The CFMMEU and the Greens are right about one thing.
More housing is desperately needed now.
Where they are profoundly wrong is that negatively targeting investment in, or delivery of, new housing will help (including Greens’ policy to cap rents, and Australia-wide Olympic level NIMBYism).
Or that bunging another tax on companies that provide housing (recent CFMMEU policy on companies with a turnover above $100 million) will work to help provide the new housing supply we need across the whole housing market, including social affordable or at-market, now or over time.
This after years of an explosion in the rate and variety of new state taxes, from governments of all colours, on housing investment from “windfall gains” to “foreign investor” surcharges.
With all the “Robin Hood” performative dancing and low-level xenophobia that attends these various announcements you would think we didn’t already tax new dwellings and that overseas investment hadn’t helped build the majority of Australian cities through the decades.
Taxes on property already prop up almost fifty per cent of some state budgets.
Government taxes and charges already account for a shocking 2, 3 or 4 dollars in every 10 you spend on a new home.
There should be no possibility of new property taxes at any level of government during historic undersupply of both apartments (the greatest source of rental stock) and detached housing.
That deficit amounts to 1.3 million homes over the past two decades (hat tip former Reserve Bank economist Dr Tony Richards).
This rationale applies to all property asset classes that underpin the viability of our cities while labour availability and cost of capital remain prohibitive.
Governments can start by reducing these taxes to accelerate supply, remembering that any serious national tax reform should start with a safety-netted higher rate of GST that replaces inefficient state taxes.
The fastest paths to new housing remain setting housing targets, creating incentives for more supply and fixing broken planning systems.
We also need governments to boost helpful asset classes like purpose-built student accommodation, retirement living communities and build-to-rent housing.
Higher taxes simply don’t answer the housing supply question.
About Brett WarrenBrett Warren is National Director of Metropole Properties ensuring we deliver the highest quality strategic advice to our clients and help them buy A-grade homes or investment-grade properties.
Brett is a successful property investor and after many years with Metropole is still passionate about getting the best results for his clients as he has always been.
6 comments
Robert Bye2023-07-29 12:52:28
We also need to remove power to rezone land (to urban), from councils and state governments, to federal government; as was recently mentioned in the news, there is to much "behind the scenes" going on between developers and local/state government for ...Read full version
Nonsense. NG and capital gains tax concessions cost the budget huge sums every year. That money could be spent directly on public housing, which would increase supply a lot more than anything built by investors.
All investors have done over the last ...Read full version
We also need to remove power to rezone land (to urban), from councils and state governments, to federal government; as was recently mentioned in the news, there is to much “behind the scenes” going on between developers and local/state government for there to be a free flow of new land onto the market. The critical shortage of materials and trades leading to rapid price increases does not help but as mentioned in the article, there is an overwhelming burden of taxes and bureaucracy which I think is sending builders broke and will not increase housing supply.
Nonsense. NG and capital gains tax concessions cost the budget huge sums every year. That money could be spent directly on public housing, which would increase supply a lot more than anything built by investors.
All investors have done over the last twenty years is skyrocket the cost of houses. They’re not increasing supply – save to the extent they also increase demand by forcing would-be homebuyers to join the rental queues.
Every landlord who leaves is a policy win and improves housing affordability. (Unless, I guess, the burn the house down instead of selling it?)
Serious land taxes on residential-zoned land (except for a taxpayer’s primary home) would also discourage land-banking, which has a much bigger effect in constraining building than nebulous “environmental regulations”. Plenty of residential-zoned land that isn’t built on until the landbanking corps can maximise their profit by building, eking it out a bit at a time. Serious land taxes that discourage turning rentals into AirBnBs again would help hugely.
This article is just more excuse-making to try to stop the government doing anything about the problem that John Howard created when he slashed CGT and unleashed the housing ponzi scheme.
Capital Gains Tax “concessions” make the budget money every year.
How so?
Best illustrated by the history of CGT in the USA. The USA has a top CGT of 20% and that’s only if your income is above AUD900,000 per year, otherwise it’s 15%. So for the vast majority (99%) of the population there’s a flat 15% CGT. They’ve tried higher taxes, but as with any tax that goes too high, people change their behaviour and don’t sell so the tax revenue falls. They settled on 15% because it produces the MOST revenue.
By setting CGT at 50%, people make the logical decision to NOT sell their assets and therefore the government makes NOTHING from it. Howard didn’t lower the CGT to 25% out of generosity – he did it so that people might actually sell an asset occasionally and make a gain which would make the government some revenue. He also did it because at 50% CGT, ALL of the non-inflationary gain would be confiscated in a lot of cases.
I realise you’ll never agree with this because you’re an ardent socialist, but consider this: I left Australia altogether 26 years ago at age 28 and haven’t come back since because the taxes are too high. A million other hard working Australian professionals like me have done the same. CGT was 50% when I left.