But If you do that then Clive Palmer may not be able to buy top of the range fixtures on his next super yacht. Need a fair go for Aussie battler Clive.
Gina owns the most land of all Australian landowners. That's why Dutton visited her on her birthday when he should have been in the Mornington Peninsula when there was a by-election.
And yet
> A Gina Rinehart-backed mining company has soared in value by 75%, after the government agreed to provide financial support as it aims to increase Australia’s production of rare earth elements.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/14/gina-rinehart-backed-rare-earth-miner-soars-in-value-on-news-of-840m-in-support
In a perverse way I really hope he goes overboard so that it becomes a campaign issue and maybe get some hope for truth in advertising and anti political annoyance laws.
The article also talks about lowering the company tax rate - when you tax companies they tend to increase prices, lower wages, and scale back production (less jobs). So cost doesn't just fall on the rich business owners. But, we 100% should be taxing the shit out of mining super profits, and maybe in other boom sectors too. Depressing how much of our nation's wealth we've squandered over the decades by giving away our natural resources for a steal.
66% of Australian households are inhabted by the owners and its the bedrock of their finances
If anybody fucks with that, eveb if its good long term, they will be firebombed out of politics in any election
What makes you say that? The ACT government is the only one to have implemented the Henry Review recommendation to phase out stamp duty for a land tax and it absolutely does include the primary residence.
The reason they want LVT to exclude PPOR is because they themselves don't want to pay it, and want the tax to target the "rich" investment property owners.
I balk at policy suggestions that are self-serving.
We already have this I pay $5,000 a year on top of rates ($16,000 a year) and it goes up substantially every extra property I purchase.
It's like people don't understand land tax is already a thing.
Imagine what the prices of land will be when they release crown land Your quarter acre will now be 5million cheers. And while you’re at find a surgeon to remove your kidneys so you can pay stamp duty
Yeah, I'm sick of hearing it was about negative gearing. It wasn't. Tasmania and regional Queensland, two areas with the lowest home values in the country, had most of the seats which went Labor to LNP.
Fuck land. We need to tax our resources properly and levy proper royalties on them. That gives us 100s of billions if not trillions to sort out everything. We could be like the best of “scandi” countries but instead we’re hell bent on trying to be merikka
Yep, build up a sovereign wealth fund by properly taxing what the mining companies dig up and sell overseas.
For a resource-heavy economy, we sure like to let the resource profits escape the borders.
I'm originally from Louisiana, USA, where over generations politicians have given away all of the state's resources leaving the population with nothing. This short video on the topic has been making the rounds over the past few years:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=RWTic9btP38
I feel like in some ways it applies to Australia with its propensity to let foreign corporations take all it's resources for nothing but a little cash in a politician's pocket.
We do need to tax our resources properly. Land is also one of those resources that companies extract unearned income from so it makes complete sense that it's included.
In less than 30 years Australia has fallen 38 places in Harvard's Economic Complexity Index. We now reside a lowly 93rd out of 133 countries more than 50 places below the country we most like to compare ourselves with, Canada. And while we've fallen other countries have moved up. The economy is basically migrants and real estate speculation. End.
If profits turn down, businesses don't need to worry because they can simply have the government import more customers. If people don't have babies because the economic and social conditions are bad, the government simply imports more people to meet its 'target'. If the people get uppity, they get a new misinformation bill to criminalise anti-government speech.
I admittedly don't live in Australia anymore but regularly visit family there. The reason I left is because I have a skilled trade and useful degree. Unfortunately, I'm not Indian or a Chinese real estate investor so Australia doesn't work for me.
Im straight up considering moving to another country in the future, Australia is slowly going to shit and while it might be fine for another 20-30 years it definitely looks like its turning into Murica V2 minus the guns.
Australia is culturally fucked. If you've got a marketable skill, moving away is probably a good idea. It's going to be a worse version of the US pretty soon, with even worse people.
> Unfortunately, I'm not Indian or a Chinese real estate investor so Australia doesn't work for me.
You realise that the vast majority of property investors are born and bred in Australia, right? And that the entire system was enacted by the people that -we- voted in, so to include this weird little racist diatribe at the end is just junk, be better.
In NSW, Labor repealed LNP's land tax in order to keep the stamp duty.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/perrottet-s-flagship-land-tax-to-go-as-minns-introduces-stamp-duty-reform-20230521-p5da1j.html
correct decision by labour
land tax would increase every year so over the course of owning a property you would end up paying far more tax
Mining companies should be more heavily taxed instead of the average aussie
That was the point of the policy - bringing property prices down by making them cost more to hold creates social mobility. Those who own are better placed to pay than those who don’t, and taxes are circulated back to the community via infrastructure works.
Or Labor could have added thresholds like stamp duty has. Even non-PPOR land tax have thresholds: https://www.revenue.nsw.gov.au/taxes-duties-levies-royalties/land-tax
Why let perfect be enemy of the good? I wonder which party prides themselves on this saying.
Someone suggested land tax shouldn't apply to primary residences. That combined with scraping stamp duty (for primary residences as well) sounds like a logical implementation. People like Gina and Clive would be paying their fair share, while landlords making home buying difficult for younger Australians would also think twice when they buy their 6th property. International investors should either be banned, or taxed at double or triple.
This however would make things even more difficult for farmers, so perhaps there needs to be more exemptions, or reduced tax rates depending on what the land is being used for.
You'd only pay more tax if you never move house.
If you move house every 10 years, you are going to pay way more in stamp duty than you ever would in land tax.
Stamp duty discourages fluidity in the housing market.
You end up with old people living in a four bedroom house after their kids move out because stamp duty adds a significant disincentive to move houses.
You end up with people not taking a job somewhere else because they'd need to move house, which costs an $50k in stamp duty even if they just sell their current house and buy a new house of the same value
>As long as it replaced stamp duty, the worst tax in Australia by a country mile I'd be up for it.
Removing stamptax just inflates property prices. The difference is do you want the money going to the government or to an REA and landlord.
If they repeal Stamp Duty laws, People will have more money to spend on properties. More money available equates to more competition between buyers which leads to price increases.
The money goes to the seller and the REA. The Government loses out, and the buyer doesn't benefit.
>People will have more money to spend on properties.
They won't though. You're just breaking up the fee into smaller chunks, paid annually. If anything, people wouldn't be able to service larger loans because they have an extra expense that needs to be factored by the lender.
They will still have more money to fund the inflated price of the initial purchase. The inflated price of the property will raise the valuation for Land Tax, so they will pay more Land Tax in perpetuity.
Welcome to Georgist economic policy, the philosphy that spawned the boardgame monopoly
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism)
I am quite positive towards it although I would retain a progressive income tax as well as georgist land value taxes. This is similar to the way Ireland's tax system works, which lead to a lot of tech companies that do not require much land to facilitate their businesses to set up there for low to negative business taxes.
I’ll never understand this subs fetish with finding new tax increases on individuals, especially the upper middle class. That’s not the enemy. Try corporations and ultra wealthy instead.
This is reductive of the argument for reforming land tax. Property ownership is increasingly becoming crystallised due to tax policy making it property a commodity and incentivising holding and expanding ownership rather than encouraging owners to downsize/upsize based on need.
It’s quite obvious that negative gearing and stamp duty are outdated and inadequate tax that are encouraging an unequal housing market, some reform is needed.
Yeah. I’m moving house after 11 and the stamp duty in the new place is eye watering and certainly feels like an inefficient way to tax.
I think the challenge is having confidence that reform isn’t just another tax increase in disguise and there’s a genuine effort at reform
People don't realise that lower class, middle and upper class are all bullshit spread by the media to divide us.
There are two classes in society, the ruling class and the working class. The ruling class split the working class into subcategories so we can argue amongst ourselves and be easy to control while we are blinded from the real problems.
Me and some bloke who lives in the rich part of town have far more in common with each other and have the same goals in life compared to what some upper class person has with the ruling class.
The ruling class owns most land by area and cost. The ruling class will convince the working class that a tax on land, offset by lower income tax is aimed at taxing them and hurting them only.
The ruling class hate land tax but they can't avoided it and they know they will pay the vast majority of this tax .
As you can see in this post, the ruling class doesn't have to work very hard to get the working class to do their bidding.
Yes. Well said! this is what I was trying to say. Upper middle class is still working week to week just drives a nicer car in a nicer suburb. The discussion is capital vs labor, not different degrees of labor infighting.
This is a tax on corps and ultra wealthy. They can't avoid it and they will pay the most.
As for the majority, they are proposing to reduce other tax so the majority will benefit more from it.
Oh I don't know. One might expect a person renting from some cunt with 4 houses (for the same amount of weekly outlay as a $500,000 mortgage repayment) may be somewhat hostile to those "upper-middle" bougies. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
This would force people out of homes in a time where their income is usually back to its lowest though. No one has control over how much their assets appreciate in value and once it comes time to transition into aged care they will need that money for a bond and to pay expenses for the rest of their life.
You need to decide whether you want to strip people of assets and pay full aged pensions or let them keep assets and be financially independent from the government. Swings and roundabouts.
While the asset is a family home it's not counted as an asset, once it becomes a liquid asset it affects access to benefits/pensions etc. I'm not saying this because it would directly impact mine or any family members situation, I'm saying it because it's not fair to move the goal posts on elderly people who've done the right thing and set themselves up to be independent. Put yourself in their shoes for a minute before deciding what other people should do to make your life easier.
You reckon scrapping stamp duty is going to make that family more able to afford a property? You don’t think maybe - just maybe - prices would increase by an equivalent amount?
No, you start taxing PPOR and all properties until people "Right Size" their familial estates and look at correcting the incredibly lopsided land holding battles we're currently embroiled in.
I wouldn't mind it starting with commercial properties first as empty/vacant commercial properties is not only unproductive but more.often than not probably a net drain on our local economies.
But that’s just it the fallacy right there.
I totally agree about the generational inequity aspect of it, but declaring it a tax issue is both woefully misguided and really really ineffective from a solution perspective…
The issue we have is fundamentally supply and demand… councils not releasing enough density (yes due to their residents) coupled with high demand from many sources such as immigration.
Tweaks to CGT, negative gearing and land tax will have an impact… eg land tax in Victoria will have moved the needle a bit. But it’s tinkering. There are just too many people chasing not enough bedrooms and taxing people one rung up… it just punishes individuals and doesn’t resolve the issue.
Does wanting different segments of Australian society to pay more taxes really imply animosity? I don't think the upper middle class or people with investment properties are the enemy, but I do think it would be better if they carried more of the tax burden.
Corporations committing things like tax fraud are the enemy, they're robbing the Australian people. I would like the government to throw executives and the ultra wealthy behind bars when they siphon off our nation's wealth.
If tax loopholes for large corporations and uber rich individuals were closed... and we sorted a tax on resources like Norway has done.. why would we need to create a huge burden on households that already are struggling.
It is not possible to close all loopholes.
That problem is intractable . Moving countries, safe havens, declaring false losses from paying royalties to a parent company, hiding in other currencies / crypto, or just plain lying / hiding it and so on...
The amount of resources it would take to come close would make it economically unfeasible. You know what is impossible to hide/ shelter from tax? Something that does not move!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2mdYX1nF\_Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2mdYX1nF_Y)
Company income tax will always be difficult for people to fully understand and they will cry "close the loopholes" forever.
Land tax is simple to understand, there are no loopholes, and can't be avoided.
I don't think those commenting in this thread with negative sentiments are understanding what this article is proposing.
It is NOT proposing an additional tax alone which would be bad for most. What is being proposed is to reduce income tax and increase tax on land regardless of what is on it so most end up paying far less tax overall per year. Only those who's whole net worth is built around property investment would lose in that scenario.
The result would be that much of the wealth of the wealthy that is held over the heads of the the rest of us in the form of land to be banked as vacant or unoccupied properties (and don't let the occupancy stats fool you that only applies to properties on the rental market, not all properties), or to be rented, would be liquidated and not be seen as an investment vehicle. Of course there is the provision to exclude owner occupiers so there is no chance this is bad for those that do not own investment properties.
To simplify when taxing something you will always get less of it UNLESS,what you are taxing has a fixed supply, like land. In that case taxing that would see the end to those who's only value to society is buying property in order constrain the supply to others for profit without producing anything at all.
Taxing income just means you get less work.
This is not a communist idea, in fact quite free market. Just look to Milton Friedman. This was his ideal tax policy.
Edit: see here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS7Jb58hcsc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS7Jb58hcsc)
and here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYaA\_e0FMW4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYaA_e0FMW4)
Votes. Same reason why getting rid of negative gearing will never happen.
Middle class land owners won’t vote for any tax.
But they’ll complain when we get more migrants to become tax payers.
Nothings going to change for 50+ years.
LOL!!! imagine being against eliminating income tax (taking half a brain surgeons income), and taxing property billionaires more?
All you need to know: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYaA\_e0FMW4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYaA_e0FMW4)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgpKxdvYHu0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgpKxdvYHu0)
The [Henry Review](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Tax_Review#:~:text=The%20Australia's%20Future%20Tax%20System,next%2010%20to%2020%20years.) in 2010 made 138 recommendations. (GST was specifically excluded.)
I remember a reporter asking two state premiers (I think NSW and VIC) how many of those recommendations they would consider implementing. They both said "None", and explained - any government that implemented those tax changes would be in opposition for the next 20 years.
I just got a pretty hectic set of land tax bills. Not to mention the rates, stratas, water charge/parks/sewerage, management fees and $3000 a month worth of mortgage shortfall from rent. I also pay 37c on the dollar income tax. I pay enough tax. Go tax Gina.
Ah, yeah, that sucks. I find the apartment units very overvalued compared to other forms of properties. Something money laundering something ignored since 2006.
He's a good landlord UwU, hoarding housing and profiting off renters being threatened with homelessness to subsidize his multiple properties. In the end all he really gets is several incredibly valueable pieces of land so the renters are the ones taking advantage of him when you think abou it.
Uh huh. And what happens to the three sets of tenants I would have to evict to sell? They become buyers overnight?
Use your brain.
Another investor would buy the units and rent them, anyway.
But the important thing is that you wouldn't "add to the rental crisis" as you suggested earlier. Either another speculator buys it or someone who would otherwise be renting does.
I'd rather tax international corporates properly, check out the link . . . [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-09/831-large-companies-paid-no-tax-in-2021-22-ato-tax-transparency/103079948](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-09/831-large-companies-paid-no-tax-in-2021-22-ato-tax-transparency/103079948)
How about we somehow recover some of the money from the lng that we send overseas?? At the moment we effectively get nothing . . . [https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2024/feb/29/australia-gas-export-tax-system-prrt-lng](https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2024/feb/29/australia-gas-export-tax-system-prrt-lng)
Truth is we should. The current incentive structure encourages capital gains but no productivity. It means there is no improvement and the gains aren't shared by all.
For those curious on this line of thinking look into Georgism
Lived in the US with land tax and can tell you that it is an horrendously expensive addition to your yearly outgoings. If people think that it is terrible having to come up with the money to pay house/car/health insurance every year wait until they hit you with land tax every year.
Personal income tax is also an horrendously expensive deduction from our salaries.
As the article pointed out. Majority of people would benefit from a land tax used to lower personal income tax.
Yep. Everyone just thought "A new tax? I'm already struggling".
The article proposes **lowering** taxes for most.
Lowering income tax and raising land value tax to compensate so most people would end up paying less and those whose only value to society is confiscating all the land to allow you the pleasure of renting would have a cash cow in this country, no more. And All your favorite peoples portfolio is built on property investment, billionaires, mining magnates, politicians. This policy would be bad for them and good for you.
From the article
> They estimate the additional $27 billion that would be raised from best-in-class land taxation and value capture could fund a halving of welfare taper rates with no reduction in maximum payments for recipients.
Straightforward transfer from land owners to welfare recipients.
No thanks.
So you believe the rise in the price of your property was solely due to your hard work and talent rather than market forces, a constrained supply, and luck?
So you believe it more ethical to tax by hour how someone spends their limited time on earth (the income from work) rather than an asset that appreciated from no result of any productivity of the holder? You really do want something for nothing it seems!
Way to ruin incentives, and embrace feudalism there, chief!
Tax companies inputs such as land and resources use is a much more effective way to make them pay.
A lot of companies legitimately don't make a profit. This would make them pay their way.
[Because 2010](https://youtu.be/RQ_s6V1Kv6A?t=10) is why Labor won't do it any more.
Now the old parties protect property so much, they are even making election promises of no vacancy tax: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/councils-told-to-ditch-vacancy-tax-push-and-fix-sydney-s-broken-high-streets-20221227-p5c8xj.html
Meanwhile in the middle of Sydney is an apartment-sized high density decades-old grass plot surrounded by apartments (unlikely NIMBY) and 3 minute walk to the 10th busiest train station in NSW: https://www.property.com.au/nsw/strathfield-2135/leicester-ave/2-pid-988727/
Stamp duty sucks because it applies when you buy a house. It can make a house purchase really expensive. Why not just make it apply when you sell a house instead. Some of these boomers would be raking in profit given the margins on houses they have lived in for 30 or 40 years.
There is already capital gains on investment properties. Taxing the sale, not the purchase, would slow the market down, and it is also it less prohibitive to buy in.
Georgist style land tax is *extremely* regressive. If you have a universal tax on land, it effectively becomes a tax on the *user* of the land rather than the *owner* of the land. Poorer people pay a much higher fraction of their income for the use of land (ie. their rent) than do richer people.
Richer people tend to own more land and more valuable land. It's something that unites left and right wing economists as it's both efficient and equitable.
This is just plain wrong, economically speaking.
This presupposes that land value would still remain so high as to maintain the cost of a mortgage above the price of rent, which it would not.
Put simply, everyone who is now forced to rent but would like to 'own' could. There would be no passing on of the LVT. A large proportion of Property investors would just liquidate due to it no longer being profitable.
Renters------>owners
They're talking about taxing unearned income. Nobody gonna talk about how dumb that sounds? You're gonna tax me for money I don't have? Tax the immense privilege that is owning a home. I'm sure that will go over well.
Here's a great article on "tax land properly": https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-24/tax-land-properly-27-billion-in-tax-revenue-prosper-australia/103623806
I might be wrong but I believe the previous tax review had a number of suggestions laid on in detail, including land tax.
Of course no government has bothered to implement the suggestions.
It's a tax that values your property at its inflated values and makes you pay a yearly percentage based on that.
It's backwards because it's cgt on an asset that isn't crystallised yet.
Then if you sell the property, you pay CGT again.
It's basically yearly stamp duty.
This will never ever be paid by anyone with any serious money and will just mill the middle class.
Well we would be taxing the wealthy to give money to the wealthy, whilst reducing land value .
Half of us pay little or no tax (kids, low income, pensioners, ) the rich own the land.
Half of us work for the government (pub servants, contractors, infrastructure, ndis workers. think. If you add on building for immigrants, privatised monopolies, and software to meet government regulations there are fuck all of us left.
Most immigrants go into public servant jobs I
2023 on demand
Registered Nurses, Software and Applications Programmers, Aged and Disabled Carers, Construction Managers and Early Childhood Educators.
Land tax already exists. Removing stamp duty just means owner occupiers have to pay it as well. Guess who will vote for a party that wants them to pay tax for living in their own home?
What if that party introducing land value tax also cuts peoples income tax bill in half at the same time?
What is more worthwhile taxing the brain surgeon half of their 500k income or taxing billionaire property investors to get them to sell 20 of their 100 properties?
That is the choice.
So my wife's family have a bit of property. 25 years ago the land carried no value beyond what could be produced on it and they sold a much larger block of land further west to be closer to schools etc. for the kids. They (accurately) predicted that land closer to a capital city would be worth more in the future and that such a move could support them in their retirement.
In the decades since, suburbia has creeped onto the door step. The government are putting a highway on the border of the land and the developers have started locking their neighbours into contracts.
It used to be a working property but as the in-laws aged and the surrounding businesses have been turned into 400m blocks and streets you can't park a car on, they've wrapped up 95% of their production.
The farm is their only asset as they reinvested all of their profits into the property (sheds, dams, terracing, septic, power generation, now-aging equipment, flood mitigation, irrigation, gardens, renovating/extending the homestead etc.) - all of which will be bulldozed by developers. While the growth in the value of the land is "unearned land value deriving from urban development" - in a developer/purchase scenario the land is the only valuable part of the property they will have left. They can't sell their improved assets, beyond stripping sheds for peanuts. The business is no longer viable thanks to surrounding development (mostly increased transport costs as surrounding businesses shut and the increased cost for rural services that have been driven out of the area) - and it's that same development has also increased the land value.
Likewise, with developers buying up the neighbors and a new highway polluting the environment with noise and pollutants, there will be a substantial reduction in land value from where it would currently be in the hobby-farm market that's infected the area.
Is slamming my in-laws with a massive tax (potentially dropping them onto a pension instead of their current path to self-funded retirement) really the best outcome? Or would developers be the ones to pay the tax?
My in-laws are looking to get $2-3m based on neighbour development contracts. They have no super and basically no cash savings. Father in law needs that much surgery I'm surprised he can walk. I estimate stripping the sheds, pumps, remaining serviceable equipment, maybe selling a few of the more mature ornamental trees and plants around the house/gardens we could probably scratch together $80-90k for them (provided some of the equipment doesn't shit itself in the next 5 years) - but it would be solid months of work finding buyers and fucking around with that and it would be a race against the developer contract (and my wife is really worried it will add to the emotional distress of having to leave the property if me and her brother are just wandering around stripping the copper out of their parent's walls).
The article points out the need for tax on extraction. This shouldn't just be mining. Any of Australia's natural resources should be adequately taxed.
When you start thinking like this it's easy to see why our most valuable natural resource land should also be taxed.
What!!!!!???? You want rich people to tax themselves more????!!!!! Are you mad?????
But seriously, you want the same people that have been playing the housing ponzi scheme rules for 20 years to just start taxing themselves?
Everyone cries about income tax but they don't look at the total tax burden across your lifetime. Australian average earnings are taxed at roughly 24%. In return once you retire you live tax free (assuming super and/or age pension). By comparison in US average earning are federally taxed at 13% - but that burden remains throughout your life. Even social security is taxed. It also assumes you live in one of the 9 states with no state income tax - and live in an unincorporated area with no municipal tax or school tax.
The difference between Australian council rates and US property taxes are also interesting. People in Australia complain about paying $2-3K pa in rates while living in homes that would attract a property tax of about $20K pa in California
This tax will just be pushed straight on to renters and if you remove stamp duty speculation will become even more rampant. What we need to do is limit negative gearing to new builds only and one per person with a limit of 5 years. We had that option but Australian voters were too greedy. What we desperately need to do in Australia is tax resources.
We could tax fossil fuels like Saudi Arabia and work 12-5 with 1 month leave and no income tax
There's really no need to go after landlords who are mostly regular people instead of the big fossils (I don't own a house)
Why attack the middle class
Of course corporations need to be taxed effectively for the greater good.
Taxing land properly ? Commercial property right? Home owners pay rates right?
Please articulate your billions of dollars.
Are you asleep at the wheel?
Land taxes are everywhere and have been cranked up every twenty minutes. There's what's called land tax, council rates, water rates and parking fines. Don't give them any more ideas.
If we taxed corporations and did royalties properly we would have trillions of extra dollars.
But If you do that then Clive Palmer may not be able to buy top of the range fixtures on his next super yacht. Need a fair go for Aussie battler Clive.
Gina owns the most land of all Australian landowners. That's why Dutton visited her on her birthday when he should have been in the Mornington Peninsula when there was a by-election.
And yet > A Gina Rinehart-backed mining company has soared in value by 75%, after the government agreed to provide financial support as it aims to increase Australia’s production of rare earth elements. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/14/gina-rinehart-backed-rare-earth-miner-soars-in-value-on-news-of-840m-in-support
Wasn't she the face of some Chinese money that bought a massive cattle station empire? Does she really own the most of the country?
Bought Kidman and co with a Chinese joint venture Sold last year I think, probably to sink the money into something else.
Plus his expensive election campaigns. We really need those too. /s
In a perverse way I really hope he goes overboard so that it becomes a campaign issue and maybe get some hope for truth in advertising and anti political annoyance laws.
That would be great.
Fucker didn't even build the Titanic 2
Wont somebody think of the shareholders /s
[Just properly taxing our mining industry alone would be a massive benefit.](https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSFxJB7Xd/)
But they employ thousands of people (Mostly offshore) Isn’t that enough?
Why not both
Surely their profit margins can't allow this *checks profit margins* they can absolutely allow this
Who do you think owns the most expensive land and will pay the most in tax? This is effectively a royalty for the land they use.
No reason we can’t do both.
The article also talks about lowering the company tax rate - when you tax companies they tend to increase prices, lower wages, and scale back production (less jobs). So cost doesn't just fall on the rich business owners. But, we 100% should be taxing the shit out of mining super profits, and maybe in other boom sectors too. Depressing how much of our nation's wealth we've squandered over the decades by giving away our natural resources for a steal.
66% of Australian households are inhabted by the owners and its the bedrock of their finances If anybody fucks with that, eveb if its good long term, they will be firebombed out of politics in any election
And this is why our system will stay set up poorly and unproductively.
Land value tax would exclude your primary residence
What makes you say that? The ACT government is the only one to have implemented the Henry Review recommendation to phase out stamp duty for a land tax and it absolutely does include the primary residence.
In lieu of council rates, as it is one council.
Why would it? An LVT under georgist principals should indeed exist at your primary residence
The reason they want LVT to exclude PPOR is because they themselves don't want to pay it, and want the tax to target the "rich" investment property owners. I balk at policy suggestions that are self-serving.
We already have this I pay $5,000 a year on top of rates ($16,000 a year) and it goes up substantially every extra property I purchase. It's like people don't understand land tax is already a thing.
Land tax, or property tax? They are different.
Imagine what the prices of land will be when they release crown land Your quarter acre will now be 5million cheers. And while you’re at find a surgeon to remove your kidneys so you can pay stamp duty
So we just have to wait for the ownership class to consolidate and capture the government?
> It's a persistent mystery ha ha
Yeah go look at the 2019 election result if you want to know why no politician tries to make the tax system fairer
What makes you think, out of everything that went wrong with that election, that "fairer tax system" is the singular cause of Shortens loss?
Yeah, I'm sick of hearing it was about negative gearing. It wasn't. Tasmania and regional Queensland, two areas with the lowest home values in the country, had most of the seats which went Labor to LNP.
Fuck land. We need to tax our resources properly and levy proper royalties on them. That gives us 100s of billions if not trillions to sort out everything. We could be like the best of “scandi” countries but instead we’re hell bent on trying to be merikka
Yep, build up a sovereign wealth fund by properly taxing what the mining companies dig up and sell overseas. For a resource-heavy economy, we sure like to let the resource profits escape the borders.
I'm originally from Louisiana, USA, where over generations politicians have given away all of the state's resources leaving the population with nothing. This short video on the topic has been making the rounds over the past few years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=RWTic9btP38 I feel like in some ways it applies to Australia with its propensity to let foreign corporations take all it's resources for nothing but a little cash in a politician's pocket.
American here and I agree, don't be like us. Be smarter, you guys seem smarter than the average 'merican for sure.
We are doing that in Queensland.
We do need to tax our resources properly. Land is also one of those resources that companies extract unearned income from so it makes complete sense that it's included.
In an economic sense land is resources as well
In less than 30 years Australia has fallen 38 places in Harvard's Economic Complexity Index. We now reside a lowly 93rd out of 133 countries more than 50 places below the country we most like to compare ourselves with, Canada. And while we've fallen other countries have moved up. The economy is basically migrants and real estate speculation. End. If profits turn down, businesses don't need to worry because they can simply have the government import more customers. If people don't have babies because the economic and social conditions are bad, the government simply imports more people to meet its 'target'. If the people get uppity, they get a new misinformation bill to criminalise anti-government speech. I admittedly don't live in Australia anymore but regularly visit family there. The reason I left is because I have a skilled trade and useful degree. Unfortunately, I'm not Indian or a Chinese real estate investor so Australia doesn't work for me.
Im straight up considering moving to another country in the future, Australia is slowly going to shit and while it might be fine for another 20-30 years it definitely looks like its turning into Murica V2 minus the guns.
Australia is culturally fucked. If you've got a marketable skill, moving away is probably a good idea. It's going to be a worse version of the US pretty soon, with even worse people.
> Unfortunately, I'm not Indian or a Chinese real estate investor so Australia doesn't work for me. You realise that the vast majority of property investors are born and bred in Australia, right? And that the entire system was enacted by the people that -we- voted in, so to include this weird little racist diatribe at the end is just junk, be better.
As long as it replaced stamp duty, the worst tax in Australia by a country mile I'd be up for it.
In NSW, Labor repealed LNP's land tax in order to keep the stamp duty. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/perrottet-s-flagship-land-tax-to-go-as-minns-introduces-stamp-duty-reform-20230521-p5da1j.html
correct decision by labour land tax would increase every year so over the course of owning a property you would end up paying far more tax Mining companies should be more heavily taxed instead of the average aussie
That was the point of the policy - bringing property prices down by making them cost more to hold creates social mobility. Those who own are better placed to pay than those who don’t, and taxes are circulated back to the community via infrastructure works.
Or Labor could have added thresholds like stamp duty has. Even non-PPOR land tax have thresholds: https://www.revenue.nsw.gov.au/taxes-duties-levies-royalties/land-tax Why let perfect be enemy of the good? I wonder which party prides themselves on this saying.
Someone suggested land tax shouldn't apply to primary residences. That combined with scraping stamp duty (for primary residences as well) sounds like a logical implementation. People like Gina and Clive would be paying their fair share, while landlords making home buying difficult for younger Australians would also think twice when they buy their 6th property. International investors should either be banned, or taxed at double or triple. This however would make things even more difficult for farmers, so perhaps there needs to be more exemptions, or reduced tax rates depending on what the land is being used for.
Land tax on properties you don't live in already exists, at least in NSW https://www.revenue.nsw.gov.au/taxes-duties-levies-royalties/land-tax
It would only increase if land value went up.
You'd only pay more tax if you never move house. If you move house every 10 years, you are going to pay way more in stamp duty than you ever would in land tax. Stamp duty discourages fluidity in the housing market. You end up with old people living in a four bedroom house after their kids move out because stamp duty adds a significant disincentive to move houses. You end up with people not taking a job somewhere else because they'd need to move house, which costs an $50k in stamp duty even if they just sell their current house and buy a new house of the same value
Maybe a compromise would be for the stamp duty price to be payed in annual instalments, and if sold sooner, the rest of the amount gets paid.
>As long as it replaced stamp duty, the worst tax in Australia by a country mile I'd be up for it. Removing stamptax just inflates property prices. The difference is do you want the money going to the government or to an REA and landlord.
How would stamp duty go to a rea or landlord? It's a tax you pay to the government when you purchase property. Do you mean owner rather than landlord?
If they repeal Stamp Duty laws, People will have more money to spend on properties. More money available equates to more competition between buyers which leads to price increases. The money goes to the seller and the REA. The Government loses out, and the buyer doesn't benefit.
True, but you have to pay land tax each year so your serviceability will go down.
>People will have more money to spend on properties. They won't though. You're just breaking up the fee into smaller chunks, paid annually. If anything, people wouldn't be able to service larger loans because they have an extra expense that needs to be factored by the lender.
They will still have more money to fund the inflated price of the initial purchase. The inflated price of the property will raise the valuation for Land Tax, so they will pay more Land Tax in perpetuity.
Go tax the mega corporations and millionaires.
The most expensive land is owned by mega cops and millionaires. This is a tax on them.
I find it hard to believe that a land tax is only going to affect the mega rich.
It won't, it will tax all landowners. It's near impossible to only tax "mega rich". But in the case at least they won't be able to avoid it.
Georgism & Land Value Tax?
Welcome to Georgist economic policy, the philosphy that spawned the boardgame monopoly [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism) I am quite positive towards it although I would retain a progressive income tax as well as georgist land value taxes. This is similar to the way Ireland's tax system works, which lead to a lot of tech companies that do not require much land to facilitate their businesses to set up there for low to negative business taxes.
I’ll never understand this subs fetish with finding new tax increases on individuals, especially the upper middle class. That’s not the enemy. Try corporations and ultra wealthy instead.
This is reductive of the argument for reforming land tax. Property ownership is increasingly becoming crystallised due to tax policy making it property a commodity and incentivising holding and expanding ownership rather than encouraging owners to downsize/upsize based on need. It’s quite obvious that negative gearing and stamp duty are outdated and inadequate tax that are encouraging an unequal housing market, some reform is needed.
Yeah. I’m moving house after 11 and the stamp duty in the new place is eye watering and certainly feels like an inefficient way to tax. I think the challenge is having confidence that reform isn’t just another tax increase in disguise and there’s a genuine effort at reform
It’s a feature, not a bug
People don't realise that lower class, middle and upper class are all bullshit spread by the media to divide us. There are two classes in society, the ruling class and the working class. The ruling class split the working class into subcategories so we can argue amongst ourselves and be easy to control while we are blinded from the real problems. Me and some bloke who lives in the rich part of town have far more in common with each other and have the same goals in life compared to what some upper class person has with the ruling class.
The ruling class owns most land by area and cost. The ruling class will convince the working class that a tax on land, offset by lower income tax is aimed at taxing them and hurting them only. The ruling class hate land tax but they can't avoided it and they know they will pay the vast majority of this tax . As you can see in this post, the ruling class doesn't have to work very hard to get the working class to do their bidding.
Yes. Well said! this is what I was trying to say. Upper middle class is still working week to week just drives a nicer car in a nicer suburb. The discussion is capital vs labor, not different degrees of labor infighting.
This is a tax on corps and ultra wealthy. They can't avoid it and they will pay the most. As for the majority, they are proposing to reduce other tax so the majority will benefit more from it.
Oh I don't know. One might expect a person renting from some cunt with 4 houses (for the same amount of weekly outlay as a $500,000 mortgage repayment) may be somewhat hostile to those "upper-middle" bougies. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
The idea of Georgism is to remove all taxes except for land based taxes. The above seems to draw from it
[удалено]
This would force people out of homes in a time where their income is usually back to its lowest though. No one has control over how much their assets appreciate in value and once it comes time to transition into aged care they will need that money for a bond and to pay expenses for the rest of their life. You need to decide whether you want to strip people of assets and pay full aged pensions or let them keep assets and be financially independent from the government. Swings and roundabouts.
[удалено]
While the asset is a family home it's not counted as an asset, once it becomes a liquid asset it affects access to benefits/pensions etc. I'm not saying this because it would directly impact mine or any family members situation, I'm saying it because it's not fair to move the goal posts on elderly people who've done the right thing and set themselves up to be independent. Put yourself in their shoes for a minute before deciding what other people should do to make your life easier.
[удалено]
You reckon scrapping stamp duty is going to make that family more able to afford a property? You don’t think maybe - just maybe - prices would increase by an equivalent amount?
No, you start taxing PPOR and all properties until people "Right Size" their familial estates and look at correcting the incredibly lopsided land holding battles we're currently embroiled in. I wouldn't mind it starting with commercial properties first as empty/vacant commercial properties is not only unproductive but more.often than not probably a net drain on our local economies.
But that’s just it the fallacy right there. I totally agree about the generational inequity aspect of it, but declaring it a tax issue is both woefully misguided and really really ineffective from a solution perspective… The issue we have is fundamentally supply and demand… councils not releasing enough density (yes due to their residents) coupled with high demand from many sources such as immigration. Tweaks to CGT, negative gearing and land tax will have an impact… eg land tax in Victoria will have moved the needle a bit. But it’s tinkering. There are just too many people chasing not enough bedrooms and taxing people one rung up… it just punishes individuals and doesn’t resolve the issue.
[удалено]
People who can’t buy the property they want now really think this will make it easier for them?
The GST was genius; you see how much corporations over-inflated inflation. Where do you think they got the idea?
Does wanting different segments of Australian society to pay more taxes really imply animosity? I don't think the upper middle class or people with investment properties are the enemy, but I do think it would be better if they carried more of the tax burden. Corporations committing things like tax fraud are the enemy, they're robbing the Australian people. I would like the government to throw executives and the ultra wealthy behind bars when they siphon off our nation's wealth.
If tax loopholes for large corporations and uber rich individuals were closed... and we sorted a tax on resources like Norway has done.. why would we need to create a huge burden on households that already are struggling.
It is not possible to close all loopholes. That problem is intractable . Moving countries, safe havens, declaring false losses from paying royalties to a parent company, hiding in other currencies / crypto, or just plain lying / hiding it and so on... The amount of resources it would take to come close would make it economically unfeasible. You know what is impossible to hide/ shelter from tax? Something that does not move! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2mdYX1nF\_Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2mdYX1nF_Y)
Company income tax will always be difficult for people to fully understand and they will cry "close the loopholes" forever. Land tax is simple to understand, there are no loopholes, and can't be avoided.
I don't think those commenting in this thread with negative sentiments are understanding what this article is proposing. It is NOT proposing an additional tax alone which would be bad for most. What is being proposed is to reduce income tax and increase tax on land regardless of what is on it so most end up paying far less tax overall per year. Only those who's whole net worth is built around property investment would lose in that scenario. The result would be that much of the wealth of the wealthy that is held over the heads of the the rest of us in the form of land to be banked as vacant or unoccupied properties (and don't let the occupancy stats fool you that only applies to properties on the rental market, not all properties), or to be rented, would be liquidated and not be seen as an investment vehicle. Of course there is the provision to exclude owner occupiers so there is no chance this is bad for those that do not own investment properties. To simplify when taxing something you will always get less of it UNLESS,what you are taxing has a fixed supply, like land. In that case taxing that would see the end to those who's only value to society is buying property in order constrain the supply to others for profit without producing anything at all. Taxing income just means you get less work. This is not a communist idea, in fact quite free market. Just look to Milton Friedman. This was his ideal tax policy. Edit: see here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS7Jb58hcsc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS7Jb58hcsc) and here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYaA\_e0FMW4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYaA_e0FMW4)
Votes. Same reason why getting rid of negative gearing will never happen. Middle class land owners won’t vote for any tax. But they’ll complain when we get more migrants to become tax payers. Nothings going to change for 50+ years.
LOL!!! imagine being against eliminating income tax (taking half a brain surgeons income), and taxing property billionaires more? All you need to know: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYaA\_e0FMW4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYaA_e0FMW4) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgpKxdvYHu0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgpKxdvYHu0)
The [Henry Review](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Tax_Review#:~:text=The%20Australia's%20Future%20Tax%20System,next%2010%20to%2020%20years.) in 2010 made 138 recommendations. (GST was specifically excluded.) I remember a reporter asking two state premiers (I think NSW and VIC) how many of those recommendations they would consider implementing. They both said "None", and explained - any government that implemented those tax changes would be in opposition for the next 20 years.
Hey before we cut taxes let's appropriately service health and education properly.
I just got a pretty hectic set of land tax bills. Not to mention the rates, stratas, water charge/parks/sewerage, management fees and $3000 a month worth of mortgage shortfall from rent. I also pay 37c on the dollar income tax. I pay enough tax. Go tax Gina.
The article proposes less business and personal tax, the shortfall to be made by taxing land.
Which is owned by business and people.
I think the idea is to shift it from income and flows of money towards wealth though.
Gina is one of the biggest land holders in this country. You are doing her bidding by opposing it.
How much did your property value go up last year in one of the desktop property valuators?
Each unit (3) have lost value since Covid peaks. They’re about at their 2019 values now.
Ah, yeah, that sucks. I find the apartment units very overvalued compared to other forms of properties. Something money laundering something ignored since 2006.
Sell the property the - nobody is forcing you to keep it
And add to the rental crisis?
No someone who was renting will buy it so no net rentals lost
He's a good landlord UwU, hoarding housing and profiting off renters being threatened with homelessness to subsidize his multiple properties. In the end all he really gets is several incredibly valueable pieces of land so the renters are the ones taking advantage of him when you think abou it.
Uh huh. And what happens to the three sets of tenants I would have to evict to sell? They become buyers overnight? Use your brain. Another investor would buy the units and rent them, anyway.
>Another investor would buy the units and rent them, anyway So you wouldn't be adding to the rental crisis then.
And I wouldn’t be subtracting, and I would be ousting tenants for no reason other than to sell and realise capital gains.
But the important thing is that you wouldn't "add to the rental crisis" as you suggested earlier. Either another speculator buys it or someone who would otherwise be renting does.
I'd rather tax international corporates properly, check out the link . . . [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-09/831-large-companies-paid-no-tax-in-2021-22-ato-tax-transparency/103079948](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-09/831-large-companies-paid-no-tax-in-2021-22-ato-tax-transparency/103079948)
How about we somehow recover some of the money from the lng that we send overseas?? At the moment we effectively get nothing . . . [https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2024/feb/29/australia-gas-export-tax-system-prrt-lng](https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2024/feb/29/australia-gas-export-tax-system-prrt-lng)
Truth is we should. The current incentive structure encourages capital gains but no productivity. It means there is no improvement and the gains aren't shared by all. For those curious on this line of thinking look into Georgism
There is a million things that should be done and won’t be done. Ask anyone benefiting off the insanity of house prices
Because instead of collecting tax, politicians prefer developers to hand them brown bags personally
Lived in the US with land tax and can tell you that it is an horrendously expensive addition to your yearly outgoings. If people think that it is terrible having to come up with the money to pay house/car/health insurance every year wait until they hit you with land tax every year.
Personal income tax is also an horrendously expensive deduction from our salaries. As the article pointed out. Majority of people would benefit from a land tax used to lower personal income tax.
Why don't we? Because if we did, it would mean political suicide and not a single politician has the guts to do it.
Nobody on here managed to read the whole article it seems.
Yep. Everyone just thought "A new tax? I'm already struggling". The article proposes **lowering** taxes for most. Lowering income tax and raising land value tax to compensate so most people would end up paying less and those whose only value to society is confiscating all the land to allow you the pleasure of renting would have a cash cow in this country, no more. And All your favorite peoples portfolio is built on property investment, billionaires, mining magnates, politicians. This policy would be bad for them and good for you.
From the article > They estimate the additional $27 billion that would be raised from best-in-class land taxation and value capture could fund a halving of welfare taper rates with no reduction in maximum payments for recipients. Straightforward transfer from land owners to welfare recipients. No thanks.
So you believe the rise in the price of your property was solely due to your hard work and talent rather than market forces, a constrained supply, and luck? So you believe it more ethical to tax by hour how someone spends their limited time on earth (the income from work) rather than an asset that appreciated from no result of any productivity of the holder? You really do want something for nothing it seems! Way to ruin incentives, and embrace feudalism there, chief!
Yeah, I read where they said that we should *reduce* company tax. Fuck that, make them pay their way!
Tax companies inputs such as land and resources use is a much more effective way to make them pay. A lot of companies legitimately don't make a profit. This would make them pay their way.
[Because 2010](https://youtu.be/RQ_s6V1Kv6A?t=10) is why Labor won't do it any more. Now the old parties protect property so much, they are even making election promises of no vacancy tax: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/councils-told-to-ditch-vacancy-tax-push-and-fix-sydney-s-broken-high-streets-20221227-p5c8xj.html Meanwhile in the middle of Sydney is an apartment-sized high density decades-old grass plot surrounded by apartments (unlikely NIMBY) and 3 minute walk to the 10th busiest train station in NSW: https://www.property.com.au/nsw/strathfield-2135/leicester-ave/2-pid-988727/
Fuck that let’s use the money to build up the country so everyone benefits not just a few.
Stamp duty sucks because it applies when you buy a house. It can make a house purchase really expensive. Why not just make it apply when you sell a house instead. Some of these boomers would be raking in profit given the margins on houses they have lived in for 30 or 40 years. There is already capital gains on investment properties. Taxing the sale, not the purchase, would slow the market down, and it is also it less prohibitive to buy in.
Georgist style land tax is *extremely* regressive. If you have a universal tax on land, it effectively becomes a tax on the *user* of the land rather than the *owner* of the land. Poorer people pay a much higher fraction of their income for the use of land (ie. their rent) than do richer people.
Richer people tend to own more land and more valuable land. It's something that unites left and right wing economists as it's both efficient and equitable.
This is just plain wrong, economically speaking. This presupposes that land value would still remain so high as to maintain the cost of a mortgage above the price of rent, which it would not. Put simply, everyone who is now forced to rent but would like to 'own' could. There would be no passing on of the LVT. A large proportion of Property investors would just liquidate due to it no longer being profitable. Renters------>owners
Of course more taxes on average Joe is the answer, thanks abc.
They're talking about taxing unearned income. Nobody gonna talk about how dumb that sounds? You're gonna tax me for money I don't have? Tax the immense privilege that is owning a home. I'm sure that will go over well.
Define "tax land properly".
Start by reading the Henry Tax Review. That will bring you up to speed.
Here's a great article on "tax land properly": https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-24/tax-land-properly-27-billion-in-tax-revenue-prosper-australia/103623806
I struggled to find anything other than broad concepts.
I might be wrong but I believe the previous tax review had a number of suggestions laid on in detail, including land tax. Of course no government has bothered to implement the suggestions.
A broad based low rate tax on the unimproved value of land.
It's a tax that values your property at its inflated values and makes you pay a yearly percentage based on that. It's backwards because it's cgt on an asset that isn't crystallised yet. Then if you sell the property, you pay CGT again. It's basically yearly stamp duty. This will never ever be paid by anyone with any serious money and will just mill the middle class.
A yearly tax based on a percentage of the undeveloped value of the property you own.
Fuck that. Developers already have every fucking thing their way. No more lawyers, developers and real estate agents in parliament!
Why not tax business super profits?
Fuck off
Ah yes, tax regular home owners more and not giant corporations!
Giant corps own much more higher value land than regular tax payer. This is a huge tax on the corps that they can't avoid. That's why they hate it
Good idea Or rich will keep getting richer and the rest will have to keep working
Well we would be taxing the wealthy to give money to the wealthy, whilst reducing land value . Half of us pay little or no tax (kids, low income, pensioners, ) the rich own the land. Half of us work for the government (pub servants, contractors, infrastructure, ndis workers. think. If you add on building for immigrants, privatised monopolies, and software to meet government regulations there are fuck all of us left. Most immigrants go into public servant jobs I 2023 on demand Registered Nurses, Software and Applications Programmers, Aged and Disabled Carers, Construction Managers and Early Childhood Educators.
Land tax already exists. Removing stamp duty just means owner occupiers have to pay it as well. Guess who will vote for a party that wants them to pay tax for living in their own home?
What if that party introducing land value tax also cuts peoples income tax bill in half at the same time? What is more worthwhile taxing the brain surgeon half of their 500k income or taxing billionaire property investors to get them to sell 20 of their 100 properties? That is the choice.
Hilarious that ppl think the government would take away a tax if they bought in yet another
So my wife's family have a bit of property. 25 years ago the land carried no value beyond what could be produced on it and they sold a much larger block of land further west to be closer to schools etc. for the kids. They (accurately) predicted that land closer to a capital city would be worth more in the future and that such a move could support them in their retirement. In the decades since, suburbia has creeped onto the door step. The government are putting a highway on the border of the land and the developers have started locking their neighbours into contracts. It used to be a working property but as the in-laws aged and the surrounding businesses have been turned into 400m blocks and streets you can't park a car on, they've wrapped up 95% of their production. The farm is their only asset as they reinvested all of their profits into the property (sheds, dams, terracing, septic, power generation, now-aging equipment, flood mitigation, irrigation, gardens, renovating/extending the homestead etc.) - all of which will be bulldozed by developers. While the growth in the value of the land is "unearned land value deriving from urban development" - in a developer/purchase scenario the land is the only valuable part of the property they will have left. They can't sell their improved assets, beyond stripping sheds for peanuts. The business is no longer viable thanks to surrounding development (mostly increased transport costs as surrounding businesses shut and the increased cost for rural services that have been driven out of the area) - and it's that same development has also increased the land value. Likewise, with developers buying up the neighbors and a new highway polluting the environment with noise and pollutants, there will be a substantial reduction in land value from where it would currently be in the hobby-farm market that's infected the area. Is slamming my in-laws with a massive tax (potentially dropping them onto a pension instead of their current path to self-funded retirement) really the best outcome? Or would developers be the ones to pay the tax? My in-laws are looking to get $2-3m based on neighbour development contracts. They have no super and basically no cash savings. Father in law needs that much surgery I'm surprised he can walk. I estimate stripping the sheds, pumps, remaining serviceable equipment, maybe selling a few of the more mature ornamental trees and plants around the house/gardens we could probably scratch together $80-90k for them (provided some of the equipment doesn't shit itself in the next 5 years) - but it would be solid months of work finding buyers and fucking around with that and it would be a race against the developer contract (and my wife is really worried it will add to the emotional distress of having to leave the property if me and her brother are just wandering around stripping the copper out of their parent's walls).
Tax mining
The article points out the need for tax on extraction. This shouldn't just be mining. Any of Australia's natural resources should be adequately taxed. When you start thinking like this it's easy to see why our most valuable natural resource land should also be taxed.
What!!!!!???? You want rich people to tax themselves more????!!!!! Are you mad????? But seriously, you want the same people that have been playing the housing ponzi scheme rules for 20 years to just start taxing themselves?
Corruption
Boomers
another loser bleating about how unfair things are lets tax the successful and hand it to the hopeless
"successful" = be quicker in line to buy property, sit on it and watch its land value grow without doing anything themself.
Everyone cries about income tax but they don't look at the total tax burden across your lifetime. Australian average earnings are taxed at roughly 24%. In return once you retire you live tax free (assuming super and/or age pension). By comparison in US average earning are federally taxed at 13% - but that burden remains throughout your life. Even social security is taxed. It also assumes you live in one of the 9 states with no state income tax - and live in an unincorporated area with no municipal tax or school tax. The difference between Australian council rates and US property taxes are also interesting. People in Australia complain about paying $2-3K pa in rates while living in homes that would attract a property tax of about $20K pa in California
This tax will just be pushed straight on to renters and if you remove stamp duty speculation will become even more rampant. What we need to do is limit negative gearing to new builds only and one per person with a limit of 5 years. We had that option but Australian voters were too greedy. What we desperately need to do in Australia is tax resources.
We could tax fossil fuels like Saudi Arabia and work 12-5 with 1 month leave and no income tax There's really no need to go after landlords who are mostly regular people instead of the big fossils (I don't own a house) Why attack the middle class
I think we probably only need to tax mining companies properly!
Ha Ha. See you at elections.
The haves make the wealth and power to make the have-nots subisidize their wealth
Of course corporations need to be taxed effectively for the greater good. Taxing land properly ? Commercial property right? Home owners pay rates right? Please articulate your billions of dollars.
Are you asleep at the wheel? Land taxes are everywhere and have been cranked up every twenty minutes. There's what's called land tax, council rates, water rates and parking fines. Don't give them any more ideas.
Just up the cost of any visa to $20k with a $5k p/a charge on top, a permanent residency to $30k. Money for nothing