they may replace stamp duty with land tax. which means the government would make more money the more land was being occupied - encouraging development. and everyone else would be encouraged to use land more efficiently, as the more people occupying the same space of land, means less tax for everyone. it also means that people won't be punished for moving, something people usually do for practical and efficiency reasons. on the other hand, if like rates, it would be based on the *value* of the land, government's might think: "hey, why go to all the hard work of developing more land, more work, more infrastructure ect, when we could just not do that, which would strangle supply, push up the prices of land, and hence, we'd earn more tax without actually doing anything!!" this is a big worry, because while it will always be in the government's best interest to make sure everyone has accommodation, if you have that, why develop further which would only lower values and lower tax? they will be encouraged to develop just enough land to make sure everybody can *just* afford a place - slaving over multi-generational mortgages... the tax should probably be based off a bias where more desirable areas are taxed higher, but for the reason mentioned above, I don't think using actual dollar value is a good idea.
land tax would also stop little things like land banking ect.
as for stamp duty, I can't really see any good case for it. except of course: "stamp duty is paid once at the beginning, so its more like an investment, where as a land tax would just make buying more like renting, an ongoing cost..." this argument resonates with me. though I feel it may be a simple philosophical one, and irrelevant in the realm of practicality and efficiency.
so yeah, they are just my thoughts, I basically just guessed how land tax worked - basically like rates - so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
I think all in all, land tax sounds like a good idea to me. what do people think?
as for the immediate impact on house prices, well, I don't really care... removing stamp duty would be as good as offering a new grant, so that side would boost prices. but the extra ongoing cost of land tax would weigh against it's fundamentals as an investment (income ect) which would have a negative effect... all in all I think it would be negligible, and as I said, I don't care.
Stamp duty was much better for government during the housing frenzy of 21 century. Houses were traded at record numbers and prices so money was just flowing into budget. Now government realized that frenzy is at the end and to get some money from properties they have to introduce US style property tax.
I don't have anything against this tax, but what annoys me is fact that with all that money governments were not able to build any infrastructure
Land tax is already present in NSW - The State with the highest property prices, and the least falls so far. It doesn't seem to have done much to property as an investment here. I wonder why? Perhaps... Because with a growing population, housing is a good investment?
Property speculation is a type of gambling... But everyone knows that in gambling, the house always wins in the end.
Land tax is already present in NSW - The State with the highest property prices, and the least falls so far. It doesn't seem to have done much to property as an investment here. I wonder why? Perhaps... Because with a growing population, housing is a good investment?
Ask yourself how many people would pay land tax under such a system (many).
Ask yourself how many people will pay stamp duty in the next electoral cycle (very few).
Ask yourself who would a government prefer to annoy - many people, or very few people?
Policy isn't decided on what is good. It is decided on politics.
Yes, the introduction of a land tax would have many political hurdles, but it would be a fairer system without either surges or falls in revenue for the state.
Politically it would get used by governments and it would build more empires for public servants, but we would lose the stamp duty empire.
A tough sell, but it would get my vote as long as it was phased in over a long period. You can't ask someone to pay the full stamp duty today and then slug them a new land tax tomorrow.
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
Ask yourself how many people would pay land tax under such a system (many).
Ask yourself how many people will pay stamp duty in the next electoral cycle (very few).
Ask yourself who would a government prefer to annoy - many people, or very few people?
Policy isn't decided on what is good. It is decided on politics.
+1. Nothing will change for the better with our tax system whilst we have so many boomers and property investors. There might be a small chance in 10-20 years.
It's pretty much pointless talking about it.
stinkbug omosessuale Frank Castle is a liar and a criminal. He will often deliberately take people out of context and use straw man arguments. Frank finally and unintentionally gives it up and admits he got where he is, primarily via dumb luck! See here Property will be 50-70% off by 2016.
VICTORIA would be $1.3 billion better off a year if the state government dumped inefficient stamp duties and replaced the lost cash with higher payroll and land taxes, the state competition watchdog has concluded. In a major assessment of the state's ability to meet future economic challenges, the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission found Victoria has the highest dependence on stamp duty in the nation. The report, commissioned by Treasury Kim Wells in April, has urged the government to press ahead with a plan to reform state taxes to revitalise productivity performance.
''Productivity growth drives increased living standards, and Victoria's productivity growth has stalled,'' commission chairman Matthew Butlin said.
''Without a productivity-based reform agenda Victoria will lose its leading position in the Australian economy and miss out on opportunities created by the mining boom and industrialisation and urbanisation in Asia.''
THE Real Estate Institute has warned homeowners to keep up to speed on the tax laws after one homeowner was hit with a surprise land tax bill of $14,000. Real Estate Institute of Tasmania president Martin Harris said the property owner had left the home to go interstate for family reasons but did not want to leave their home vacant and insecure for insurance and peace of mind reasons.
"Friends stayed at the property for a nominal rent and did the right thing by completing a rental bond form,'' he said.
"After a six-month period the owner was promptly billed land tax for over $14,000.''
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.
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