Do You Think People from Other Countries Should Be Able to Purchase Property or Land in Australia?

robertm on 28/06/2018 - 12:12

I know there are many difficulties in both wording this question and for any government attempting to implement restrictions on ownership.

I'm just curious about people's overall perception on this topic and what their basic feeling about it is.

Some obvious difficulties:

  • How would you determine who should and shouldn't be allowed? Permanent resident or citizen? Consider number of years of residency? People who are born here?

  • How would you stop people transferring money to other's to purchase by "proxy"?

  • Only allow leasing of land rather than permanent sale?

  • Limit sale of land to people from countries which have reciprocal agreements. If a country doesn't allow Australian citizens to purchase land there then that countries' citizens can't purchase here.

  • Increase taxation for particular buyers rather than just a complete ban? This money could then go into a fund to offset any related problems?

Poll Options expired

  • 145
    Yes
  • 469
    No
Financial Immigration Investment Property

Comments

  • SupeNintendoChalmers on 29/06/2018 - 11:00
    +4

    Definitely non-Aussies should not be able to buy any residential property

    Just on my street, for example, I reckon 1/5 homes are vacant- and these are homes valued between 900-1.3 mil.

    Quite shameful actually

    • HighAndDry on 29/06/2018 - 12:16

      And you know those vacant properties are owned by non-Aussies because…?

      • SupeNintendoChalmers on 29/06/2018 - 13:45
        +4

        neighbors talk- heck even my next door neighbor is from HK. House has been vacant for almost 2 years

        • [Deactivated] on 29/06/2018 - 21:55

          From HK but are they Aussie?

        • [Deactivated] on 30/06/2018 - 11:16

          @lolbbq: What does it mean to be Aussie? you got to be white? or you got to have that piece of paper with the kangaroo and emu stamp on it?

        • [Deactivated] on 30/06/2018 - 15:03
          +1

          @blaccdong: Good question. Maybe you should ask Rodripa.

        • SupeNintendoChalmers on 30/06/2018 - 22:35

          @lolbbq: no. Just Honkie investor

    • TheMindsetTraveller on 29/06/2018 - 14:24

      Thanks to those 1/5 vacant homes that your home is now worth $900 to $1.3m ;)

      Should thank your lucky stars for that, otherwise you would be living in a $500k.

      • Other on 29/06/2018 - 14:46
        -1

        No.

        There is more than enough immigration to increase prices without needing foreign residents to buy property.

    • tightasian on 30/06/2018 - 19:19

      if one owns a property, but doesn't have right decide to leave it vacant or not?

      • pgcs on 03/07/2018 - 08:08

        In France if you leave a home vacant for 6+ months , you get hit with extra taxes. Supposedly to stop 'holiday home' purchases.

  • Baghern on 29/06/2018 - 11:57
    +3

    As much as I agree with this the fact is its used as overall strategy to bring money into Australia.

    The property money is seen as keeping us out of recession, substitute for the resources boom.

    The idea is that the sellers are spending the money in Australia, investing or just putting it in the bank.

    NSW/Sydney in particular has had gigantic surpluses thanks to Stamp duty alone. This has allowed them to spend money on more infrastructure, though to me they seem to be spending to badly… then thats NSW for you

    We all benefit indirectly from not being sacked to new positions being offered to increase in wages in some areas.

    I find the idea that we are desperate for foreign money suspicious, which is behind the Government business tax decrease… but thats what the Government tells is. What I do know is that Australia is one of the few countries that have had constant foreign investment despite our high taxes… Though that may do more with the fact we have one of the lowest effective business tax (after tax deductions/scam)

  • ozlab on 29/06/2018 - 12:14
    +1

    Extra revenue for the council and government.

  • freakatronic on 29/06/2018 - 12:51
    +5

    Australian foreign land ownership laws have allowed us to be one of the hottest money laundering locations in the world.

    • [Deactivated] on 29/06/2018 - 14:33

      Pirate cove we arrrrrr.

  • The Gent on 29/06/2018 - 12:56
    +1

    Yes.

  • TheMindsetTraveller on 29/06/2018 - 13:59

    It is complicated and none of us here will be able to solve it with a simple Yes or No.

    If I was SELLING land/property/whatever I want the maximum price someone wants to pay for it. I don't care where they are from, what they do, as long as they show me the highest price out. If an alien from the planet Mars wanted to pay 10% more than anyone in Australia, I would take it.

    Now, flipping the coin, if I was COMPETING to buy land/property the of course the less people who are interested or able to buy, the better it is for me.

    Now, what's more complicated is what land/property/whatever is allowed to be bought and can't. There are farms in Australia that no Australians want to buy. There are homes in Australia that people want. At the end of the day - they are similar things ie land.

    Anyway, personally, I am leaning towards yes, foreigners should be allowed to buy land/property in Australia with restrictions/conditions/exceptions. Those restrictions/conditions/exceptions - identifying what that is is the tricky part.

    • Other on 29/06/2018 - 14:56

      If I was SELLING land/property/whatever I want the maximum price someone wants to pay for it.

      Of course you do, just like people want to pay the lowest for products, even if it means that there are serious violations of labour law (safe work environment).
      Do people still buy Apple even though the workers are jumping off buildings? So yes people are selfish.

      Of course it works the opposite as well - if you want the highest price and no restrictions, then you have to accept if China crashes and thousands and thousands of properties are put on the market then you may get a really low price. You may also have to deal with rising homelessness as Chinese investors like to keep their units empty.

      I would rather have a Government that regulates to avoid the worse impacts (like unsafe work environment) or taxing empty houses (like Singapore does) so the upside is more sustainable, especially considering a Government is meant to look after the whole population, not those that want to sell their house.

      There are farms in Australia that no Australians want to buy.

      Actually they can't buy due to the deposits required, due to potentially unsustainable high prices as foreigners buy up the farms.
      (same thing is happening in NZ).

      • HighAndDry on 29/06/2018 - 15:59

        Of course you do, just like people want to pay the lowest for products, even if it means that there are serious violations of labour law

        That's such a huge stretch… you realise companies can commit labour law violations AND still rip you off right?

        • Other on 29/06/2018 - 16:36

          That's such a huge stretch…

          Not really - look at the clothes trade.

          I agree with you on the second - hence why I mentioned apple.

        • HighAndDry on 29/06/2018 - 17:18

          @TheMostHated: But the second part is what matters - it's possible to pay for cheap clothes which were made without violating labour laws (seriously, third world minimum wages are still dirt cheap). It's also possible to pay hundreds for designer label clothing that was made by child slave labour.

          The price you pay for something isn't really related to labour conditions.

          And anyway, who is it hurting when I sell my property for a high price? You'd have to argue that I'm hurting everyone and anyone who can't afford that price… because I'm not selling my property for less.

        • Other on 04/07/2018 - 05:22

          Companies want to pay the lowest possible input costs and willing to take shortcuts (slave labor) to make that possible to receive more profit. But branded product carry reputation risks so less likely to take 'shortcuts' or if they do and get found out they may take steps to avoid the issue on the future. So you are probably going to have less ethical issues with branded products (as they audit their suppliers and make results public), while an unbranded product can easily ignore these ethical issues - as who can follow their supply chain?.

          But I don't get the point you are making.

          My point is that people are selfish (companies are just people organised in a particular form/format) and are willing to take actions that maximize profits for themselves but screw other people. And it is up to Government to protect its citizens from that type of behavior (hence why we have labor laws, minimum wages, etc).

          anyway, who is it hurting when I sell my property for a high price?

          Actually you.

          If your a citizen of this country and you sell your house, then you probably are going to want to buy another property (unless you get enjoyment from you or your family being homeless). And do those sellers have the same mindset as you? Absolutely.

          So you sell for a high price and then buy at high price hence their is not net benefit (you might get lucky and buy in a suburb that has higher growth than your next purchase, but then you might also be unlucky and had lower growth - most people look at somewhere nice to live, not optimal growth rates).

          However if you have foreign buyers, they push up the price so now you get to sell for an even higher price, but then you get to buy for an even higher price. So you haven't really got benefit - but you have taken on more debt! And hence the amount of interest you pay will be much higher.

          So you have screwed yourself - Congrats.

          Also as prices rise faster due to foreign buyers, rents will rise faster (faster than wages) hence screwing renters.

          I mean this also ignores the fact that Overseas buyers can cause greater destabilization in the market if their is a market correction in their own market or in the overseas market (selling to liberate their cash back home). So downturns could be longer and deeper (citizens usually need a place to live, so more reluctant to sell).

  • codinghelloworld on 29/06/2018 - 15:33
    +6

    People keep saying the house price increasing because of foreign investors, especially Chinese. Do you have any statistics?

    I saw many auctions in my area, read the price and the new owners after purchasing, the conclusion is most of the new owners are Australians. Even in the auction day, I saw lots of Australians gather to bid…

    My point is the reason of house price bumping, not 100% is Chinese investors, but because people are greedy and exploit negative gearing for reducing tax. At the same time they hope their investment increase its value next year and next year. That's the problem.

    • Other on 03/07/2018 - 22:03

      Chinese are buying a lot of units and they keep them empty.

      There hurts two ways -
      1) Higher rents as supply falls
      2) Young people getting a foothold in the market.

      not 100% is Chinese investors

      Go look up how many buyers of property in Wolli Creek (one of the newest Sydney Suburbs) had chinese sounding names.

      I did see one japanese name - that was odd…

  • OzzyOzbourne on 29/06/2018 - 15:40
    +1

    If I own property and don't care about anyone else…. Then yes, because the value will increase.

    If not… Then no

  • Godric on 29/06/2018 - 16:40

    No

    • HangryCakeStore on 30/06/2018 - 12:24

      What if you wanted to buy land in USA or anywhere other than australia and they said No ?
      You wonder the reasons people are really saying no for..

      • Other on 04/07/2018 - 05:44

        There are many countries that say No, even if you live there (residency)!
        China,
        Singapore (only certain areas),
        Thailand

        So Im not sure what your point is?

        You wonder the reasons people are really saying no for..

        So People who say no are racists? What about countries that say No? Are those countries racist?

  • Strahany on 29/06/2018 - 17:22

    Pricing is, of course, one factor to consider. But there's a large downstream effect once a solid number of homes in "ideal locations" are left vacant due to being purchased by an international buyer. For example, a couple that might be able to afford to purchase a home in an inner-moderately outer suburb in Sydney/Melbourne, without international buyers being an issue, may be forced to purchase in the outskirts. This means that these people who may have been able to ride public transport to their workplace (given that Australia has major centralisation issues around the CBD's for employment opportunities), must now drive. This not only adds to the inner city congestion upon their arrival, but adds congestion on the outer roads which weren't designed to handle high volumes of cars. The Government would then need to explore extending public transport to these outer areas (which arguably should be done eventually, anyway, but is expensive nonetheless) or upgrading/maintaining the roads in the area (again, another costly measure). This is just one example.

    The only 'benefit' of international buyers is obtaining a minor increased injection of funds into the country which wouldn't have otherwise happened, but at the expense of reducing the quality of life of current citizens, as well as bringing about increased costs which will almost certainly far outweigh what was gained in the long run. I personally don't subscribe to the 'benefit' of raising housing prices; the prices we have are already heavily inflated, so if they were to drop (or 'crash') then it's merely a correction to where it should be, and people really have no right to complain; it would be like a 17th Century Dutchman crying poor about his tulip garden being rendered worthless when he never earned the right to the inflated value; it was purely circumstantial. You know, easy come, easy go.

    • HighAndDry on 29/06/2018 - 17:42
      +1

      Comments like yours really drive home the point that in a democracy, we get the government we deserve. Because if enough people thought like you with the whole "Oh, the market's inflated, let it crash" mentality… yes.

      The market would crash. You know what happens next? Consumer spending also crashes - people who've just seen their networth cut in half don't tend to eat out much. After that, small and medium businesses start failing - no consumer spending, no business. No businesses, no jobs. Also big businesses will also start laying off staff and cancelling investment. No business means no money to pay staff or invest. No investment, factories and contractors close. Unemployment skyrockets. Not overseas unemployment, in case you're confused. Australian unemployment.

      Do you think being unemployed makes property more affordable?

      You know what else is a consequence of the property market crashing? Developers and builders stop building new properties. The housing stock literally stops growing. Guess what doesn't stop growing though? The population.

      • Other on 04/07/2018 - 04:15

        You do realize that the business cycle has periods of retraction or downturn. You also realize that overseas investors may try and get out of the market to get better returns elsewhere or be desperate to sell and bring the money home if there is a crash in their country, hence the crash that will come regardless if any one thinks it might happen or not (remind how many market crashes there have been?) could be much, much longer and deeper because of overseas investors.

  • realfancyman on 29/06/2018 - 17:33

    Not without restrictions

  • Ziggy28 on 29/06/2018 - 18:06
    +5

    I think only citizens and residents should be able to purchase Australian property, but without the overseas (especially chinese) money, Australia would be broke. Without the foreign interest in Australian properties, there would be much less business, construction, less jobs for builders, tradies etc. It's an evil necessary unfortunately.

  • [Deactivated] on 29/06/2018 - 18:27
    +10

    Yes, if the foreign buyers pays the tax differential between where you came from and Australia x your working life.

    Simply -
    Hong Kongers pays 15% tax. Result, people sleep in cages and polluted environment - no social safety net. The rich therefore get ahead at the expense of thier own country and people

    Meanwhile
    In Australia, ive been paying 30-50% which goes towards social cohesion, lovely environs , charity other countries etc

    Why does someone get to come to our lovely country - and pick up a house at a price based on someone like me, who has been contributing much more to the country as a whole.

    Get them to pay the difference - if they want to enjoy our roads, low crime, clean air etc - then pay for it like i have been ALL MY LIFE

    Find out where the money came from, how many people starved while they paid no tax, and CHARGE THEM.

    Ie - 40 year old comes here on average wage. Charge the the difference in tax structure x 20 years - thier working life. That will level the playing field

    I would be rioting if i was younger. Criminal politics here

    • [Deactivated] on 29/06/2018 - 22:22

      The 15% tax rate in HK isn't the reason or even "a" reason for the living conditions there. Colonial occupation, resource scarcity, opium introduction…

      If low tax rates equated to poor living conditions, the people of Brunei would be living in coffins.

      The 30-50% tax rate here goes to funding inefficient, uncompetitive and socialistic culture.

      And by your logic, if someone hasn't paid as much tax overseas, we charge them. How about those born here that have only been on the take? Do we send them to poorer countries or get them to live in cages?

    • whirlpool_guy on 01/07/2018 - 00:23
      +1

      The effective tax rates for average Australians are nowhere near 30-50%.

      Example 1: Person earning the 2016 median household income of $74,776 Effective tax rate = 23.20%
      Example 2: Person earning 150k p.a. Effective tax rate = 30.75%
      Example 3: 250k p.a. income Effective tax rate = 36.29%

  • [Deactivated] on 29/06/2018 - 22:52
    -3

    Lots of hypotheticals low on logic.
    What I know for sure as someone that's been around longer than most here.
    Rents are through the roof.
    Food costs way up.
    Roads are congested.
    Government in debt up to the eyeballs.
    Immigration , more like invasion.
    Quality of life is down down.
    Not the country I grew up in.
    If this is what you want ,
    it's what you deserve.

  • Livert on 30/06/2018 - 00:05
    +1

    Don't dictate who I can and cannot sell my property to please.

    • Other on 04/07/2018 - 05:46

      And yet Governments has done this already, its just indirectly. Did you protest it?

  • kaleidoscope on 30/06/2018 - 01:22

    Here is what's wrong. Whenever there is potential to earn money by whatever means, people will always make the best use out of it, ruining it for other who'd really need it for what it is (I remember someone mentioned the term "because people are scum")…
    It's not just housing, its everything that you can manipulate (read about how much people misuse tax relief benefits on their tax return statements).

    I heard in a certain south east asian country, people would buy vehicles only to sell it at a higher price couple of years later, and for the people who really want a vehicle are screwed because price keeps going up like it's insane… (true story).

    If the government introduces laws so that people won't be able to mess with the system like that, people would be hesitant and would only consider getting what they really need.

    Preventing foreigners from buying land - yes, but it's only a temporary solution.

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 30/06/2018 - 01:26
    +1

    Of course 90% of business in Australia are from oversea nations ie Aldi, Optus etc

    but if you are talk about residential they should be allowed to buy apartments by properties with land hell no!!

  • ihbh on 30/06/2018 - 08:30

    To answer this question you need to take a broad perspective. E.g. if you were the foreigner buying foreign property. E.g. my brother lives in the US and owns Aus & US property.

    There are a lot of Aussies that own foreign property. We shouldn't be prevented from doing so, so we shouldn't prevent others either.

  • Butt Scratcher on 30/06/2018 - 09:44

    Of course not.

    Owning a property really shouldn't be an "investment". It should be for residence of the country to live in.

    • Livert on 30/06/2018 - 09:55
      +1

      So everyone should only own one property at any one time?

      • unelectric on 30/06/2018 - 18:03
        +3

        This might be controversial but what would be wrong with that? Too many Australian citizens can't afford their own place.

        • tightasian on 30/06/2018 - 19:41
          -1

          what makes citizenship so special, btw, how many place should a citizen be entitled to

        • Livert on 01/07/2018 - 02:33
          -1

          What if I decide to rent instead of buying myself a place? Who can I rent from? Should I be forced to purchase a house?

        • Other on 02/07/2018 - 03:38

          @tightasian: what makes citizenship so special

          For real?

          Being a citizen is meant to mean the Government looks after the interest of the people who are citizens first and foremost, especially if the citizenry has already and in the future willing to invest in and potentially die to protect the Country (and therefore Government). That is indeed special.

          You are correct though - our politicians have made being a citizen unremarkable - you may as well become a Permanent Resident and get all the same benefits, without having to bother to vote.

        • HighAndDry on 02/07/2018 - 10:16
          +1

          Do you want to start controlling how much food people can buy each week? (Buy only what you need to eat! Food shouldn't be an "investment"!)

          Or maybe the government should controlling how many clothes you buy (Buy only what you need to wear! Clothes shouldn't be an "investment"!)

        • unelectric on 02/07/2018 - 13:24
          +1

          @HighAndDry: Buying food or clothes doesn't prevent other people from buying those goods. In fact it may make a wider selection of food at cheaper prices due to bulk discounts. If supply is low, however, then yes, those things are controlled: see rations in World Wars.

      • Butt Scratcher on 30/06/2018 - 21:37
        +1

        Well, for none australian residence. No, they shouldn't even own one.

        As for everyone else, well there's a reason why you are only tax exempt for your first property and not your subsequent properties. It isn't because the general consensus is that everyone should own a few properties each.

        • tightasian on 30/06/2018 - 22:54

          In essence,government set high tax brackets to stop people want to be high income earners?

        • Butt Scratcher on 01/07/2018 - 00:35
          +1

          @tightasian: Maybe you should re-read what I wrote.

          Just because I responded to what he is saying, it doesn't mean I take the approach from the other end of the spectrum.

          Nor did I even imply that, so I don't know where you are coming from. That is a huge leap in reasoning, not to mention these are two different issues.

  • darkly on 30/06/2018 - 10:39
    +4

    Its my personal opinion that land purchases should be restricted to citizens and permanent residents (perhaps after a period of time).

    Otherwise we are merely selling off more of our own country to overseas investors. These investors can often pay exorbitant amounts of money to get in to this market, then set rent as per whatever they think they can get.

    Which brings me to my point, those actions can easily drive up costs and affect the local residents.

    • HighAndDry on 02/07/2018 - 10:17
      +1

      Otherwise we are merely selling…

      This shits me. Who are you to tell other people who they can sell property to? It's not your property. It belongs to someone else. Stop being an authoritarian.

      • nickj on 03/07/2018 - 14:44
        +3

        Ding ding ding, we found the bonkers libertarian! Ah yes, the libertarian idea that all rules are bad. So let's apply that same argument to some other areas, shall we:
        * Why are you telling other drivers which side of the road you can drive on? It's not your car. It belongs to someone else.
        * Why are you telling other gun owners they can't own an Uzi? It's not your gun. It belongs to someone else.
        Not the same thing, you might say, to which I would respectfully disagree - the underlying reasoning is the same. Obviously we do all of these things, and have laws and taxes and licenses and registrations and so forth around these areas, so as to get the best outcome for society, namely balancing the freedom of the individual against the protection of others from negative consequences. Does driving a car on the wrong side of the road have negative consequences for others? Yes, it does. Would widespread semiautomatic weapons have negative consequences for others? Yes, it would. Does a home going from 3x the median wage to 13x the median wage have negative consequences for others? OMG, yes! In fact, the depth and the duration of the impact is massive. It's a unprecedented increase in costs and debt for younger generations, a huge generational transfer of wealth from younger to older. In any other area, where costs have increased by much less than housing (e.g. electricity), people whinge about costs exploding, but if someone sees the value of their home go up they think it's great, despite it being a zero-sum-game for society as a whole (it's their kids and everyone else's kids who are paying for it).

        I very much agree that rules should not be placed on people where there are no negative consequences on other people - victim-less crimes - but there are entire generations of citizens who have had negative consequences from property prices, so government intervention is entirely justified regarding property.

        So what's the fewest restrictions that we can place on foreign buyers and local sellers, whilst also not interfering with Australians who wish to purchase overseas? To me the most clear-cut is a reciprocal arrangement: Overseas buyers should be able to buy here under the same conditions that we can buy in their country. Since I have personally been outbid 3 times on buying a home by Chinese property investors, I will use my favourite example: China. In China, the rules of property ownership (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_property_law ) indicate that only the state or collectives can own the land. So land is effectively leasehold for 70 years, rather than perpetual freehold (like it is typically is here). Furthermore "The Beijing government requires foreigners to have paid social security and taxes for at least 5 years before they are allowed to buy a house. Despite the municipal differences, foreigners can only own one property across China, and the property has to be residential." So I would be happy for the same terms to apply: residents and taxpayers here for 5+ years, owning only one property, and that property has to be either an apartment (which can be owned outright) or a house (which is on a 70 year leasehold, not freehold), and because you can only own one home and live there it would not make sense usually for it to be for investment. And those rules would be reciprocal, and it's very hard to argue that reciprocal rules are not fair, because it's literally imposing your own rules back on you. And if people don't like that, become a citizen, and buy whatever you like.

  • mitt on 30/06/2018 - 11:36
    +2

    The issue is so much of the foreign cash sitting in Australian realestate is grey money. The heavy "investors" are dodgy as all hell in their nation of origin (mostly china) & they are taking a portion of their funds & moving it here so if the Chinese government catches up to them they have something hidden away they can run to.

    Property is essentially being used as a store of value, rather than an investment which means many of these properties dont have a strong incentive to seek a rental return & are insulated from rental market pressures, leading to long vacancy periods or not even seeking renters to begin with, decreasing access for locals to housing.

    • shorewalker on 30/06/2018 - 20:26
      -2

      "… many of these properties don't have a strong incentive to seek a rental return …"

      Your theory seems to be that there's a large group of "dodgy" investors who somehow are also so non-acquisitive that they don't even want to make returns from renting their property.

      This somehow doesn't ring true to me.

      • mitt on 30/06/2018 - 21:16
        +1

        Generating a rental return comes with risks & requires active management. Bad tenants can damage property, a bad thing if you are looking for a reliable store of value. Having the asset generating an income can attract regulatory attention that the owner would rather keep away. Its also very hard to manage a rental asset from another country, especially if interaction with the asset or the real-estate company managing it can be the link that exposes that hidden asset to attention from authorities.

        If you want an invisible low risk store of value, why seek attention & risk?

      • Other on 02/07/2018 - 03:23
        +1

        Chinese believe that if they rent their property out it will go down in value. They also relying on long term growth via price rise so they don't care about tenanting the property. Thats why in Melb CBD alone there are where more than 2500 properties are vacant; With 20,000 across greater Melb.

        Why do you think Singapore re-levied a very large tax on Chinese whom keep their investment properties empty (as well as banning all deductions for empty properties)?

  • centrelink on 30/06/2018 - 11:49
    +7

    We should only allow to sell to people who are only white.

    Before allowing them to purchase the house, they must take a photo of themselves and then open that image in photoshop. Use the eyedropper tool and then click on their skin. If the colour of the skin is not #ffffff instantly deny the chance to buy a house

    • [Deactivated] on 01/07/2018 - 00:44
      +3

      Ah yes, sarcasm
      The lowest from of wit

      • HighAndDry on 02/07/2018 - 10:18

        At least it is wit. Where as your criticism.. what's that saying about critics?

  • dylan345 on 30/06/2018 - 12:07
    +3

    imo it's simple math, you want foreign money coming in and stimulating the housing market but you don't want it leaving.

    So how do you do this?
    Tax more? that discourages investment. and less homes being built.
    Only allow residents to buy? pfft that just stops the money coming into aus

    Imo forced mid term contracts are the way to go.

    Buy/build property but have to sell within 10 years to a resident/citizen or you yourself have to become a resident. So thats gives investors 10 years of rental returns and any profit from the sale of the home, then a house is given to the australian people or the new australian resident will now pay tax by living in australia.
    going to work? idk Im not an economist Im an ozbarginer wiz da autizmas

  • aarkay on 30/06/2018 - 12:54
    +2

    Useless discussion.

    • outlander on 30/06/2018 - 14:31
      +2

      what discussion here isn't :/

  • whirlpool_guy on 30/06/2018 - 14:05

    It's a complex issue. At the very least, non-citizen land owners should pay an ongoing tax.

    • whooah1979 on 30/06/2018 - 14:18
      +1

      non-citizen land owners should pay an ongoing tax.

      They do and it’s called land tax.

      • whirlpool_guy on 30/06/2018 - 23:41
        -1

        Cool thanks, didn't know that the land tax surcharge has no threshold or exemption.

        IMHO the level of taxation seems sufficient (NSW)

      • antler on 02/07/2018 - 14:47

        And citizens pay this as well.

        • HighAndDry on 02/07/2018 - 14:48

          Citizens get a owner-occupier exemption, a $629,000 threshold before it kicks in, and a lower rate overall.

  • xiabonan on 30/06/2018 - 14:33
    +1

    It's more of an issue of economics really.

    Disclaimer: I'm an international student studying in Oz hoping to apply for PR and purchase a house in Sydney.

    First, many might not know but it's really difficult for non-residents (and PRs without steady income) to get mortgages and buy property. It has been increasingly hard to do so over the past two years or so. Personally I welcome this change coz I really intend to settle in Oz with my wife (we're both studying now) and work and have kids here. The point I'm driving at is that the whole "foreign buyers propping up prices" thing is more or less a bit exaggerated and even more so in the house markets as overseas buyers mainly target apartments (hence why their prices fluctuated more than houses when foreign demand changed).

    Second, I think it ultimately comes down to the state of the market. In a hot market regulators will curb foreign demand as they have done so, and in a downward trending market the government will open to foreign buyers if they need to prop up the market.

    • Other on 02/07/2018 - 03:32

      Go to overseas banks/funds and they will help you buy - yes you pay a bit higher interest rate (1% more), but considering you can buy here and we can't buy in your country I don't think its that bad of a deal.

      "foreign buyers propping up prices" thing is more or less a bit exaggerated

      Its hard to calculate the exact impact on prices through foreigners purchasers. However there can be high downsides:
      1) If their is a crash overseas investors will put their property on the market to pull back their cash - we don't want this
      2) They are not renting out their properties and we have a rising issue with homelessness and rental increases.
      3) People forced to move out of neighbourhoods they grew up and in and forced to move far away or live in much smaller properties (forcing parents to bring up kids in units/apartments, etc).

  • Dr Prepper on 30/06/2018 - 16:06
    +5

    Eff off we're full. Foreign investors have put our offices of state revenue into the biggest surplus in history: more $$$ for infrastructure, schools and hospitals, when the rest of the world's economies are overall dying in the arse but our focus is our mediocre uncompetitive kids can't buy in Point Piper on their part-time job stacking shelves at Coles. Build the wall make them pay for it.

  • tightasian on 30/06/2018 - 16:50
    +1

    Based on this logic, should only allow indigenous people to own land and properties.

    About 30 years ago, Japanese were the main topic. Same thing, different era.

    Investment simply follows where the highest return rate at.

  • Lucky13 on 30/06/2018 - 19:06
    +1

    Yes definitely! I love how it has made housing so expensive and unaffordable here in Australia (sarcasm x10)

    • tightasian on 30/06/2018 - 19:12
      -3

      yea, where is my Australian Dream, where is Australia Fair.
      House should be free for Australian Citizen, indeed, everything should be free, otherwise it's not fair.

      • whirlpool_guy on 30/06/2018 - 23:51
        +3

        Hi Chairman Mao! Didn't know you're on OzB.

  • shorewalker on 30/06/2018 - 20:21
    -1

    When thinking about this question, bear in mind something that people often forget: every time someone buys an asset from an Australian owner, it frees that owner's money up to be spent on other things. If a Chinese investor buys my property for $1 million, I suddenly have $1 million to invest in a new start-up, buy stocks, or invest in some new innovative housing somewhere.

    Also, foreign investors often don't know the market as well as locals, so they frequently play the role of the dumb buyer with money. Speaking as a local, I want those people bidding for my assets when I sell them!

    • brongz on 02/07/2018 - 06:34

      Haha, do you think they’re stupid? They’re so good with money, hence they’re rich and can spend that million dollar on your house. They aim for a bigger profit, but you don’t know yet. Take a look in Canada housing now. Take a look in Singapore and Vietnam too why they restrict Chinese mainland businesses.

      • TightAl on 02/07/2018 - 13:54

        Yes take a look at Canada housing, look how it's crashing. They are real good with money aren't they :)

        • HighAndDry on 02/07/2018 - 14:09

          You realize Canadian housing is crashing because they restricted foreign purchases…. right?

        • dresh on 03/07/2018 - 15:51

          @HighAndDry:

          Good! A bubble has to burst, better sooner than later

    • Other on 04/07/2018 - 06:04

      Your example works if you are happy to be homeless. Because if you sell fro $1M, then you have no where to live ad you will have to buy another property, which has also increased in value, and usually people are trying to buy just as nice homes.

  • letmecry on 01/07/2018 - 01:28

    It should be only in certain areas & far from CBD

  • Shiny Mew on 01/07/2018 - 08:55
    +2

    Absolutely not. Negative gearing should be removed and a two-child policy implemented at the same time. Homes are obviously fundamentally different from other speculative assets and their accessibility needs to be preserved. It was always my hope to live in and restore my own small old house (that I could sympathetically restore) in a semi-rural/coastal area on a few acres with a garden and space to play with any children I may have, and situated within an hour from work. Even working part time, my parents readily achieved this (as did their previous generations). That idea is now basically impossible for me and, when they grow up, my children. It's either poorly built, oversized and architecturally meritless sardine can units with no land (that have taken the place of lovely old homes with an actual backyard) in an unsafe area where you can hear your neighbour fart within an hour of Melbourne or having to commute a collective three hours a day and live in the opposite direction of any family. It's a terrible time to be alive.

    • whooah1979 on 01/07/2018 - 09:36
      +2

      It's a terrible time to be alive.

      there is nothing terrible about being alive and living in australia. australia is no #2 on the hdi. it's the lucky country where one may purchase and consume almost anything that the western world may provide.

      my hope to live in and restore my own small old house (that I could sympathetically restore) in a semi-rural/coastal area on a few acres

      if you want that acre of property, then work for it like the rest of us. we live on a modest property 25min from work. it took us years of working hard and smart to purchase it.

      • Shiny Mew on 01/07/2018 - 10:00
        +1

        I've been working hard the past ten years (50-80 hour weeks), have never taken a holiday and am no where near the asking price of acreage within an hour from work in the city. That said, that period consisted of study (yr 10 to the end of a G08 double degree with an hons year). I've actually gone backwards due to student loans. My discipline (law/commerce) is unlikely, contrary to popular belief, to lead to anything that pays a reasonable amount per hour and the very few commercial law jobs that exist are in the heart of the CBD. I'm not sure if I'll ever get that acreage, and will instead be a tenant for life (thereby making the rich richer by helping them pay for their next Mercedes).

        • Dr Prepper on 02/07/2018 - 11:06
          +1

          You should have become a plumber or a sparky. They are the ones buying all the acreages and investment properties they rent to lawyers.

          Education in field of your choice rather than an area which is actually in demand does not automatically equal $$$ .

          Maybe Education,luck, 20hrs networking a week, interning , luck, secret ingredients 1,2 & 3 + luck + experience= $$$$??$$$

          There are so many grads driving uber after burning out after the first 2 years of practice. This may be after interning for 3 years to get experience for a grad law job.

        • HighAndDry on 02/07/2018 - 14:51

          Well you said this before:

          in a semi-rural/coastal area

          And now you want:

          within an hour from work in the city.

          That's your own fault. Have more reasonable expectations. Learn financial management and how to invest your money. No, don't try to save up straight into being able to buy acres of property within an hour of the city that's absolutely nuts.

        • Shiny Mew on 02/07/2018 - 18:37

          @HighAndDry:

          It's 'nuts' now due to overpopulation and decades of generous regulations regarding subdivision, but it didn't have to be this way. It was quite attainable in my parent's generation, where such homes in their 20s that were situated less than an hour's drive from Melbourne (eg, Mornington Peninsula) were only ~3 times the average annual FT wage.

          I've an honours in finance and have invested around 70% of my lifetime earnings, as little as they have been due to extensive volunteering and other extracurricular responsibilities necessary nowadays to even be considered for an interview.

        • HighAndDry on 02/07/2018 - 19:20

          @Shiny Mew:

          I mean, yes the population generally grows. It's a bit like inflation - almost inherent in any positive economic environment. Since you have a finance degree, you'd know what would happen if the world entered a protracted period of deflation instead.

          Though I also think you're underestimating how big one acre actually is. I don't know of any residential lots that are an acre (4,000 sq m.) large anywhere near the city. And that's even with the generous regulations regarding subdivision that you're criticizing.

          In any case, you're doing the equivalent of crying over spilt milk. Again though, with your finance degree, you should know that the bulk of most rich people's net worth and income isn't through working - it's usually through passive income or investments. Which leads me back to my earlier comment:

          No, don't try to save up straight into being able to buy acres of property within an hour of the city that's absolutely nuts.

    • HighAndDry on 02/07/2018 - 14:50

      What are you smoking that you think you parents could afford a few acres of property anywhere working part time?

  • minotaurian on 01/07/2018 - 10:01

    Australia is extremely reliant on property. Mortgage debt is higher than GDP. Aussies are borrowing loads of money to just have a chance to purchase property. If buyers were restricted; demand drops, housing prices will crash. We don't want another 2008 like crash. But at the same time, housing prices are becoming ridiculous. This cycles needs to stop somewhere.

    • [Deactivated] on 01/07/2018 - 18:08
      +1

      It will crash, once interest rates go up or unemployment figures go up we are toast.

      • minotaurian on 01/07/2018 - 21:17
        +1

        The RBA are smart, they won't touch it, until they feel as if wage growth is sufficient and unemployment has reduced or remain stable. The worse thing is increasing it and causing a mini recession. This will destroy small businesses and jobs, leaving us with big conglomerates that pay no taxes and then suck the life out of the aussie economy. The government won't allow it either.

        • Dr Prepper on 02/07/2018 - 11:07
          +1

          Maybe but Australian property is not a single market.

          Mortgage debt in the areas people actually want to live like inner-city established in demand areas is actually so low that it is a problem. The average population in some these areas is 55 y.o. and 60% of homes are owned outright which means these areas a very tightly held.

          The elderly residents of these suburbs will live for ever thanks to cheap modern medicine. The only way I see these areas coping a massive price reduction is cuts to medicare or a major epidemic or a massive cold snap so all the senior citizens get pneumonia all at once. Maybe a super heatwave or a tsunami.

        • minotaurian on 02/07/2018 - 17:44

          @Dr Prepper: good point Dr. Pepper. But luckily Australia known for their high rate of obesity and diabetes and a public health system is working at max capacity. There is only so much cheap medicine can do

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join