Axing capital gains tax exemption on homes could raise $46b, new research says

The Federal Government could raise as much as $46 billion a year if it axes the capital gains tax (CGT) exemption on the family home, according to new research.

A new Capital Gains Tax report, issued by think tank The Australia Institute with data by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, said that more than half the benefit of the CGT exemption was enjoyed by households in the top 20 per cent of incomes.

The report estimated that ending the exemption for houses worth more than $2 million would still draw nearly $12 billion in new revenue over four years.

Australia Institute executive director Ben Oquist said at an annual loss of $46 billion, the CGT exemption for primary residences was costing the Government more than its entire defence or aged pension spending.

Mr Oquist told the ABC it would be "nonsensical" to exclude the exemption from serious tax reform.

"While it's probably politically unrealistic to think about removing that exemption altogether, one thing we've modelled today is looking at removing the exemption for homes worth more than $2 million," he said.

"Such a move would affect a very small amount of the population."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-11/capital-gains-tax-reform-could-raise-46-billion-report/7079882

won't happen .... nor should it.

Its necessary to get the budget back in the black.

The budget black hole is going to get bigger as retirees find their superannuation is a pittance insufficient to fund a single Biafran grandmother.

The trouble with the Government is that is always looking at ways to 'white ant 'you doesn't matter which Party it s.

And...the burden is always thrust on those who can afford it least. Like people who go out and break their arses all their life. Then when they finally own their little nest, comes the shadow of Big Brother ...wanting to rob them blind.

Here's a tip for the Government. Go after companies like your own Malcolm, ones who send their profits offshore like you do.

Capital gains on family Homes over $2M , I don't see it as an issue.

Might even put a break on a bit of the market which is out of control in my opinion

It will only affect a small number of people who can well afford to pay it.

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 11:01am:

Its necessary to get the budget back in the black.

Get a job and pay some taxes ya dopey bum.

Redmond Neck wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 11:30am:

Capital gains on family Homes over $2M , I don't see it as an issue.

Just about every house in my suburb is worth over 2 million.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 11:34am:

Redmond Neck wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 11:30am: Capital gains on family Homes over $2M , I don't see it as an issue. Just about every house in my suburb is worth over 2 million.

Confiscate the lot and give Longweekend58 the contract for building fibro shacks in a god forsaken toxic location as a replacement.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 11:34am:

Redmond Neck wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 11:30am: Capital gains on family Homes over $2M , I don't see it as an issue. Just about every house in my suburb is worth over 2 million.

Then pay your CGT and your massive gains Silvertail and STFU

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 12:07pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 11:34am: Redmond Neck wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 11:30am: Capital gains on family Homes over $2M , I don't see it as an issue. Just about every house in my suburb is worth over 2 million. Confiscate the lot and give Longweekend58 the contract for building fibro shacks in a god forsaken toxic location as a replacement.

Get a job and pay some taxes ya dopey bum, consider this a form of therapy.

Redmond Neck wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 11:30am:

Capital gains on family Homes over $2M , I don't see it as an issue. Might even put a break on a bit of the market which is out of control in my opinion It will only affect a small number of people who can well afford to pay it.

labor won't take it to an election and the libs will never support it.

Yes Bloody Silvertails,

I had forgotten that term!

All worried they might lose a fraction of their Capital Gains.

Pay up you bums!   ;D ;D ;D

I would support it in lieu of stamp duty ... otherwise they're taxing people twice for the same thing.

John Smith wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 10:34am:

[i]Axing capital gains tax exemption on homes could raise $46b, new research says The Federal Government could raise as much as $46 billion a year if it axes the capital gains tax (CGT) exemption on the family home, according to new research.

Once again there are so much wrong with this it's not funny anymore
[list bull-redarrow]

The fact that you can't claim home expenses gives you the CGT exemption. So if the exemptions are removed then you might have to look at loses to Budget revenue due to tax deductions

People become more of an accumulator i.e. they simply do not sell their house or wait until they have gains offsets

Without buying/selling what happens to Stamp Duty revenue

Home buyers simply look to other asset classes i.e. overheating that sector

it's another of those dopey ideas that get floated from time to time that has a snowballs chance in hell of being adopted. it is an immediate death sentence to any government foolish enough to try it on.   libs would probably lose half their primary vote if they tried and labor almost as much.  even before you discuss the unfairness and idiocy of the move, you need to realise it will never happen.

Redmond Neck wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 12:11pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 11:34am: Redmond Neck wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 11:30am: Capital gains on family Homes over $2M , I don't see it as an issue. Just about every house in my suburb is worth over 2 million. Then pay your CGT and your massive gains Silvertail and be quiet

you are a pov-renter, right?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 5:03pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 12:11pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 11:34am: Redmond Neck wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 11:30am: Capital gains on family Homes over $2M , I don't see it as an issue. Just about every house in my suburb is worth over 2 million. Then pay your CGT and your massive gains Silvertail and be quiet you are a pov-renter, right?

Can I rent your fibro govie please?

Oops sorry thats right you dont own it Maria

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 10:34am:

Axing capital gains tax exemption on homes could raise $46b, new research says The Federal Government could raise as much as $46 billion a year if it axes the capital gains tax (CGT) exemption on the family home, according to new research. A new Capital Gains Tax report, issued by think tank The Australia Institute with data by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, said that more than half the benefit of the CGT exemption was enjoyed by households in the top 20 per cent of incomes. The report estimated that ending the exemption for houses worth more than $2 million would still draw nearly $12 billion in new revenue over four years. Australia Institute executive director Ben Oquist said at an annual loss of $46 billion, the CGT exemption for primary residences was costing the Government more than its entire defence or aged pension spending. Mr Oquist told the ABC it would be "nonsensical" to exclude the exemption from serious tax reform. "While it's probably politically unrealistic to think about removing that exemption altogether, one thing we've modelled today is looking at removing the exemption for homes worth more than $2 million," he said. "Such a move would affect a very small amount of the population." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-11/capital-gains-tax-reform-could-raise-46-billion-report/7079882 won't happen .... nor should it.

It's a good idea because we are paying 100 mill a day in interest payments alone on government borrowings.

As well CGT concessions should be removed on investment properties and so should negative gearing.

As for the family home it would make old folks think twice about flogging their home to the highest foreign chinese bidder ;)

Tax the house hoarding buggers for sitting on their big fat arses and doing nothing productive for the country !!

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 5:02pm:

it's another of those dopey ideas that get floated from time to time that has a snowballs chance in hell of being adopted. it is an immediate death sentence to any government foolish enough to try it on.   libs would probably lose half their primary vote if they tried and labor almost as much.  even before you discuss the unfairness and idiocy of the move, you need to realise it will never happen.

you don't have to worry because your old fibro dump is worth f.ckall after GMH vacates elizabeth :D LOL

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 5:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 10:34am: Axing capital gains tax exemption on homes could raise $46b, new research says The Federal Government could raise as much as $46 billion a year if it axes the capital gains tax (CGT) exemption on the family home, according to new research. A new Capital Gains Tax report, issued by think tank The Australia Institute with data by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, said that more than half the benefit of the CGT exemption was enjoyed by households in the top 20 per cent of incomes. The report estimated that ending the exemption for houses worth more than $2 million would still draw nearly $12 billion in new revenue over four years. Australia Institute executive director Ben Oquist said at an annual loss of $46 billion, the CGT exemption for primary residences was costing the Government more than its entire defence or aged pension spending. Mr Oquist told the ABC it would be "nonsensical" to exclude the exemption from serious tax reform. "While it's probably politically unrealistic to think about removing that exemption altogether, one thing we've modelled today is looking at removing the exemption for homes worth more than $2 million," he said. "Such a move would affect a very small amount of the population." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-11/capital-gains-tax-reform-could-raise-46-billion-report/7079882 won't happen .... nor should it. It's a good idea because we are paying 100 mill a day in interest payments alone on government borrowings. As well CGT concessions should be removed on investment properties and so should negative gearing. As for the family home it would make old folks think twice about flogging their home to the highest foreign chinese bidder ;) Tax the house hoarding buggers for sitting on their big fat arses and doing nothing productive for the country !!

another pov-renter.

no ideas, no hope and no clue.  just hate for his betters... which is an awfully large number of people.

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 5:50pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 5:02pm: it's another of those dopey ideas that get floated from time to time that has a snowballs chance in hell of being adopted. it is an immediate death sentence to any government foolish enough to try it on.   libs would probably lose half their primary vote if they tried and labor almost as much.  even before you discuss the unfairness and idiocy of the move, you need to realise it will never happen. you don't have to worry because your old fibro dump is worth f.ckall after GMH vacates elizabeth :D LOL

I am 35kms from Elizabeth dip-stick.  But when mitsubishi closed it actually increased the value of my home since I am 2km away!

you know so little about housing prices that it is quite surprising.

idiots laugh at you!

A $2M starting point is a daft idea given the huge variation in typical prices in different cities. $2M in Hobart would buy you half a suburb while in Sydney it wouldnt even get you into a inner suburb.

The whole idea is one of those ridiculous ideas that a boffin in a cubicle comes up with before he has his morning coffee and the media runs with it. It has zero hope of ever being adopted by a rational government of any persuasion. As one poster has said, it would effectively require interest payments on loans and costs of ownership such as depreciation, council rates, maintenance and repair to be included.  Admittedly, this would employ 100,000 public servants to manage and at the end of the day would raise only a small portion of what this OP claims.

In the middle of the road you see the darndest things
Like fat guys driving 'round in jeeps through the city
Wearing big diamond rings and silk suits
Past corrugated tin shacks full up with kids
Oh man I don't mean a hampstead nursery
When you own a big chunk of the bloody third world
The babies just come with the scenery...

The Pretenders...

Maybe we should all live in a corrugated tin shack and gain nothing.  I mean - it's your family home.... not an investment property.. and you can surely sell it and downsize without penalty..... not your fault it's now worth a mint.... you pay mega rates just to have it..... etc... and paid a mint in mortgage payments...

Get out before the market collapses like a junkie's mainline vein (man)....

(three word slogan)...

Flick The Government!

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 5:48pm:

As for the family home it would make old folks think twice about flogging their home to the highest foreign chinese bidder ;)

Then the owner will just increase the price to make up for the tax

You've just inflated the property market even more

No one talks about cut budget or put a up limit, only taxation, find thousands of ways to take money. Whose gov it is?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 6:15pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 5:48pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 10:34am: Axing capital gains tax exemption on homes could raise $46b, new research says The Federal Government could raise as much as $46 billion a year if it axes the capital gains tax (CGT) exemption on the family home, according to new research. A new Capital Gains Tax report, issued by think tank The Australia Institute with data by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, said that more than half the benefit of the CGT exemption was enjoyed by households in the top 20 per cent of incomes. The report estimated that ending the exemption for houses worth more than $2 million would still draw nearly $12 billion in new revenue over four years. Australia Institute executive director Ben Oquist said at an annual loss of $46 billion, the CGT exemption for primary residences was costing the Government more than its entire defence or aged pension spending. Mr Oquist told the ABC it would be "nonsensical" to exclude the exemption from serious tax reform. "While it's probably politically unrealistic to think about removing that exemption altogether, one thing we've modelled today is looking at removing the exemption for homes worth more than $2 million," he said. "Such a move would affect a very small amount of the population." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-11/capital-gains-tax-reform-could-raise-46-billion-report/7079882 won't happen .... nor should it. It's a good idea because we are paying 100 mill a day in interest payments alone on government borrowings. As well CGT concessions should be removed on investment properties and so should negative gearing. As for the family home it would make old folks think twice about flogging their home to the highest foreign chinese bidder ;) Tax the house hoarding buggers for sitting on their big fat arses and doing nothing productive for the country !! another pov-renter. no ideas, no hope and no clue.  just hate for his betters... which is an awfully large number of people.

and what's your solution areshole ? raise the GST and slap it on nickel and dime ebay purchases ? Good luck with that :D LOL

beer wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 8:59pm:

No one talks about cut budget or put a up limit, only taxation, find thousands of ways to take money. Whose gov it is?

rubbish government with no idea other than to screw the battlers whilst they shovel more money into the pockets of the wealthy :(

mariacostel wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 6:25pm:

A $2M starting point is a daft idea given the huge variation in typical prices in different cities. $2M in Hobart would buy you half a suburb while in Sydney it wouldnt even get you into a inner suburb. The whole idea is one of those ridiculous ideas that a boffin in a cubicle comes up with before he has his morning coffee and the media runs with it. It has zero hope of ever being adopted by a rational government of any persuasion. As one poster has said, it would effectively require interest payments on loans and costs of ownership such as depreciation, council rates, maintenance and repair to be included.  Admittedly, this would employ 100,000 public servants to manage and at the end of the day would raise only a small portion of what this OP claims.

f.ckoff longprong69

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 9:39pm:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 6:25pm: A $2M starting point is a daft idea given the huge variation in typical prices in different cities. $2M in Hobart would buy you half a suburb while in Sydney it wouldnt even get you into a inner suburb. The whole idea is one of those ridiculous ideas that a boffin in a cubicle comes up with before he has his morning coffee and the media runs with it. It has zero hope of ever being adopted by a rational government of any persuasion. As one poster has said, it would effectively require interest payments on loans and costs of ownership such as depreciation, council rates, maintenance and repair to be included.  Admittedly, this would employ 100,000 public servants to manage and at the end of the day would raise only a small portion of what this OP claims. f.ckoff longprong69

obviously her response was too detailed and too intellectual for you.

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 9:39pm:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 6:25pm: A $2M starting point is a daft idea given the huge variation in typical prices in different cities. $2M in Hobart would buy you half a suburb while in Sydney it wouldnt even get you into a inner suburb. The whole idea is one of those ridiculous ideas that a boffin in a cubicle comes up with before he has his morning coffee and the media runs with it. It has zero hope of ever being adopted by a rational government of any persuasion. As one poster has said, it would effectively require interest payments on loans and costs of ownership such as depreciation, council rates, maintenance and repair to be included.  Admittedly, this would employ 100,000 public servants to manage and at the end of the day would raise only a small portion of what this OP claims. f.ckoff longprong69

There's no need for that abuse.

And what she posted was 100% correct!

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 12:09pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 9:39pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 6:25pm: A $2M starting point is a daft idea given the huge variation in typical prices in different cities. $2M in Hobart would buy you half a suburb while in Sydney it wouldnt even get you into a inner suburb. The whole idea is one of those ridiculous ideas that a boffin in a cubicle comes up with before he has his morning coffee and the media runs with it. It has zero hope of ever being adopted by a rational government of any persuasion. As one poster has said, it would effectively require interest payments on loans and costs of ownership such as depreciation, council rates, maintenance and repair to be included.  Admittedly, this would employ 100,000 public servants to manage and at the end of the day would raise only a small portion of what this OP claims. f.ckoff longprong69 obviously her response was too detailed and too intellectual for you.

or is she really a he and an impostor and I couldn't give a bugger making an effort ?

John Smith wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 10:34am:

Axing capital gains tax exemption on homes could raise $46b, new research says The Federal Government could raise as much as $46 billion a year if it axes the capital gains tax (CGT) exemption on the family home, according to new research. A new Capital Gains Tax report, issued by think tank The Australia Institute with data by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, said that more than half the benefit of the CGT exemption was enjoyed by households in the top 20 per cent of incomes. The report estimated that ending the exemption for houses worth more than $2 million would still draw nearly $12 billion in new revenue over four years. Australia Institute executive director Ben Oquist said at an annual loss of $46 billion, the CGT exemption for primary residences was costing the Government more than its entire defence or aged pension spending. Mr Oquist told the ABC it would be "nonsensical" to exclude the exemption from serious tax reform. "While it's probably politically unrealistic to think about removing that exemption altogether, one thing we've modelled today is looking at removing the exemption for homes worth more than $2 million," he said. "Such a move would affect a very small amount of the population." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-11/capital-gains-tax-reform-could-raise-46-billion-report/7079882 won't happen .... nor should it.

Not currently it won't.

Only Labor and the Greens listen to the Australia Institute & NATSEM  :D

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 12:16pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 9:39pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 6:25pm: A $2M starting point is a daft idea given the huge variation in typical prices in different cities. $2M in Hobart would buy you half a suburb while in Sydney it wouldnt even get you into a inner suburb. The whole idea is one of those ridiculous ideas that a boffin in a cubicle comes up with before he has his morning coffee and the media runs with it. It has zero hope of ever being adopted by a rational government of any persuasion. As one poster has said, it would effectively require interest payments on loans and costs of ownership such as depreciation, council rates, maintenance and repair to be included.  Admittedly, this would employ 100,000 public servants to manage and at the end of the day would raise only a small portion of what this OP claims. f.ckoff longprong69 There's no need for that abuse. And what she posted was 100% correct!

why don't you just admit that yourself in collaboration with longprong69 posted it ?

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 12:24pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 12:16pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 9:39pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 6:25pm: A $2M starting point is a daft idea given the huge variation in typical prices in different cities. $2M in Hobart would buy you half a suburb while in Sydney it wouldnt even get you into a inner suburb. The whole idea is one of those ridiculous ideas that a boffin in a cubicle comes up with before he has his morning coffee and the media runs with it. It has zero hope of ever being adopted by a rational government of any persuasion. As one poster has said, it would effectively require interest payments on loans and costs of ownership such as depreciation, council rates, maintenance and repair to be included.  Admittedly, this would employ 100,000 public servants to manage and at the end of the day would raise only a small portion of what this OP claims. f.ckoff longprong69 There's no need for that abuse. And what she posted was 100% correct! why don't you just admit that yourself in collaboration with longprong69 posted it ?

1. Stop abusing.

2. Stop telling me to admit to something which never took place.

Why?

I don't like it Last Nail. I'm funny like that.... ::)

Swagman wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 12:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 10:34am: Axing capital gains tax exemption on homes could raise $46b, new research says The Federal Government could raise as much as $46 billion a year if it axes the capital gains tax (CGT) exemption on the family home, according to new research. A new Capital Gains Tax report, issued by think tank The Australia Institute with data by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, said that more than half the benefit of the CGT exemption was enjoyed by households in the top 20 per cent of incomes. The report estimated that ending the exemption for houses worth more than $2 million would still draw nearly $12 billion in new revenue over four years. Australia Institute executive director Ben Oquist said at an annual loss of $46 billion, the CGT exemption for primary residences was costing the Government more than its entire defence or aged pension spending. Mr Oquist told the ABC it would be "nonsensical" to exclude the exemption from serious tax reform. "While it's probably politically unrealistic to think about removing that exemption altogether, one thing we've modelled today is looking at removing the exemption for homes worth more than $2 million," he said. "Such a move would affect a very small amount of the population." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-11/capital-gains-tax-reform-could-raise-46-billion-report/7079882 won't happen .... nor should it. Not currently it won't. Only Labor and the Greens listen to the Australia Institute & NATSEM  :D

but lets never talk about houses even though it's on the table. Instead lets go straight for the goodies and wack a GST on nickle and dime online purchases that will cost more than it raises !!

Yes everything is on the table but some things are purposely slipped under the others where they can never be seen :(

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 12:28pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 12:24pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 12:16pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 9:39pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 6:25pm: A $2M starting point is a daft idea given the huge variation in typical prices in different cities. $2M in Hobart would buy you half a suburb while in Sydney it wouldnt even get you into a inner suburb. The whole idea is one of those ridiculous ideas that a boffin in a cubicle comes up with before he has his morning coffee and the media runs with it. It has zero hope of ever being adopted by a rational government of any persuasion. As one poster has said, it would effectively require interest payments on loans and costs of ownership such as depreciation, council rates, maintenance and repair to be included.  Admittedly, this would employ 100,000 public servants to manage and at the end of the day would raise only a small portion of what this OP claims. f.ckoff longprong69 There's no need for that abuse. And what she posted was 100% correct! why don't you just admit that yourself in collaboration with longprong69 posted it ? 1. Stop abusing. 2. Stop telling me to admit to something which never took place. Why? I don't like it Last Nail. I'm funny like that.... ::)

but didn't you admit that your were posting under the alias mariacostel ?

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 12:31pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 12:28pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 12:24pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 12:16pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 9:39pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 6:25pm: A $2M starting point is a daft idea given the huge variation in typical prices in different cities. $2M in Hobart would buy you half a suburb while in Sydney it wouldnt even get you into a inner suburb. The whole idea is one of those ridiculous ideas that a boffin in a cubicle comes up with before he has his morning coffee and the media runs with it. It has zero hope of ever being adopted by a rational government of any persuasion. As one poster has said, it would effectively require interest payments on loans and costs of ownership such as depreciation, council rates, maintenance and repair to be included.  Admittedly, this would employ 100,000 public servants to manage and at the end of the day would raise only a small portion of what this OP claims. f.ckoff longprong69 There's no need for that abuse. And what she posted was 100% correct! why don't you just admit that yourself in collaboration with longprong69 posted it ? 1. Stop abusing. 2. Stop telling me to admit to something which never took place. Why? I don't like it Last Nail. I'm funny like that.... ::) but didn't you admit that your were posting under the alias mariacostel ?

Ahhh damn. I did too.

Nobody believed me at the time.

Now it seems you suddenly do. ::)

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 12:35pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 12:31pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 12:28pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 12:24pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 12:16pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 9:39pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 6:25pm: A $2M starting point is a daft idea given the huge variation in typical prices in different cities. $2M in Hobart would buy you half a suburb while in Sydney it wouldnt even get you into a inner suburb. The whole idea is one of those ridiculous ideas that a boffin in a cubicle comes up with before he has his morning coffee and the media runs with it. It has zero hope of ever being adopted by a rational government of any persuasion. As one poster has said, it would effectively require interest payments on loans and costs of ownership such as depreciation, council rates, maintenance and repair to be included.  Admittedly, this would employ 100,000 public servants to manage and at the end of the day would raise only a small portion of what this OP claims. f.ckoff longprong69 There's no need for that abuse. And what she posted was 100% correct! why don't you just admit that yourself in collaboration with longprong69 posted it ? 1. Stop abusing. 2. Stop telling me to admit to something which never took place. Why? I don't like it Last Nail. I'm funny like that.... ::) but didn't you admit that your were posting under the alias mariacostel ? Ahhh damn. I did too. Nobody believed me at the time. Now it seems you suddenly do. ::)

How do you know that ?

Sounds good to me. They'd have to make it apply to from the next sale date, otherwise there would be a massive sell-off and property market crash. Although then you might get the opposite problem where people hang on to a house they would otherwise sell.

They would also have to allow people to claim a tax deduction on the interest they pay on the home loan, otherwise they would be taxing the family home at a higher rate than an investment property. Might be simpler to leave it as is.

freediver wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 12:54pm:

Sounds good to me. They'd have to make it apply to from the next sale date, otherwise there would be a massive sell-off and property market crash. Although then you might get the opposite problem where people hang on to a house they would otherwise sell. They would also have to allow people to claim a tax deduction on the interest they pay on the home loan, otherwise they would be taxing the family home at a higher rate than an investment property. Might be simpler to leave it as is.

If you allow tax deductions on interest payments for the family home then that would level the playing field somewhat.

But this idea that you have to be compensated for paying a tax on a profit is absurd anyway because taxes are a fact of life !!

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 12:23pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 12:09pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 9:39pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 6:25pm: A $2M starting point is a daft idea given the huge variation in typical prices in different cities. $2M in Hobart would buy you half a suburb while in Sydney it wouldnt even get you into a inner suburb. The whole idea is one of those ridiculous ideas that a boffin in a cubicle comes up with before he has his morning coffee and the media runs with it. It has zero hope of ever being adopted by a rational government of any persuasion. As one poster has said, it would effectively require interest payments on loans and costs of ownership such as depreciation, council rates, maintenance and repair to be included.  Admittedly, this would employ 100,000 public servants to manage and at the end of the day would raise only a small portion of what this OP claims. f.ckoff longprong69 obviously her response was too detailed and too intellectual for you. or is she really a he and an impostor and I couldn't give a bugger making an effort ?

with every post you prove you are a loser.

freediver wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 12:54pm:

Sounds good to me. They'd have to make it apply to from the next sale date, otherwise there would be a massive sell-off and property market crash. Although then you might get the opposite problem where people hang on to a house they would otherwise sell. They would also have to allow people to claim a tax deduction on the interest they pay on the home loan, otherwise they would be taxing the family home at a higher rate than an investment property. Might be simpler to leave it as is.

can you imagine any party implementing it and not being smashed at the next election?  the opposition would be the greens.

no party would be stupid enough to so it. The most any party could ever get away with is a 10% CGT with deductions for interest at the time of sale. even then, it would be political suicide and not raise that much anyhow.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 4:59pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 12:54pm: Sounds good to me. They'd have to make it apply to from the next sale date, otherwise there would be a massive sell-off and property market crash. Although then you might get the opposite problem where people hang on to a house they would otherwise sell. They would also have to allow people to claim a tax deduction on the interest they pay on the home loan, otherwise they would be taxing the family home at a higher rate than an investment property. Might be simpler to leave it as is. can you imagine any party implementing it and not being smashed at the next election?  the opposition would be the greens. no party would be stupid enough to so it. The most any party could ever get away with is a 10% CGT with deductions for interest at the time of sale. even then, it would be political suicide and not raise that much anyhow.

which just proves that liberals can't make policies for the better of a nation as a whole but rather for self preservation and ego gratification !!

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 1:05pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 12:54pm: Sounds good to me. They'd have to make it apply to from the next sale date, otherwise there would be a massive sell-off and property market crash. Although then you might get the opposite problem where people hang on to a house they would otherwise sell. They would also have to allow people to claim a tax deduction on the interest they pay on the home loan, otherwise they would be taxing the family home at a higher rate than an investment property. Might be simpler to leave it as is. If you allow tax deductions on interest payments for the family home then that would level the playing field somewhat. But this idea that you have to be compensated for paying a tax on a profit is absurd anyway because taxes are a fact of life !!

It has nothing to do with compensation. It is about taxing different economic activities in a roughly equivalent manner so that the tax system does not distort the economy.

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 1:05pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 12:54pm: Sounds good to me. They'd have to make it apply to from the next sale date, otherwise there would be a massive sell-off and property market crash. Although then you might get the opposite problem where people hang on to a house they would otherwise sell. They would also have to allow people to claim a tax deduction on the interest they pay on the home loan, otherwise they would be taxing the family home at a higher rate than an investment property. Might be simpler to leave it as is. If you allow tax deductions on interest payments for the family home then that would level the playing field somewhat. But this idea that you have to be compensated for paying a tax on a profit is absurd anyway because taxes are a fact of life !!

It isn't really a profit unless it is an investment property. If it is your family home the next home you purchase will have increased in cost by about the same rate. You don't tend to make profit from your family home at all.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 7:24am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 1:05pm: freediver wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 12:54pm: Sounds good to me. They'd have to make it apply to from the next sale date, otherwise there would be a massive sell-off and property market crash. Although then you might get the opposite problem where people hang on to a house they would otherwise sell. They would also have to allow people to claim a tax deduction on the interest they pay on the home loan, otherwise they would be taxing the family home at a higher rate than an investment property. Might be simpler to leave it as is. If you allow tax deductions on interest payments for the family home then that would level the playing field somewhat. But this idea that you have to be compensated for paying a tax on a profit is absurd anyway because taxes are a fact of life !! It isn't really a profit unless it is an investment property. If it is your family home the next home you purchase will have increased in cost by about the same rate. You don't tend to make profit from your family home at all.

If 2 persons live in a 6 bedroom property, the rest 4 rooms can be profitable.

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 1:05pm:

If you allow tax deductions on interest payments for the family home then that would level the playing field somewhat.

They would have difficulty establishing what CG one made as in my case the house and land cost about $22000 in 1972. It certainly isnt in the $2,000,000 range but some in Sydney would be with similar original cost.

Since then it has had a major extension and garages added twice

What deductions would be allowed if any?

Interest ?  Well all of the above were paid off years ago and I certainly havent kept a record of the interest paid although the banks probably would have it.

Upkeep costs ? painting? roof restoration? landscaping improvements.

Anyway its a can of worms that wont get through the parliament

John Smith wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 10:34am:

Axing capital gains tax exemption on homes could raise $46b, new research says The Federal Government could raise as much as $46 billion a year if it axes the capital gains tax (CGT) exemption on the family home, according to new research. A new Capital Gains Tax report, issued by think tank The Australia Institute with data by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, said that more than half the benefit of the CGT exemption was enjoyed by households in the top 20 per cent of incomes. The report estimated that ending the exemption for houses worth more than $2 million would still draw nearly $12 billion in new revenue over four years. Australia Institute executive director Ben Oquist said at an annual loss of $46 billion, the CGT exemption for primary residences was costing the Government more than its entire defence or aged pension spending. Mr Oquist told the ABC it would be "nonsensical" to exclude the exemption from serious tax reform. "While it's probably politically unrealistic to think about removing that exemption altogether, one thing we've modelled today is looking at removing the exemption for homes worth more than $2 million," he said. "Such a move would affect a very small amount of the population." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-11/capital-gains-tax-reform-could-raise-46-billion-report/7079882 won't happen .... nor should it.

Got a far simpler/easier/quicker solution.

If you're gonna go down the CGT path to raise revenue....how about axing the well known CGT exemption to investment properties bought before 20 September 1985.

Duh!

Useless politicians. Grrrrrr!

Might go and do some washing now....

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 7:56am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 10:34am: Axing capital gains tax exemption on homes could raise $46b, new research says The Federal Government could raise as much as $46 billion a year if it axes the capital gains tax (CGT) exemption on the family home, according to new research. A new Capital Gains Tax report, issued by think tank The Australia Institute with data by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, said that more than half the benefit of the CGT exemption was enjoyed by households in the top 20 per cent of incomes. The report estimated that ending the exemption for houses worth more than $2 million would still draw nearly $12 billion in new revenue over four years. Australia Institute executive director Ben Oquist said at an annual loss of $46 billion, the CGT exemption for primary residences was costing the Government more than its entire defence or aged pension spending. Mr Oquist told the ABC it would be "nonsensical" to exclude the exemption from serious tax reform. "While it's probably politically unrealistic to think about removing that exemption altogether, one thing we've modelled today is looking at removing the exemption for homes worth more than $2 million," he said. "Such a move would affect a very small amount of the population." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-11/capital-gains-tax-reform-could-raise-46-billion-report/7079882 won't happen .... nor should it. Got a far simpler/easier/quicker solution. If you're gonna go down the CGT path to raise revenue....how about axing the well known CGT exemption to investment properties bought before 20 September 1985. Duh! Useless politicians. Grrrrrr! Might go and do some washing now....

Useless = 0, they are -100. Don't over estimate them.

They create jobs for themselves and ask people to pay.

How simple it can be, carge everybody CGT in every case, doesn't matter owner occupied or investment. Then you can always ask for tax return to one of the property you own.

You simply need a computer program linked with real estate registration system to check this. 10 tax officers can run this for whole country.

beer wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 8:23am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 7:56am: John Smith wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 10:34am: Axing capital gains tax exemption on homes could raise $46b, new research says The Federal Government could raise as much as $46 billion a year if it axes the capital gains tax (CGT) exemption on the family home, according to new research. A new Capital Gains Tax report, issued by think tank The Australia Institute with data by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, said that more than half the benefit of the CGT exemption was enjoyed by households in the top 20 per cent of incomes. The report estimated that ending the exemption for houses worth more than $2 million would still draw nearly $12 billion in new revenue over four years. Australia Institute executive director Ben Oquist said at an annual loss of $46 billion, the CGT exemption for primary residences was costing the Government more than its entire defence or aged pension spending. Mr Oquist told the ABC it would be "nonsensical" to exclude the exemption from serious tax reform. "While it's probably politically unrealistic to think about removing that exemption altogether, one thing we've modelled today is looking at removing the exemption for homes worth more than $2 million," he said. "Such a move would affect a very small amount of the population." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-11/capital-gains-tax-reform-could-raise-46-billion-report/7079882 won't happen .... nor should it. Got a far simpler/easier/quicker solution. If you're gonna go down the CGT path to raise revenue....how about axing the well known CGT exemption to investment properties bought before 20 September 1985. Duh! Useless politicians. Grrrrrr! Might go and do some washing now.... Useless = 0, they are -100. Don't over estimate them. They create jobs for themselves and ask people to pay. How simple it can be, charge everybody CGT in every case, as long as it's an investment property. Then you can always ask for a tax return to one of the properties you own. You simply need a computer program linked with real estate registration systems to check this. 10 tax officers can run this for whole country.

Fixed.

beer wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 8:23am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 7:56am: John Smith wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 10:34am: Axing capital gains tax exemption on homes could raise $46b, new research says The Federal Government could raise as much as $46 billion a year if it axes the capital gains tax (CGT) exemption on the family home, according to new research. A new Capital Gains Tax report, issued by think tank The Australia Institute with data by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, said that more than half the benefit of the CGT exemption was enjoyed by households in the top 20 per cent of incomes. The report estimated that ending the exemption for houses worth more than $2 million would still draw nearly $12 billion in new revenue over four years. Australia Institute executive director Ben Oquist said at an annual loss of $46 billion, the CGT exemption for primary residences was costing the Government more than its entire defence or aged pension spending. Mr Oquist told the ABC it would be "nonsensical" to exclude the exemption from serious tax reform. "While it's probably politically unrealistic to think about removing that exemption altogether, one thing we've modelled today is looking at removing the exemption for homes worth more than $2 million," he said. "Such a move would affect a very small amount of the population." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-11/capital-gains-tax-reform-could-raise-46-billion-report/7079882 won't happen .... nor should it. Got a far simpler/easier/quicker solution. If you're gonna go down the CGT path to raise revenue....how about axing the well known CGT exemption to investment properties bought before 20 September 1985. Duh! Useless politicians. Grrrrrr! Might go and do some washing now.... Useless = 0, they are -100. Don't over estimate them. They create jobs for themselves and ask people to pay. How simple it can be, carge everybody CGT in every case, doesn't matter owner occupied or investment. Then you can always ask for tax return to one of the property you own. You simply need a computer program linked with real estate registration system to check this. 10 tax officers can run this for whole country.

Of course they can do this easily. It's the light shoe brigade lobbyists that go crying to the government anytime their real estate pot of gold is threatened. You see they want the reward without any risk and that is not a normal free market system.

beer wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 7:38am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 7:24am: Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 1:05pm: freediver wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 12:54pm: Sounds good to me. They'd have to make it apply to from the next sale date, otherwise there would be a massive sell-off and property market crash. Although then you might get the opposite problem where people hang on to a house they would otherwise sell. They would also have to allow people to claim a tax deduction on the interest they pay on the home loan, otherwise they would be taxing the family home at a higher rate than an investment property. Might be simpler to leave it as is. If you allow tax deductions on interest payments for the family home then that would level the playing field somewhat. But this idea that you have to be compensated for paying a tax on a profit is absurd anyway because taxes are a fact of life !! It isn't really a profit unless it is an investment property. If it is your family home the next home you purchase will have increased in cost by about the same rate. You don't tend to make profit from your family home at all. If 2 persons live in a 6 bedroom property, the rest 4 rooms can be profitable.

And are about 2% of the time or not for 98% of the population.

where's our resident stupid greenie telling us how CGT and death taxes are the way to go?

Havn't seen him in weeks? is he in jail?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 6:51pm:

where's our resident stupid greenie telling us how CGT and death taxes are the way to go? Havn't seen him in weeks? is he in jail?

Fear not McTavish. Asbestos infested fibro shacks like yours will be exempted.

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 8:47pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 6:51pm: where's our resident stupid greenie telling us how CGT and death taxes are the way to go? Havn't seen him in weeks? is he in jail? Fear not McTavish. Asbestos infested fibro shacks like yours will be exempted.

if you had half a brain you would know that 'fibro shacks' exists in VIC and NSW and some in QLD.  NONE in SA.

idiot.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 6:51pm:

where's our resident stupid greenie telling us how CGT and death taxes are the way to go? Havn't seen him in weeks? is he in jail?

what ever happened to the budget emergency and 100 million a day interest payments ?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 8:49am:

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 8:47pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 6:51pm: where's our resident stupid greenie telling us how CGT and death taxes are the way to go? Havn't seen him in weeks? is he in jail? Fear not McTavish. Asbestos infested fibro shacks like yours will be exempted. if you had half a brain you would know that 'fibro shacks' exists in VIC and NSW and some in QLD.  NONE in SA. nice person.

Yep.

In any event, who cares if it's a fibro shack?

Is that old shack on a good sized parcel of land in a good location?

IF SO, GRAB IT. FAST!

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 9:07am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:49am: Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 8:47pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 6:51pm: where's our resident stupid greenie telling us how CGT and death taxes are the way to go? Havn't seen him in weeks? is he in jail? Fear not McTavish. Asbestos infested fibro shacks like yours will be exempted. if you had half a brain you would know that 'fibro shacks' exists in VIC and NSW and some in QLD.  NONE in SA. nice person. Yep. In any event, who cares if it's a fibro shack? Is that old shack on a good sized parcel of land in a good location? IF SO, GRAB IT. FAST!

yeh sell it to a china-man.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 7:56am:

If you're gonna go down the CGT path to raise revenue....how about axing the well known CGT exemption to investment properties bought before 20 September 1985.

That provision is fast approaching its use-by date.

If people were 40 when they purchased the asset, that means they are now 70.

When they die the pre-CGT status dies with them. The asset is deemed to have been acquired by the beneficiary on date of death.

lee wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 1:26pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 7:56am: If you're gonna go down the CGT path to raise revenue....how about axing the well known CGT exemption to investment properties bought before 20 September 1985. That provision is fast approaching its use-by date. If people were 40 when they purchased the asset, that means they are now 70. When they die the pre-CGT status dies with them. The asset is deemed to have been acquired by the beneficiary on date of death.

70????

I personally know 6 individuals who are in their 50's and who are sitting quite comfortably thanks to that exemption.

5 of them are my neighbours, the 6th is my husband lol!

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 1:07pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:07am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:49am: Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 8:47pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 6:51pm: where's our resident stupid greenie telling us how CGT and death taxes are the way to go? Havn't seen him in weeks? is he in jail? Fear not McTavish. Asbestos infested fibro shacks like yours will be exempted. if you had half a brain you would know that 'fibro shacks' exists in VIC and NSW and some in QLD.  NONE in SA. nice person. Yep. In any event, who cares if it's a fibro shack? Is that old shack on a good sized parcel of land in a good location? IF SO, GRAB IT. FAST! yeh sell it to a china-man.

You have to fix it up first lol  ;D

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 5:14pm:

70???? I personally know 6 individuals who are in their 50's and who are sitting quite comfortably thanks to that exemption. 5 of them are my neighbours, the 6th is my husband lol!

So they purchased the assets when 20?

lee wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 5:30pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 5:14pm: 70???? I personally know 6 individuals who are in their 50's and who are sitting quite comfortably thanks to that exemption. 5 of them are my neighbours, the 6th is my husband lol! So they purchased the assets when 20?

In their late 20's.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 5:35pm:

In their late 20's.

Unusual.

lee wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 1:26pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 7:56am: If you're gonna go down the CGT path to raise revenue....how about axing the well known CGT exemption to investment properties bought before 20 September 1985. That provision is fast approaching its use-by date. If people were 40 when they purchased the asset, that means they are now 70. When they die the pre-CGT status dies with them. The asset is deemed to have been acquired by the beneficiary on date of death.

CGT was fair when it was the capital gain IN EXCESS OF CPI. now it is just the gain, period.  if CPI were taken into the equation it would be a lot less and a whole lot fairer.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 9:11am:

lee wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 1:26pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 7:56am: If you're gonna go down the CGT path to raise revenue....how about axing the well known CGT exemption to investment properties bought before 20 September 1985. That provision is fast approaching its use-by date. If people were 40 when they purchased the asset, that means they are now 70. When they die the pre-CGT status dies with them. The asset is deemed to have been acquired by the beneficiary on date of death. CGT was fair when it was the capital gain IN EXCESS OF CPI. now it is just the gain, period.  if CPI were taken into the equation it would be a lot less and a whole lot fairer.

Oh. I did not know this.

Thank you for that information.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 5:15pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 1:07pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:07am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:49am: Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 8:47pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 6:51pm: where's our resident stupid greenie telling us how CGT and death taxes are the way to go? Havn't seen him in weeks? is he in jail? Fear not McTavish. Asbestos infested fibro shacks like yours will be exempted. if you had half a brain you would know that 'fibro shacks' exists in VIC and NSW and some in QLD.  NONE in SA. nice person. Yep. In any event, who cares if it's a fibro shack? Is that old shack on a good sized parcel of land in a good location? IF SO, GRAB IT. FAST! yeh sell it to a china-man. You have to fix it up first lol  ;D

No you don't. They are buying them for the land and bulldozing them down to build 3 new dog boxes.

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 9:14am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 5:15pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 1:07pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:07am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:49am: Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 8:47pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 6:51pm: where's our resident stupid greenie telling us how CGT and death taxes are the way to go? Havn't seen him in weeks? is he in jail? Fear not McTavish. Asbestos infested fibro shacks like yours will be exempted. if you had half a brain you would know that 'fibro shacks' exists in VIC and NSW and some in QLD.  NONE in SA. nice person. Yep. In any event, who cares if it's a fibro shack? Is that old shack on a good sized parcel of land in a good location? IF SO, GRAB IT. FAST! yeh sell it to a china-man. You have to fix it up first lol  ;D No you don't. They are buying them for the land and bulldozing them down to build 3 new dog boxes.

Not all.

But yeah some are. It depends on the area.

lee wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 8:09pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 5:35pm: In their late 20's. Unusual.

Not at all.

Why?

We're STILL talking BABY BOOMERS.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 9:16am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 9:14am: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 5:15pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 1:07pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:07am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:49am: Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 8:47pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 6:51pm: where's our resident stupid greenie telling us how CGT and death taxes are the way to go? Havn't seen him in weeks? is he in jail? Fear not McTavish. Asbestos infested fibro shacks like yours will be exempted. if you had half a brain you would know that 'fibro shacks' exists in VIC and NSW and some in QLD.  NONE in SA. nice person. Yep. In any event, who cares if it's a fibro shack? Is that old shack on a good sized parcel of land in a good location? IF SO, GRAB IT. FAST! yeh sell it to a china-man. You have to fix it up first lol  ;D No you don't. They are buying them for the land and bulldozing them down to build 3 new dog boxes. Not all. But yeah some are. It depends on the area.

They are doing it in well to do suburbs now. We drove around Brighton last week and you wouldn't believe how many of those classic old houses had been bulldozed down ready for rebuilding.  Nothing is sacred anymore. It's up for grabs from anyone. Governments and Councils love it because they are addicted to bigger revenues and taxes. More houses and the higher the price means more rates !!

This is what we are heading for:


http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/151112162452-arcaid-awards-tan-lingfei-buildings-in-use-super-169.jpg

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 9:20am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 9:16am: Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 9:14am: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 5:15pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 1:07pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:07am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:49am: Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 8:47pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 6:51pm: where's our resident stupid greenie telling us how CGT and death taxes are the way to go? Havn't seen him in weeks? is he in jail? Fear not McTavish. Asbestos infested fibro shacks like yours will be exempted. if you had half a brain you would know that 'fibro shacks' exists in VIC and NSW and some in QLD.  NONE in SA. nice person. Yep. In any event, who cares if it's a fibro shack? Is that old shack on a good sized parcel of land in a good location? IF SO, GRAB IT. FAST! yeh sell it to a china-man. You have to fix it up first lol  ;D No you don't. They are buying them for the land and bulldozing them down to build 3 new dog boxes. Not all. But yeah some are. It depends on the area. They are doing it in well to do suburbs now. We drove around Brighton last week and you wouldn't believe how many of those classic old houses had been bulldozed down ready for rebuilding.  Nothing is sacred anymore. It's up for grabs from anyone. Governments and Councils love it because they are addicted to bigger revenues and taxes. More houses and the higher the price means more rates !!

Ah. You're a Victorian. 

Keep forgetting that.

I'm talking Sydney.

IMO.....these sorts of changes are myopic.

Bobby, our kids and their kids deserve the best.

Unfortunately, these days, the words "the best" mean a decent sized bedroom and a decent sized backyard.

And, over time, even the words "decent sized" have come to mean 2 x 3 metres.

It's a recipe for disaster if you ask me.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 9:30am:

Bobby, our kids and their kids deserve the best. Unfortunately, these days, that means a decent sized bedroom and a decent sized backyard. And, over time, even the words "decent sized" have come to mean 2 x 3 metres. It's a recipe for disaster if you ask me.

Yes Lisa - that picture is scary isn't it?

but it's where we're going.

They say that Melbourne will have 12 million people by the end of this century.

Responsible and sustainable urban development.

These words mean different things to different people.

And that's a problem which needs to be addressed post-haste.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 9:30am:

Bobby, our kids and their kids deserve the best. Unfortunately, these days, the words "the best" mean a decent sized bedroom and a decent sized backyard. And, over time, even the words "decent sized" have come to mean 2 x 3 metres. It's a recipe for disaster if you ask me.

They are trying to turn each australian capital city into another Hongkong and in the process ruin them in exchange for 30 pieces of silver. Ugly cheapo sh.t high rise rectangle blocks everywhere. Reminds me of my lego set when I was young.

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 9:40am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 9:30am: Bobby, our kids and their kids deserve the best. Unfortunately, these days, the words "the best" mean a decent sized bedroom and a decent sized backyard. And, over time, even the words "decent sized" have come to mean 2 x 3 metres. It's a recipe for disaster if you ask me. They are trying to turn each australian capital city into another Hongkong and in the process ruin them in exchange for 30 pieces of silver. Ugly cheapo sh.t high rise rectangle blocks everywhere. Reminds me of my lego set when I was young.

I wish I could disagree with you.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 9:45am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 9:40am: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 9:30am: Bobby, our kids and their kids deserve the best. Unfortunately, these days, the words "the best" mean a decent sized bedroom and a decent sized backyard. And, over time, even the words "decent sized" have come to mean 2 x 3 metres. It's a recipe for disaster if you ask me. They are trying to turn each australian capital city into another Hongkong and in the process ruin them in exchange for 30 pieces of silver. Ugly cheapo sh.t high rise rectangle blocks everywhere. Reminds me of my lego set when I was young. I wish I could disagree with you. Unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening.

Unfortunately mass immigration is now standard policy for a lot of countries as a replacement for decades of de-industrialization and shrinking revenue stream.

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 9:51am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 9:45am: Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 9:40am: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 9:30am: Bobby, our kids and their kids deserve the best. Unfortunately, these days, the words "the best" mean a decent sized bedroom and a decent sized backyard. And, over time, even the words "decent sized" have come to mean 2 x 3 metres. It's a recipe for disaster if you ask me. They are trying to turn each australian capital city into another Hongkong and in the process ruin them in exchange for 30 pieces of silver. Ugly cheapo sh.t high rise rectangle blocks everywhere. Reminds me of my lego set when I was young. I wish I could disagree with you. Unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening. Unfortunately mass immigration is now standard policy for a lot of countries as a replacement for decades of de-industrialization and shrinking revenue stream.

Yes.

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 9:40am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 9:30am: Bobby, our kids and their kids deserve the best. Unfortunately, these days, the words "the best" mean a decent sized bedroom and a decent sized backyard. And, over time, even the words "decent sized" have come to mean 2 x 3 metres. It's a recipe for disaster if you ask me. They are trying to turn each australian capital city into another Hongkong and in the process ruin them in exchange for 30 pieces of silver. Ugly cheapo sh.t high rise rectangle blocks everywhere. Reminds me of my lego set when I was young.

Then in stead of whining about it do YOUR part by buying a full-size house and keeping it from developers instead of renting a single room.

you complain but never do anything about it.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 11:58am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 9:40am: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 9:30am: Bobby, our kids and their kids deserve the best. Unfortunately, these days, the words "the best" mean a decent sized bedroom and a decent sized backyard. And, over time, even the words "decent sized" have come to mean 2 x 3 metres. It's a recipe for disaster if you ask me. They are trying to turn each australian capital city into another Hongkong and in the process ruin them in exchange for 30 pieces of silver. Ugly cheapo sh.t high rise rectangle blocks everywhere. Reminds me of my lego set when I was young. Then in stead of whining about it do YOUR part by buying a full-size house and keeping it from developers instead of renting a single room. you complain but never do anything about it.

Basically what my parents did back in the 60's.....and what we, their children are doing today.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 9:17am:

lee wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:09pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 5:35pm: In their late 20's. Unusual. Not at all. Why? We're STILL talking BABY BOOMERS.

Because people don't tend to start investing until their mid to late 30's, even now.

lee wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 12:10pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 9:17am: lee wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:09pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 5:35pm: In their late 20's. Unusual. Not at all. Why? We're STILL talking BABY BOOMERS. Because people don't tend to start investing until their mid to late 30's, even now.

No, not true IF you're of European descent.

We grow up with a very different property investment mentality.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 12:18pm:

We grow up with a very different property investment mentality.

Please do.

Large houses and land are a social anachronism with closet poms last ones to realize. A big house and large sized land are a millstone that eats your dinner.

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 12:36pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:18pm: We grow up with a very different property investment mentality. Please do. Large houses and land are a social anachronism with closet poms last ones to realize. A big house and large sized land are a millstone that eats your dinner.

Utter rubbish as per usual.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 12:38pm:

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:36pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:18pm: We grow up with a very different property investment mentality. Please do. Large houses and land are a social anachronism with closet poms last ones to realize. A big house and large sized land are a millstone that eats your dinner. Utter rubbish as per usual.

I pronounce Lisa set free by the truth.

You are badly wounded. The truth hurts. Please stop biting people on the neck.

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 12:40pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:38pm: Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:36pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:18pm: We grow up with a very different property investment mentality. Please do. Large houses and land are a social anachronism with closet poms last ones to realize. A big house and large sized land are a millstone that eats your dinner. Utter rubbish as per usual. I pronounce Lisa set free by the truth. You are badly wounded. The truth hurts. Please stop biting people on the neck.

And you wonder why you're continuously banned Sun Tsu, Svengali et al.... ::)

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 12:43pm:

And you wonder why you're continuously banned Sun Tsu, Svengali et al....

Bitchcraft is one thing. Please don't use witchcraft. Have you considered upgrading to the latest electric brooms?

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 12:18pm:

lee wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:10pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 9:17am: lee wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:09pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 5:35pm: In their late 20's. Unusual. Not at all. Why? We're STILL talking BABY BOOMERS. Because people don't tend to start investing until their mid to late 30's, even now. No, not true IF you're of European descent. We grow up with a very different property investment mentality.

Up!

Aussie born Asians do too.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 12:46pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:18pm: lee wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:10pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 9:17am: lee wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:09pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 5:35pm: In their late 20's. Unusual. Not at all. Why? We're STILL talking BABY BOOMERS. Because people don't tend to start investing until their mid to late 30's, even now. No, not true IF you're of European descent. We grow up with a very different property investment mentality. Up! up and away? Aussie born Asians do too.

Only those with teeth marks on their necks.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 12:46pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:18pm: lee wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:10pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 9:17am: lee wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:09pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 5:35pm: In their late 20's. Unusual. Not at all. Why? We're STILL talking BABY BOOMERS. Because people don't tend to start investing until their mid to late 30's, even now. No, not true IF you're of European descent. We grow up with a very different property investment mentality. Up! Aussie born Asians do too.

Forgot to mention....look out for the up and coming elite class of Australia...the Eurasians.

Money from both Asian and European sides of the family combined.

Most of this money ---> property acquisition.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 11:58am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 9:40am: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 9:30am: Bobby, our kids and their kids deserve the best. Unfortunately, these days, the words "the best" mean a decent sized bedroom and a decent sized backyard. And, over time, even the words "decent sized" have come to mean 2 x 3 metres. It's a recipe for disaster if you ask me. They are trying to turn each australian capital city into another Hongkong and in the process ruin them in exchange for 30 pieces of silver. Ugly cheapo sh.t high rise rectangle blocks everywhere. Reminds me of my lego set when I was young. Then in stead of whining about it do YOUR part by buying a full-size house and keeping it from developers instead of renting a single room. you complain but never do anything about it.

So says the liberal voter who
lives in an old fibro dump in Adelaide & thinks he's rich.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 12:54pm:

Forgot to mention....look out for the up and coming elite class of Australia...the Eurasians. Money from both Asian and European sides of the family combined. Most of this money ---> property acquisition.

Lisa foreshadowing acquisition of Asian and European boyfriends with deep pockets?

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 12:06pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 11:58am: Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 9:40am: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 9:30am: Bobby, our kids and their kids deserve the best. Unfortunately, these days, the words "the best" mean a decent sized bedroom and a decent sized backyard. And, over time, even the words "decent sized" have come to mean 2 x 3 metres. It's a recipe for disaster if you ask me. They are trying to turn each australian capital city into another Hongkong and in the process ruin them in exchange for 30 pieces of silver. Ugly cheapo sh.t high rise rectangle blocks everywhere. Reminds me of my lego set when I was young. Then in stead of whining about it do YOUR part by buying a full-size house and keeping it from developers instead of renting a single room. you complain but never do anything about it. Basically what my parents did back in the 60's.....and what we, their children are doing today.

Unfortunately your investment mentality has turned australia into another greece. You have nothing to boast about except future generations that are saddled with debt rather than wealth.

Have a look at how Germany runs their economy and then compare it with greece and our own., There is just no comparison. You can't be a German and then expect to have a growing economy based on flipping houses whilst closing down factories and other productive industries. All you get from this is growing debt and a desperate government trying to hatch up more hare brained ideas to tax a dwindling revenue stream :(

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 1:18pm:

Have a look at how Germany runs their economy and then compare it with greece and our own., There is just no comparison.

Germany just imported over 1 million Parasites to bludge off cradle to the grave welfare for future generations.

You're right the Greeks and Aussies want to pass on importing these bludgers.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 1:48pm:

Germany just imported over 1 million Parasites to bludge off cradle to the grave welfare for future generations.

Geezuz. Thanks for the information on the surreptitious emigration of closet poms to Germany. What is the attraction? How can we increase the flow?

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 12:38pm:

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:36pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:18pm: We grow up with a very different property investment mentality. Please do. Large houses and land are a social anachronism with closet poms last ones to realize. A big house and large sized land are a millstone that eats your dinner. Utter rubbish as per usual.

I dont recall this retread EVER making a post that made sense.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 1:01pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 11:58am: Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 9:40am: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 9:30am: Bobby, our kids and their kids deserve the best. Unfortunately, these days, the words "the best" mean a decent sized bedroom and a decent sized backyard. And, over time, even the words "decent sized" have come to mean 2 x 3 metres. It's a recipe for disaster if you ask me. They are trying to turn each australian capital city into another Hongkong and in the process ruin them in exchange for 30 pieces of silver. Ugly cheapo sh.t high rise rectangle blocks everywhere. Reminds me of my lego set when I was young. Then in stead of whining about it do YOUR part by buying a full-size house and keeping it from developers instead of renting a single room. you complain but never do anything about it. So says the liberal voter who lives in an old fibro dump in Adelaide & thinks he's rich.

compared to renter-nail, almost EVERYONE is rich.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 4:13pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:38pm: Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:36pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:18pm: We grow up with a very different property investment mentality. Please do. Large houses and land are a social anachronism with closet poms last ones to realize. A big house and large sized land are a millstone that eats your dinner. Utter rubbish as per usual. I dont recall this retread EVER making a post that made sense.

Be careful about insulting Lisa. She has long toes and knows the man holding the sardine.

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 4:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 4:13pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:38pm: Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:36pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:18pm: We grow up with a very different property investment mentality. Please do. Large houses and land are a social anachronism with closet poms last ones to realize. A big house and large sized land are a millstone that eats your dinner. Utter rubbish as per usual. I dont recall this retread EVER making a post that made sense. Be careful about insulting Lisa. She has long toes and knows the man holding the sardine.

What on earth are you talking about now???

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 6:49pm:

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 4:16pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 4:13pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:38pm: Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:36pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:18pm: We grow up with a very different property investment mentality. Please do. Large houses and land are a social anachronism with closet poms last ones to realize. A big house and large sized land are a millstone that eats your dinner. Utter rubbish as per usual. I dont recall this retread EVER making a post that made sense. Be careful about insulting Lisa. She has long toes and knows the man holding the sardine. What on earth are you talking about now???

The leprechaun with the sardine.

http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/c2c/profiles/17/177/776/177762681_60x60.jpg

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 7:02pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 6:49pm: Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 4:16pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 4:13pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:38pm: Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:36pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:18pm: We grow up with a very different property investment mentality. Please do. Large houses and land are a social anachronism with closet poms last ones to realize. A big house and large sized land are a millstone that eats your dinner. Utter rubbish as per usual. I dont recall this retread EVER making a post that made sense. Be careful about insulting Lisa. She has long toes and knows the man holding the sardine. What on earth are you talking about now??? The leprechaun with the sardine. http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/c2c/profiles/17/177/776/177762681_60x60.jpg

;D ;D ;D ;D

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 7:17pm:

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 7:02pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 6:49pm: Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 4:16pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 4:13pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:38pm: Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:36pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:18pm: We grow up with a very different property investment mentality. Please do. Large houses and land are a social anachronism with closet poms last ones to realize. A big house and large sized land are a millstone that eats your dinner. Utter rubbish as per usual. I dont recall this retread EVER making a post that made sense. Be careful about insulting Lisa. She has long toes and knows the man holding the sardine. What on earth are you talking about now??? The leprechaun with the sardine. http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/c2c/profiles/17/177/776/177762681_60x60.jpg ;D ;D ;D ;D

I was never going to work that one out.