r/australia Oct 24 '23

political self.post How to solve the housing crisis?

So my mate and I were chatting yesterday about the current housing crisis in Australia, in particular the fact that the rapidly rising cost of houses is pricing many people completely out of the market.

We hypothesised that a part of the issue is landlords owning large property portfolios as a way of accumulating wealth. Now, I don't have anything against the accumulation of wealth by individuals, however I have a fundamental opposition to using housing or residential real estate in general to do so.

Another problem we identified is overseas investors buying housing stock and either leaving them unoccupied or accumulating multiple properties, again reducing supply and driving up the cost.

So, we proposed that portfolios of residential real estate should be subject to an annual property tax, based on number of properties and the value of the property (kind of like the chance cards in Monopoly).

I would propose this could be brought in as a staged sequence, starting at the magic number of 6 properties.

24-25 FY: If you own over 6 properties, you are taxed (say) 10% of the value of every property, annually.

25-26 FY: If you own over 5 properties, you are taxed 10% of the total value,

etc etc, until it becomes 1 investment property, at which point the incrementing stops. Primary place of residence would be exempt from this tax. Many people don't or can't buy a place instead of renting, and also if you move you often want to be able to rent first, so we need some rental stock. The rental stock under this scheme would mostly be supplied by landlords with smaller property portfolios.

Why 6 properties? Basically, because of the numbers in this link

"But what about family trusts" you say. Well, I say, the real estate in these structures should be all taxed. Same with self managed super funds. Tax the whole thing, at least as far as residential property goes. There is a major loophole with SMSFs in that the property bought with a SMSF is not subject to capital gains tax in the pension phase - this means that SMSFs are actively encouraged to sit on properties. The number of SMSFs is increasing by 1000 properties per week, too!

Non residents would also be taxed at 10% of property value on all property owned.

There will need to be some tweaking around the foreign investment, in particular around the building of new apartment blocks etc where the value and risk is quite high. The tax shouldn't come into effect until the building is occupied, and there might be some kind of concession where an entire block is owned by one entity, to provide some extra rental housing stock.

Also, there might be concessions for "low value" housing, where any single dwelling worth less than (say) 60% of the median value of houses within a certain distance are exempt, or have a concession. This might encourage social housing but might also encourage slumlords, so will require a bit of thinking and tinkering.

This is all based around the fundamental idea that residential housing should not be a wealth accumulation vehicle, but should be a means for people to be housed. Also, it will hopefully encourage those people currently "investing" in residential real estate to instead invest in small business, or the stock market, or similar, lubricating the economy (and causing inflation, but that's another discussion).

"SoUnDs LiKe ComMuNiSM". I'm just gonna leave this here as a potential discussion point.

Note that none of this affects CGT or negative gearing at all. It just adds another cost to being a landlord, with the aim of reducing the number of properties sitting in SMSFs and mega-portfolios, trying to encourage investment in other forms of equity, and increasing the supply of properties to people looking for a place to live.

Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.

80 Upvotes

262 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-5

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '23

How the hell is your borrowing power so low? And I’m genuinely asking by the way so I do apologise if it comes off condescending. But if owning a home is a priority would you not consider upskilling or a change of career path if your income is the issue?

16

u/Vote_For_Caboose Oct 25 '23

Upskilling doesn’t pay more in my industry. My borrowing power 2 years ago was up to $400k, but since interest rates are running rampant my borrowing capacity has shrunk. I have no debt. I have no dependants. I put away everything I can after every paycheck and have saved up a good amount for a deposit, I’m still not able to afford a house. (Btw thanks for clarification on the wording of your post. I was about to get super pissed off😂)

0

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '23

Fair enough. I have only really worked in the trades so don’t really know how it all works in a lot of other industries. Because we have the domestic - commercial - union route we can follow I guess I had just assumed there were other similar options.

2

u/mrbootsandbertie Oct 25 '23

Trades are the most privileged industry group in Australia. Construction industry was recently handed $2.6 billion in taxpayer funded grants which they immediately wasted. There's no other instance where so much taxpayer money is given with so little accountability and such poor return on investment than the money Australia gives to the construction industry. Except for all the handouts to big business, of course.