- Joined
- 31 January 2007
- Posts
- 411
- Reactions
- 0
Well, family homes are subject to gains tax in some other countries. USA for example. But the system has been there for a long time and they also treat the family home same as any investment, where tax deductions are also permissible, eg interest is tax deductible. I can recall when interest was even tax deductible in OZ. So if CGT were to be ever introduced in OZ, it would have to be on a fair basis, with tax deductions for interest, improvements, and certain other expenses (land tax, stamp duty...blah blah).
The biggest problem with setting up this system, is what is the original cost basis for working out the CGT? If it were to be their original price already existing it would bankrupt most people in Australia if they changed houses. And I am being serious when I say that. Just imagine someone who purchased a house 30 years ago, for say $40,000 and it is now worth $2,000,000 (I could probably show you, if I had the time to do the research, tens of thousands of examples of that), and then they sell (for whatever reason) to buy another house. If they had to pay CGT on $1.96m they would not be able to purchase another similar house and would probably face bankruptcy. I simply don't believe it is feasible to introduce this system and make it retrospective on existing properties.
There are huge problems with setting up this sort of system from scratch, and it is all very well for the socialist class of envy to say tax the buggers. But think about it. You would simply be creating another class of welfare dependants by sending the so called rich (they could be asset rich but cash poor) to the bankruptcy court if they changed houses. You might say fine, they deserve it but you might also find some people getting rather angry about this, to the point of violence.
I don't think it is a great plan. I suspect also, in the grand scheme of things, it is a vote looser not a vote winner.
The biggest problem with setting up this system, is what is the original cost basis for working out the CGT? If it were to be their original price already existing it would bankrupt most people in Australia if they changed houses. And I am being serious when I say that. Just imagine someone who purchased a house 30 years ago, for say $40,000 and it is now worth $2,000,000 (I could probably show you, if I had the time to do the research, tens of thousands of examples of that), and then they sell (for whatever reason) to buy another house. If they had to pay CGT on $1.96m they would not be able to purchase another similar house and would probably face bankruptcy. I simply don't believe it is feasible to introduce this system and make it retrospective on existing properties.
There are huge problems with setting up this sort of system from scratch, and it is all very well for the socialist class of envy to say tax the buggers. But think about it. You would simply be creating another class of welfare dependants by sending the so called rich (they could be asset rich but cash poor) to the bankruptcy court if they changed houses. You might say fine, they deserve it but you might also find some people getting rather angry about this, to the point of violence.
I don't think it is a great plan. I suspect also, in the grand scheme of things, it is a vote looser not a vote winner.