Arjay, as much as the Coalition would love to blame the Labor states for record low levels of housing affordability, Howard and Costello should be accepting the lion's share of the blame. Costello's halving of capital gains tax in 1999, combined with negative gearing and deductibility of depreciation and capital works, has had a massive effect on house prices. Housing prices have soured, and so has foreign debt (excaserbating our CAD problem and adding upward pressure on interest rates). High immigration levels have also contributed to the housing affordability crisis. The Coalition has ramped up immigration levels at the behest of big business, leaving the rest of us to pick up the bill for their greed in the form of exorbitant property prices. State government policies are largely inconsequential in comparison.

Ogliarch, negative gearing, depreciation and capital allowances (which include depreciation) have been around since before 1996. In fact since that time claims for investment property expenses have been clamped down on severely. As for capital gains tax being halved, well that's not entirely right either. Yes, since 1999 an individual investor can discount their capital gain by 50% before having it taxed, as long as they have held that investment for more than 12 months. However, we have had indexation since CGT was introduced in 1985, which meant that you didnt pay CGT on the basic capital gain anyway. The 50% discount was designed to simplify the CGT regime so that compliance costs were less, revenue was more secure and so the lay-person could understand it. Housing prices have been steadily increasing over a long period of time despite the fact that CGT was introduced in the first place. The real problem is not one of incentive to invest, it is one of availability. Come out to the country - plenty of empty houses you can get for next to nothing (although not in my town - theres a mine here, so real estate is expensive).

Hi Country Gal,

I read your posts with interest and often see sense in what you say. I realise this is a bit off topic, but I'm interested in your opinion on something which could be a new thread, if you feel like introducing it.

From time to time you make the point that there are advantages to living in the country. I lived in a big country village in Yorkshire before coming to Western Australia in 1962. But Leeds, a large city, was just down the road and other cities and large towns were not so far away.

I lived in Dampier in the 1960s, Port Hedland around 1970 and Darwin just after Cyclone Tracy, all business related. I have also worked and travelled extensively in isolated country areas of WA and the NT, so I know what it's like to be "in the middle of nowhere". I never talked like this to my clients of course, but I just couldn't imagine what it would be like to be stuck in some of these places.

The lack of public facilities of various kinds which city people take for granted. Health, education, sports, entertainment, shopping, on and on.

In my mind, perhaps the biggest problem of all is the lack of employment or business opportunities, leading to young people virtually having to leave country areas in order to get a job. So a shortage of girls for the guys, and perhaps also a shortage of guys for the girls.

We see programs on WA TV showing how housing blocks are released by local councils for next to nothing in some of our country towns, in an attempt to attract new residents. But having some knowledge of some of these areas, I sometimes wonder what kind of social life the newcomers will have, apart from any other considerations.

Apart from finding something under the ground worth digging out, what chance do such areas have of competing with urban, and mainly coastal areas, despite the affordable housing?

Arjay

If you read my post I did not say that charges have stayed constant as usual you have bent my words into something else. ( A common Liberal trick) I was talking about charges as a percentage of costs of a new house and land package. Did you realise that the GST adds about $40,000 to this cost today?

The difference now is that in the past infrastucture was paid for by Public Sector debt. Which meant infrastructure was paid for by everyone over a few generations, now because public sector debt has been outlawed by the economic rationalist gurus infrastucture costs are paid by new home buyers.

As for banana republics, Keating was talking about the current account deficit, what he was refering to was minute compared to the CAD now. We are living in Costellos' banana republic right now. This is because of his squandering of this countries wealth to pork barrel at election time, refusal to spend on skills and wealth creation and his incapacity to see that spending on infrastructure is what creates a successful nation.

ALL of the budget surpluses equal the amount the Govt. has made by selling assets. Economic managers I think not.

This Government's legacy will be a generation of renters. Well done.

Shonga

John Howard is God. And he will overcome all.

Keith

Hansard from 8th February 2007 says it all in relation to honesty and transparency. Senator Murray moved that Australia follow the example of the Canadian Government in relation to accountable and honest politics.
When voted on there were 31 ayes, 32 noes; the Coalition members were those who voted against honesty and transparency. Have a look at http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds080207.pdf

The hypocracy on the part of the Coalition is breath taking.