NSW Government Proposal to Scrap Stamp Duty and Replace It with Annual Land Tax

So finally liberal government in NSW introducing land tax similar to the United States of America and replacing one-off stamp duty with yearly tax that one has to pay until they own the property in addition to council and all other tax. This will also have major impact on those living on rent as the extra cost will be passed on to the tenant by the landlord.

Without going to the election they are introducing such a massive change is nothing but betraying the trust of people who voted for them..! Also, note that Mr Murdoch and lot of other people like him with vested interest support American property tax system and hence over coming days you will see many articles on radio, news and media in favour of the lifelong property tax system.

Yes, land tax is low upfront but the individual will end up paying way more than stamp duty over the life of property ownership as the land tax will increase every year once introduced, similar to what they have in the US.

This land tax will increase every year similar to increase in your medical insurance or increase in council rates which is always higher than CPI but your wage increase will always be lower than CPI.

Liberal wants to make sure that working-class people remain poor and rich remains rich.

Instead of taking it to the election, they are taking it to a consultation where all opinion will be reviewed by highly paid liberal mates who runs PR services and do community consultation business. They will pick and choose which feedback they publish and the outcome will be manipulated to make people believe there is massive support from the community…😎

Ozbargain community let’s vote and see what is a real bargain… a lifelong tax for your future generations or pay a one-off and never pay again stamp duty 🙂

Please make sure you provide feedback to your local Labor, Green and Independent MP to oppose this American system.

Liberal sees this as opportunity to make future changes to our health system to education system. If this passes through then you will see liberal after next election may introduce a system with option either opt to remove Medicare and save on Medicare levy …or pay high Medicare levy to get free Medicare….and slowly Medicare will be out of Australia..!

Update thanks to Mindsetraveller

This land tax means Investor can purchase a property without needing to pay stamp duty up front, 1,000's of other investors would feel the same; appetite for property increases whilst supply remains stable which only means prices go up.

As an investor, now that I know capital growth is likely, plus with low entry cost (no stamp duty upfront), rental income (might increase it $20 or so a week to help offset my yearly land tax), tax (negative gearing) considerations is good for me.

Those young and less wealthy purchasers who find it hard now - will likely find it more harder."

In addition Yearly tax means those young with poor income will now have to allow for extra expenses for the tax that means less shopping or holiday or spend on other activities which will have direct impact on businesses and hence deeper impact on socio-economic of entire system.

The winner of this new tax system is wealthy, property investor and real-estate agent !


External links

Please sign & share petition https://www.change.org/p/gladys-berejiklian-stop-nsw-liberal…

Treasury NSW

Consultation page

Poll Options expired

  • 192
    1. Life long yearly tax is better than one off stamp duty
  • 564
    2. One off Stamp duty is better than life long yearly tax

Comments

  • +5

    … is betraying trust of people who voted for them.

    As if this is new by any political party…
    FWIW I dont vote for any of them, they are all full of lies and corruption.

    They all want to make sure that working class people remains poor and rich remains rich

    fixed it for you.

  • +7

    It's good for Teasury bureaucrat who gets a more predictable abd controllable tax revenue, and it's probably good for real estate agents commissions because it makes house flipping easier. So it's a win win for them, as usual. For me I have no desire to start paying a new tax, so I'm not going to opt in.

  • +11

    What is the new tax levied on?
    How much will it be per annum?
    Is it tax deductible against rental income?
    Is it applicable to all residential properties or only those used for rental?

    This Liberal policy is actually quite anti-Liberal, this is essentially a Wealth Tax which the Liberals hate.

    • The idea that liberals are for the Rich and Labor is for the workers is very out dated

      Labor are for socialist these days

      Liberals are for the workers and businesses

      BUT MOST IMPORTANT Both of them actually there to benefit the rich bcuz they are funded by them - dont let the media fool you

      As for this policy it is f**ken terrible Stamp duty shouldn't exist due to the introduction of the GST

      • BUT MOST IMPORTANT Both of them actually there to benefit the rich bcuz they are funded by them - dont let the media fool you

        That's why Socialists actually hate both parties.

        Though if i had to say who was most pro worker it would be labor, because labor gets a lot of donations from unions every year.

        • You think the Unions have the workers best interest at heart?

          Oh you poor fool

          • +1

            @Trying2SaveABuck: Nah, they just want to keep their piggy banks happy enough to continue paying them.

  • +54

    I'm a lefty through and through, but this actually seems kind of progressive.

    The ones paying tax are the ones owning property, so it affects the more wealthy.

    It may be passed onto renters, but there's a limit to how much people are willing to pay - owners of larger houses will end up with worse returns on their investments (the amount of extra rent people are willing to pay scales down as the property gets more expensive). The market will figure itself out and rent will probably only get slightly more expensive, without the whole cost being able to be passed on.

    As well as this, it will encourage people to rent out every house they own as much as possible, otherwise it is costing them to keep it vacant, even when it is paid for outright and you don't have interest to think about (there's already a land tax in the ACT that applies in all houses you don't live in, fulfilling this purpose - discouraging peopke from buying properties to just sit there and taking them out of the rental pool). The more houses in the rental pool the cheaper rents are as there's more choice for renters who can be more discerning.

    It should help bring house prices down, for two reasons - one of course is that you don't want to hang onto something that isn't doing good things for you, the other is that the penalty for selling and buying is removed, being replaced with a penalty for keeping something a long time. So there should be more houses on the market at any one time, giving more choice for buyers and making sale prices lower as those who are selling have to compete harder.

    My first thought, as a home owner, was to be unhappy, but my second thought is that it could be good for society.

      • +3

        The government can absolutely restrict how much people charge for a rental property, and I think they will at some point.

        Young Australians are seeing their house buying opportunities vanish with every new recession and subsequent property price boom, and gen Z plus millennials are going to be a huge voting bloc in the next 10 years. If they see themselves as perpetual renters, which a lot already do, then they'll vote against the land owning boomers and gen x for their own benefits with extra land taxes and rent caps.

        • +2

          There is no rent cap in Australia, even in Canberra which has land tax for investment property. Government don't cap any opportunity one has to make money or how much a person charge for the asset they own…. otherwise they would have put a cap on the housing price which would have seen many young people buying !!!

          This will have major impact on young people as first their rents go up, so they won't be able to save much. then if they can manage to save then they need to keep pace with increasing tax rates !! in addition to council tax and health insurance…. Not everyone is doctor or successful professional to make money year on year basis… majority lives normal life with limited income growth potential after kids and this tax will even puts more pressure on people's budget.

          This tax will be connected to property value so when the new generation retire they need to allow massive some of money for land tax their property value will increase by that time… so this policy is not good for anyone..!

          • +3

            @SydBoy: That's exactly what I said, young people will vote for land tax because it lowers the tax burden on them. Then when rents go up because of that tax burden being shifted back to them through higher rents, they'll vote for rent caps to push it back on the wealthy land owning older generations.

            You really should pick up a history book if you don't even know that we had rent caps in Victoria for almost 50 years, introduced as a wartime measure, winding down in the 50s and only fully ending in the 80s.

            There will be a pretty harsh changing of the guards as baby boomers slowly drop off, millennials starts gaining power over industry and politics, and millennials combined with Gen Z becomes the dominant voting bloc. Look at the rates of home ownership with current day millennials at 30-35 against the rates of their parents and grandparents, it's like a crystal ball for what people's interests will be when they get into power.

            • @Jolakot: I agree that probably I need to revisit my history books but what happened during world wars or great depression is highly unlikely to be repeated.

              Canberra property price never felled due to land tax. There is absolutely no impact of land tax on reducing property prices in Canberra. last week's auction results shows that median housing price in Canberra is $972k while that of Melbourne is $840 and Adelaide is around $790 with Sydney highest of $1.3m

              rental yield in Canberra is between 4.3% to 6.2%, so suggestion on this discussion that some how land tax will reduce property prices and reduce rent is not true based on ACT situation.

        • The government can absolutely restrict how much people charge for a rental property, and I think they will at some point.

          Hmmm I think you might be confusing capitalism with communism 🤨

          • +3

            @bemybubble: You mean like rent control in that renowned communist hell hole (checks notes) the USA?

            • @mskeggs: Rent control is based on supply shortage as opposed to increased costs

              • +1

                @bemybubble: I’m not really clear on what you mean. In a free market reduced supply will lead to increased prices - hence the reason controls were established in some markets.

                Rent control in the USA prevents landlords in certain areas from raising rents faster than a certain rate. This caused places like New York to have some apartments that had decades of below inflation rent rises while others raised with market rates because they were new buildings built after the rent control policy was enacted (it didn’t protect new rental properties, just existing).

                • @mskeggs:

                  I’m not really clear on what you mean

                  Was referencing your rent control from the USA. Quick read of the policy intent was due to supply shortages in NY given their footprint and density

          • @bemybubble: Nah just social capitalism vs late stage capitalism

      • +23

        You are getting very worked up.
        I think you will find the Canberra system is quite similar to what is proposed in NSW, and the system in the USA is very different.

        You will also see that people in Australia move much more frequently than every 50 years (lol) and paying stamp duty every 7 years adds up quickly.

        I don’t like paying tax, but somebody has to, so it becomes a question of what is most fair. Property rent is typically a function of wages, not costs. So rents go up as pay packets do, not as mortgage rates or property taxes rise and fall. This suggests little of a property tax would flow through to rents.

        Taxing people who own property is a good way to collect tax - you can’t move your land to the Cayman Islands, so it is quite equitable amongst real estate owners.

        It is true taxes tend to rise over time, but that is the same argument against the GST or income tax or any tax. Vote out the government who raises taxes too high, but have a think about what the best mix is.

        I can see property tax will make real estate slightly less attractive as an investment, a good thing for kids hoping to buy a house one day.
        And it will gain the highest taxes from those with the richest property. At the moment these owners pay tax only if they sell, leading to the absurd situations we see now and again of people with $3m houses in Double Bay getting the old age pension, paid from the taxes of somebody earning $30k.

        • +2

          Canberra land tax is applicable to investment property only while what liberals are introduction in NSW is tax on every property including principal place of resident (PPOR). So there is massive difference between what is proposed in NSW and what we have in ACT.

          Regarding double bay comment, lucky they bought house when there wasn't any land tax otherwise they would have been forced to sell their property so just they can afford to live last part of their life in their house. I think people are not considerate enough to understand the emotional attachment 80 yr old might have to the house he/she bought and grew up their family.

          • +2

            @SydBoy: Would you be happy if land tax could be taken as a loan against a property? The 80 year old could stay in their house, and taxes just get taken at the end when it's sold, if the value has gone up.

          • +4

            @SydBoy: You are correct, I didn’t realise they still had a PPOR exemption in the ACT, I thought they changed it.

            I have a very strong emotional attachment to the Cochlear shares I bought as I raised my family. Why is one emotional attachment that could make one a millionaire taxed, and another isn’t? Wouldn’t it be fairer to tax people who have lots of wealth, and tax the poor a bit less?

            • -1

              @mskeggs: I agree with you that it is fair to tax wealthy people but in reality in majority of developed country I lived wealth people always had a way to avoid tax.

              it is also a fact that majority of wealthy people comes from business background, as I never read a lawyer or doctor or engineer or account is world's richest person. mostly those title's are for business people and every country support and find a way to help businesses to pay lower tax and their owners gets most benefit out it.

              on the side note, Cochlear .. IMO good stock…but poor Dividend yield if you buy now…. I hope you taking advantage of franking credit created to support wealth paying even less tax by Mr. Howard… :)

              • +3

                @SydBoy: Sadly, I didn't own any cochlear.
                I guess the advantage of a land tax is it is very hard to cheat.

              • @SydBoy: There's a reason why ppl in business tend to do better than ppl in those careers in mentioned — the concept of risk vs return. You've also got to look at the business ppl who didn't make it and lost money.

          • @SydBoy:

            Canberra land tax is applicable to investment property only while what liberals are introduction in NSW is tax on every property including principal place of resident (PPOR)

            You are comparing two quite different taxes here.

            Land tax in the ACT is fairly similar to land tax in NSW and the rest of Australia.

            The ACT is making up for the revenue lost through phasing out stamp duty over 20 years by increasing general rates (which are basically council rates) over 20 years. Obviously there is no PPOR exemption from council rates.

            So as stated above, quite similar to what NSW is proposing.

            • @djkelly69: The ACT Government collects land tax to provide a range of essential services to the ACT community.

              Land tax applies to ACT properties that are not your principal place of residence This includes both rented properties and those which are vacant, properties owned as a trustee, and rented dwellings on the same property as your home (such as a granny flat).

              If you’re not an Australian citizen or resident of Australia, you also need to pay the foreign ownership surcharge .

              Land tax does not apply to commercial properties.

              • -1

                @SydBoy: Yes, land tax mainly applies to rental properties. In some states (incl ACT and Vic) it also applies to vacant properties, which is no doubt a very small proportion of the market

                Not sure what your point is though, as this is unrelated to phasing out stamp duty and increasing land rates.

                • +1

                  @djkelly69: You mentioned that what NSW proposing is same as ACT which is not true and that is the point i am making here. In NSW the proposal is to tax Owner occupier homes not just rental properties similar to ACT.

                  • @SydBoy: No, it is true that the NSW proposal is similar to the current ACT system/plan.

                    Stamp duty in the ACT is being gradually reduced to zero over a period of 20 years, which commenced in 2012. To make up for the budgetary loss, general rates (which apply to all properties) have been gradually increased.

                    The NSW proposal is for an annual property tax to apply to all properties which will replace stamp duty.

                    The land tax changes in the ACT you are referring to only came in 2 years ago, and are unrelated to the phasing out of stamp duty.

      • +1

        People who buy 2 bed unit worth 500k pay stamp duty of $17k so average ownership of 50 years (assuming buying at 30) it will be almost $340 per year, but this tax will be way more than that and it is not that it will stop there. it will increase every year with CPI and above.

        If you own a house you are doing OK already. If your house is worth 500k you will be paying a lot less than someone who owns an 800k house or two 1m houses.

        Plus prices should come down as people will know about what it will cost them to own it, it won't be a surprise. It isn't as if people buying houses right now don't know about rates and strata costs when they consider whether they should buy. There may be a grandfathering scheme for people that already own property.

        so you believe investor take the pay cut !! Government can't restrict on how people charge for their rental property.

        Doesn't have anything to do with the government - people can afford what they can afford. They simply just won't pay that much more for the basic things they need. Combined with greater numbers of properties available it would be unlikely for prices to go up much at all. Investors already take a "pay cut" when they buy a property that can't rent for as much as it costs to keep it (but the government encourages them to still buy it by allowing negative gearing). Investors can't pass on all their costs, they can only charge what the market is willing to pay.

        It should help bring house prices down " - how?

        What I already said - People are discouraged from just leaving properties sit there because they are costing them every month they sit idle. So more properties on the market at any one time.

        the penalty for selling and buying is removed," - what penalty you are talking here? this tax won't replace capital gain !

        Now I don't know exactly how capital gains and stamp duty get calculated, but I am fairly confident that if you bought and sold 10 properties in ten years you would pay more stamp duty + capital gains tax than if you bought and sold 2 (for the same total buy and sell price). Even if that is only because your PPOR is only 10% of the first situation but 50% of the second. If I'm wrong (if they end up the same or if you pay more to sell 2 houses) please let me know.

        • +1

          Capital gains is zero on your home (PPOR). so it is zero. It is equal if you buy and sell many times versus few assuming the total rise is the same.

          Stamp duty is charged every time you buy. If you buy then sell 3 months later you get no reduction in stamp duty, and will have to pay it again on the next purchase.

          So in your scenarios of 10 purchases versus 2 purchases, the stamp duty would be 5 times higher for the first option. Land tax would be much better for the frequent purchaser.

          • @mskeggs: Ok great I am glad I hadn't missed something.

            • -3

              @Quantumcat: I Don't know how to add excel table here, but if you buy $500k property for 5 year then you pay $17.5k SD. Now if you have land tax which for simple calculations we keep at 2.5% per year for the value of the property for 5 year with annual property value increase of 2% then at the end of 5 year you will end up paying $39k in land tax and then you sell obviously the cycle continue.

              in my calculation i kept land value 60% of property value so it is $300k.

              • +5

                @SydBoy: In your calculation the stamp duty is 3.4% once off while you suggest a 2.5% annual land tax. I doubt either of those percentages are correct. Stamp duty on the median home is currently at 5.5% and I doubt the intention is to have a land tax that recoups the same revenue in only 2-3 years. A more reasonable and likely rate would be less than 1% meaning it evens out after 7-10 years.

                • +1

                  @stirlo: current stamp duty rate on NSW for $500k house is 3.5% check the website.

                  • +3

                    @SydBoy: $500k house in Sydney lol.

                    Nearly everyone buying a house in Sydney is paying the 5.5%

                    • @stirlo: you can buy a house for $500k in …Sydney… depending upon suburb…. but poor young people you mentioned mostly interested in units not in a house.

                • +5

                  @stirlo: Exactly, our SydBoy, is building his whole case on false assumptions, that most have no idea are false.

                  Sounds very much like a past history of soapbox preaching, throw out some BS and hope it sticks. Mediscare?

                • +4

                  @stirlo: The rate is 0.3% of unimproved land value (different to purchase price) plus $500. A much lower number than this magical 2.5% OP is assuming for to make the maths easy. Also, amazingly, not helpful for their argument…

                • @stirlo: Agreed. Unless the liberals are trying to increase revenue so they can help out the poor and impoverished the total amount of tax collected would be about the same. So then the question becomes: should the bulk of the taxation burden fall of those who have to move regularly?

    • +1

      "The ones paying tax are the ones owning property, so it affects the more wealthy."
      The ones who made a huge effort to buy a house, and now have a huge mortgage to pay back. Add a Tax and you kill them off, or, less money for general spending.

      But it matches the "I want it now, and pay later, mentality"

      The wealthy are the one that have property as "Investment"
      Let's start targeting them, heavily. Remove the FK**** negative gearing and introduce a massive second ( third, fourth ) house tax.

      • The ones who made a huge effort to buy a house, and now have a huge mortgage to pay back. Add a Tax and you kill them off, or, less money for general spending.

        Those that don't pay stamp duty and instead pay the land tax now have tens of thousands more for their deposit or to reduce the size of their huge mortgage. This will increase the money available to spend not reduce it.

        Sure in 15-20 years they might end up paying more but for those important years starting out in life they are far better off.

        • +3

          I’m starting to get the impression OP has a few investment properties he doesn’t want taxed

          • @SD2310: This new tax not applicable to existing property 🙂

            • +2

              @SydBoy: It makes sense to me, young people have been getting the short straw with housing for far too long. Have a very small yearly fee linked to land value annually and have it increased for your 2nd, 3rd, 4th property ect

        • +1

          10-20k doesn't reduce a huge mortgage by much, once the banks take it then they don't have anything extra to spend either (lets not forget LMI for anything under 20% deposit).
          I agree go after those with neg gearing and multiple properties, not to try and add another tax to everyday people who've managed to save and buy a house.

          • -1

            @91rs: everyday people who've managed to save and buy a house.

            Most investors are also everyday people who've managed to save a buy a property….

    • +3

      @Quantumcat

      As a residential property investor this is fantastic!

      This means I can purchase a property without needing to pay stamp duty up front, 1,000's of other investors like me would feel the same; apetite for property increases whilst supply remains stable which only means prices go up.

      As as investor, now that I know capital growth is likely, plus with low entry cost (no stamp duty upfront), rental income (might increase it $20 or so a week to help offset my yearly land tax), tax (negative gearing) considerations is good for me. Those young and less wealthy purchases who find it hard now - will likely find it more harder.

      Whilst this is simplistic comment, there are obviously deeper considerations (such as would i forgo a rent increase to keep a stable tenant vs possibly 2-3 week vacancy etc) I take as an investor.

      • +1

        Very valid and sensible comment. Thanks

      • +6

        The vendors know that you don't have to pay stamp duty and will slap on 6% to the asking price.

        There is no escaping from paying the upfront taxes no matter what the state does. It either goes to the state now or the vendor after they enact the legislation.

      • Spot on I would say.

      • +4

        As a landlord I am claiming you don't know anything about how rental price works. Landlords do not decide the how much the rent is, it is the rental market, purely based on supply demand. Look at how cheap rent in inner Sydney is now. Do you think it's because the landlords in inner cities are compassionate during covid?

        Basically this law will increase the investment cost while not affecting the rental market. This means owning a rental property will get less and less attractive over time when they gradually increase the land tax rate.

        At the same time, this law will encourage people to move to a more suitable house over their life, e.g. older people can downsize easier, family with kids can upsize easier.

        At the moment, land banking is too cheap.
        Stamp duty rewards rich people that bought good land 30-40 years ago. Why do you think rich folks living in 5M+ property in inner cities shouldn't pay any tax at all?

        • +1

          Firstly, you can claim what I don't know all you want 'until the cows come home' but if you think I do not appreciate the basic premise of supply and demand, then just do not read further. One of my city 1 bedroom units that I rent out, was renting $630/w pre-Covid. Now it is at $500/w. Sad but true, but so is Covid19 - and covid is once in a lifetime stuff. Things will improve and so will the weekly rent I charge because I know demand for this unit for the time being is degraded.

          Secondly, I disagree with increasing cost. Do you think the government is sabotaging investors, the one usually with more money - wait I meant the 'over a million mums and dads out there' investors says the prime minister. If someone can save say $50k on stamp duty up front, then pays a yearly 'stamp duty' tax which they 1. is tax deductible and 2. can be passed onto the renter in the form of a rent increase IF the market allows, hold the investment for 5 or so years and then sell it? Then I am all in - wouldn't you be in too?

          Thirdly, if my opinion that demand for property purchase increase works out - and stock levels remain stable - then the logical result based on simple demand / supply is that property prices increase (which in effect makes any negligible stamp duty savings reduced).

          Fourthly, when did I say rich folks shouln't pay any tax? but now that you mentioned it, I kind of agree. 1. land tax is not levied on a primary place of residence ie usually the family home, and I do not mind if your family home is $15m or $150,000 and you bought it 40 years ago. That's just how the law has always been applied and how the law should be. 2. any new law should not be retrospective.

          Anyway I have always said that I want this new stamp duty to go ahead. It sounds like you do too? even though we have differing points and extrapolation of views and outcomes.

        • -1

          | older people can downsize easier | - why do you say so? how does new lifelong tax has anything to do with older people downsizing?

          Second, I had investment property and rent is decided by Supply & Demand but yes city like Sydney and Melbourne will always had and will have demand of rental property. Covid is unfortunate and once gone, there will be massive demand including land tax being paid by tenants.

          " this law will increase the investment cost " - how it will increase the cost? the stamp duty upfront is bigger cost then land tax for investor and that means they will buy more property and push up the prices in the property.

          This is a new TAX on working class Australian Mom and Dad plain and simple and those parents and new generation as explain earlier end-up paying 300% to 400% or even more over the life owning a home.

          • @SydBoy: Just look how affordable properties in the US (even in big cities like New York) compared to Sydney and Melbourne. One of the big reasons is land tax is huge there and hence people prefer to invest in the stock market.

          • @SydBoy: We have one of the highest tax brackets in the world. What landlords pay in taxes is miniscule compared what the middle class get hit in taxes.

            Property speculator gets all the benefits from society like police, roads, transport, welfare, health, etc. All these benefit on the speculated prices of a house, yet they pay next to nothing. Landlords are the literal leeches of the middle and working class.

    • +1

      Thanks for explaining it the way you did. I've been saving up to buy a house and I was disappointed at first as I thought the new tax would place a large burden on new home buyers. It makes perfect sense that it'll be easier to buy a house without paying a lump sum for stamp duty. That money will probably be eaten up by the property tax over 5-10 years anyways.

      I really hope that this will encourage investors sell off their properties and put their money elsewhere. Many young people don't buy property since it's way too expensive and ~40% of their income goes to rent which makes it close to impossible to save for a place.

    • The ones paying tax are the ones owning property, so it affects the more wealthy.

      This is simply not correct. Everyone will pay. Renters will have the costs passed on to them with higher rents. Yes the owner is directly paying but anyone who lives in a house is actually paying.

      • Investors already pay land tax even after paying SD for IP… this tax change is targeted towards PPOR and hopefully encouraging more PPOR transactions where stamp duty is considered the hurdle… for me personally the stress of relocating is the true hurdle and SD was never a consideration

  • +2

    Come back here in 6 months time to see that I was right……

    This will not proceed. The current system remains.

    • Then Mr. Parrot should resign…. his kinder garden idea that people of NSW are foolish should be rejected by all party including nationals, labor, green, shooters and independents.

  • And what of those that have paid SD?

    They must be exempt one would think?

    • -6

      well those who already have homes and paid SD won't be impacted but you cant trust liberals because if this idea gets through then they might return stamp duty to those who paid within last 2 year and ask them to pay for land tax…or any future modification to your house may attract Land Tax… !!!

      if the premier gives her house keys to corrupt colleague with him she has personal relation and then claim i don't know anything then anything is possible.. !

  • +3

    Without going to the election they are introducing such a massive change is nothing but betraying the trust of people who voted for them

    Without getting into the arguments for or against the proposal, your statement is simply untrue.

    This is a proposal only that is in "consultation" until at least March. Very unlikely this will make it to a Bill before the usual budget date next year (assuming it returns to June) and so realistically won't get an opportunity to be introduced prior to June 2022 and that will be subject to upper house approval. This will be unlikely just nine months before the next state election.

    I think you can assume this won't be actually getting anywhere prior to mid-2023, if it goes anywhere at all.

  • If you want to provide feedback do so directly through the official channel to Treasury, it is a lot more effective than passing it on to someone who at best will pass on a summarised version of your views.They will publish all submissions they receive (unless you request it is kept confidential).

    https://www.treasury.nsw.gov.au/budget-financial-management/…

  • -4

    Well.. Victoria is heading down this way and unlike NSW, VIC is effectively a one-party state.

    So fight it with all your might while you can before NSW becomes like VIC.

    • Vic is not a one-party state. The Coalition were last in 2010-2014, so only two elections ago. The current Victorian election is completely unelectable and it doesn't take a genius to figure out why they lost the last election.

    • +2

      I'd rather take Vic than the corrupt NSW government paying 3x more for land than what its worth. NSW is a joke.

  • +6

    The question on whether this is good or bad depends on what the taxed money is used upon, and how efficiently it is used.

    Generally land is something everyone needs, is expensive, is used as a vehicle by the well-to-do for storing wealth, and has dire consequences for everyone when it is left underutilized. So taxing land as a way of raising money for the state is something that makes a lot of sense.

    I would like to see it applied disproportionally however, so that people with one house don't pay alot and it discourages other people from hoarding houses unless they can use it to generate a profit

    • +1

      The question on whether this is good or bad depends on what the taxed money is used upon, and how efficiently it is used.

      Based on the past history of practically every government since Federation, it will likely be pissed up the wall to pay for rubbish that is enjoyed by the few at the expense of the many.

      I would like to see it applied disproportionally however, so that people with one house don't pay alot and it discourages other people from hoarding houses unless they can use it to generate a profit

      We already have land tax on non-PPOR properties.

      • Good point. This tax change is targeting PPOR properties so not sure why or how ppl are arguing it only negatively affects the wealthy… it will also negatively affect regular PPOR owners

  • +24

    I’m not keen on extra taxes, but I won’t dismiss a property tax out of hand, because it is very effective at targeting people with lots of money, especially those that otherwise might arrange their affairs to make losses and earn everything in some tax haven.

    Stamp duty sucks as a tax. It is a big lump that makes it hard for people starting out. It discourages people moving to the property that suits them, so you have older couples in big houses while young families are crammed into apartments.

    I’d like to look at the proposal and see the modelling from a few different groups before I decide if it is a good or bad idea.

    I do think it is very interesting that the Liberals proposed this. I can’t imagine it would ever get up under Labor, if the Liberals opposed, but this might fly.

    • +19

      Stamp duty sucks as a tax. It is a big lump that makes it hard for people starting out. It discourages people moving to the property that suits them, so you have older couples in big houses while young families are crammed into apartments.

      This 100%. I can't believe so many people voting for stamp duty, literally one of the worst designed and least progressive taxes.

      Old rich folk that live in the inner city never have to pay it because they got in the market in the 90s and will live in their mansions until they die while you battlers not only need to save a deposit while paying rent but are hit with a massive lump sum tax which diminishes their purchasing power even more. For a lot of people right as they are about to start a family.

      Good riddance to stamp duty.

      PS: If you bought property 20 years ago and doubled or tripled your money maybe you should be paying more taxes via a land tax than those who have nothing and are starting out in life.

      • -6

        Old rich folk was once young first home buyer, it is not his/her fault that over the time property value increases so a selfish desire to get all old people out of their home is like "I don't have it so no one else should have it".

        | battlers not only need to save a deposit while paying rent but are hit with a massive lump sum tax | is not true as first home buyers don't pay stamp duty… so battler's don't pay anything under current system but in new proposal they will pay every year forever !

      • +1

        I voted for stamp duty not because I like it, but because the government will use this as purely a mechanism that gives them easy levers to cover increased spending. They need to pay for another election promise, "meh, up the property tax another 0.5%". property tax is better, but it needs better regulations that won't allow whichever government is in power to utilise it as an easy piggy bank that can be raided at will.

      • I dont think the homes you are referring to are going to ever become affordable even if stamp duty gets replaced with land tax

  • +2

    It is useless to talk about this, people want to get abused and degraded. I had this conversation with some of my coworkers, they all reckon the "land tax" is a much better deal.

    God what I would pay to be blissfully ignorant…

    • Or you could enlighten the blissfully ignorant?

      • +4

        Never try to enlighten the blissfully ignorant.

  • With out current debt, safe to say, taxes are coming.

  • yearly tax that one has to pay until they own the property in addition to council and all other tax.

    Does this mean that landlords pay more taxes equal to X investment properties?

    • yes landlord pay the tax for each property they own but they get tax refund but owner occupier don't get tax refund they simply pay additional tax.

      • Well, that's a shame.

        Wonder when NG is being abolished.

      • +2

        Rubbish, The only way to get a refund as a landlord is to make a loss.

        Yes, some investors prefer to make that loss than to pay extra taxes on their income but it's still a loss being made each year with the hope that the property value increases.

        • Land load get tax deduction on water bill, council rates, insurances, depreciation …. anything that is an expense is a tax deductible item so Land tax will be tax deductible.

          with high Sydney property prices and lower rents it will be loss on the investment and hence tax refund… !

          • +1

            @SydBoy: You do understand that you only really get a portion of the expense as a tax benefit? So even after that magical tax refund you are so focused on, it is actually costing them cash money each year to own.

            • @steeevo: The issue with negative gearing is the fact that it hinges on an ever increasing property market, people take out overleveraged loans expecting losses to soak up their income while the value of the house increases then sell it with a 50% reduction to CGT.

              This inflates the property market as people can just sit on their investment property for much longer than other investments making the Australia reliant on the property market which currently accounts for around 12% of Australia's GDP in addition the household debt is one of the highest in the world and mainly made up of mortgages. that means 12% of our GDP is essentially made up of mortgage debt.

  • +9

    It's also amusing that if Labor or Greens had introduced this it would be hailed by the OP as a way to help battlers afford homes without the extra cost up front.

    In fact Victorian Greens proposed exactly this https://greens.org.au/vic/policies/state-finance-and-taxatio…

    • Well it is your opinion that people would have supported it if introduced by green or labor. People should oppose any new tax on working class australian… doesn't matter who try to introduce it.

    • +1

      Labor and the Greens are not a coalition government, bruv. So whatever the Greens propose (which is easy to do when you're never likely to form government), is on the Greens.

  • +1

    A lot of Australians live pay cheque to pay cheque. I can't see people having money aside to pay their land tax every year. Even if the Government allows you to pay it in monthly instalments.

    What this will enable, is cashed up people to flip houses much easier. Since they don't need to keep money aside for stamp duty.

    • What's wrong with flipping houses?

      • +3

        @leiv - Absolutely nothing. I just don't feel this will lower pricing for people.

        • Agree

      • Sometimes they are too heavy!

    • And the problem with flipping is?

      That’s business

      • +2

        @Donaldhump - See reply above, nothing wrong with flipping houses.

        It’s in response to people claiming this will lower prices. It won’t since it eliminates one hurdle for people who have money to flip houses.

Login or Join to leave a comment