- Increasing interest rates prematurely has a significant economic cost3 options? Simplistic view.
Option 4) State & Federal Government introduce legislation to Further Regulate Housing Industry By;
- Increase Interest Rates.
- Reducing Investor Capacity to own Multiple Properties, either out rightly or by significant tax increase.
- Further Introduce Significant Tax Benefits to People moving further Away from Major Cities.
- Introduce Meaningful Public Transport Infrastructure to Areas further out of CBD's.
- Reduce Tax Benefits of Investors E.G Negative Gearing.
- Significant Removal/Reduction of Stamp Duty & Land Tax to new home buyers. Investors remain at full amount.
- Multiple property investors already have a significant tax increase (LT) - the issue is that NG allows them to offset the effect of that tax
- Tax benefits for people living out of the city is interesting. We used to have the Zone Tax Offset - but that was really only for remote areas IIRC (not regional)
- Yes. See Victoria's Big Build
- Agreed. As tax distortions, abolishing NG and 50% CGT Concession are two easy fixes - save for the whining from entitled property investors
- We have FHO exemption/concession - the threshold values probably need adjusting at this point. FHO don't pay LT.
Ned is right - boosting housing density in inner/middle suburbs, along transport corridors and opening up growth areas for development has the most significant impact on house prices (apart from abolishing the main residence CGT exemption - which would be political seppuku on a grand scale)
The reason why the solution with the largest effect size (boost density in middle suburbs) is so politically unpopular is not due to the selfishness of investors - but the selfishness of NIMBYs living in those areas.