Australian house prices rest on four tax policies

There’s more to house prices than supply and demand writes:

Warwick Smith, University of Melbourne

The issues of tax and house prices are colliding in new ways ahead of the release of the government’s options paper on tax reform later this year.

Treasurer Joe Hockey is ramping up discussion of tax reform, but at the same time, the Reserve Bank among many others are calling for tax reform with respect to housing.

Would be first home buyers are being increasingly priced out of the market, particularly in capital cities, and many are resigned to a lifetime of renting.

To say that taxation has a profound effect on investment decisions is to make a gross seesaw coin tax

In Australia, real estate is very favourably taxed.

This results in a skew towards real estate investment that lifts prices.

Most investment is in existing housing stock – proof that the resulting impact on supply is minimal.

There are many tax policies that impact on real estate investment and prices but the four most important are negative gearing, the concessional treatment of capital gains, stamp duties and land taxes.

1. Negative gearing

A negatively geared property loses money with respect to cash flow.

The costs (primarily, but not restricted to, interest payments) exceed the income (rent).

Negative gearing provisions mean that these losses can be offset against other income.

negative-gearing-silverThe fact that negative gearing is so popular should ring alarm bells.

Investment properties are operated at a loss only on the assumption that the real return will come from capital gains when the property is sold.

In other words, negative gearing is entirely dependent on investors making unearned income (economic rent).

Capital gains are unearned income because the owner of the property does nothing to create the extra value.

Buildings depreciate in value over time but land tends to rise in value.

This is where capital gains come from, land value increases.

Land values increase due to community and government action; including the provision of infrastructure and services and population growth.

2. Capital gains tax

One of the reasons negative gearing is so popular is because of the concessional taxation of capital gains.

No capital gains tax is paid on a primary residence and, for individuals, only half of a capital gain is taxed for investment properties.

Capital gains tax is levied at the owner’s marginal tax rate but, because of the concession, the maximum tax on capital gains is 22.5% (half the top marginal tax rate).

As a result of negative gearing and the concessional treatment of capital gains real estate is an artificially attractive investment class.

3. Stamp duties

Stamp duties are state based taxes that are levied at the time of purchase and are based on the sale price.

Economists overwhelmingly consider stamp duties to be inefficient and undesirable.

The primary reason for this is because they are a barrier to the efficient allocation of housing stock.

The large cost of stamp duties acts as a disincentive for people to move to properties that better suit their needs.

The classic example is that of parents remaining in a large family home after their children have left because stamp duties would erode much of the financial benefit of moving to a smaller home.

Stamp duties do, to some extent, discourage investment in real estate.

However, this effect is small when compared to the impact of the concessions described above.

4. Land taxes

There are currently two types of land taxes in all Australian jurisdictions; local government rates and state or territory government land taxes.

Both taxes are levied on investment properties but owner-occupied housing is exempt from state and territory land taxes.

Land taxes are among the most economically efficient taxes.

A recent report by the Commonwealth Treasury showed that land taxes actually create a net economic benefit whereas all other taxes examined created additional costs in excess of the taxes themselves (referred to as marginal excess burden) with stamp duties being the worst of those examined.

Treasury estimates, Author provided

Stamp duties are the least efficient of the taxes examined while land taxes were the most efficient; actually generating net economic benefits instead of losses.

Social justice

coins  tax moneyThe overwhelming majority of tax concessions go to the wealthiest 20% of citizens.

Concessions on real estate are no different.

Meanwhile, stamp duties create a substantial barrier to lower income Australians purchasing a home while wealthy investors can afford the stamp duties with the expectation that they will be recovered through capital gains.

Not only is the current taxation of real estate economically inefficient and results in artificially high prices, it is also inequitable.

State and federal governments have created benefits that substantially favour those with high incomes and wealth and costs that disproportionately disadvantage the rest.

Reform options

A recent Grattan Institute report suggested cash strapped state and territory governments could generate an extra A$7 billion per year by switching from stamp duties to a low rate annual land tax.

Not only would this help state governments fill their revenue holes but it would also create a more efficient economy.

The ACT is leading the way and is making this transition in slow increments over the next 20 years.

I would go further and suggest that negative gearing should also be abolished and the concession on capital gains tax for real estate should be removed.

Land taxes should replace many minor and inefficient state and territory taxes including insurance taxes.

Well targeted land taxes could also be used to fund substantial infrastructure investment.

The often stated purpose of concessional taxation of real estate is that it encourages the supply of house property money

However, the overwhelming majority of these concessions go to investors who are buying existing housing stock.

At the very least these generous concessions should be quarantined to only apply to new housing stock.

The barriers to reforming real estate taxation arrangements are significant.

Around two million Australian taxpayers have investment properties and would likely oppose reform.

In addition, the imposition of a significant land tax would cause a one-off fall in land prices, potentially leaving some recent buyers with mortgages higher than the value of their properties.

In order to make the reform palatable it would have to be either phased in slowly (as the ACT is doing) or grandfathered so that existing investments operate under the old tax provisions.

Serious tax reform is notoriously politically difficult but the benefits can be enormous.

The reforms outlined above would significantly contribute to the repair of both state and federal budgets, result in a more efficient tax system and a more efficient economy.

The Conversation

Warwick Smith is Research economist at University of Melbourne. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Want more of this type of information?


Michael is a director of Metropole Property Strategists who create wealth for their clients through independent, unbiased property advice and advocacy. He's been voted Australia's leading property investment adviser and his opinions are regularly featured in the media. Visit

'Australian house prices rest on four tax policies' have 2 comments

  1. July 29, 2015 @ 7:52 am Jeff

    I just love how a lot of people ( obviously not business owners ) think negative gearing is a special property investor only tax.
    If I had a rental car business and borrowed to buy my rental cars the interest would be tax deductible as a legitimate cost of running my rental car business.
    If I was ” Bob The Builder ” and borrowed to build some houses to sell and borrowed to buy a nice work ute all sign written with Bob The Builder and then borrowed even more to buy brand new tools to build these houses all of the interest would be tax deductible as a legitimate cost of being Bob The Builder.
    Why should this tax deduction be taken away from someone who rents houses as their business ?
    If the cars that were purchased for the rental car business were highly collectable and increased in value over time as land does and were later sold at a profit they would be capital gains taxed just like property.
    Does this mean we should apply a car tax – the same as a land tax ?
    Cars are depreciable as whole – you don’t just claim depreciation on the body but not the chassis.
    Maybe property should be depreciable as a whole – instead of just the building.
    The biggest fear I have is – if providing rental property becomes a lot less viable as a business – why would anyone want to provide it at all ?
    If this responsibility were taken up by the government of this country – would they want to and would they be capable of doing it efficiently.
    I have my doubts.
    Owning a business is ultimately about making a profit and hopefully creating some extra wealth.
    If this is taken away – why would anyone want to waste the effort – just for personal fulfillment maybe ?????
    Again I have my doubts.


Would you like to share your thoughts?

Your email address will not be published.



Michael's Daily Insights

Join Michael Yardney's inner circle of daily subscribers.

NOTE: this daily service is a different subscription to our weekly newsletter so...