The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Australia's land price conundrum > Comments

Australia's land price conundrum : Comments

By Bryan Kavanagh, published 19/5/2015

Are land prices sufficiently high now, do you think? Are we borrowing up to the gills and working like slaves to pay off the mortgage? In fact, isn't our way of life now all about debt and mortgages?

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
I don't want convicts living near me.
Anyway, what you're saying doesn't make sense: (let me explain)
Land Price Up = Good
Land Price Down = Bad
I don't get it; you want land prices to go down?
Are you even on Team Australia?
Posted by Dixie Normous, Tuesday, 19 May 2015 11:57:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes way too high! If we could just get rid of four things, we'd likely fix the problem? And those four things are?

1# pollies with investments in real estate and therefore a powerful vested interest in maintaining the status quo! [Well, if there's another valid reason for us having the highest median house prices in the english speaking world, what else could it be?]

2# foreigners with investments in existing real estate and for virtually the same aforementioned reasons.

3#Negative gearing applied to existing real estate, when it should only ever apply exclusively to brand new never ever lived occupied or worked in real estate, and then only for a maximum of 5 years!

4# Commissioned real estate agents who can talk the leg off the table, and are forever talking up the value, just so they can pocket a larger fee or commission; which should be both outlawed and replaced with a standard fee for a service; and salaried staff only!

Which would then see volume replacing margins; and consequently, far fewer agents and lower prices! It's just too easy!

What would further assist just that outcome, would be the long overdue roll out of rapid rail, and needed if we're ever to actually decentralize?

One thing there's no shortage of in Australia is land! And whole new towns have become viable overnight with the emergence of desal, for quarter of the price of traditional desal, and where some 97% of the water is the recovered potable water!

And of course the powerful developers with pollies in their pockets, will lose out with decentralization and the acre block replete with a veggie garden and the almost obligatory chook Hilton, replacing the tiny boxes they're pushing?

[And means the city dweller is virtually forced to produce 2.5 times the carbon of his country cousin!]

Which likely explains why decentralization and consequent much lower house prices are so rigorously resisted by risible rascals?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 19 May 2015 12:12:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bryan Kavanagh is obviously not a property owner.

One question Bryan, suppose in some parallel world you became the sole ruler and initiated your proposal. How long do you think you would remain in power when everyone is revolting over their property values decreasing by 75% and their taxes going up?

I can't see why you would even bother to share such craziness. Who do you think is going to go along with your plan, besides the people who have nothing presently?
Posted by ConservativeHippie, Tuesday, 19 May 2015 12:20:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One would assume that if land was taxed, then to compensate, other taxes would have to go down, or am I missing something?
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 19 May 2015 3:03:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It sound like a totally dumbass idea. What you are saying is that instead of paying $500 a week to the bank, we pay a land tax of $250 and another $250 to the bank. So we are still paying $500 per week but somehow we would all be better off.

Now lets put inflation into the equation. Inflation is great if you have a mortgage because your income is inflated but your mortgage stays the same. Now lets look at Land Tax. Government loves all that Land Tax revenue and they don't like to see it whittled away by inflation so they raise it every year. If you don't believe me, just take a look at your council rate notice which is just a form of Land Tax.

The net sum of all this is that instead of a mortgage decreasing every year, you have a government tax increasing every year.

On the plus side, you wouldn't have to worry about pensioners in million dollar homes. They wouldn't be able to afford the Land Tax and would be living on the street.
Posted by Wattle, Tuesday, 19 May 2015 6:06:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raising revenue by taxing land has one benefit. It is hard to evade the tax: every other tax can be circumvented by cunning lawyers, money is fungible. There is a tendency for councils to take on more community services, hence land tax is becoming a more significant contributor to revenue. There is a case for State governments to raise land taxes, especially on unimproved land. One sees land in cities vacant for years.
Posted by Outrider, Tuesday, 19 May 2015 10:17:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy