Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 8
Land Tax vs Stamp Duty: Push to fine-tune taxation base; First homebuyers could be allowed to pay off their stamp duty over several years
Topic Started: 13 Oct 2011, 12:13 AM (2,330 Views)
themoops
Member Avatar
Ruby Member
nipa hut
16 Apr 2012, 09:25 PM



This just screams "the property market is about to crash quick we need even more government intervention".

Disgusting. Absolutely feral.
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.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
TED BULLPIT
Member Avatar


themoops
17 Apr 2012, 06:28 AM
This just screams "the property market is about to crash quick we need even more government intervention".

Disgusting. Absolutely feral.
Its crashing allright, and their bag of tricks is now empty, dirt cheap housing , here we come :lol
You sometimes seem concerned that this will not happen because of some government intervention moops, you can put your mind at rest , housing is coming down for years , another fact for the zombies who keep preaching prices to the moon :lol .
As for your baby down the mine comment, peopleike Mr Fraser want prices to double every seven years, his grandchildren woul have to start working in a mine from five years old just to pay of the house before they turn eigthy, they would have no money left for their kids or their life. Reality is returning weather you like it or not ;)
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
The Ponz
Member Avatar


It's a real worry that an idea like this is being considered as a way to help people? Help them do what? Sign up to life that's based on paying a large % of their incoming wage to the bank for the next 25 years. :o
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Admin
Member Avatar
Administrator

Quote:
 
Stamp duty reform will take decades

Noel Towell
May 7, 2012 - 11:19AM

The ACT's "fundamentally unfair" stamp duty regime is to be reformed, the ACT Government says, but the process could take decades.

Treasurer Andrew Barr said this morning that the government had accepted a key recommendation of the long-awaited Quinlan review of taxation that the transaction tax was inequitable and should be abolished.

Mr Barr said the review would form the foundation of a historic agenda for reform of the government's revenue-raising efforts that would be based on "fairness, efficiency and simplicity."

There are also recommendations to abolish duties on general insurance and life insurance, to retain payroll tax in some form and to adopt a broad-based land tax to replace the revenues forgone from the reforms.

But launching the review of the report this morning, Mr Barr said that reform would be a long process.

"It (stamp duty) is a considerable part of our own-source revenue, about $300 million or thereabouts, so the transition in any one year, onto the rates base for example would effectively require a doubling of everyone's rates," the minister said.

Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/stamp-duty-reform-will-take-decades-20120507-1y7w1.html#ixzz1uB3vRkSz
Follow OzPropertyForum on Twitter | Like APF on Facebook | Circle APF on Google+
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Admin
Member Avatar
Administrator

Quote:
 
Stamp-duty burden likely to move from buyers to owners

Noel Towell
May 8, 2012

Reform of the ACT's ''fundamentally unfair'' stamp-duty regime looks likely to see the annual $300 million tax burden transferred from homebuyers to homeowners.

Treasurer Andrew Barr said yesterday that the government was likely to act on a key recommendation of the long awaited Quinlan review of taxation that the transaction tax was inequitable and should be abolished.

Ted Quinlan's plan would see the unpopular stamp duty, a transaction tax on property sales, all but abolished over a 10-year period with the revenue shortfall taken up by ''broad-based land tax'' recovered through the general rates system.

The plan would see rates bills triple over 10 years, owners of high-end property paying up to $5300 at the end of the decade-long reform process while at the lower end of the market, the annual bills would be nearly $3000. But according to the report's authors the territory would be rid of stamp duty, an ''unfair, unpredictable, unstable and inefficient tax.''

Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/stampduty-burden-likely-to-move-from-buyers-to-owners-20120507-1y9f6.html#ixzz1uF018k00
Follow OzPropertyForum on Twitter | Like APF on Facebook | Circle APF on Google+
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
WestAussie
Default APF Avatar

Australia joins the 21st century! Clap clap. Hope they have proper urban planners too else they will crank out 30m2 studio apartments like there's no tomorrow! Then put up partitions and make them 15m2 apartments lol. Ive been to cities with land tax as a broad substitute for most tax and it gets real ugly real fast if people are allowed to squeeze as much money out of them as possible... Don't get me wrong I'm for a land tax just learn from other cities mistakes
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
TED BULLPIT
Member Avatar


Stamp duty is blatant robbery from people wishing for nothing more but to put a roof over their head and bring up their family.

At worst it should be capped at 2% , maybe not for investors but for first homebuyers at least. While stamp duty was good while real estate was booming , it will now be the knife in the property markets back and only hold people back from purchasing, or would that be stop people from purchasing because now they cant afford it .

Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
NotFooled
Member Avatar
The Bear Whisperer

raveswei
16 Apr 2012, 05:23 PM
Government will use dodgy excuses like “property tax prevents property bubbles” or "it’s more fair system because rich people pay “more”".
The people most fucked over by such a move would be older pensioners. That should make Moops happy.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Admin
Member Avatar
Administrator

Quote:
 
Stamp duty debate has been running for almost a decade

By Peter Chittenden
Tuesday, 08 May 2012

In August 2003 the then federal treasurer Peter Costello gave an interview on 3AW with Derryn Hinch, and the subject was housing affordability, stamp duty, GST and the first-home owners’ scheme.

In part of the interview Derryn Hinch asked why the states had not, as he put it, backed off a bit on things like stamp duty: "That’s what I thought was going to happen.”

This was Peter Costello’s reply, which I think is worth posting in full: “yes, yes, no, what has surprised us is that the principal reason why house prices went up was that interest rates came down. As interest rates came down, we are now at 30-year lows, and you know, we have been running our economic policy to get low interest rates. As interest rates came down, because they were lower, people could afford to buy more expensive properties. And what that did is that it kicked a whole lot of houses that were previously being taxed at moderate stamp duty rates, $6,000 into higher brackets and they are now being taxed at $16,000 or $17,000 for the average house under stamp duty. We weren’t expecting that the states would take this enormous windfall out of stamp duty, but they did. In fact, we introduced, we the Commonwealth government introduced the first-home owners’ scheme, to give a grant of $7,000 to people who are buying their first home. We pointed out to the states that this would bring new people into the market, there would be more house purchases, that the States as a consequence would get more stamp duty and would they please look at that to try and relieve some stamp duty for those first-home buyers. But none of them did.”

Hinch: “Yeah, and are not expected to?”

Costello: “Well, you know, so we have a situation now, this is the frustrating thing, we have a first-home owners’ scheme whereby you’re given $7,000 to buy your first home and the stamp duty is $16,000. So what do they do with their first-home owners’ grant? Go and try and pay off some of their state stamp duty. It is a pretty frustrating merry-go-round out there.”

END.

My point, without favouritism to Costello, even if it appears to be a long quote is that this debate has now been running on for almost a decade. It is an area that various tax reviews have looked at; it is an area that many other government and industry reports have also examined.

And with such a sort fall in housing supply upon us and with housing now less affordable than ever, do you think the debate has been resolved, or even started a move out of the too hard basket?

However having said that, clearly incentives in the housing market are not only confined to stamp duty and to government policy and I will continue this general topic later and look at what and how incentives are used directly by developers. I think it’s an area that is far more clear cut, but an important part of project marketing.

Read more: http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/tax/stamp-duty-debate-has-been-running-for-almost-a-decade-peter-chittenden/2012050754587
Follow OzPropertyForum on Twitter | Like APF on Facebook | Circle APF on Google+
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
miw
Member Avatar


NotFooled
8 May 2012, 02:53 PM
The people most fucked over by such a move would be older pensioners. That should make Moops happy.
I am not, in general a fan of transaction taxes but stamp duty on property transactions adds a degree of friction that is probably helpful in that it slows down property flipping. You have to either add value or wait a couple of years to make a profit.

I sort of liked the idea in the original post allowing FHBs to spread stamp duty payments over years. Sort of reducing friction for people once. Skeptical about its effectiveness. Mot people really just roll it into the mortgage anyhow. Owing the money to the bank or owing it to the government doesn't make a huge difference. Might have the unintended consequences of raising average LTV ratios as well.

To me the ACT proposal should read: "We are extending land tax to the family home." Back of the envelope calculations tell me that it is just a revenue grab and, as a previous poster pointed out, it will hit the vulnerable as hard as anybody.

I think they are trying to get rid of the boom and bust in revenues caused by cycles in property trading volume.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.
--Gloria Steinem
AREPS™
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 8



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