Unpopular Opinions on Housing, Petrol and Cost of Living

bigpoppa on 30/03/2022 - 09:48
Last edited 30/03/2022 - 09:53

The 2022 budget has been nothing but a blatant attempt to ignore the real problems for another 6 months or so. I'm not an economist but that doesn't stop me from having an opinion lol. So here's my brainstorm of ideas that make more sense to me.

Scrap negative gearing - housing is a necessity and treating it as an investment is shortsighted and a disservice to future generations especially if you're not at the least a mega-millionaire and can afford to purchase all of your kids and their kids a roof to live under. Also, less money tied up to mortgages means more money to spend or to actually invest into business etc
Scrap home buyer grant (but not without scrapping negative gearing first) - not a real solution just an attempt to shift the problem to another day.
Reduce or even scrap capital gains tax from non-housing related investments

Forget about cutting fuel excise and instead provide grants and scrap GST and LCT for electric cars. Maybe even proved interest-free loans for EVs like ACT.
Invest in more EV friendly infrastructure and renewable energy that wouldn't be affected whenever dictators in other countries wake up and choose violence.
Provide incentives/grants/tax benefits to install solar and battery storage for homes and small businesses - this would also reduce cost of energy

These are some of the things I think about a lot - am I wrong?

Financial Federal Budget

Comments

      • skidexa on 30/03/2022 - 18:44

        Also 2 years of covid would have meant less demand since people weren't coming into the country, yet prices still went up

        • mskeggs on 30/03/2022 - 21:36
          +1

          Interest rates went down, and people had more money, due to limited options to spend and massive government handouts.
          Without lower rates and government handouts, the lower international demand would have lowered prices.

  • dogboy on 30/03/2022 - 10:38
    +3

    More unpopular opinions follow so be warned…

    I pay more in tax than my wife earns in salary but every year at tax time she gets thousands back and I have to pay more tax. If you don't think I am going to take advantage of things like negatvie gearing to reduce this ridiculous amount of tax then you are dreaming. It means I have less money throughout the year to spend but at least I get to use it on something worthwhile and not just lose it to tax. Saying that, I think there should be a limit (3?) on the number of houses people can own to make it more fair. Also, no pension for people living in multi-million dollar houses. And no selling of assets/property to foreigners whose government do not allow us to do the same in their country. That is just stupid.

    • jellykingdom on 30/03/2022 - 10:46

      Agree re the house should be part of the pension means testing. There needs to be a way to push/incentivise people to downsize when they don't need the large house anymore. If you're sitting in a house worth $2m then i'm sorry that is part of your overall wealth, and should be considered

      • [Deactivated] on 30/03/2022 - 13:59
        +9

        i don't necessarily agree with this. my grandparents live in a house, which at the time they bought it, was about 300 k. it's now valued at around 1.2 - 1.6 million. they shouldn't have to either move or lose their pension because of the ridiculous skyrocketing of property prices. it's not a huge house, in fact they deliberately chose a house on the smaller side so there wouldn't be too much to clean. it's about big enough for the kids and grandkids to stay over, but that's it, no where near a mansion.

        should they be forced at 80 + years old to uproot and find an even smaller house in the middle of nowhere? because realistically that's the only place you are gonna find houses below 1 million

        • GG57 on 30/03/2022 - 14:28
          +1

          You are totally correct.
          A house around the corner from mine sold for $2.5m last week. Two years ago it was worth ~$800k.
          It is a very complex idea to include the PPOR in any means tested pension assessment.

        • jellykingdom on 30/03/2022 - 15:39

          Why would the house be in the middle of nowhere? I'd have to assume that if their house is worth $1.5m, then a smaller house in the same street is worth $1m and they have $500k left…?

          • GG57 on 30/03/2022 - 16:21
            +2

            @jellykingdom: You assume that there is a smaller house, or a cheaper property, in the same street / suburb / town.

          • [Deactivated] on 30/03/2022 - 16:21

            @jellykingdom: even if there were a smaller house on their street (which there isn't) it's not going to be valued any lower. the reason it's so expensive is because of the location, not the size of the house.

            another thing is the health issues, they need to be close to town (and the hospital) because only my grandfather drives and my grandmother has had a few serious health issues recently, which have resulted in several operations

            assessing pension by including the valuation of the house they live in is just stupid, plain and simple. it's the same stupid, greedy system of basing rates on house valuations. in this economy, nothing should be based on house valuations.

            • Kangal on 30/03/2022 - 17:29
              +1

              @[Deactivated]: I think you and some of the readers are confused.
              Downsizing doesn't mean you get a smaller house, it means you get a cheaper house. Usually a smaller house is cheaper so they sort of go hand-in-hand, but not necessarily. The biggest factors when it comes to property is: Price, then Location, then Land size, then House condition, then the little features.

              People downsizing typically move into an apartment, sometime to a rural farm, or into a smaller house further away in the suburbs. Whilst some retirees choose to move overseas and live as ex-pats. What they typically don't do is live in the same area.

              • [Deactivated] on 30/03/2022 - 18:24

                @Kangal: the person i replied to suggested that they move to a smaller house on the same street

                • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 30/03/2022 - 22:16
                  -1

                  @[Deactivated]: So someone with a 1.6 million dollar house should still receive a pension.

                  Should someone with 1.6 million dollars in a bank account still receive a pension?

        • Quantumcat on 31/03/2022 - 09:21
          -1

          should they be forced at 80 + years old to uproot and find an even smaller house in the middle of nowhere?

          They can take out a reverse mortgage

          • rektrading on 31/03/2022 - 09:30

            @Quantumcat: The feds can't legally coerce people to take out debt.

            • Quantumcat on 31/03/2022 - 09:34

              @rektrading: Sure, it is their own choice where they get money from, but it is a sensible choice if they can't or don't want to work, don't want to sell their house, and don't have family that will support them

              • rektrading on 31/03/2022 - 09:53

                @Quantumcat: It still doesn't make it legal for the feds to cut people's pensions to zero.

                • Quantumcat on 31/03/2022 - 09:54
                  +1

                  @rektrading: Not everyone is entitled to a pension, only those without assets or liquid cash reserves. The argument is the family home should count as an asset, as there is a way to generate income from it without selling it and moving.

                  • rektrading on 31/03/2022 - 09:55

                    @Quantumcat: Debt is NOT income under tax law.

                    • Quantumcat on 31/03/2022 - 09:56

                      @rektrading: What debt? The bank is the one with the debt - they're gradually buying the house and paying the occupants for it. It is exactly the same as selling the house except you get to keep living in it and gradually get the money over time instead of as a lump sum.

                      • rektrading on 31/03/2022 - 09:58

                        @Quantumcat: A reverse mortgage is a liability to the lender.

                        The borrower will lose the asset if they don't repay the liability.

                        • Quantumcat on 31/03/2022 - 09:59

                          @rektrading: The whole point is that they will lose the asset eventually - once they die.

                          Do you call selling a house a liability to the seller as well since they are expected to hand over the keys at settlement?

                          The bank is the one buying the house, they are the ones with the debt that they owe the occupants

                          • rektrading on 31/03/2022 - 10:07

                            @Quantumcat: The owner is the party that is entering into a debt position using the asset as collateral.

                            The lender is the party that is lending out fiat money and using the collateral as a security.

                            This is commonly call an ELOC. I'm not sure what they are called in Australia.

        • akashra on 31/03/2022 - 13:10
          +1

          Why shouldn't it be means tested? For anyone needing any kind of government payment it would be. These are likely the same people telling those who can't get in to the property market "you should move further out" - the same should apply to them. Just because they got in early doesn't entitle them to rules that aren't applied to everyone else - if that property is an asset that dwarves the means test, then yes, they should be required to sell up - and they can live far from the city like they tell everyone else to.

      • tomfool on 31/03/2022 - 13:39
        +1

        Why? Most older people were less mobile in their youth they bought houses where they could afford, a lot of these areas have seen massive growth but this is also where these people Dr''s, friends and family likely live.

        • Grunntt on 31/03/2022 - 17:55
          +1

          My elderly neighbour lives alone in a house way too big for her.
          Not through choice though. Her husband died a year or two ago and she has few family.
          Her whole adult life has been spent in this suburb. She has close friends and neighbours she has known for years.
          If she needs anything someone is always there for her.
          A comparable smaller property just does not exist anywhere around here.

          A few here seem to have a total lack of empathy for anyone that fits the 'elderly' description.
          They seem to think she should just uproot herself no matter the hardship so that they can have her house available for sale.
          They seem to want these oversized and expensive properties made available so first home buyers with limited funds can get into the market.
          Not too sure who these rich first home buyers are. The ones who can't raise even a small portion of a deposit?

    • bigpoppa on 30/03/2022 - 10:56
      +7

      I disagree with you regarding paying higher taxes. Yes, it doesn't look good when you look at your tax return but that's also what makes our country so livable. At the risk of sounding like a leftist extremist, I would argue that we should spend more on social programs. The way I look at it the more people that get help to turn their life around the more money the economy gains and the more money and opportunities that you and I can tap on.

      • tsunamisurfer on 30/03/2022 - 11:48
        -2

        It's always nice to tell other people to pay more taxes to make your country more livable.

        All the while the people on the lower rungs of society continue to suckle from the Centrelink teat with gusto.

        On the topic of social spending, we spend more on Welfare than we do on Health, Education and Defence COMBINED, we do not need to spend more there, in fact it is the opposite.

        • bigpoppa on 30/03/2022 - 14:28
          +3

          Health and Education are what's known in the trade as "social" spending… coz it benefits the society.

          Have you ever considered maybe the people on Centrelink are stuck in that vicious cycle because the stuff that should be addressed by way of healthcare and education and rehabilitation is dealt with by the criminal system instead? Once someone falls into the criminal system it takes a hail Mary to get you out regardless of how hard one tries to get out. Maybe we wouldn't have to spend so much on welfare if we just started helping instead of judging.

        • Deals For Days on 30/03/2022 - 21:50
          +5

          39% of welfare spending 2019-20 went to older people. 9.5% went to unemployed people. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/welfare-e…

          Not really sure that lines up with the narrative of all those people are slackers who deserve less. Many of those slackers are old people in nursing homes.

    • 87percent on 30/03/2022 - 11:05
      +1

      This x 1000000

    • GG57 on 30/03/2022 - 11:13
      +1

      It is complex, but including PPOR in pension means testing is dangerous.
      There are many people who have saved for decades and own their home. Some have seen their property value increase (if they were to sell), through no action of their own. They could have minimal other assets.
      How do they survive? Do they have to sell their PPOR and somehow find a less expensive property to live in, to realise their equity to live on?

      • muzzamo on 30/03/2022 - 11:39
        +1

        Easy - reverse mortgage scheme, government backed with lot's of protections in it.

        • GG57 on 30/03/2022 - 11:49
          -1

          Certainly worth looking at in depth, but are you suggesting that taxpayer funds be used?
          If so, it may be more economical to exclude from means testing and pay the pensions?
          Or maybe there is an extended transition period?

          As I mentioned earlier, it is complex.

          • dave999 on 30/03/2022 - 22:22
            +2

            @GG57: You are making it sound complex but it really is not, in any way.

            Owning a $2 million dollar property and getting the pension means the person dies with a $2 million plus capital gains after getting the pension and then give that $2 million plus capital gains to their children/beneficiaries.

            How is that a good outcome for anyone but the children/beneficiaries? Surely a reverse mortgage and the pension going to people that are actually in a dire financial position is a better outcome.

            A reverse mortgage or somethign similar is not complex.

            • pogichinoy on 31/03/2022 - 03:18
              +2

              @dave999: It's not the pensioner's fault that their home which they worked hard to pay off is suddenly worth $2M.

              The govt forcing them to sell their property at the end of the life of a reverse mortgage is predatory.

              • Quantumcat on 31/03/2022 - 09:27
                +4

                @pogichinoy: People save money into super all their lives, and live on it in old age. Saving money into your house and living on that money later shouldn't be any different. I shouldn't be able to have a massive super balance and get the full pension and pass on my super to my children. Should be the same with houses.

                It should also be a neutral proposition whether to downsize or not. At the moment it makes financial sense not to downsize, because otherwise you have cash from the sale and don't get the pension whereas if you stay where you are, you get the pension and can keep the house to pass on to your children. That means big family homes that aren't available for families to buy, and older people who struggle to maintain the gardens and maintenance of the house, who would prefer to live in a retirement community but don't because it won't make financial sense. At least if you are in the same financial position whether or not you sell,if you actually want to keep living in your house you can get a reverse mortgage, and if you don't you can downsize. So people can do what they actually want to do and it benefits everyone (except the children receiving a $2 million house for doing nothing).

                • tomfool on 31/03/2022 - 13:48

                  @Quantumcat: A couple who does not own their own home can still claim a part pension with $1,088,500 of assets including super.

                • pogichinoy on 31/03/2022 - 14:11

                  @Quantumcat: Mandatory superannuation was introduced in the early 90s.

                  I don't doubt most of the boomers who are sitting in these million dollar homes and on the pension have little to no savings because of their working class life.

                  Big family homes unavailable for the new families of today? Sorry too bad so sad, these people aren't entitled to homes that don't belong to them, let alone homes that are in limited supply in certain areas. They can buy in the outer suburbs or pay the premium.

                  • Quantumcat on 31/03/2022 - 14:47

                    @pogichinoy: They do have savings though - their house. They essentially saved $100,000 or whatever it cost to buy and invested it (in rising property prices) for 30 years. It doesn't make sense that someone who invested the same $100,000 but in the share market does not get a pension but they do.

                    It is also silly that an elderly couple, who can't keep up with the maintenance of a large house and would prefer to downsize, won't because then they'll lose their pension. They should have to tap into their investment. The reason they couldn't before was simply that it isn't nice to force people to move to be able to access money to live on. But with reverse mortgages there is no need to do that, you can keep living in your house and tap into the equity to live on, so that argument is now moot.

                    • pogichinoy on 31/03/2022 - 15:39

                      @Quantumcat: They cannot draw that savings from their house into cash tho.

                      It makes sense because both a different asset types. The pensioner with a $1M+ home may not ahve had an intention to turn their PPOR into an investment vehicle, but the pensioner who invested in stocks did.

                      Choice is a wonderful thing. They can tap into their investment but mandating it is a different kettle of fish.

                      • Quantumcat on 31/03/2022 - 15:44

                        @pogichinoy: What does it matter what the intention was? Money is money. If you have a lot of it - you have no business asking for more from the government and keeping what you have to give to your children.

                        • pogichinoy on 31/03/2022 - 17:08

                          @Quantumcat: It's not money tied up a building that is their home. It's very different.

                          You need to understand the difference a PPOR asset is, as opposed to your claims of it being comparable to the share market because it isn't.

                          • Quantumcat on 31/03/2022 - 17:31

                            @pogichinoy: What is the difference? They're both investments, just different ones.

                            An investment in the share market, or an investment in a property when you rent elsewhere, or a term deposit, or a collection of rare baseball cards, or a wallet full of crypto, or a house that you happen to choose to live in are all investments. Yet only one is treated differently.

                            • pogichinoy on 31/03/2022 - 17:32

                              @Quantumcat: Yes because it's a home they live in, a PPOR. You cannot do the same with the other investments you listed.

                              • Quantumcat on 31/03/2022 - 18:03

                                @pogichinoy: You can move out of a house and it is suddenly an investment property. It didn't morph into a different object and it is still gaining value at the same rate.

                                I can also play a game with Pokémon trading cards (can't do that with a house), and buy drugs with crypto (can't do that with shares). Does that mean trading cards or crypto shouldn't be counted as assets because you can do something with them that you can't do with other investments?

                                • pogichinoy on 31/03/2022 - 18:28

                                  @Quantumcat: This is where the line is drawn, you are forcing someone to leave their PPOR. That's not quite kosher.

                                  Just like no one is forcing you to buy a home in the outer suburbs with your beer money.

                                  • Quantumcat on 31/03/2022 - 18:34

                                    @pogichinoy:

                                    you are forcing someone to leave their PPOR

                                    You're not… They can access their equity with a reverse mortgage or pension loan scheme and stay living exactly where they are. The house doesn't have to be sold until after they die.

                                    • pogichinoy on 31/03/2022 - 19:37

                                      @Quantumcat: That's implying they want to sell after they die. I doubt many will. Thankfully they currently have the option to leave the asset behind to their family/custodian.

              • dave999 on 31/03/2022 - 11:15

                @pogichinoy: It's not about fault, it is about wealth. It would be great if the government could give everyone money but because there is a limited supply, welfare should be given to the 'not wealthy'. Every dollar given to a millionaire is a dollar not given to people who are genuinely in financial difficulty.

                Reverse mortgage is not predatory, it is simply spending your own money before you die.

                • Grunntt on 31/03/2022 - 18:04

                  @dave999:

                  Every dollar given to a millionaire is a dollar not given to people who are genuinely in financial difficulty.

                  More like not given to their corporate mates. Do you say the same thing about the billions of dolars given as subsidies to corporations?

                • pogichinoy on 31/03/2022 - 19:38

                  @dave999: People need to understand that competition is rife. FHBs are competing with wealthy locals and wealthy foreigners.

                  Those in financial difficulty can get subsidised rent.

        • Ashbargin on 31/03/2022 - 09:45
          +1

          I am not sure if this was statement of the existing scheme or that there should be a scheme.

          The pension loan scheme has been around for a very long time with the Government making very positive changes to it over the past few years. Including expanding to those on part pension or no pension. You can now receive up to 150% of the age pension with the amount above your eligible payment being a secured loan against your home this means cirica $57k pa for a couple.

          There is a massive disconnect between home ownership and not in retires. I believe the age pension should increase significantly however part of the value of the home should be included. Another not well understood by many is if you are a regional person and say have a house and land of say 30-50 acres worth maybe a $1 million you are unlikely to be eligible for much if any age pension as only the home and 5 acres are exempt. You can own a $6 million home in Sydney and still get the full pension.

          Another pet hate of mine is builders that build their own homes/renovate and sell them for a profit. They are essentially running a business but because they claim the primary residency exemption they pay no tax on the capital gain. Buy a run down home spend a year fixing it up spending $100k on materials and sell for $300k above a year later because of the labour they put into it. You shouldn't be able to flip multiple house in a short space of time without some tax being paid.

      • akashra on 31/03/2022 - 13:11
        +1

        Yes! That's exactly what they should be expected to do. Just like the same way they tell young people "you should live further out of the city then and live within your means".

        Funny how when the shoe is on the other foot the same thing doesn't apply.

  • jellykingdom on 30/03/2022 - 10:48
    +2

    I'm really confused as to what the future of motoring is.

    Petrol cars? Evil, polluting, petrol prices are nuts
    Diesel cars? Apparently being phased out due to pollution standards as well, and diesel prices (which used to be affordable, hence all the diesel cars) are nuts
    Electric cars? The government makes it unreasonably expensive to own one, and you still need to use fossil fuels to generate the electricity to power it. Want to use solar? Tough, we're going to charge you extra for that too

    • Kangal on 30/03/2022 - 17:36

      A wooden Chariot with six Zombies pulling it, and a caged Rabbit in the front for "fuel" ?
      …or this!

    • Minimum chips on 30/03/2022 - 21:08
      +2

      The real answer, which everyone absolutely hates, is public transport. Reliable, affordable, well funded public transport that isn’t just for poor people and students. Living in a capital city you shouldn’t need to own a car at all.

      Public transport (and walking) has been badly neglected in Australia and there is a lot of work to be done, but the end result would be better for everyone and the environment. Unfortunately, people seem to find it easier to say because it’s hard, it’s impossible; but if you build it they will come.

    • jrowls on 31/03/2022 - 13:46

      Maybe the reality is that private motor vehicles that generally move one person at a time and require the entire city to be developed around supporting and enabling their infrastructure AREN'T the solution?

      • jellykingdom on 31/03/2022 - 14:55

        I mean that makes total sense. Australia has such a car culture (to go with our giant housing culture) that it would be hard to break

        It's hard to imagine using public transport everyday myself, even though I would like to be part of the solution not the problem. It's impossible to get a car park at the station, the bloody train drivers and bus drivers are constantly on strike, the trains are spectacularly reliable in their unreliability (weather, trackwork, breakdowns, suicides, etc), there is no rail network on the east side of Sydney, the buses are uselessly slow and you might as well just drive a car, then I have no way of getting from the station to my workplace after that point. It's certainly a no-brainer for me

        • jrowls on 31/03/2022 - 15:30

          The solution isn't for individuals who are transit-poor to sell their car, or have it taken away, and suffer. Though if you are in a position to, you could always move somewhere that transit is better.

          The solution is for governments to stop spending our hard-earned on road projects that subsidise urban sprawl, for state governments to stop encouraging urban sprawl, and for councils to stop allowing urban sprawl.

          There is absolutely zero (non-political) reason that the vast majority of Australians who live in a large town or metro area (like, we're talking Goulburn-and-up, here) can't use public or active transport to get most of their things sorted in life. What we are stuck with is the result of profit-driven decisions made by developers and infrastructure contractors in cahoots with governments and councils.

          For what it's worth, most of Sydney's train network is extremely reliable 99% of the time, when it's not flooding or being shut down by the state government. Even when the train strike was on, the train service was better than in most countries. It does suck that the East doesn't have good transit. The new tram is garbage because it was designed a) to have its route pass developers' land so that the value would go up, and b) to let traffic dictate when the tram can go, not the other way around.

  • Jason Genova on 30/03/2022 - 10:50
    +5

    how come chinese are allowed to buy australian property, but we arent allowed to buy theirs? serious question

    hmmm

    • rektrading on 30/03/2022 - 10:54
      +3

      Is it because China is a communist dictatorship while Australia isn't?

    • orangetrain on 30/03/2022 - 11:02
      +1

      Because blind trusts are untouchable

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 30/03/2022 - 11:06
      +2

      How come goldfish bowls are not allowed in Italy, but allowed in Australia? serious question

      hmmm

      • rektrading on 30/03/2022 - 11:10

        Vito can't make Barzini sleep with the goldfish.

    • tsunamisurfer on 30/03/2022 - 11:31

      Why the F would you want to spend so much money (their prices are even more expensive for smaller properties in the key cities) to live in a shit hole country with terrible pollution?

      • Jason Genova on 30/03/2022 - 11:34

        i think you are missing my point

        • tsunamisurfer on 30/03/2022 - 11:41
          +2

          Your point by adding the second part of your question why we can't buy theirs when they can buy ours.

          You could have stopped at why they can buy ours.

          • Kangal on 30/03/2022 - 17:39

            @tsunamisurfer: I think I can add to that.
            If their properties are even worse and cost even more, well that sounds like a great investment opportunity. Why shouldn't Aussies be able to use their purchasing power to be a Property Investor in the Chinese market? Especially since the opposite is allowed.

            And that goes for all nations, and all Property Investors.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 30/03/2022 - 12:50

          Serious answer - because we tax the absolute shit out of them and it inflates our housing market.

          Why would we want to tax the shit out of them?
          Why would we want to inflate our housing market?

          hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

    • 87percent on 30/03/2022 - 11:34

      isn't it in China that you don't own the property you bought, you just lease it for a long time?

      • GordonD on 30/03/2022 - 18:43
        +1

        Yes, its the PRC where that's the case. The Peoples Republic of Canberra. No-one owns property in the ACT. They have a 99 year leasehold title. When the 99 years runs out they have to pay for it to be renewed.

        Its also often the case in cemeteries. That way if none of you descendants cares enough about you to renew your lease you get dug up and someone else gets buried there.

        • Grunntt on 31/03/2022 - 18:08

          Its also often the case in cemeteries. That way if none of you descendants cares enough about you to renew your lease you get dug up and someone else gets buried there.

          So when this happens do you get reinterred with a group of your neighbours? Must be nice to have others around after so long in your solitary spot.

  • popsiee on 30/03/2022 - 11:03
    +2

    Scrap negative gearing cost Labour the election last year .
    No major parties are ever going to do it now .

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 30/03/2022 - 11:07
      -1

      …the Tas election? who cares.

    • Drakesy on 30/03/2022 - 12:46
      +4

      This is a common misconception.

      Scrapping of negative gearing, as far as polling goes, is supported by 60% of the population.

      Labor lost due to their stance on franking credits and the scare campaign by LNP that swung the pensioners.

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 30/03/2022 - 12:51
        +1

        Thus the $250 handout to pensioners in preparation for this Fed election ;) gotta keep them on side despite health and related fields getting funding cut.

  • netjock on 30/03/2022 - 11:10
    +7

    Someone said years ago that there is no leadership in politics, it is just politicians playing around the edges to try to swing the votes their way. People fall for it because they don't vote in the best interest of the country, they vote for themselves.

    • GG57 on 30/03/2022 - 11:15
      +1

      I agree. Surely we (as voters) can push this to change.
      It appears to have happened in SA, if the comments from the new Premier are to be believed.

    • USER DC on 30/03/2022 - 11:28
      +2

      Well a lot (most actually) of them do not even deliver their promise

  • Price Hike on 30/03/2022 - 11:38
    +3

    Another unpopular tax that should be reintroduced is the estate/death tax. Intergenerational wealth leads to intergenerational disadvantage.

    • netjock on 30/03/2022 - 12:46
      +1

      Look at Kerry Packer and Jamie Packer. If Kerry knew what is happening now he would have spent it all.

      Intergenerational wealth is just the first generation fooling themselves.

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 30/03/2022 - 12:52
        +3

        All that lot have all their actual assets and money in family trusts anyway. Would just hurt the lower middle class.

        • netjock on 30/03/2022 - 13:03

          True.

          My thoughts are, of you are smart enough to end up being a billionaire leaving your kids a few or hundreds of millions is enough. If they aspire to be a billionaire let them work.

          All these rich people must know they got bad genes to have to hand down that much money.

        • orangetrain on 30/03/2022 - 14:42

          Not terribly well versed in trusts but every family member has beneficial ownership, right? A family equal BO trust with 1 billion, lets say 1 of 5 family members died, that's 200 million that can be taxed, yes?

          Yes, they can have trusts overseas but they can't take mines, buildings, etc. It's actually doable to have an inheritance tax in Australia BUT… trusts and companies can hide ownership via more trusts and companies, meanibg ATO can't go after them.

          Australia needs ultimate ownership laws for that reason.

          Also, most estate taxes in the world are for millions like the income tax free threshold. They are designed for the upper class.

          • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 30/03/2022 - 14:57

            @orangetrain:

            that's 200 million that can be taxed, yes?

            No. And that's why they utilise them.

            • orangetrain on 30/03/2022 - 14:58

              @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Beneficial ownership change is not a CGT event?

              • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 30/03/2022 - 16:06
                +1

                @orangetrain: Highly complex topic, but basically what you have suggested is easily avoided by careful drafting of the trust deed. The whole point is to avoid tax, and it's unlikely $200m will be distributed when a beneficiary dies for that exact reason.

  • tsunamisurfer on 30/03/2022 - 11:39
    +1

    I dislike the negative gearing strategy, I do not want to lose 61 cents in the dollar just to claim 39c.

    But I do not support scrapping of negative gearing, most investors will still see property as a good investment vehicle and rents will go up.

    I agree with scrapping the Home Buyer Grant, all it has done is increase prices for the very people it aims to help.

    I'd also agree to invest in EV infrastructure, however demand for EV is so high it doesn't make sense to give incentives.

    • Drakesy on 30/03/2022 - 12:57

      The alternative view is that negative gearing was brought in a while ago to increase the rental market supply for those who don't want to buy a house.

      In the current market i'd argue there is adequate rental supply, with additional people, who would normally buy a house forced into the rental market as they can no longer afford to compete with the investors. Of which are pushing up prices to the affordability limit knowing that they'll be able to negatively gear the house (at the cost of the taxpayer) in the long run if it turns to sh1t.

      • duchy on 31/03/2022 - 14:31

        There is not an adequate rental supply. Houses in Moreton bay - 0.3% vacancy rate. Houses in Brisbane LGA - 0.4% vacancy rate. Canberra has 0.1% vacancy rate at the moment.

        • Drakesy on 31/03/2022 - 14:32

          But if those renting owned a house then you'd take demand off the rental market no?

  • Seraphin7 on 30/03/2022 - 11:40
    +4

    Scrap negative gearing

    No problem. I assume you'll also be scrapping tax on the rent earned and any capital gains made?

    • netjock on 30/03/2022 - 12:47
      +2

      I would vote for that.

    • bigpoppa on 30/03/2022 - 12:59

      I don't see your point. Rent is income. You're proposing scrapping income tax. Though I would agree with the scrapping capital gains tax provided the value is set by a free market that is not artificially inflated from tax benefits and other favourable policies, and on the condition that capital gains tax from other investments is also slashed.

      • Seraphin7 on 30/03/2022 - 13:08
        +3

        The point is that the interest expense is incurred in the generation of that income. Fundamentally no different to any other business where tax is levied on profit, not on revenue.

        • bigpoppa on 30/03/2022 - 14:42
          -2

          Business profits are based on output but property investment is based on speculation. To put it another way, property investment is similar to stock investment. So in order for negative gearing to be fair, the government should match that benefit to people who cop a loss in stock and crypto and NFTs and whatnot. Negative gearing is the asbestos and tobacco combined of the country's GDP

          • rektrading on 30/03/2022 - 14:48
            +4

            @bigpoppa: Capital losses in stonks can be used to offset future gains.

            Trading, account and forex fees are also tax-deductible.

            Both markets are a level playing field.

            • bigpoppa on 30/03/2022 - 14:59
              -1

              @rektrading: Is it really? Would you buy stocks even though the cost of owning them is more than the profits you get from them? Have you seen police, nurses and even most doctors having to travel 45mins each way to get to work because the stock market is too expensive? Would you still buy stocks because you know that as long as the government gives you benefits the prices stay hyperinflated and the minute they stop say because there are more votes in favour of reducing the price of the stock you lost everything?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join