Thanks for that *RehTub* At least you have an awareness of the reality on the ground as opposed to *Belly* who seems to be somewhat divorced from it courtesy of his myopic support for his chosen party, which perhaps accounts for his inability to discern relevant material when confronted with it.

But to answer his question, indeed I am in favour of placing dynamic, indexed ceilings on property prices and thereby leveraging and lording a control mechanism over rental prices, amongst others in this sector.

My mate, were it not for being roped to his committments, probably would tell his greed little <snip> land lord to stick his rent <snip, snip, snip> so no *Belly* I am reasonably sure that he is not staying because he thinks it's worth it, but rather because he as of yet does not have a better alternative to fund his liabilities.

..

To think that we have so many homeless people in such a wealthy country is just an in bad taste example of the problem of letting greed and an ill conceived notion of free markets get out of control.

Verily, greedy land owners are a curse wherever you find them in the world.

Prices of property etc are no longer based on solid fundamentals and intrinsic value in Australia but rather on what business believe people are able to afford to pay.

It's a joke.

I guess one thing that concerns me is that many people seem to endorse voting Green purely because they want a third major party to break the ALP/Coalition duopoly. Forgive me if I'm wrong - I don't mean to offend here. And please don't think I'm preaching or smearing - I'm just commenting on what I have observed here and in the 'real world'.

I certainly applaud those people who vote Green because they agree with the Greens' policies. That is what democracy is about. Voting Green simply because they're not Labor or Liberal concerns me because people who do not necessarily agree with their policies or have faith in them as a party are, in effect, creating a third monster. When finding that third party, we need to make sure we find the right party - one that will truly break the mould and break it in the 'right' way. My parents tell me of elections that took place when Rhodesia was becoming Zimbabwe. Many people voted for the underdog (I think it was Canaan Banana - might have been Bishop Muzorewa or Josiah Gumede [I should have listened more carefully]) simply to avoid voting for either of the bigwigs. So many, in fact, that he won. The rest is history.

So, to reiterate - good on those people who vote Green because they believe the Green way is the right way. But be careful if your motives lie elsewhere.

DreamOn,

Rents are actually cheaper today than they were 20 years ago.ROI

I say negative-G and CGT are major causes of high rents and affordabillity, but! To address this the government could.

1. Phase out NG over 5-10 years, say at 5-10% P/Y

2. Phase out CGT at same time.

Currently, one has to hold a property for at least 12 months to receive a 50% reduction on CGT. This means that this property is out of the market for at least 12 months and, is only sold if a reasonable gain has been made, otherwise, the costs associated with buying, selling and re-buying outweigh the gains.

End result, shortage of properties.

Greens
I note that the greens want to impose a 50% tax on miners.

Of cause they call this a 'profits based tax'. So, what is 'company tax' if it's not 'profit based'?

Isn't 'company tax' paid on after expense profits?

Now on the other hand, if they wish to play around with 'royalties', then that's fine, but only if a profit is made, otherwise, minimal royalties should be paid. The royalties will fuctuate depending on the prices received. Now that's fair for miners and people alike, don't you think?

You see, both labor, and esspecially the greens, see mining as a potential 'cash cow', which, by the way, they held little interest in when coal was at $30 a ton.

The greens also want to ban fishing, pretty much along the entire east coast. One of the most participated, family orientated pasttimes around.

Now unless hell freezes over, a vote for the greens will be a vote for labor and who can ever forget the crap we went through the last time some geen fagget held the balance of power.

BTW, there will be more to come from the revelation that our former PM paid little interest in national security.

Now, where was his number 2 during this, I ask?

Interesting ideas re: property *RehTub* and I should like to hear more of the policies of those who are standing for election in relation to same.

..

*Otokonoko* raises an interesting historical point but I can't see any parallels in the comparison when considering the *Greens* and otherwise consider his concept of the "political game" to be limited.

..

As for the *Greens* policies, well there are enough of their members here for them to able to speak for themselves however:

1. In the matter of phasing out of coal and the phasing in of Green energy tech and energy positive households, they have my support.

2. In the matter of the upgrading of our electoral system they have my support.

3. In the matter of safeguarding our fisheries so that there will always be wild stocks in abundance for our recreational pleasure, they have my support.

4. In the matter of the protection of endangered habitat and native flora and fauna, they have my support.

5. In the matter of the protection of the higher order mammalian species from the barbaric depravities of the Japs and others, they have my support.

6. In the matter of the liberation of Tibet from the Human Rights abusing communist party of china, they have my support and I note that whilst I do not have an issue with constructive engagement and trade for the benefit of both our societies, the sovereign claims of Human Right's abusers are to be mostly ignored and additional efforts to encourage regime change should be encouraged.

There's obviously more to say, but me thinks that is enough to consider in relation to the topic of this thread.

DreamOn,

"I am in favour of placing dynamic, indexed ceilings on property prices"

Would that mean denying two consenting individuals from mutually agreeing on a transaction they both want to make?

If you cannot see the inherent evil in even contemplating something like that, here are some practical consequences:

1. Transactions will take place under the table, with only a portion of the price reported (and taxed).

2. No one will invest in renovations. Larger cracks and leaking roofs will become the norm.

3. Because people will not be allowed to sell their homes for what they already invested in it, they will stay longer in houses where they no-longer want to live, or are inappropriate to their changed family-conditions, or are next to bad neighbours, or away from relatives, friends and jobs. They will not even afford to retire to a respectable retirement-village/nursing-home once their health prevents them from continuing to live in their own home.

Dream on>> In the matter of safeguarding our fisheries so that there will always be wild stocks in abundance for our recreational pleasure, they have my support.

Best do your research on this one.