The SA Politics Thread

[SBD]

So for a comparison to your 2x $450,000 houses, what would be the land tax on a single $900,000 house? Is the answer different for commercial, industrial or rural land? I understand it does not get applied to the house you live in (or have I missed something else?). Council rates scale linearly, as you suggest as far as I know, as they are levied on each property, not on each person/entity.

[gnrc_louis]

The deductions arent as significant as some think.

The point is you have one house you pay $300 lets say.
How do they justify then charging you $4500 for two houses of similar value?

Yes its coming down, but that doesn't mean its at an acceptable level.
If you tax mum and dad investors, your ordinary hard working Australians who invest in a second property, where are rental properties going to come from?
The big players worth tens of millions or more will pick up the slack will they? There goes rental affordability.

Bur anyway, heres a good example of tax payers money being well spent..

20190726_184433.jpg

So a politician from any side of politics plays a computer game for however long during estimates? Who honestly gives a shit. I'm sure high level people in the private sector waste time too occasionally. It's ridiculous to assume that just because someone is paid by the taxpayer they're essentially "perfect." The fact The Advertiser actually ran it as a headline and free article on AdelaideNow shows how much of a pissant, joke of a "newspaper" (use that term kindly) they are. There's been far more potentially serious events in S.A. Politics which have got less broad coverage on their site.

[rev]

So for a comparison to your 2x $450,000 houses, what would be the land tax on a single $900,000 house? Is the answer different for commercial, industrial or rural land? I understand it does not get applied to the house you live in (or have I missed something else?). Council rates scale linearly, as you suggest as far as I know, as they are levied on each property, not on each person/entity.

A single property worth $900,000 in the land tax calculator works out to cost the same as multiple properties worth $900,000. $4661.
It's an unfair setup. You might have two mortgaged properties worth $900,000 combined, that doesn't mean you can afford a $900,000 property. So why should you have to pay a stupid land tax cash grab as if you own/can afford a $900,000 property?
Even if you sold both your properties, you'd pay back your loans. You wouldn't be left with $900,000. And most mum and dad investors could probably get max around $600,000 from the banks. Land tax on a $600,000 property is $1000.

You would rent your second property. What, $400 a week? $20,800/year. And the government is taking nearly a quarter of that in a land tax cash grab, on top of the federal government taxing it as an income as well. You then have expenses for that second house such as maintenance issues that pop up during the year. Before you know it, any significant extra income you may have once gained has almost vanished. So a big reason for having an investment property, the extra income, is gone. So you'd be hoping the property market doesn't stagnate or crash and that values keep rising so that you can one day sell it at a profit.

But don't worry, by the time you're ready to sell it,the way things are going at least one government will be hitting you with a new bill for that too.

https://www.revenuesa.sa.gov.au/taxes-a ... ax-2019-20

There's the link, you can use previous years calculators as well.

[bits]

There is other investments to make other than property.

The tax makes those holding more land than they need to live pay society for the land withheld from the society that gives the land its value.

It also prevents inflating house prices due to lack of land supply.

If property is such a poor investment, invest in something else. It is simple.
Society doesn't need for land to be for profit purposes, the job of land is for a place for people to live.

Water, air, sunlight whatever. All of these needs to be protected from unrestricted markets.
If the resource in an area is limited it shouldn't be encouraged for individuals to own more than they need and to sell it for their sole profit.
If we open them to markets, tax those that profit from it.

[rev]

There is other investments to make other than property.

The tax makes those holding more land than they need to live pay society for the land withheld from the society that gives the land its value.

It also prevents inflating house prices due to lack of land supply.

If property is such a poor investment, invest in something else. It is simple.
Society doesn't need for land to be for profit purposes, the job of land is for a place for people to live.

Water, air, sunlight whatever. All of these needs to be protected from unrestricted markets.
If the resource in an area is limited it shouldn't be encouraged for individuals to own more than they need and to sell it for their sole profit.
If we open them to markets, tax those that profit from it.

So you're against private land ownership and private sector investment in the economy in general?

House prices aren't being inflated by mum and dad investors buying a second or third home as an investment in their future and their kids future.

[SBD]

There is other investments to make other than property.

The tax makes those holding more land than they need to live pay society for the land withheld from the society that gives the land its value.

It also prevents inflating house prices due to lack of land supply.

If property is such a poor investment, invest in something else. It is simple.
Society doesn't need for land to be for profit purposes, the job of land is for a place for people to live.

Water, air, sunlight whatever. All of these needs to be protected from unrestricted markets.
If the resource in an area is limited it shouldn't be encouraged for individuals to own more than they need and to sell it for their sole profit.
If we open them to markets, tax those that profit from it.

So you're against private land ownership and private sector investment in the economy in general?

House prices aren't being inflated by mum and dad investors buying a second or third home as an investment in their future and their kids future.

Do you have any idea what the proportions of home ownership are across owner-occupied, private rental ("mum and dad investors"), "large" corporate landlords, government landlords (Housing Trust/Renewal SA, Defence Housing Authority etc) and any other home owner classes?

[bits]

So you're against private land ownership and private sector investment in the economy in general?

House prices aren't being inflated by mum and dad investors buying a second or third home as an investment in their future and their kids future.

1)no.
But the market should have limitations, eg like it has currently. Investors should pay a tax per property they own. This tax doubles as a incentive to invest in markets other than property.
Property markets often have laws that limit investment properties. Eg New York has rent control.

2)yes they are.

[Nort]

We just bought a home, and at multiple opens we (looking to buy a house to live in) were walking around a house with other people walking by talking about rental yields. It meant that when we put in an offer we accounted for competition against those types of buyers. It totally raises house prices.

Property speculation (and that's what buying extra properties often is, speculation that the prices will rise enough to make it worthwhile) is a drain on the economy that artificially inflates the GDP numbers now at the cost of people still paying off mortgages longer than they otherwise would be twenty to thirty years from now, draining their disposable income and contribution to the economy then.

[rev]

[Nort]

You are aware how supply and demand works right?

[1NEEDS2POST]

Land values are created by the community, not the investor. When the government builds infrastructure in a suburb, it raises land values. Who pays for it? It's rare that the government's outlays are covered by land owners.

Steven Marshall needs to read the letter to Gorbachev.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Open_let ... hev_(1990)

Personally, I think we should be abolishing stamp duty and moving to a broad based land tax like the ACT.

This.

[SRW]

Labor wants to increase minimum parking requirements for new developments? What happened transit-oriented development?

Seems like a ploy to win favour among nimbys. Doesn't matter though, as their private member's bill won't be passed.

https://indaily.com.au/news/2019/08/07/ ... -industry/

Labor’s planning spokesman Tony Piccolo defended the proposed changes which would see the imposition of a minimum of two off-street carparks for dwellings of two or more bedrooms, and one off-street park for one-bedroom properties.

If on-site car parks could not be provided, the changes would require car parking spaces to be available “at a nearby off-street site”.

Parking shouldn't be dependent on bedroom numbers, it should relate to the local context.

[Nathan]

Labor wants to increase minimum parking requirements for new developments? What happened transit-oriented development?

Seems like a ploy to win favour among nimbys. Doesn't matter though, as their private member's bill won't be passed.

https://indaily.com.au/news/2019/08/07/ ... -industry/

Labor’s planning spokesman Tony Piccolo defended the proposed changes which would see the imposition of a minimum of two off-street carparks for dwellings of two or more bedrooms, and one off-street park for one-bedroom properties.

If on-site car parks could not be provided, the changes would require car parking spaces to be available “at a nearby off-street site”.

Parking shouldn't be dependent on bedroom numbers, it should relate to the local context.

It's a stupid policy. We own a two bedroom / one car park apartment, and have one car with zero desire for a second. Under this, such a setup would be impossible to purchase.

Car parking requires space and more space costs more money. The problem we have at the moment is that the government provides free car storage space in the form of street parking, so people see that they can buy/rent a place with less parking than they need and know that they can stick their car somewhere for nothing. The solution isn't to mandate the number of carparks per property — that removes choice and imposes cost on people who don't need them — but remove the "free" parking as an option. Mandate that all cars must have a provable off-street parking spot, or at the very least, put in parking restrictions that make resident parking impratical.

[rev]

I'm surprised more people, if any even do it here, don't rent out their car parking spaces like they do on the east coast.

[[Shuz]]

This is a stupid policy.

With the emergence of driverless AI and electric vehicles in the next 10-20 years, it is very likely that the need and demand for both on street and off street carparking spaces will actually be far less, because the newer technology vehicles will be used in a much more efficient manner. Rather than having cars sit in garages and clog up carparks for hours at a time (as this policy promotes) the future is in 'driverless Uber'. In 20 years time, the societal norm will be to call up a car when you need it to transport you (for example) from A (home) to B (shops). When you're out shopping, that 'driverless Uber' car could then go off and service someone else's transport needs while you're shopping, rather than sitting in a carpark the entire time. When you've done your shopping, you'll just simply call up the driverless Uber car again and it'll transport you home, once you've been dropped off, it'll respond to the next service request and the cycle continues. Far more efficient.