Select to expand quoteAdriano said..
To add to the above, yes I'm a strong advocate of completely removing stamp duty on established property. Of course it should be paid once - by the developer subdividing land and as a job lot. This would be passed onto purchasers but at a much lower rate.
State governments could then raise revenue from land tax payable only by investors, second/third home owners and hobby farmers etc. The current land tax exemptions would be maintained.
GST would need to increase perhaps.
Yes, while some in the government complain that there are elderly people living in a house larger than they need, presumably because it prevents a larger family occupying the same property, the stamp duty means its not an inviting prospect.
$40k of stamp duty if you NSW land is worth $1M, which is not going to thrill you if you are eyeing off a smaller townhouse when you get older.
$40K that you otherwise don't pay if you stay put and occupy exactly the same resources.
Perhaps it would be fairer if you could transfer the 'duty paid' between homes for your first home as you sell and buy again. Something that an investor would have to pay but everyone got exemption for for their home the live in.
Of course, the money stream would be addictive for the state government, so its not going to happen easily.
The feds would have to "buy" stamp duty from the states. I reckon you're on the money too Adriano, an increase in GST and a guaranteed distribution to the states would probably do it.
Select to expand quotePaddles B'mere said..
The feds would have to "buy" stamp duty from the states. I reckon you're on the money too Adriano, an increase in GST and a guaranteed distribution to the states would probably do it.
GST is a very regressive form of taxation disproportionately borne by those on lower incomes.
I disagree Cambodge, a VAT doesn't discriminate at all and it's very efficient. People on higher incomes usually lead a more expensive lifestyle and consume more expensive goods and services so therefore they pay more VAT. This concept obviously doesn't apply to a multi-millionaire who's a total tight@rse and drives a $950 VS Commodore and lives in a caravan, but applies for most high income earners.
Select to expand quotePaddles B'mere said..
I disagree Cambodge, a VAT doesn't discriminate at all and it's very efficient. People on higher incomes usually lead a more expensive lifestyle and consume more expensive goods and services so therefore they pay more VAT. This concept obviously doesn't apply to a multi-millionaire who's a total tight@rse and drives a $950 VS Commodore and lives in a caravan, but applies for most high income earners.
The wealthier invest rather than spend so don't incur so much GST per $ wealth.
^^ Even more than that, a GST penalises consumption rather than work / production. It is encouragement at a macro-level for the economy to produce more and consume less. This has a positive effect on overall national wealth.
In saying that, a balanced and broad taxation base is still very important for a whole range of reasons. Income tax is important for reasons of redistribution, bearing in mind that all taxes have limitations and can't be expected to fulfil every policy objective.
Select to expand quotebazz61 said. an easy fix , company liquidates, tax payers pick up the tab .
Why should the taxpayer foot the bill??
Get serious with the developers, builders, suppliers and building inspectors!!
Shoddy building practices should be a criminal offence,
Seize company assets, arrest directors for being responsible for "conduct endangering life and property" [or whatever] convict, and strip every cent of their assets as "profits of crime", introduce fine print to conviction - no automatic reduction of sentences until they cooperate with retrieving funds held overseas.
I'd agree with that Cambodge, the wealthy will usually invest the surplus left over after their cost of living so there will be a point where the VAT paid will possibly max out as income increases, but I'd still argue that a VAT is very effective tax on the cost of living up to this point because everyone has to pay it. Agreed AUS1111, all the other taxes work in combination to hopefully get the best/fairest income for the government and therefore the community.
sn, assuming you're talking about the Opal Towers, I don't think they're at the point of the taxpayer fixing it yet are they? When the cause of the issue is discovered I'm sure that the responsible party will have their day in court and will be made financially responsible for the fix (via their insurance). If anyone is found to have actually been criminally negligent then I'm guessing the legal system will handle it.
Select to expand quotesn said..bazz61 said. an easy fix , company liquidates, tax payers pick up the tab .
Why should the taxpayer foot the bill??
Get serious with the developers, builders, suppliers and building inspectors!!
Shoddy building practices should be a criminal offence,
Seize company assets, arrest directors for being responsible for "conduct endangering life and property" [or whatever] convict, and strip every cent of their assets as "profits of crime", introduce fine print to conviction - no automatic reduction of sentences until they cooperate with retrieving funds held overseas.
I agree , but the reality is developers arrange their financial affairs so they can bail out and still keep their wealth , it happens every week here on the GC , a builder goes bust doesn't pay his subbies and walks away smiling , the hodling company has no assets .
Select to expand quotePaddles B'mere said..
I disagree Cambodge, a VAT doesn't discriminate at all and it's very efficient. People on higher incomes usually lead a more expensive lifestyle and consume more expensive goods and services so therefore they pay more VAT. This concept obviously doesn't apply to a multi-millionaire who's a total tight@rse and drives a $950 VS Commodore and lives in a caravan, but applies for most high income earners.
its been noted by most economists that GST /VAT is a regressive tax and hits the lowest in society the hardest . Most wealthy are business people and have good accountants that can write of a lot of overseas trips expensive meals BMWS Mercs etc as business expenses.
That's an emotional opinion Bazz and it just doesn't happen like that any more, fringe benefits tax cleaned most of that game up. A "good accountant" will not allow a business expense through the gate without justification, and even if they do let a dodgy one through, the risk of it being exposed as a result of an audit never goes away.
But yep, companies shutting up shop and not paying debtors is krap and unfortunately can always occur. If the directors "phoenix" then they'll face the legal system, and the ATO usually never miss out and can sometimes hold directors responsible for tax debts, but the poor old subbies and suppliers always seem to get done over. There's heaps of it going on and it sucks for the people that get stung.
You are all focussing on GST as a replacement for stamp duty, but there is a much better alternative revenue raiser sitting in the wings.
That's a financial transactions tax on stock markets, money markets, futures markets etc. The volume of money that goes through every day is huge, so a small tax, like 0.1% raises just as much or more than a 3% tax on infrequent transactions like buying a house or paying for your insurance.
And it has the side benefit of taking the profitability out of arbitrage and algorithmic trading, so making the markets more about careful investment than trying to run ahead of the pack as particular stock prices change.
Then again, there is always death duty that should be reinstituted on a sliding scale. ie A low rate on small estates, ramping up to 50% or more for billionaires. Most of them make their money through government favours or monopolistic position and pricing power, so it's entirely fair to expect them to give a large portion of their wealth back to the people when they die.
Select to expand quotebazz61 said..sn said..bazz61 said. an easy fix , company liquidates, tax payers pick up the tab .
Why should the taxpayer foot the bill??
Get serious with the developers, builders, suppliers and building inspectors!!
Shoddy building practices should be a criminal offence,
Seize company assets, arrest directors for being responsible for "conduct endangering life and property" [or whatever] convict, and strip every cent of their assets as "profits of crime", introduce fine print to conviction - no automatic reduction of sentences until they cooperate with retrieving funds held overseas.
I agree , but the reality is developers arrange their financial affairs so they can bail out and still keep their wealth , it happens every week here on the GC , a builder goes bust doesn't pay his subbies and walks away smiling , the hodling company has no assets .
Bazz - most developers are not builders and vice versa.
Developers will normally get a design done and put it out to tender to 3 or 4 builders. The builder sets the price and takes the risk on the build. This is their area of expertise. Most developers have little direct building experience. I would guess the most common background of developers is real estate.
Developers don't force builders to do cheap shoddy work. Developers heavily rely on builders to build a high quality building. Anything less damages the reputation of the developer. A developers core business is selling. Not building. He outsources this specialist skill set.
The money is made in development at 2 points - how much you pay for the land and how much you can lease/sell the product for. The money is not made trying to squeeze an extra 5% out of the builder. Its chicken sh!t compared to the first two points.
Builders are their own worst enemy trying to win work by pricing jobs cheaper then they should do. This goes for subcontractors as well who in turn let builders squeeze them. There are times when you just need to say no ! Developers cant force builders to price too cheaply. Builders with half a brain will say "No, I cant build it for that price and make any money" and walk away. Conversely it would be a pretty inexperienced or stupid developer who gets 3 prices and awards it to the anyone who is way cheaper than the others. Prices tend to come in within 5% of each other when priced properly. A mistake has been made if its outside this.
This is commonly misunderstood by the broader community as this thread has demonstrated repeatedly.
Its entirely unfair to apply more tax to people with more wealth
Have you ever onsidered that they may have worked harder than
you and gone without to achieve more wealth
No the average yobo justs sits and coverts everyone else
Communism confiscates from people who have anything , let
alone more than average
Select to expand quoteboofta said..
Its entirely unfair to apply more tax to people with more wealth
Have you ever onsidered that they may have worked harder than
you and gone without to achieve more wealth
No the average yobo justs sits and coverts everyone else
Communism confiscates from people who have anything , let
alone more than average
Its pretty much impossible not to tax wealthier people more. The lowly paid don't have enough to tax and live, and it has got to come from somewhere.
If you think that it's unfair, consider that it provides a safe, just, and reliable market for a lot of people, which enables the wealthier people to operate their businesses.
We could go to a society where we drop a lot of services, or drop health care, or drop police numbers, but would that really be a good place to live? If so, there are heaps of places around the world where you can choose to do that.
Select to expand quotebazz61 said..Paddles B'mere said..
I disagree Cambodge, a VAT doesn't discriminate at all and it's very efficient. People on higher incomes usually lead a more expensive lifestyle and consume more expensive goods and services so therefore they pay more VAT. This concept obviously doesn't apply to a multi-millionaire who's a total tight@rse and drives a $950 VS Commodore and lives in a caravan, but applies for most high income earners.
its been noted by most economists that GST /VAT is a regressive tax and hits the lowest in society the hardest . Most wealthy are business people and have good accountants that can write of a lot of overseas trips expensive meals BMWS Mercs etc as business expenses.
I think the justification for a GST is that it captures tax from everyone, even if they try and minimise their tax or get paid with cash. Wealthier people do consume a little more, but not 10 times more. So, even if they are paying no tax through some minimisation method, when they buy something, they are paying a little in the way of GST.
In theory, the GST is meant to be offset for low income earners by reducing other taxes including income tax.
Absolutely right FN, the taxation system is a broad suite of taxes that hopefully work together to get the best result for the community. If we consider that economics is a study of "motivations" we can see that government economists create all the different taxes to "motivate" members of the community to act in certain ways in order to achieve the best economic result for the country. Like AUS1111 is hinting, we can't just look at one tax in isolation from the others, for example negative gearing of investment expenses against income tax will balance against capital gains tax. It's a financial yin and yang thing.
Select to expand quoteboofta said..
Its entirely unfair to apply more tax to people with more wealth
Have you ever onsidered that they may have worked harder than
you and gone without to achieve more wealth
No the average yobo justs sits and coverts everyone else
Communism confiscates from people who have anything , let
alone more than average
What about the silver spoons born into wealth? Did they work for their wealth?
Select to expand quotetheDoctor said..
Anyway, so about those sydney house prices
May they crash and burn. Crash and burn.
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..boofta said..
Its entirely unfair to apply more tax to people with more wealth
Have you ever onsidered that they may have worked harder than
you and gone without to achieve more wealth
No the average yobo justs sits and coverts everyone else
Communism confiscates from people who have anything , let
alone more than average
What about the silver spoons born into wealth? Did they work for their wealth?
So the few that were given wealth are the reason to punish the many that have worked hard. No person in Australia today is disadvantaged that they cannot make a success in their life, if you think so then their is the problem.
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..
What about the silver spoons born into wealth? Did they work for their wealth?
Maybe not, but the person that earned it and gave it to them did, and they were subject to the prevailing tax laws when they earned that money. If they choose to give it to someone, why should the person that receives the gift be treated any different to anyone else? When they invest the wealth, they too will be subject to tax laws.
Am I now not allowed to do what I want with my own money, including giving to someone else if I want to, and should that choice penalise someone else?
Canadians on the brink of defaulting their mortgage.
www.bnnbloomberg.ca/46-of-canadians-on-the-brink-of-insolvency-as-rates-rise-survey-1.1201156
Recently started doing the rounds with the property bankers from the big 4.
I was surprised to hear they are absolutely ****ting themselves about the Australian property market and broader flow on effects of further falls in the market.
Their thinking is very Sydney centric though. Maybe a good time to sell or wait if you are a buyer. That siad theyve been known to be wrong too.
One of the characteristics of the bottom of the market is that almost everyone thinks prices have further to fall. 
Select to expand quoteAUS1111 said..
One of the characteristics of the bottom of the market is that almost everyone thinks prices have further to fall.
Who called the bottom already? LOL
Another characteristic of slow corrections is that almost everyone thinks a full on crash is not going to happen.
Wishful thinking.
I'm not calling the bottom - that is very hard to do. It is ironic though, that when it is the bottom almost nobody will believe this to be the case as if they did - they would buy and prices would rise.
So the bottom of the market is specifically characterised as when the maximum proportion of market participants think prices have further to fall - and they'll be wrong. It's a nice irony.
The reverse applies at the top of the market - obviously.
I'm wondering if you're right AUS1111. One of the funny crib room investment trash talk sayings from my previous engineering life was "if you hear about it from the cab driver on your way home from the airport, then you've already missed the boat" and I wonder if this applies to the bottom of the market too? Are the clever guys that have capital getting ready to pounce on the devalued market yet?
