Labor announced it would allow first home buyers to purchase homes with a 5 per cent deposit. It also pledged $10 billion to go towards building 100,000 new homes over eight years — exclusively available to first-time buyers — by way of grants to states and territories, and zero-interest loans or equity investments.

The Coalition's policy would see interest payments on mortgages taken out by first-time buyers on newly built homes be tax deductible for five years.

Economists have been quick to give scathing assessments of some of the latest policies, which they argue will drive up demand, and in turn, housing prices. Chris Richardson labelled the major parties' platforms a "dumpster fire of dumb stuff", while Saul Eslake called the Coalition's planned tax deduction "candidate for dumbest policy decision of the 21st century".

But housing experts say the policies are missing the crucial issue driving the housing shortage.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 month ago (6 children)

I absolutely agree that both parties' housing policies are just throwing fuel on the fire.

Assisting first home owners increases demand which increases pricing. The obvious beneficiaries of these policies are people that already own houses.

The solutions are addressing tax concessions like negative gearing and capital gains tax, increasing annual land tax, and providing concessions for tiny homes and pre-fab homes.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Annual land tax should not be a thing. You bought it, it’s yours. Paying a “land tax” forever means you’re just renting the land with extra steps.

As you touched on, they need to completely rewrite the book on tiny homes etc. I want to build a granny flat/tiny home on my property to move my parents in to and sell their house. To do so, my council charges something stupid like $28k in non refundable application fees. I could pay $28k to apply to build a granny flat and they deny it and keep all that money. That is absurd. I’m trying to get a property sold and re-house my parents onto my land, and the council is telling me to get fucked, basically.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Annual land tax is the most broad based, low-compliance-cost tax there is.

Before the advent of the internet it would've been possible to replace most taxes with a hefty land tax, and it's well researched and document amongst economists.

You suggest cutting foreign ownership, and limiting the number of properties a person can own, and land tax is the obvious and most effective way to address those things.

The red tape and council regulations around multiple dwellings on a title are required to maintain living standards and avoid slum-style accommodation.

Usually with hefty application fees you can do your due diligence and be pretty confident your application will be successful.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Land tax doesn’t address those things. Land tax is a constant tax on something you already own. Land tax harms every home owner, including the poorest of them. That should never have even been allowed, let alone have anyone advocating for it to be expanded. Being low compliance and broad based doesn’t mean it’s right.

It should not cost $28k in fees to then buy a fully compliant off the shelf tiny home. It has absolutely nothing to do with maintaining living standards. 28k in application fees makes it an expensive exercise, sometimes doubling the cost of the dwelling you want to put there. That is absolutely absurd.

load more comments (4 replies)