Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
Good News: Treasury pushing remodel of Negative Gearing for only new homes!; Corrupt and vested real estate interest run for cover!
Topic Started: 14 Aug 2014, 09:26 PM (33,890 Views)
Stefan
Unregistered

Shadow
20 Aug 2014, 02:32 PM
How interesting. Property owners pay income tax too like everybody so the first row applies equally to all workers.

From the next 4 rows property owners cough up 36/173 = 21 percent of all govt taxes excluding income tax (even after negative gearing).

Thats a fair whack. Didn't realize property was taxed so much. Shows why govt is so reliant and in many ways a slave to the property sector!
"REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
stinkbug
Member Avatar


Stefan
20 Aug 2014, 03:22 PM


Thats a fair whack. Didn't realize property was taxed so much. Shows why govt is so reliant and in many ways a slave to the property sector!
Indeed. Why would they fuss about a few billion when that would jeapordize many billions? If anything, they want more people to buy property.
---------------------------------------------------------------

While it's true that those who win never quit, and those who quit never win, those who never win and never quit are idiots.

Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Sydneyite
Member Avatar


Veritas
20 Aug 2014, 02:59 PM
Shadow
20 Aug 2014, 02:52 PM
I posted one report saying 40% and another report saying 30%. It's probably somewhere in between.


Yes, I know you find it hard to follow the discussion sometimes. I'll summarise...

1. Piccolo said taxpayers were subsiding property investors.
2. I said the housing sector contributes $40 billion per annum net tax revenue.
3. You screamed 'BOLLOX!!!' and hurled abuse like a lunatic.
4. Mike and I posted ABS data showing that I was correct.
5. You tried to change the subject to something else I said in a different thread a year ago.
What the housing sector?

Are you including owner occupiers?

Are they in the housing sector?

You are avoiding the question.

I called it bollox because it is total bollox.

And you know it and are trying to worm your way out of it

Veritas - don't think those of us reading did not notice you try to COMPLETELY change the subject here!!! :re:

Shadow's original claim was NOT bollocks - he is 100% correct. Total taxation levied directly on housing (that's land taxes, rates, stamp duties, and taxation paid on rental income and so on) is $40B/year at least.

Be a man and just admit that you went off half cocked. If you want to discuss another topic (like % taxes paid on a new build), do so, but do it as a new discussion and not as a way to try and wriggle out of your error re the points above.
For Aussie property bears, "denial", is not just a long river in North Africa.....
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

stinkbug
20 Aug 2014, 03:27 PM
Indeed. Why would they fuss about a few billion when that would jeapordize many billions? If anything, they want more people to buy property.
Yes, in the 2009-2010 tax year, there were net rental losses of only $4.8 billion.

Tax deferred would be about 30% of total rental losses, so just a few billion (assuming average marginal tax rate of 30% across all negative gearers).

It's a drop in the ocean compared to the $40 billion per year they get from the housing sector, and if the government did get rid of NG then that few billion would just be deferred for a few years until the properties become cashflow positive.

So the government might get an extra few billion for a few years, and then they would lose that few billion a few years later and be back to square one.

2009-2010 is a good comparison year because interest rates were low then, although not as low as today.

Tax deferred today would be even lower today, due to the further fall in interest rates.

Bears are barking up the wrong tree.

Posted Image
Edited by Shadow, 20 Aug 2014, 08:07 PM.
1. Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
2. Residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act. Banks can't margin call unless borrower defaults.
3. Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by highly taxed homeowners.
4. Ongoing improvement in housing affordability. Australian household formation faster than population growth since 1960s.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Veritas
Default APF Avatar


Shadow
20 Aug 2014, 03:00 PM
Take it up with the ABS then. It's their data...

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/5506.0Main%20Features22012-13

$36 billion in 2012-2013, plus tax on rental income, plus inflation based on house price gains since 2012 would easily make $40 billion.

I will repeat the facts for you once again...

$40 billion revenue for the government per year via stamp duty, land tax, tax on rental income, GST on new dwellings, rates, development fees etc.

Highly taxed property owners are subsidising essential services for low taxed renters like you.


:bye:
No, Ill take it up with you.

You are the one using the term "housing sector" not the ABS or the ATO.

That is because you want to create the entirely misleading impression that those who are in the business or building, selling and renting houses contribute 40% of the tax take.

This is patently untrue unless you include the taxes paid by the far larger number of people who pay taxes on the houses that they live in and who have no hand, act or part in the property business.

Again, owner occupiers are no more members of the housing sector than someone who owns a car is part of the car sector.

Property acquisition as a topic was almost a national obsession. You couldn't even call it speculation as the buyers all presumed the price of property could only go up. That’s why we use the word obsession. Ordinary people were buying properties for their young children who had not even left school assuming they would not be able to afford property of their own when they left college- Klaus Regling on Ireland. Sound familiar?

The evidence of nearly 40 cycles in house prices for 17 OECD economies since 1970 shows that real house prices typically give up about 70 per cent of their rise in the subsequent fall, and that these falls occur slowly.
Morgan Kelly:On the Likely Extent of Falls in Irish House Prices, 2007
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Dr Watson
Member Avatar


Shadow
20 Aug 2014, 03:50 PM
... if the government did get rid of NG then that $1.5 billion would just be deferred for a few years until the properties become cashflow positive.
Yes, and that's the point that Bullion Barron, Peter Fraser and myself and many others have made numerous times. It is constantly ignored by NG-haters who imagine some magic windfall flowing into the government's coffers should NG rules be changed. Actually, NG has become a proxy for the debate around housing affordability. It's the scapegoat favoured by those who want more affordable housing but refuse to discuss immigration and population growth.
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt — Bertrand Russell
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Veritas
Default APF Avatar


Sydneyite
20 Aug 2014, 03:32 PM
Veritas - don't think those of us reading did not notice you try to COMPLETELY change the subject here!!! :re:

Shadow's original claim was NOT bollocks - he is 100% correct. Total taxation levied directly on housing (that's land taxes, rates, stamp duties, and taxation paid on rental income and so on) is $40B/year at least.

Be a man and just admit that you went off half cocked. If you want to discuss another topic (like % taxes paid on a new build), do so, but do it as a new discussion and not as a way to try and wriggle out of your error re the points above.
Shadow summed up the argument as follows

Quote:
 
1. Piccolo said taxpayers were subsiding property investors.
2. I said the housing sector contributes $40 billion per annum net tax revenue.
3. You screamed 'BOLLOX!!!' and hurled abuse like a lunatic.
4. Mike and I posted ABS data showing that I was correct.
5. You tried to change the subject to something else I said in a different thread a year ago.


I have asked repeatedly for a definition of the housing sector (it is not one used by the ATO or the ABS)

Are we including the taxes paid by OOs?

If I own a car, am I part of the car sector?

What do you think?
Property acquisition as a topic was almost a national obsession. You couldn't even call it speculation as the buyers all presumed the price of property could only go up. That’s why we use the word obsession. Ordinary people were buying properties for their young children who had not even left school assuming they would not be able to afford property of their own when they left college- Klaus Regling on Ireland. Sound familiar?

The evidence of nearly 40 cycles in house prices for 17 OECD economies since 1970 shows that real house prices typically give up about 70 per cent of their rise in the subsequent fall, and that these falls occur slowly.
Morgan Kelly:On the Likely Extent of Falls in Irish House Prices, 2007
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Mike
Default APF Avatar


Veritas
20 Aug 2014, 04:04 PM
No, Ill take it up with you.

You are the one using the term "housing sector" not the ABS or the ATO.

That is because you want to create the entirely misleading impression that those who are in the business or building, selling and renting houses contribute 40% of the tax take.

This is patently untrue unless you include the taxes paid by the far larger number of people who pay taxes on the houses that they live in and who have no hand, act or part in the property business.

Again, owner occupiers are no more members of the housing sector than someone who owns a car is part of the car sector.
Do you not think that investors are also owner occupiers?

Most investors as you claim, mums & dads have the principal house they live in, plus one investment property. As claimed by many bears and supported by some data depending on the city, investors make up roughly 30% of the market. The majority of that 90% is mum and dad investors with 1-2 properties. 70% would own one property with 20% 2 properties. Seem reasonable?

So we have the majority of investors with just 1 investment property, so a majority of the investors who make up 30% of the housing market are mum and dad investors. This must mean that 30% or close to it of the owner-occupier market are investors. So effectively 60% of the property market are investors. Mum and dad investors are also owner occupiers, they also own 1 investment property. Granted the figures would move a few % here and there but these a rough percentages based on the ownership levels we know about.

This leaves roughly 40% of the housing market that are not investors, just own a home to live in.

So Shadow is right, majority of the tax income generated from property comes from investors.

Mums and dads are generating the tax revenue which pays for all sorts of social services by investing in property.
http://mike-globaleconomy.blogspot.com.au/
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
miw
Member Avatar


Veritas
20 Aug 2014, 02:47 PM
So you accept its not 40%. Its just might be ( depending on who you ask)
Well, I ran the numbers pretty carefully on a place that I thought might have development potential. 40% was pretty accurate for that particular block.
Stefan
20 Aug 2014, 03:22 PM
Thats a fair whack. Didn't realize property was taxed so much. Shows why govt is so reliant and in many ways a slave to the property sector!
Not sure why you find it surprising. Accommodation accounts for what, about 20% of all expenses for people? Seems to me it is taxed about in line with other economic activity.
Edited by miw, 20 Aug 2014, 04:24 PM.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.
--Gloria Steinem
AREPS™
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Veritas
Default APF Avatar


Mike
20 Aug 2014, 04:18 PM
Do you not think that investors are also owner occupiers?

Most investors as you claim, mums & dads have the principal house they live in, plus one investment property. As claimed by many bears and supported by some data depending on the city, investors make up roughly 30% of the market. The majority of that 90% is mum and dad investors with 1-2 properties. 70% would own one property with 20% 2 properties. Seem reasonable?

So we have the majority of investors with just 1 investment property, so a majority of the investors who make up 30% of the housing market are mum and dad investors. This must mean that 30% or close to it of the owner-occupier market are investors. So effectively 60% of the property market are investors. Mum and dad investors are also owner occupiers, they also own 1 investment property. Granted the figures would move a few % here and there but these a rough percentages based on the ownership levels we know about.

This leaves roughly 40% of the housing market that are not investors, just own a home to live in.

So Shadow is right, majority of the tax income generated from property comes from investors.

Mums and dads are generating the tax revenue which pays for all sorts of social services by investing in property.
So Shadow is right based on your back of a beer mat calculations.

Remember he is making a very definitive claim: the housing sector contributes 40% of the tax take.

He leverages this "non-fact" to justify the claim that property investors contribute more than they take in taxes.

That may well be true but the evidence cited does not show this.

It does not show this because the tax take includes owner occupiers.

Do you think that owner occupiers are part of the housing sector (to use Shadows term)? What is the housing sector? If I own a car, am I part of the car sector?

Are any of you guys going to answer this question or are you going to ignore it as well?

You might also remember that he has already conceded that his claim that "40 % of the price of a new build is tax" is also total bollox.

He hasn't got a reference for that either. When I ran the numbers for Perth it came up with 16%.
Edited by Veritas, 20 Aug 2014, 04:34 PM.
Property acquisition as a topic was almost a national obsession. You couldn't even call it speculation as the buyers all presumed the price of property could only go up. That’s why we use the word obsession. Ordinary people were buying properties for their young children who had not even left school assuming they would not be able to afford property of their own when they left college- Klaus Regling on Ireland. Sound familiar?

The evidence of nearly 40 cycles in house prices for 17 OECD economies since 1970 shows that real house prices typically give up about 70 per cent of their rise in the subsequent fall, and that these falls occur slowly.
Morgan Kelly:On the Likely Extent of Falls in Irish House Prices, 2007
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply



Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.

Forum Rules: The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.

Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.

Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.

This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.

For more information go to Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use

Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ

Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy