Greens leader Adam Bandt has said that if Labor doesn't get enough seats on its own they would team up to form a Labor-Greens coalition who would scrap the capital gains tax discount and scrap negative gearing.
He has said those two things are the reason for housing unaffordiblity and for property prices escalating so rapidly. He didn't even comment on the rate of immigration far exceeding the rate at which we are constructing accommodation.
Discuss.
@Protractor: @SBOB 'war in the middle east ends' - direct quote - for the record im sure you downvoted that comment - you gotta problem if you take issue with that
legit speaking the biggest thing i championed was the war ending
trigging you is just the cherry - im kidding
sadly it started up again and i have lost faith in there ever being peace in the region but i hope a cesse fire happens again
if i did say anything else in support of the man - i was probably wrong - happy to put my hand up and say im not always right but i have never been a big fan of Trump the guy isnt 'good' human but i do prefer the Reps over the Dems
I don't how how the average Australian got it in their heads that the Greens are extremist. Everything they advocate is fairly common sense, backed by science, supports equality, or even makes economic sense. Stability is essential for a confident economy. The Greens have been consistent in their message and their policies over decades. They don't fluff backwards and forwards like LNP and Labor do to trick voters into voting for them. They don't dodge questions hoping to avoid offending any voters. They don't lie. All of which means Australians could feel stable under Greens leadership.
Their policy on GMOs most certainly isn’t backed by science.
And the research on negative gearing and CGT discount suggests that removing it would make only minimal difference to housing affordability.
What research? How can you research something that hasn't happened?
PM Albanese and the ALP have steadfastly stated, MULTIPLE TIMES, they will never form a coalition with the Greens again.
The Greens think the housing crisis requires a silver-bullet.
It is known that scrapping NG would have little, if any, impact on the housing crisis.
The Greens know it is an election loser, hence why they're trying to get Labor to play their game.
Labor aren't.
Scare campaign in 3….2…..1
Would be a great change.
I say that as someone abusing the ridiculousness of negative gearing and cgt discounts myself. It's a stupid policy.
Yet another tenpercent rage bait 'I'M jUsT aSkIng QuEsTIoNs' post seeking "Discussion".
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/user/531042/nodes
Discuss.
Yep, and trompet's men under yank flag raging up here with misinformation, propaganda etc.
There were no questions in the OP.
Shut up.
Discuss.
You have contributed absolutely nothing to the discussions apart from random ad hominem and outbursts like this.
Do you even have any cogent thoughts or opinions?
'temper scent'
I never thought I'd say this, but the Greens should go back to being populist if they want to increase their vote share. Trying to explain how removing negative gearing and CGT discounts will result in a drop in housing prices is hard and it would happen over a long period of time, plus would need to be bundled up with the 50,000 other reforms needed to the housing market (number one being stopping politicians being landlords because they all benefit from the share market and housing market growing endlessly).
They should run on plastics. Plastics are bad. They live forever, pollute the oceans and make us sick. The 60 year olds that grumble about paper straws are never going to vote for them anyway, but parents with toddlers might be swayed to put the greens over labor/liberal because they care more about their kids than a 13% lowering of the wholesale price of natural gas.
You're right. The greens wouldn't know what a tree looks like any more, let alone a forest. They are shallow opportunists. So that makes them ideologically more like the LNP than Labor.
Nailed it.
There's a reason they're known as the Tree Tories
Trying to explain how removing negative gearing and CGT discounts will result in a drop in housing prices is hard and it would happen over a long period of time
It's hard because it won't cause house prices to drop as long as we keep bringing in 2000+ immigrants per day whilst only building enough accommodation for a small fraction of that many people. Supply and demand isn't going to change just because you change tax incentives for some of the people in the country. You're just shuffling chairs, but demand is still going to far outstrip supply.
grumble about paper straws
You realise those 'paper' straws are sprayed with a thin layer of microplastics, right and that they're filled with synthetic glues? Instead of waiting a few years or decades for normal plastic straws to degrade and disintegrate, you get the microplastics leaching into the envrionment on day 1 of disposal.
but parents with toddlers might be swayed
Only if they're smooth brained. Their toddlers will be drinking far more microplastics with microplastic coated 'paper' straws than were they to use solid plastic straws.
It's hard because it won't cause house prices to drop as long as we keep bringing in 2000+ immigrants per day whilst only building enough accommodation for a small fraction of that many people. Supply and demand isn't going to change just because you change tax incentives for some of the people in the country. You're just shuffling chairs, but demand is still going to far outstrip supply.
The joint problem is supply is being outstripped by demand
We had houses and high levels of immigration before covid. Our housing completions dropped off in 2019 and didn't recover. Immigration dipped in 2020 then recovered. Considering education is one of our biggest exports and worth tens of billions a year, we probably should have planned this better, because now we need to take the education industry out the back and shoot it.
Also we are bringing in nowhere near 2,000 immigrants a year, at least not permanent ones. We're having a flood of temporary visitors
You realise those 'paper' straws are sprayed with a thin layer of microplastics, right and that they're filled with synthetic glues? Instead of waiting a few years or decades for normal plastic straws to degrade and disintegrate, you get the microplastics leaching into the envrionment on day 1 of disposal.
Vote the Greens, they're promising to ban all PFAS. There are water based glues that are perfectly fine for humans that are available. No plastic or microplastics required.
Only if they're smooth brained. Their toddlers will be drinking far more microplastics with microplastic coated 'paper' straws than were they to use solid plastic straws.
Thank you for proving my point. Note I never said anything about parents being concerned about plastic straws, only plastics. I said the greens don't need to worry about the kind of people who start grumbling about paper straws. As you have shown here.
However, I understand now that the phrase "paper straws" is a bit of a trigger for some people and I'll stop using it. Well, starting now I'll stop using it.
The joint problem is supply is being outstripped by demand(abs.gov.au)
Isn't that just a rewording of what I said?
You're just shuffling chairs, but demand is still going to far outstrip supply.
.
Also we are bringing in nowhere near 2,000 immigrants a year, at least not permanent ones. We're having a flood of temporary visitors(abs.gov.au)
It's around 1800 per day new immigrants. And temporary visa holders who immigrate here temporarily still need housing temporarily (although how long do temporary visa holders stay and what proportion of temporary visas become permanent visa holders).
Currently there are around 250k homeless in Australia and that number is climbing by 10k per month. Net migration per month is around 36k, so roughly one third of those arrivals are displacing 10k people into homelessness. Each. And. Every. Month.
We have a huge problem and the only way we stem the bleeding is by slashing immigration and then waiting for housing to catch up to current requirements. There's some minor things we can do to speed up new dwelling completions such as incentivising only new builds excluding knock-down rebuilds (which don't add to the housing stock, unless it's a single occupancy replaced with a duplex for example) and excluding granny flats (which are substandard and crowed accommodation occuping land that could probably have had a full sized dwelling built on it able to accommodate a whole family). But there's no way around fixing the rental and homelessness crisis within the next parliamentary term without slowing immigration. To do anything else is to sentence 10s of thousands of more people to homelessness.
When the Greens discuss scaling back immigration for the reasons I mentioned then I'll consider voting for them.
Vote the Greens, they're promising to ban all PFAS.
They need to ban a lot more than PFAS. Pthalates. Most of the flame retardants used in bedding and sofas. Azo dyes. All the BPA alternatives which are just as bad as BPA for example BPS (but you can label a product as 'BPA-free' so it's all good right). Then we have to deal with the legacy lead problem (lead paint and lead dust), mainly in older houses which tend to be rentals (so even if you can get a rental, there's a good chance you're getting chronic exposure to unsafe levels of lead which just builds up in your body causing more and more damage), which no one wants to talk about.
There are water based glues
Mmmm mushy straws /s
Thank you for proving my point. Note I never said anything about parents being concerned about plastic straws, only plastics. I said the greens don't need to worry about the kind of people who start grumbling about paper straws. As you have shown here.
I realise you mentioned parents being concerned about plastic in general, however as you had already mentioned 'paper' straws I decided to mention plastic straws which are… wait for it… plastic.
The Greens should be as concerned about so-called 'paper' straws as I am, if they care about the environment or human health. But I think they're more about attention catching headlines than real effective reform.
I never thought I'd say this, but the Greens should go back to being populist if they want to increase their vote share. Trying to explain how removing negative gearing and CGT discounts will result in a drop in housing prices is hard and it would happen over a long period of time,
How did you come to this conclusion? On the contrary, it would immediately result in a price correction. Removing the financial appeal of buying investment properties immediately pulls a lot of competing buyers from the market. House prices dropped immediately in Melbourne following reforms to make it more expensive for investors, and they have remained lower since (comparatively).
Haha, the wealthy investors hoping to scam more money out of the Australian economy are negging me.
As a renter dealing with frustrating agents and a fix it himself boomer landlord, I gave you a + on your comment as I'd love to be able to afford our own space! We're not in poverty, we don't worry about going to the Dr or seeing a physio or specialist as needed. We can buy and repair small things like a car repair, service etc without worrying about also being able to eat that week.
But housing seems so astronomically out of reach. We're functionally just waiting for inheritance to give us even a chance. Being mid 30s we'll be waiting a while at that. Waiting for family to die seems like a pretty sad way to even get in with a chance to afford our own roof over our heads.. (to clarify because people tend to misread things here, we're not wishing anyone to die! Just stating facts)
Which reforms are those? We have new property reforms about once a week.
We also build way more houses than other states here in Melbourne. Check out table 38 here. We had better first home buyer programs for a long time too.
If we introduced Australia-wide reforms, would it make a difference too? If the Melbourne market is the least attractive to invest in then sure, less money will come that way. But if the entire market is less attractive it might just push rents up rather than prices down.
never thought I'd say this, but the Greens should go back to being populist if they want to increase their vote share. Trying to explain how removing negative gearing and CGT discounts
The Greens have always been advocating for policies like this.
They need to learn from the results of the US election and Voice referendum and keep messaging to simple sound bites. The majority of voters nowadays dont want to think more than 1 step ahead. Anything that requires more than 1 step will be become an easy target for opponents to run a scare and confuse campaign.
If i am elected in a power sharing arrangement with Labor I will insist on ponies for every child, foot rubs for OzBargain posters and discount eneloops.
You might be worried about this, but I’m pretty sure it is unlikely I will be elected in a power sharing agreement with Labor.
Adam Bandt might also want a lot of things, as might Anthony Albanese, Peter Dutton and independents.
Whether any of them get what they want come election time will be something else.
Adam Bandt might also want a lot of things, as might Anthony Albanese, Peter Dutton and independents.
Whether any of them get what they want come election time will be something else.
Let what they want help guide your preferences on Election Day Week.
For what it’s worth, I think excess immigration, plus the combination of negative gearing with CGT discounts (especially on existing housing) and the reluctance of Australia to provide adequate infrastructure and zoning to support higher density in existing areas and expansion into regions all contribute to high housing costs.
I reckon it is worth trying to attack all those things to reduce housing costs.
I’m happy to run the risk that investors find existing housing less lucrative if NG/CGT is reformed. We can continue to revise policy in future if things don’t work.
The idea we can never change taxes, or immigration levels or zoning because that is the way it is now is the fast route to atrophy.
Vote 1 mskeggs!
I think this will burn investment in apartments more than houses. Houses will still go up just slower but apartments are useless to investors with no NG and they're bad as an owner cause strata management costs are an absolute rort in Australia. And who will the majority of apartment investors be? Gen Zs cause that's all they could afford. Boomers and most millenials would be invested in houses with land value. Land value is not going to decrease because we all know Australia is dependent on immigration for growth but takes forever to build houses so the competition for land with existing dwellings just keeps growing.
I'm a landlord and I'm all for getting rid of CGT discount & negative gearing (Although the lack of negative gearing kind of affects 1st time investors IMO more than multi-property investors).
To be honest, without these 'perks', I wouldn't have been dissuaded from buying investment property.
I don't think it will make affordable homes less attractive to investors, although it will slow down the types of investors who do interest only loans or buy multi-million dollar investment properties.
We gotta keep on building new homes & new infrastructure to make just-as-nice to live places outside of the current popular areas. The commercial property rents also need to be reasonable to allow businesses to thrive. We also need a diverse demographic of occupants single area - my current suburb is 93%+ owner occupied - that's crazy!!
Is it worth keeping the perks only if investors invest in building new houses on new land (or increase the dwelling capacity on an existing piece of land?)
I presume people are also talking about apartments & duplexes here, not just the American dream idea of a house with backyard for everyone?
Tell him his dreaming Green have a lot of pipe dream lay off the weed for a bit.
Negative gearing is unique to Australia. Housing in rest of the world survive without negative gearing.
There are people how have brought more than hundred houses by misusing the negative gearing and CGT discount. So, removing these benefits will definitely help in housing affordability.
https://www.realestate.com.au/news/real-life-monopoly-aussie…
Problem is not having one or two investment properties, but when people can game the system that's the problem.
Many first home buyer can't buy the house because it's too expensive. So, if we slow down the investors then they would have a chance.
There are people how have brought more than hundred houses by misusing the negative gearing and CGT discount.
You're right. I don't know how many articles I've seen on news.com.au about some incredibly smart 30-year-old who has bought 58 properties on a $70,000 salary.
Who also got the deposit for their first home from their parents while they still lived at home! Heh
Whilst its a good idea on paper, its political suicide. The ALP is not considering it in all their election pitches and for them to pull it out of nowhere or as part of a Green minority government deal, never gonna happen. Reform this huge takes years of softening up the electorate and laying out very good reasons.
Interesting to note that even the Greens are soft on this now. Their policy is to restrict it to one property.
I like both of those policies but the ALP would never agree to it after 2019. The Greens have nobody else to negotiate with. ALP will have some other independents.
Greens may get some more palatable policies up though as part of a negotiation.
We were chatting about this over dinner last night - maybe if Labor has a plurality and only way for any party to form gov is with the greens they can say "we are respecting the election result" and agree to it.
When the sky doesn't fall over the next 3 years it might be a much less important issue.
Not sure why Lab dont just slowwwwly faze it out/reduce it over time for new purchases only so it doesnt really affect people who use it NOW, but discourages/gets ride of it for the future…
Because Liberals gave them a hiding 2 elections ago for even thinking about it.
Listening to Adam Bandt and the Greens gives you a feeling like when you step on chewing gum
I support negative gearing removal (grandfathered of course) on existing properties. I feel that putting rules so that it can only be applied to brand new dwellings, would actually promote supply.
Why grandfathered and how? Like for example, anyone already negatively gearing can continue to do it for the next 2 years to give them time to sort their sh$t out? Or like they can continue negatively gearing their properties until they die or sell the property?
Considering the high cost to exit these assets ( stamp duty, etc) I feel that it would be unfair to change tax rules for immediate implementation which could result in people losing significant amount of money. It's the situation of, would people have invested their money in said assets if the rules were different.
As a hypothetical example, imagine the uproar if the government would implement massive land tax only on houses and not for apartments. The house owners would of course argue that they wouldn't have bought them if there was such a tax.
Remember that some of these investors are simple families working in the public sector and immediate change in negative curing could result in significant downgrade in their financial situation. Not all investors own 20+ properties and making millions.
Generous idea: Refund the amount of stamp duty they paid, adjusted by CPI between the purchase date and today. if they want to avoid agent commissions etc they can surrender the property to their state government fee-free for the full market value (per 3 independent professional valuations).
Offer limited to the implementation period (say 2 years), after which they've had plenty of time to consider their situation and stick with it.
they can surrender the property to their state government fee-free for the full market
Tax free, wow, sounds good.
Remember that some of these investors are simple families working in the public sector and immediate change in negative curing could result in significant downgrade in their financial situation.
Oh no! Not public sector employees!
@tenpercent: Yup, your teachers, nurses, police, fireman, etc. Unless you don't plan to use those services?
@Duckie2hh: Moving past tenpercent's edgelord lack of empathy, it's clearly two sides of a coin for them
Side 1: (needing the service right now) My taxes pay for this, do what you're told
Side 2: (not needing the service right now) You are all parasites and I know what is best for everyone in society
@Crow K: Lol. Yes I agree that we need to do more to improve housing affordability. But kicking out all the investors won't solve the long term problem.
In my opinion:
1) Create special rules whereby housing/planning decisions are streamlined and are not decided by local councils. The idea of NIMBY-ism is destroying the densification of key certain areas (#melbourne), resulting in pushing people further out; leading to point 2….
2) Significant improvement in our public transport system. The other day I saw 2 busses running one after the other on the road… meaning that the next one to come along and travel the same path would be 30 mins+. More accountability is required. Improvement in transport system, will provide the public with more confidence and therefore more acceptance of living in smaller units, improving densification, etc.
3) Radical idea. Kill off stamp duty and have land tax across the board (linked to both the price and land size). This eliminates the high cost for people to move from one location to another as well as increase the tax generated for the state. Yes if you own a 1,000m2 property on point piper with a tennis court, you are going to pay for the privilege. This will lead to point 4…..
4) Remove the ability for owners of under utilized land (I am looking at you, old office blocks that sit empty) to sit on them empty and trashed, rather than be turned to residential areas, etc.
Our political system works slow enough already……imagine how slow it would work with the greens actually having some form of power
OP really is with Hanson, blaming the immigrants for all his problems. DEY TUK MER HOUSE
The Greens have NFI how things work.I consider myself centre-left leaning but would rather vote for Dutton, Hanson or even Palmer before the idio7ic Greens - thats how pathetic they are. Too bad my electorate is full of greenies.
You’re not that left if you’d vote for fascists first
OP throws a hand grenade
i would say at least limit the negative gearing to say 2 properties per person
Greens are making a habit of claiming they will negotiate with Labor, on issues Labor has made clear are not actually up for negotiation, and then in reality the Greens have a tantrum and side with the LNP. They have a tactic of "talk progressive, vote conservative."
Those with either economic sense or compassion (or both) all want CGT discount and negative gearing abolished. However those with economic sense and compassion are not the majority. The majority are homeowners. Labor tried going against the homeowners before. They lost. The Greens would be wise to simply admit it, instead of trying to beat a dead horse. Their decision to not give up on the matter has already led us to an entire year's delay on the HAFF, and has made the housing crisis worse.
It always puzzled me why doing work is taxed at double the rate of buying an asset, doing nothing but waiting, and then selling it a year later.
Which one delivers more value to Australia?
Check out Garyseconomics, he's been speaking on this issue for a while regarding wealth inequality and the way the tax system works for the rich and against workers. He's been gaining a lot of momentum lately with his msg,
"Tax wealth, not work".
so the conversation typically goes down like this
Greens: "get rid of negative gearing if you want to form govt with us"
Labor: "no"
Greens: "…"
Labor: "so are you going to form govt with us"
Greens: "yes"
Albo has explicitly said multiple times he will not form an alliance with the Greens, so I don't know what Bandt is on about.
Albo's explicitly said a lot of things. Could I offer you $275 lower power prices on average in 2025 vs 2022, and no changes to the legislated income tax changes from 01/07/2024, perhaps?
No GST ever, under any govt I lead
Bandt is very much like Trump. He targets populist policies at uneducated voters that don't understand the real life implications of what he is proposing. I don't like Albo or Trust him to do the right thing, but I hope to hell we don't have Greens with any balance of power as that is worst case scenario.
No he’s not. Trump is a fascist.
fascist sociopath
Me doesn't comprehend this post but I do know Asia is trying to buy Australia….
Then they better have USD ready for the Yanky owners.
TLDR: we have the tech now, capital gains shouldn’t be treated to any special 50% discount because you held it for a year. Why should capital gains be any different to a wage. There technology is there to accurately track assets (Sharesight) and apply an appropriate discount for inflation. I’m sure the government would be able to offer some basic platform for tracking like they offer for people to taxes (shit tonne better than the USA mess). As for negative gearing, I don’t have an issue with it - if people want to structure their assets that way but the capital profit or loss must be treated the same was regular wages.
Why?
I already paid tax on the money I invested. Why should I pay tax again on earnings, and then a 3rd time on capital gains?
I don't understand why some people are so willing to give away most of what they work for. I bet you don't have much in the way of investments, yeah?
Um…you don’t pay tax on it twice, you only pay a percentage above the inflation adjusted capital (in my preferred world) that you invested and any income if generated.
Australians all have investments, it’s called super and the capital games tax is about the same as the dividends tax afaik.
I believed that paying tax in a progressive and loop hole free manner to ensure an appropriately funded government and the services that we enjoy are vital for society and provide a stable environment for business to sell goods and services. Multiple coalition governments have pork barrelled different groups or fed them lines result in an ugly selfishness .
I believed that paying tax in a progressive and loop hole free manner to ensure an appropriately funded government and the services that we enjoy are vital for society
Alternative: mimic the Saudi Aramco model for all mining, oil and gas projects in Australia.
so you want the CG discount removed from super? I didn't think so.
Yeah I understand your point, I've heard it plenty. Everyone who has more than me should play robin hood.
@SlickMick: You completely missed his point Mick.
The point it currently capital gains taxes are discounted vs other forms of income tax.
It’s not paying twice - it’s paying once or rather.. once but at a discount. On the income you get from the profit of selling higher than you buy the asset.
There is no logical argument why this should be true.
@boirganz: I didn't miss his point. You prob ought to be replying to my other post if you don't agree taxing dividends and CGT is double & triple taxing.
But like you say, this comment is whether there should be discounts to CGT. @tsk2 wants people better off than him to pay 100% CGT, but his super shouldn't.
@SlickMick: It’s apples to oranges for super vs other investments that’s why.
Super is a specific investment vehicle designed to support you in retirement and reduce the burden on government pensions. It’s in the governments interest to forgo tax income from that stream to incentivise investment and grow those nest eggs.
There is no incentive to maintain capital gains discounts at the current levels in the current fashion except as a tax minimisation scheme for the individual. There was a historical basis for it but that ship has long since sailed.
Your point on double taxation is factually false. At a risk of beating the dead horse, the capital gains or investment income someone makes has not been taxed as income prior. Why do you think it has already been taxed ?
There was a historical basis for it but that ship has long since sailed.
What was the historical basis?
Why is it different now?
Sounds like a great idea to destroy the rental market for good.
Yes, it will destroy the rental market by allowing the renter to buy the house. Similar to Victoria, when the state government raise the land tax; property guru was saying that it will increase the rent. However, it actually increases the home ownership.
Assuming it has the same effect as land tax in Victoria (which it won't because investors in Victoria's housing market simply turned to alternatives i.e. the other states, hence the tiny price drop when it was introduced. A nationwide measure won't have the same effect because alternative investment classes eg foreign property or shares aren't accessed as easily). Assuming prices did drop, then at the margins it may shift some renters into the home ownership category, but that takes as many houses off the rental market as there were previous tenants inside them (give or take), so the remaining rental market will be unchanged in terms of excess number of potential renters and a shortage of houses for them. And that number of renters vs number of properties mismatch will just continue to get worse as we continue to accept 1800+ new people per day via immigration which is multiple times in excess of current dwelling construction. You need to increase the supply of houses or decrease the demand for housing (I only see three options: Black Death 2.0, massively lethal war where Australia conscripts men and women to go to die, or reduced immigration while house construction catches up).
Negative gearing and capital gain tax discount on existing house doesn't increase the supply; it only increase the price due to speculation and tax benefit which put the first home buyer further away. We need to cut the immigration and build more houses to fix the issue. We can keep the Negative gearing for one or two property new houses which can help to increase the supply.
There are people with 100 houses who are misusing the NG and CGT discount. That need a fix.
We need to cut the immigration and build more houses to fix the issue.
Exactly.
There are people with 100 houses who are misusing the NG and CGT discount. That need a fix.
Agreed. But I think people with that many properties would shift ownership into a company structure and still be able to reduce tax payable.
Agreed. But I think people with that many properties would shift ownership into a company structure and still be able to reduce tax payable.
Even if some people move the company structure government can still fix the issue. They can progressively increase the land tax depends on number of properties a company/trust/person hold.
Sure, plenty of unemployed 18 y.o. eager to buy property, and the banks can't wait to lend money to such desirable customers.
Sounds great.
Also it won’t happen because it’s not just up to the Greens and Labor have multiple options to choose from.
Good
Labor is in negotiations to form government with the Trumpet of Patriots today.
What does that mean, for someone who doesn't watch/read the tabloids?
Why make stuff up like this?
Good.
I'm a homeowner but I support abolishing NG and CGT for a sake of our future generations.
Wonderful discussions! I have a genuine question though. Which party is in favor of Net zero immigration.
Sounds good.
There was a great cartoon of Bandt in yesterdays Australian. He was a scorpion holding a gift of housing reforms but the stinger on his tail was extremism.
Greens - the party of choice for purple-haired GenZ's.
@SBOB: LOL,
that's what a full load looks like.Nice work.I always knew