. Why?

The Tax Institute uses the word "inefficient". But that word doesn't mean what you think it means.  What they mean is that the tax is easy to collect, and the amount is easy to increase as and when required and there is not a damned thing you can do about it.  Zero work, billions of dollars tax collected. Hence its "efficient". For them.

It discourages the transfer of assets and homes, inhibiting families from upsizing or downsizing to better suit their circumstances.

Firstly who is the Institute to tell people "what better suits their circumstances" ?  Second there is zero evidence that people don't  move house because of stamp duty.  There is zero evidence that old people stay in their home because of stamp duty-they stay there because they like their homes, for social factors and because they want to leave it for their kids. 

• The restriction on mobility can have significant flow-on effects including the creation of significant barriers to workplace mobility. People are potentially deterred from taking on new job opportunities that would require them to move, given the significant extra costs.

The stamp duty will go to the vendor instead.


On the other hand:

Land Tax will benefit property developers and property flippers who will effectively transfer the stamp duty burden to the buyers.

It will benefit buyers of more expensive homes

It will increase rents as the annual land tax is another annual expense that needs to be paid and the landlord is not simply going to absorb it.

It will be increased over time by way of both increases to property valuation and the annual rate. .  The article even says: It should be noted that these rates and thresholds may still be subject to change. (you can bet your house on that they WILL change)

Its payable forever.

In the UK it resulted in pensioners being evicted because their forever home was now deemed to owe annual Land Tax more than their annual pension.

As for your last point the State Liberals are a mess, especially here in Victoria.  Its notable that NSW didn't try for Land Tax under a Coalition Government ( It may be a State tax, but it has national ramifications). 

Dictator Dan is tight-lipped because he has an election soon and he knows he's party is done if he announces a Land Tax now.

Your super is for your retirement. Additional properties are icing on the cake. 

You can leave the investment property for your kids.  That's what I plan to do (and was the main motivation in the first place).

One of the best ways for young people get on the property ladder is to buy an investment property and use the tax advantages.  Why would you want that scaled back for the next generation?

The government can make more land available, and sell it below market value-they own the Crown Land and its actually costs them nothing, as it was "just there".  Charge the infrastructure costs only.  Only for first home buyers.

Not mine but this is a great quote:

Land tax gives a lever in the hands of the govts that they can pull at will. Unfortunately, this lever is attached to the dog strap on your neck.

As a sole trader I don't have much super.  (I ploughed the money that would have gone into super into investments.)

You can't convince me that anyone should be allowed to own 5, 10, 20, 30 investment properties no matter what. Maybe one or two and then after that you lose all the concessions. The government is effectively subsidising investors to keep first home owners out of the market. Shelter, even if basic, should be a fundamental right, in a first world country.

Also Australia does not suffer from a lack of land that's for sure but developers tying up vast swathes of land and then trickling it out to keep prices high is a disgrace. Some sort of land tax on undeveloped land would go a long way to loosening up supply and stop them from locking it up.

I get that blocks of land are $350k+ in regional areas on the coast but the fact that blocks of land cost near that in places like Wagga, Dubbo, Tamworth, Armidale, where there is literally millions of acres in every direction unencumbered by natural obstacles, is a joke. 

Your crown land release has merit and I'd be interested in how that would work in reality. Where I am they are trying to develop some crown land and it's the biggest shitfight imaginable.

But surely you must agree that stamp duty is a joke and a regressive tax whatever the alternatives are?

The GST was supposed to put paid to stamp duty and the pricks kept it. And no wonder. NSW raked in $12 billion last year during the pandemic in stamp duty. The governments are addicted to the cash. It's actually quite interesting that Perrottet wants to change it given how much money they're collecting.

Agreed.  Around  3 in 4 investors only own one property so most will not be affected.  Maybe a sliding scale on the CGT.  50% on one, 25% on the second 10% on the third zero thereafter.  Maybe a cap on the negative gearing that can be claimed in a year.

Ultimately the State governments control the supply of new land releases. They are complicit in the ridiculous house prices we have now.

How’s al these sooks about minimum wage. Ffs, get a grip. I own a business that employs 35 people. 

*all

Of course I agree.  Stamp duty was a minor fee to cover the cost of updating the information at the Land Titles Office.  Its now become a major source of revenue for the State budget.

The only reason why the States want Land Tax over Stamp Duty is because it gives them a steady, predictable income stream forever because they can set the tax rate and the thresholds and the valuations as and when they require them to match their budget.  Stamp duty is volatile it requires people to buy and sell.  

In order to "sell" the idea of land tax to the public, the States will set a relatively low tax to get it through the door  This will actually mean less revenue than Stamp Duty for that *initial* period.  Perrottet wants the Feds to cover the short fall until they can jack land tax up later.  Chalmers has agreed in principle and wants ALL of the States to come to him with a proposal.

Glad AEMO has taken over the grid.

The fact Australia has one of the highest electricity prices in the world and the is one of the biggest exporters of energy in the world is ridiculous.

Even dumber it is cheaper to go to Japan where we export gas and buy it there than it is to buy it in  Australian. What the fuck?

The east coast should have done what the West coast did and siphoned off a proportion for domestic use. Want a gas licence? Then we want X% reserved for domestic markets. Take it or leave it.

But oh no imagine interfering in 'the market'! What a disaster. Sounds like communism to me.

When they proposed the guarantee in WA the fuckers squealed like stuck pigs saying the sky would fall in.  Well it didn't and who's laughing now? WA that's who.

While I'm ranting how's these cunce in the power generation plants making record profits going 'well fuck the consumers, they can have a blackout because we're turning the generators off'.

I just can't believe people, despite all evidence to the contrary, still think privatising everything is a great idea because free enterprise and market forces will always be better.

Get fucked.

Power, water and communication infrastructure should never have been privatised.

Stopped reading after this. You just flipped inefficient and efficient around in your own argument. 

There will be a choice to pay stamp duty or switch the land tax. So we should let the system sort itself out. People will naturally choose to pay stamp duty if that's better for them...

Yeah I don't think you get it.

As for your second point once a house is land taxed- thats it. It stays that way.  Forever.

Basically the basis for the LNP saying they are 'good with money' - because they just sell everything off to their mates and then get cushy jobs on the boards. 

Their utter neglect has gotten us here. 

Totally concur.

"THE ELECTION IS RIGGED! TRUMP MAGA!!!!! Oh wait, no it's not rigged "

Ffs these alt right utter imbeciles :D 

Soon after election night, Babet deleted his UAP campaign Facebook page, Instagram and Twitter account. However, archived posts from these accounts and other online content reveals that his views are well and truly in line with those of his right-wing populist and conspiracy promoting party leader Palmer.Beyond arguing that the election was going to be fraudulent, Babet promoted the same conspiracy theory that the World Economic Forum is carrying out a globalist takeover of the country’s sovereignty. Soon after the election was called for Labor, he posted on his account: “I would like to congratulate the prime minister of Australia on an excellent campaign. Well done Klaus Schwab.”Despite his dislike for the man responsible for creating the “billionaire circus” at Davos, Babet is a fanboy of other billionaires. At a rally earlier this month he boasted about meeting Palmer a handful of times and defended him online against reports he hadn’t paid his staff. Babet also tweeted glowingly about Elon Musk and was stoked about his proposed takeover of Twitter.He also spoke at rallies and tweeted about ending Australia’s “digital ID legislation”, another fear-mongering UAP party promise that posits that a real government scheme is actually an attempt to implement China’s social credit system here. While showing a disdain for all major parties, Babet particularly dislikes those with left politics. He called the Greens ideology “cancerous”, spoke disparagingly of “hardcore communists” on Twitter, shared a video claiming that drinking blood is a new trend on “the left”, and criticised Labor’s Dan Andrews for his handling of the pandemic.Like the UAP’s former parliamentary leader Craig Kelly, Babet is staunchly anti-lockdown, wants to end vaccine mandates and tweeted about vaccine injuries, a common argument of the anti-vaccine movement. Babet also campaigned closely with Rebekah Spelman, a fellow UAP candidate who once said she wanted to chant “Hang Dan Andrews!” at a rally, and anti-vaccine content creator Morgan C Jonas.  While Palmer’s attempts to end the rule of both major parties fell flat, the spoils of his massive spend are a plum position for a conspiracy touting senator made in his own image.This article has been updated to reflect Babet’s election to the Senate.

23 pages of in depth discussion here regards land tax. Plenty of pros and cons from both sides.

https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/thread/3qr1vv50?p=23#r71328291

Thought Perrottet was better than this.

Bruz gets a plum gig.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-22/premier-dominic-perrottet-defend-john-barilaro-trade-appointment/101173196

About time real estate got representation in parliament :rolleyes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGm267O04a8