Hockey backs land tax on family homes

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by SpacePete, May 20, 2015.

  1. FlashInThePan

    FlashInThePan Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Commonwealth of Australia
    Property rights are being insidiously removed. It keys into Agenda 21, something that both major parties have been unanimous in their decision not to give Australians a democratic choice on this issue ever.

    Property rights is fundamental to our society. Would this not be a matter of importance to speak about something that will affect every person in the country profoundly?

    Our so called "elected representatives" seem fixated on forming international treaties by stealth and operating outside of the rights we have extended to them.

    No Representation = No Taxation

    Think I remember that catch phrase from our past deeply engrained in our DNA somewhere .....
     
  2. Nugget

    Nugget New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Messages:
    4,575
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Brisbogan


    a) that's the idea of a broad based LVT. Implementation is another thing ;) GST was supposed to replace all other taxes if I recall my political advertising correctly

    b) http://kaalvtn.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/a-poor-widow-bogey.html & http://kaalvtn.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/r-farmers-will-all-go-bankrupt.html


    If I remember correctly (& a quick google search confirms) the Ken Henry review talked about changing stamp duties for a LVT


    If it were to be implemented on everyone, no exceptions, then no-one, not Apple not Gina, not Rupert not even the Queen gets out of paying. That appeals to me.
     
  3. SpacePete

    SpacePete Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2014
    Messages:
    12,970
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Some Aussie land tax trivia. I just found this 1935 newspaper article. The text has been translated from a digitized newspaper so there are some mistakes.

    The Central Queensland Herald (Rockhampton) Thursday 11 July, 1935
    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/70356899

     
  4. Big A.D.

    Big A.D. Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    6,595
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Sydney
    Council rates do not pay for major infrastructure. They pay for paving the footpath, maintaining the local parks and the guys who come around once a week to empty your garbage bin.

    Council rates to not pay for bridges, railways, motorways, tunnels, hospitals, schools, emergency services and a whole bunch of other things. The state government pays for those and the state governments get their money from, among other things, stamp duty.

    Not quite.

    We need tax to pay for stuff. Whether we obtain it through a really inefficient system that penalizes trade and encourages hording or an efficient system that encourages better use of resources is the debate.

    It's really simple: if you want people to do something, make it easier and cheaper. If you want people to stop doing something, make it difficult and expensive.

    Having rows of vacant buildings, for example, is not particularly desirable and it's a poor use of scarce, inner city land. So make having a vacant, run down building in the inner city more expensive and you'll have less of them. Make it cheap for people to offload them and new owners will come in and do something to get better value out of the space. Living close to the city has value. Providing goods and services to people who live close to the city has value. That value means you can justify paying a higher rate for the space.

    Personally, I think we have one level of government too many and that there is nothing state governments do now which couldn't be split between the federal government and local councils, but we're stuck with a system that was designed when Australia was a series of prison camps and communication between cities meant someone had to spend a week riding a horse between them. For all practical purposes of governance, the states are completely irrelevant now and are basically just a surplus layer of middle management that exist largely to facilitate an epic bureaucratic clusterf--k.

    And yet they're still responsible for bridges, railways, motorways, tunnels, hospitals, schools, etc. and that stuff needs to be paid for. It's not just me saying "that stuff needs to be paid for" - if it isn't paid for, that stuff doesn't happen.

    Yes, that is precisely how the world works. Things change and some things become less affordable over time, and other things become more affordable.
     
  5. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    9,618
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    Really? I thought you needed factors of production working to make stuff and payment is simply a mechanism for keeping track of any exchanged goods and services while taxes are an appropriation of the factors of production for purposes decided by governments.
     
  6. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    9,618
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    -100%. The purpose of the states is to foster competitive federalism and if any layer should be removed then it's definitely the federal government. The problem is that the competitive federalism was undermined when the states agreed to hand over income taxing powers to the Federal Government which then created the massive vertical fiscal imbalance and all of the associated problems (not to mention instituting the nonsense concept of horizontal fiscal equalisation for distributing the GST revenues).
     
  7. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    9,618
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    The debate is missing the fact that people have much less opportunity to be self-sufficient and live on accumulated savings or very low incomes. It's a tax on living. "Efficiency" is an abused word in this debate. It's "efficient" for police officers to be able to invade everyone's privacy at will and shoot or jail anyone they suspect of a crime at will in order to reduce the number of unsolved cases. It's "efficient" to not have long drawn-out appeals processes against capital punishment. It's "efficient" to euthanise the very sick against their will.
     
  8. Big A.D.

    Big A.D. Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    6,595
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Sydney
    Indeed, and "competitive federalism" was no doubt a very sound idea...a hundred years ago when there was a meaningful difference between living in, say, Adelaide versus living in Sydney.

    Someone living in Adelaide today who is, for example, a ship builder isn't competing with a shipyard in Sydney for a better quality of workmanship or a higher wage. They're competing against someone in Japan, or Norway, or France or Germany.

    We compete on an international level these days and internal state boundaries have become irrelevant. Everything worth bothering about is either done at a national level or the states just copied one another until all the laws and all the standards became homogenous.

    What amazing competitive pressures exist now between states? What's actually worth competing for between states anyway (except the State of Origin)? I can list particular suburbs I wouldn't mind living or doing business in across the country (and a bunch I'd stay well clear of, including in the city I'm in now), but I wouldn't pack up and move there because the state government is exceptionally brilliant.
     
  9. Big A.D.

    Big A.D. Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    6,595
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Sydney
    The GST on tampons is a tax on living.

    Land tax is just one of the many things you take into consideration when you're thinking about buying something really, really expensive. Loads of things have holding or running costs. If you don't think the cost is worth paying, you don't buy it.

    We're still just arguing about when the tax is paid. The land is taxed already when it changes hands.
     
  10. Nugget

    Nugget New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Messages:
    4,575
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Brisbogan


    Just for completeness sake - http://www.regional.gov.au/local/publications/reports/2002_2003/C4.aspx


     
  11. Lovey80

    Lovey80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,455
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast, QLD
    Wait, don't we already have land tax at the council level? They just call it rates.... Rates ARE land tax.

    I don't like the idea because someone that sets out to pay off their land and live on it throughout their retirement are going to be significantly slogged as their retirement savings dwindle through both attrition and inflation. All the while government mandated inflation are continually forcing up land values through dodgy banking systems and over supply in credit.

    Can you imagine the hardship on a retired 70 year old woman living alone in 1990 with only a fixed pension (but a fully paid off house in a decent area) over the past 20 years? Her theoretical land value will have tripled or quadrupled in that time, and with it the LVT for which she is liable, for no other reason than banks wanted to make a killing through a housing credit bubble. She has seen no benefits what so ever in this bubble because she just wants to live out her retirement in a house she has already paid for but now has to continue paying for out of pension monies that are diminishing daily against inflation.

    If we are going to bring in a great big new tax to replace other taxes such as income tax. Bring one in on these banksters doing high frequency trading or derivatives or one of those other bullshit instruments that serves no one but fat cat bankers and puts us all at risk.
     
  12. FlashInThePan

    FlashInThePan Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Commonwealth of Australia
    Big A.D.
    Motorways tunnels bridges are well funded with fuel tax. State governments (that includes local Government) have the GST, local taxes, council rates, etc which is more than enough to cover hospitals schools and the rest. When the GST was implemented the takings were well above estimated analysis.

    Government's role is not to penalise the people who pay your wage. Govt are to protect the people's rights as your primary function. Govt are to protect the people from corporate greed, monopolies, collusions and conspiracy's by putting in place protections on our behalf. You are to collect taxation on the profits of trade by the corporations. That is the original and correct approach.

    Instead Govts approach has been to collect on the people with income tax and every other area you have drilled down into, to simultaneously back off on the corporations and now to extend into private property by taxing the capital value of that property on regular annual intervals.

    There again it is not the people you should be targeting Govt work for us.

    Let the market take care of itself without trying to manipulate and create distortions within it.

    The family home is not something that is hoarded. It is a necessity for life being shelter.

    You are wanting to sell to the people the idea of exchanging a bunch of taxes for this far reaching new one.

    It is a tax on capital itself, no different to someone demanding a payment of tax simply because you have in your pocket a $100 note or are wearing a gold ring. Let history be your guide to where this type of socialism leads to.

    It is unlawful and wrenched to be inspired in this way.
     

Share This Page