- Joined
- 8 June 2008
- Posts
- 13,106
- Reactions
- 19,269
Oh and by the way,double rates for Airbnb but also keep higher rates for tenanted property, that helps..not
Case for teal Noosa shire...
Shires do not want either airbnb or tenants...
Oh and by the way,double rates for Airbnb but also keep higher rates for tenanted property, that helps..notJust tax the bejesus out of second, third fourth, fifth etc houses.
No ifs, no buts.
Give people 5 years to offload them, then make it untenable to own a second house.,
Mick
So who would fill the tax pit..That would then make the investment have to stand up on its merits, it would also cause the price of building a house, reflect the return that can be earned from it.
No doubt there would be a huge shock in some markets, but in reality isnt that what is needed?
Yes.People bleat about CGT and negative gearing, have they ever put 2s of thoughts on this?
The tax side of it is a completely different issue, to what the problem we are talking about which is unaffordable houses and insufficient social housing, tax is a completely different issue, I agree there would be losses of tax which would have to be covered somehow.So who would fill the tax pit..
The RE market is a massive income maker for gov state and councils.
People bleat about CGT and negative gearing, have they ever put 2s of thoughts on this?
With 10% inflation a year, even on fixed real value and no real gain, each RE sale brings stamp duty, capital gain tax,huge one off tax amount ..you sell a house you reach max bracket for the year...
And the negative gearing means costs..which are taxed on the other end as part of someone profits...bank, body corps, paint resellers
Coming from o/s, kill the RE here and this country will have absolutely nothing left at all.
Public servants, one hundred thousand miners,a couple of farmers and no tradies nor associated resellers which are the backbone of this economy in case no one has realised
And tell me about the tax future...
Sometimes we feel surrounded by Homer Simpsons ...
Do I like the situation...nope but at least aware
The tax side of it is a completely different issue, to what the problem we are talking about which is unaffordable houses and insufficient social housing, tax is a completely different issue, I agree there would be losses of tax which would have to be covered somehow.
But that IMO is another debate, GST at 10% is one that would be looked at.
The only issue I have with that idea is administering it, to stop rorting, landbanking and encouraging the divide between rich and poor to widen.I'll argue to go half way.
Give tax incentives for new housing construction but not for those who simply buy existing properties.
We need more housing built so if we're going to tilt the table then tilt it in favour of that outcome.
Note that means genuine new housing not simply knocking one down and replacing it etc but actual new housing as such. Possible exemption if the old house is legitimately destroyed and insurance paid out etc (but tightly controlled so as to avoid a sudden spate of arson.....).
The only issue I have with that idea is administering it, to stop rorting, landbanking and encouraging the divide between rich and poor to widen.
Most wage earners, use negative gearing of an established older home, as a leg up out of the $ht pit.
If you could only get negative gearing on new houses, would it end up just being the realm of the rich, while the wage earners subsidies it?
I still think the pressure would go off the system if the Governments took back responsibility for social housing, it distorts the market IMO.Let's face it, if there is a housing shortage then there is a demand to be satisfied regardless of whether negative gearing exists or not.
It seems pretty obvious to me that if investment property owners sold to owner occupiers looking for a place then that goes some way to satisfying demand.
I still think the pressure would go off the system if the Governments took back responsibility for social housing, it distorts the market IMO.
The govt isn't going to help anyone, people have to help themselves, the funding for new housing is a red herring in itself, they proposed 80k per dwelling. What builder is capable of building anything with that much expenditure without further investment being made, not to mention that builders are going bankrupt left, right, and center ATM due to the materials and labour cost explosions?The tax side of it is a completely different issue, to what the problem we are talking about which is unaffordable houses and insufficient social housing, tax is a completely different issue, I agree there would be losses of tax which would have to be covered somehow.
But that IMO is another debate, GST at 10% is one that would be looked at.
Removing negative gearing will hardly do anything,
yes that one in Canberra became a bit of a tourist attraction ( and we need more tourism , apparentlyMick then bring on Tent City prefeably in the Govenment grounds
the game is to increase government dependency so to justify their existence and expansionRemoving negative gearing will hardly do anything, if the majority of the investors are on 100k and they have one income from a rental as the figure shows this is around 70%, you don't get all the money you spend to upkeep the rental back, it's a the percentage of your nominal tax rate. 30cents in 1dollar at the best, and then to blame all the negative gearing expenditure on residential is another furphy, because people with million dollar commercial complexes will have much greater expenses than someone with one rental home. I used to support the Greens but the things they spread are irrelevant in the real world. The issue that many renters face is being displaced when people move out of their high-mortaged Sydney or Melbourne homes to downsize to other cheaper housing.
The govt isn't going to help anyone, people have to help themselves, the funding for new housing is a red herring in itself, they proposed 80k per dwelling. What builder is capable of building anything with that much expenditure without further investment being made, not to mention that builders are going bankrupt left, right, and center ATM due to the materials and labour cost explosions?
There isn't any revenue made from investment purchases right? Maybe they shouldn't be spending billions on a stadium for the Olympics.Apart from freeing up $9 billion a year for social and affordable housing.
Same revenue as for owner occupiers I would say.There isn't any revenue made from investment purchases right?
Todays West Australian newspaper front page.
View attachment 158444
Todays world, shame old people who have worked and saved their whole lives, for spending some of it before the die.
And to think the media goes on about bullying, absolutely shameless reporting, intent on causing unrest IMO.
I Wonder if the reporter is ever going to get old and if they do, are they just going to sit in their house and wait to die
they only got the games because no one else bid that should be warning enoughThere isn't any revenue made from investment purchases right? Maybe they shouldn't be spending billions on a stadium for the Olympics.
Land tax on owner occupiers doesn't exist in Qld, not sure how it works in other states, there's higher stamp duty, higher local council rates, higher water charges, tax on rental income for some, and no capital gain tax on selling an owner occupier. I think the govt does alright out of it.Same revenue as for owner occupiers I would say.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?