Dear Lucifrase,

You wrote;

“I now concede your point, so well done, and thank you.”

No need to thank me, it was a robust discussion and I certainly could have been clearer in making my points.

You asked what to do next and challenged me to “to put up something that gives Joe Average a fair crack at wealth and independence without without having to form a company to access lower tax rates”.

It is late so to be brief, as stated a big first step in my opinion would be to have the building depreciation only calculated at the point of sale rather than on an annual basis. This would claw back some of the billions of dollars foregone to our common weal by an overly generous negative gearing regime.

Most of all I want the greatest number of so called Joe Average's to have a “fair crack at wealth and independence” this includes many of the younger variety who are missing out on hopping on board through owning their own home.

I feel the current tax arrangements have skewed the housing market unfairly. I realise we disagree on this point which is fine, but there are many who are giving up on the idea of ever owning their own home and in a country like ours that is a shame and something that can be tackled through policy change.

There is no easy fix to housing affordability, however, I stress again, Sydney and Melbourne are fairly isolated cases, as there are plenty of affordable houses/dwellings in Oz.

Either way, anything we do to housing comes with huge risks as many houses are securing debt and, should the LVR slip through government intervention, all hell could break lose.

Alternatively, if government finds a way to make buying a home easier, it will simply inflate the market, point in case, the introduction and fiddling with the first home buyers grant.

There is no easy fix, but taking a sledge hammer to the whole of the country is just not warrented. The only solution is for those wanting to buy a home in these two cities, but cant afford them, is to look elsewhere.

If Labor won the argument I would strongly doubt it would champion your proposal on depreciation, Steely.

I think a reversion to indexed capital gains taxed at the top marginal rate would be a good thing and force more investors into a longer view.

NG is under threat from Labor on established housing, and even from Joe Average himself with the disparity growing again between his top marginal rate and the business rate (and perks).

Let's not forget that owner occupiers pay no CGT, so the lot of prospective live in homebuyers is not altogether unhappy. Perhaps they are the culprits forcing investors to pay more, not t'other way round, revealing fertile ground for gathering tax revenue towards public housing through CGT on the sale of the family home. :-) :-) :-)

"Let's not forget that owner occupiers pay no CGT"

Rest assured that the big-spending Labor and Greens have for years been jealously eyeing that pot of gold and the have regularly flown political kites proposing taxation.

The other target for Labor and Greens is the reinstatement of Death Duties.

Leoj, I have no real issue with inheritant tax, provided there is a large safety net.

Lets face it, something has to happen to our outdated tax system because if it doesn't, we are screwed.

If one is in their late 60's and the family home was purchased in the 50's, for a meer pittence, is it fair that those who inherit receive millions in many cases, while other, through no fault of their own get nil.

I say any recipient should be entitled to $500K tax free (per person of direct kin) then the balance be taxed. Even at 20% would be fine.

If anyone in their 60's cant live on half a mill FOR NOTHING, then thats their problem.

And, if an asset is owned by a trust/company, then it should be taxed at the normal cgt rates, whether its sold or not.

rehctub,

OK, so who inherited the dough and got you so jealous? A relative you don't like, a customer, some random person?

That is what makes Shorten's Class War, the politics of jealousy, wedge politics, so successful. So many people are so busy looking into others' backyards and minding their business for them that they forget the first priority which should be small government and getting the very best bang for their present bucks from government.

All Shorten does is stir the green-eyed monster and it finds myriad (often conflicting) causes for blame. Then he steps into the guvvy jet and heads over there somewhere, with a smug look on his dial. You let him off so easily and all he has to do is pull your strings.