Investors with 10 or more properties to their name have more debt than smaller-scale investors but use negative gearing and capital gains discounts to keep buying, tax office data shows.
And as the article says - this data is only from individual tax returns. It doesn’t cover companies.
This is always where it gets complicated. One house is pretty limiting. Lots of people have holiday homes - should that become illegal? People buy homes to support family (particularly elderly or disabled family) members in an environment that allows them some space and independence.
Should a married couple be allowed to have two homes? Should I be allowed to buy homes in my kids’ names to get around such a limitation?
I don’t have the answers to any of this. Housing is a super complicated and politically charged topic. There are a million millionaires out there with the bulk of their net worth tied up in the value of their homes. The scary truth is they don’t really want to solve this problem, because if houses stop costing most of a million (or more) dollars to buy, they stop being millionaires.
Taxing tends to even that out. Increasing the % for every property over ppr.
Of the multifacets there are two bigguns: the cash cow of investment properties and tax breaks, and developer landbanking and artificial restriction of supply on new builds.
Instead we could start by getting rid of John Howard’s capital gains tax discounts on properties. That alone massively distorts where investment dollars go in this country. Of all the fucked things about real estate that has to be the one that is most unfair. Why the hell should you pay less tax on speculating existing property than you do when you work on something that actually produces value?
If that didn’t correct things enough there are more things that could be done: banning ownership by non citizens, replacing stamp duty with annual land tax, incentives to discourage land banking, realistic population targets, and dare I say it; limiting negative gearing to new builds only.
I have no issue with 2. But they have to live in it for part of the year. If someone wants a summer home that they earn after working hard then why deny them.
However any more houses should be taxed at a rate that makes them untenable.
Is there a downside to limiting houses to a 1per person maximum?
This is always where it gets complicated. One house is pretty limiting. Lots of people have holiday homes - should that become illegal? People buy homes to support family (particularly elderly or disabled family) members in an environment that allows them some space and independence.
Should a married couple be allowed to have two homes? Should I be allowed to buy homes in my kids’ names to get around such a limitation?
I don’t have the answers to any of this. Housing is a super complicated and politically charged topic. There are a million millionaires out there with the bulk of their net worth tied up in the value of their homes. The scary truth is they don’t really want to solve this problem, because if houses stop costing most of a million (or more) dollars to buy, they stop being millionaires.
I would rather have it be a case of everyone gets a house before anyone gets a second, regardless of an individuals economic ability.
Taxing tends to even that out. Increasing the % for every property over ppr.
Of the multifacets there are two bigguns: the cash cow of investment properties and tax breaks, and developer landbanking and artificial restriction of supply on new builds.
Tax the shit out of both of these.
I don’t think limiting is necessary.
Instead we could start by getting rid of John Howard’s capital gains tax discounts on properties. That alone massively distorts where investment dollars go in this country. Of all the fucked things about real estate that has to be the one that is most unfair. Why the hell should you pay less tax on speculating existing property than you do when you work on something that actually produces value?
If that didn’t correct things enough there are more things that could be done: banning ownership by non citizens, replacing stamp duty with annual land tax, incentives to discourage land banking, realistic population targets, and dare I say it; limiting negative gearing to new builds only.
I have no issue with 2. But they have to live in it for part of the year. If someone wants a summer home that they earn after working hard then why deny them.
However any more houses should be taxed at a rate that makes them untenable.
Yes. Many. Here’s the first: mobility.
In my 20s, I didn’t live in the same city for more than a couple years at a time. If I had not been able to rent, I’d have wasted tons of money.
Good point
The downside for them is they’ll have to get a real job instead of relying on passive income.