individual
You make an excellent point about affordability but that is why house prices have been stagnant for years .. the market is correcting but its obviously not in a bubble.. the article is absurd..

I linked to a report by the International Centre for Economics earlier. The report concluded that Government taxes account for 44% of the cost of a median priced home.

While it is always worth examining the methodology and calculations, this organisation is a contractor to government and there should be no quibbling about the expertise of its principals and staff. Here is another report it has done,

http://www.metroplansydney.nsw.gov.au/Portals/0/pdf/AlternativeGrowthPaths.pdf

There is no implication of fudging where the methodology and limitations are stated which indeed they are.

Where government itself claims rising cost of items to the budget and plans pruning, say the 'rising' cost of analgesics, it ensures that all direct, indirect contributors as well as associated impacts are factored in.

Pot meet kettle.

Curmudgeon, "the bulk of housing price in Australia is due to the land, not the building"

We bought a house recently for $660,000. The independent valuation of the house is $450,000, excluding fittings such as blinds and so on and landscaping. That was confirmed by the lender's valuer as well. It was not unreasonable, an average sized home of 250 sq metres with a medium finish costs $538,750 to build in the area (Washington Brown price calculator).

But even if land represents the highest cost, you then need to identify the government taxes and not exclude the costs of holding land for development including such costs as land taxes.

Maybe people should be reading the report by the Centre for International Economics for themselves rather than dismissing it simply because a non-government body commissioned it. The numbers are there and someone has to pay. Half of the monthly mortgage payments lost to taxes is not a good look.

"Fudging", onthebeach? Perish the thought.

>>There is no implication of fudging where the methodology and limitations are stated which indeed they are.<<

Stating the methodology does not, however, guarantee that it is sound.

From the report:

"Ambiguous taxes are charges that are related to specific activities but may be levied above the cost of the services provided or above the costs less the share that should be borne by government. In this sense it is often ambiguous as to whether they are a usage charge or a tax."

The main culprit here is the Infrastructure charge. This is a) taken by the government and b) used to provide (surprise!) required infrastructure. This is not a tax in the sense that stamp duty is a tax. In business terms, it is a cost-of-sale - a necessary, direct cost of doing business. Without the infrastructure charge, no infrastructure. No infrastructure, no house.

"Evaluating hidden taxes is more complicated than other forms of taxes as hidden taxes are in place in order to achieve other community objectives"

Nevertheless, having stated the clearest of caveats, the report proceeds to add together every single "hidden tax" that it can find.

Sorry, onthebeach, the report is totally without credibility. I doubt the research company in question queried the categories of cost that they were asked to calculate, they just went ahead and did the sums they were asked to perform.

>>We bought a house recently for $660,000. The independent valuation of the house is $450,000<<

Ummm, why?

Because, I would suggest, you determined that the house was good value in meeting your requirements, and that if you hadn't bought it, someone else would have.

That's supply and demand for you, right there.

That's supply and demand for you, right there.
Pericles,
If only this philosophy was applied to the public services as well.
Unfortunately though it's greed & no need.

"There are more than 1.7 million investors with an interest in one or more properties, owning close to two million rental properties."

Facts, figures, and lying statistics ?

Is 1,700,000 of 22,896,242 or 7.42% really so large ?

22,896,242 from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Web+Pages/Population+Clock

The statement and stats are designed to confuse thus promote "buy now" arguments.

Display numbers for "investors" who's only investment is their own home.

Display as "serious investors" those owning more than one home.

Are numbers for "investors" buying another home to move into and selling their first home to pay for this change significant % ?

How many "investors" own more than one block of land, particularly two adjoining blocks of land with one hous