Estimated to cost 1st home buyers 20k more on new developments.
Will affect around d 30% of all new developments
Thoughts?
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/feb/18/victo…
Dan to Add 1.75% Levy on Some New Builds in Victoria
Trying2SaveABuck on 19/02/2022 - 10:49
Poll Options
- 52I support the levy
- 7I dont care
- 33I'm against the levy
Comments
Did you actually read where the money is going to?
Yep - and it will be the same as the "land fill levy" they introduced, now standing at about $100 a tonne.
The tax was "sold" on the premise the funds would be used for recycling projects etc.
Reality is that so far there is about $500 million unspent on that purpose, rather gone into consolidated revenue.
If you believe the end result will be any different with this new tax then …………….!
Does anyone believe Dictator Dan?
He has lied about everything.throughout the pandemic.
And how about all this branch stacking in which he is deeply involved.
This is just an excuse for yet another property tax.
There is no guarantee on the amount proposed nor that it wont be increased
There is no guarantee on where it will be spent.
We never had this type of funding before.
We don't need it now.
And he has already increased land tax and land transfer duty for many people already in 2021
This is just another tax grab on (small) property owners (to whom it will be passed on)
And its another nail in the coffin of Victorians.
No problems WA is there .
Amnesia Dan needs to find at least $1.4B for all of those ICU beds and world class health system he has put in place after running Vic health for over 7 years!
All new developments? Let's not load the poll. Do we need more social housing? How are we going to pay for it?
From the article…
From 1 July 2024, new Victorian developments of three or more dwellings and lot subdivisions of three or more must contribute 1.75% of the as-if-complete market value to a social housing growth fund.
Victoria’s treasurer, Tim Pallas, said the contribution would affect fewer than 30% of all residential planning permits but would raise more than $800m each year, paying for up to 1,700 new social and affordable homes and supporting 7,000 jobs in the construction sector every 12 months.
On a 'whataboutism' note, the Federal treasurer has pledged to cut taxes, which will cost $180 billion over 10 years. How are we going to pay for it? Shrug?
We should lower the tax threshold and taxes on rich. Its what Australia wants with LNP.
LNP lowerer taxes benefited those earning around 60k pa the most… not defending liberals but that is very much working class wages.
This ALP policy probably hurts the regular workers more then anyone else.
I'm not against building social housing but essentially this sounds like robbing Peter to pay Paul.
It hurts the very people you are trying to help people that struggle to afford a home
new Victorian developments of three or more dwellings and lot subdivisions of three or more
It's hard to fathom this affecting many regular workers, especially
people that struggle to afford a home
They seem to be two different segments of the market.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul is kinda the idea with all taxes. It's called wealth redistribution.
@reactor-au: No, most taxes are essentially social insurance policies, those. Pensions, medical insurance, unemployment insurance, even defence could be considered “home insurance” on a national scale. About 1/2 the OECD countries structure a large portion of taxes as actual insurance premiums, albeit the rates are proportional to means to pay, rather than risk.
I suspect levy will go into a black hole consumed by Parkinson’s law. Subdivisions in my state attract a large green space levy, paid into a state government fund. Almost every block in my area has or will be subdivided. I’ve never seen more green.
Personally speaking there is not much point building more social housing if your making the challenge of home ownership harder.
That is my opinion.
I really hope you don’t think people who need social housing are the reason we have a housing affordability problem.
Yes, there is a massive difference between those who can and can’t afford to buy property, but people relying on social housing are not even trying to play that game. They’re just trying to not live on the street.
Of course not i think the same people trying to buy there 1st home fit a similar if not same category as ppl who need government support for a place to live?
Dont u think there is a correlation?
I highly recommend you watch Could You Survive on the Breadline on SBS on demand. It gives an insight into some of the reasons people need social housing.
@jjjaar: As i said i support social housing… i just dont support taxing those who are in need or housing themselves to get more of it.
I dare say a levy on investor loans or investor purchases would be a smarter policy? It would also discourage the needless level of property investment from those who have the money to buy investment properties?
@Trying2SaveABuck: Oh whoops sorry misunderstood your previous comment.
Agree that taxing those with multiple properties is a better way. It’s insane how many properties some people are able to afford, many luxurious, and first home buyers are left compromising.
But remember, they’re taxing the builders/developers not the new owners. Of course it will be passed on, but a lot told the buyers will be investors anyway, and it may be enough to make the investor equation not come out in their favour.
I've noticed that you somehow make the assumptions that this levy will cost 1st home buyer 20k or more. The levy is not targeted at 1st home buyer nor is there any data to back up that new builds are exclusive to first home buyer. I would think that most 1st home buyer buys older build as it's more affordable.
Older buildings are more affordable however older areas generally are not thus older builders are in older areas…. New suburbs are generally cheaper by a long way per dwelling
Spin it anyway you want if anything I would put an exeption on 1st home buyers however this would make me support this policy otherwise this is a rubbish idea to support a good idea. However bcuz the tax is pasted to the builders ot would be hard to pur in an effective exeption
From Andrews
New build first time buyer does get the First Home Owners Grant so I guess the two cancel each other out.
Your figure of $20k increase is based on the median home value in Melbourne of $1.1m. Sorry but if you can afford that sort of money as a first home, you can afford the levy.
Yes, you can argue that not having the FHOG will not help first home buyer but money has to come from somewhere for social housing. Unfortunately, the federal government has no interest in addressing the issue of crazy house prices. Actually, it's the Australian public that has no interest in addressing it as they keep voting the Liberal party in.
@zoombie: Exactly what do you expect the federal government to do? Housing affordability is a different issue in every state matter of fact if anything declining house prices is just as much of an issue in the past for cities like Perth and Hobart.
I agree someone with 15 houses should pay more tax I dont agree some who has zero
Should? That is what Andrews is doing right now.If you say negative gearing is the issue then you don't understand the problem. As negative gear is nation wide but Sydney and Melbourne are the two cities with the least affordable housing.
The issue is employment in both states is focused in and around the cbd bad roads, poor public transport etc contribute which is all state government
When WFH got widely accepted people moved away from the cities. Now the government want ppl to return to work in the big cities thus is the problem.
It was actually LNP who wanted Dan to build a road that linked west and east Melbourne which would actually help congestion and in wider part housing Dan refused to build thay road in favor for the well over budget tunnel he is trying to get up which in fairness we also need.
@Trying2SaveABuck: I'm not pro ALP or Liberal. What I am pro is a government that want to address the big issues and advance the interest of the country. After all, isn't that the point of government?
The Liberal, based on recent history, have no interest in doing that.
If your argument is that the federal government has no power to affect pricing then what's the point of having all that power and being so useless at the same time?
There are many factors that affect the housing prices but the two factor that started this whole mess is immigration rate and tax incentive. Both of these are under the Federal government control.
Unfortunately, they (the federal government, Labor ignore it as well) have let this issue drag on for too long so now it becomes a hot potato that no one want to touch. Labor went to the last 2 elections with some changes to negative gearing and everyone scream that this would be the end of the world (except you? as you don't think the fed have any power to change pricing).
Had the Liberal went to the last 2 elections and do the opposite of Labor i.e. proposed changes to tax and immigration, I would have voted for them as it's the right thing to do for the country in the long term.
@Trying2SaveABuck: Sydney and Melbourne are the least affordable because they are the two cities with the most jobs so everyone want to squeeze in. Negative gearing is not the only issue, but it doesn't help so we should get rid of it. If you're sinking, you need to get rid of anything that doesn't help, we are sinking but we are not willing to change so we just keep sinking further each year. The public just keep talking about it but there's not enough votes in it to change.
@zoombie: I dont think you understand negative gearing.
You also dont understand property doesnt always go up esp outside of Melbourne and Sydney. To get rid of neg gearing might cool property price in to some extent but the overall nation would suffer.
I agree if you have over 10-15m in net worth you probably should pay more tax but alp or lnp dont really support that.
I don't know why ur anti LNP this is probably the most Labour -esq LNP federally i have ever seen.
Generally speaking we pay too much tax in Australia and tax generally reduces productivity
There is also a lot of money wasted on rubbish that doesn't boost productivity that needs to be addressed at both federal and state level. Increasing taxes on housing only makes housing more expensive
Good way to help out first home buyers and to ease the housing affordability crisis is to jam a new tax onto developments which will only hurt end consumers. How about we start taxing people who own 15 "investment" properties. Boomers wont give a rats arse about this tax because they already own their "investment portfolio".
What they should be doing is if it's a first home for new buyers, give them the breaks and start taxing the people who can actually afford it and are only building houses to pad out their portfolio. If they got people into more affordable housing by stopping the greedy from buying it all up from under them and then renting it back, they wouldn't need a new "tax" to assist in "social housing" because houses would be more affordable.
It's (fropanity) stupid to think that when my daughter is old enough to look at buying a house, the average price of a house anywhere is going to be over $1 million yet wages will still be comparatively the same as today.
Limit the number of "investment" properties a person can "own", stop international bottomless pocket investors from buying up whole suburbs and get rid of negative gearing. These would do a lot more to help the housing market than just adding another tax onto the people that can least afford it.
It's a state government initiative. Personal tax is a federal government responsibility, touching the golden goose of "investment" properties will annoyed a lot of people therefore the Liberal party have no interest in doing anything as their mandate isn't to advance Australia but to get elected.
A 1.75% tax is nothing.
It's a small price to pay to own real estate that 2x every 7Y.
Fair - what happens when property goes backwards? Due to raising interest rates and high inflation?
That is a good question. 🙏 wait while I 🔌 up my ✨ 8️⃣ 🏀.
Investing in real estate (or any market with $100,000s) is a long term conviction play. It's an easy game with simple rules. Just look for a hard asset with a good asymmetric return, buy it, wait and 😌. That's it.
People normally don't 👀 or worry about their retirement fund every day. Real estate should be treated the same way.
I feel like you just found emotion a couple of days ago 😜
@Soluble: I keep my emotions in a box. It's locked up when I trade and I only let it out when I step away from my workstation or put the device down.
I guess you dont know anyone who has a property in an old mining town….
@Trying2SaveABuck: People shouldn't come to a party at 3 AM 🤔 the best-looking people are still single.
The last people to FOMO in the mining boom didn't DYOR and got what they deserve.
@rektrading: But you literally just said estate is full proof as long as you have long term conviction?
Or what if you own one of those apartments thay has the flammable cladding? Or structural defects?
Or you purchase a property off the plan and half way the builder goes bust?
Your arguement is so flawed and narrow minded like this policy
@Trying2SaveABuck: I didn't say foolproof.
I said Investing in real estate (or any market with $100,000s) is a long term conviction play. It's an easy game with simple rules. Just look for a hard asset with a good asymmetric return, buy it, wait and 😌. That's it.
People that read that and think it's foolproof deserve what they get.
@rektrading: No i think if you think investing 100s of 1000s if not millions is 'easy game' then your not a good investor you might have been lucky but making big money is anything but easy.
@Trying2SaveABuck: Yes.
It's always down to 🎲 when someone makes 💵 on the market. It's always 🎲 this and 🎲 that, You came in early, you bought cheap, etc. These are the sorry excuses used by people to justify their poor investment and trade decisions.
The reality is 🥬 🙌 don't DYOR, they FOMO, they buy the tops and sell the bottoms. They then get 😱, 😭, 😡, 🧂 and start lashing out at family, friends and strangers online for their failure.
I see this every time the momentum changes from 🐂 to 🐻. It makes grown men cry when they tell their wives they lost all their savings.
Investing isn't 🧠 surgery. DYOR, make a plan and stick to it. Done.
@rektrading: Well if you invest in HSO or RCH investing could be surgery bahaha
Listen you are not wrong with the last comment but it is the exact opposite of your 1st comment.
DYOR is a wide statement 9/10 ppl dont beat low cost index funds so if you are the 1/10 good on you i guess but the odds imply it isnt easy
In my own portfolio long term VAS and VSG are beating my individual stocks over the long term.
It's an interesting levy but doesn't reflect community sentiments well. 100% the costs will be passed onto the end consumers but if we had provisions for waiving, crediting or reducing the fee for FHO end buyers, it would better help the community, especially those who haven't bought houses.
I agree with this the issue it the tax is on the builders which will be pasted on to consumers with interest.
Seriously you'd be stupid to build a new home with the crazy inflation on all supplies.
Buy a nice old brick house that doesn't fall apart like a lot of the new LEGO types.Joneses don't buy used 🏠. A McMansion and two AMG is the bare minimum.
As night follows day, The Greens make policy suggestions for years (sometimes decades) & then governments take them up.
Glad to avoid comrade Dan!
the state government gotta find ways to commit to their agenda, it doesn't help when you have the big guy on the other end of the political spectrum getting all the pay cheque but don't want to give you a cent to spend on something not fitting his view (aka deficit) and you are not fortunate enough to be on a pile of red gold to sell it and spend money your way. It's an unfortunate situation but someone has to foot the bill.
May be people should opt-out and let not buy the overpriced 🧱?
He has got to try and find $200 billion to pay for all of their over-time and over-costs projects somewhere