8 November 2024

What caused Canberra house prices to skyrocket since 2000? Let's start with the capital gains tax discount ...

| Oliver Jacques
Join the conversation
50
Real estate signs

Housing prices in Canberra have skyrocketed since 2000. Photo: Michelle Kroll.

In 1975, the average price of a home in Canberra was $33,600. This was higher than Melbourne’s average and on par with Sydney.

Analysis from money.com.au shows Canberra’s average price has gone up 3024 per cent since then, a slower rate than both Sydney and Melbourne but enough to torpedo affordability for the typical worker.

The median house price in the ACT is now $1,049,719 – about 12 times the median annual income, compared to just five times 50 years ago.

Growth in Canberra house prices was fairly steady between 1975 and 1999, but they have skyrocketed since the turn of the century.

Chart on house prices

Canberra house prices are rising much faster than average incomes. Chart: money.com.au.

“Once affordable and largely tied to public service jobs, Canberra’s property values began to climb in the 2000s as the city grew and attracted more people,” money.com.au property expert Mansour Soltani said.

“Limited land releases, stable employment, and steady migration have all contributed to rising prices. Population growth and government investments have kept demand strong, making Canberra one of Australia’s most resilient markets.”

Matt Grudnoff, an economist at think tank the Australia Institute, says there’s another reason for the sharp growth since 2000.

“The capital gains tax discount was introduced [by the Howard Government] in September 1999. I don’t think that’s a coincidence,” he said.

READ ALSO COVID report worse than a missed opportunity, it ensures we will be victims of more government overreach

Capital gains tax is paid on the profit you make when you sell an asset that has increased in value.

The discount offered since 1999 means that if you buy an asset (such as a house), hold it for 12 months, and then sell it, you only pay tax on half the profit you made.

“We’ve always had immigration and land releases issues, I don’t think any of that dramatically changed after 2000,” Mr Grudnoff said.

“But after the capital gains tax discount was brought in, negative gearing radically increased and investors rushed into the market. That was the dominant cause of rising prices. Investors increasingly have been entering the market. They’re usually buying their second, third, 10th or 100th house. They’ve got better access to wealth and credit. They have bid up the cost of housing.”

Mr Grudnoff says this explains the rising prices in all our capital cities. He says the best way to make housing more affordable is to get rid of the capital gains tax discount and negative gearing and to build more public housing to increase supply.

Money.com.au data expert Peter Drennan had a different explanation as to why the rate of growth appears to have increased in Canberra since 2000.

“Growth in Melbourne and Canberra has followed a relatively similar trajectory. In 1975, Canberra’s median price was significantly higher than Melbourne’s and more closely aligned with Sydney. Melbourne caught up in the 1980s, and prices have remained relatively similar since. The initially lower median price in Melbourne explains its higher overall growth rate,” he said.

“Between 1975 and 2000, prices in Canberra rose by nearly 500 per cent. They have increased by almost 500 per cent again since then; however, as prices rise, a 500 per cent increase equates to a much larger dollar amount, which appears as acceleration on the chart.”

Money.com.au data shows house prices in Sydney have increased by 4645 per cent since 1974 and are now 19 times the median income.

House prices in Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth have also grown at a faster rate than Canberra over the past half century, with Hobart the only capital city in which prices are growing at a slower rate.

Join the conversation

50
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

oh, so property investors are why it cost so damn much to buy a piece of land and to build a house?? ok…

Wow, you would think that the Think Tank Institute would actually understand property price drivers? But no, let’s just blame everything on the mega rich property investors.
All cities have experienced huge growth in house prices recently. I doubt you will find that is driven by a huge increase in the number of investors. So why blame the investors? I’d suggest that the price of land has been the biggest cost, closely followed by material costs, and tradies who earn more than most Masters graduates.
Let’s not forget that homeowners don’t pay any capital gains tax, nor land tax. And did you forget to mention that capital gains tax used to be indexed to inflation; the 50% deduction was just deemed to be easier. So that house bought for $34K in 1975 and sold for $1.05M today, attracts a capital gains tax bill of about $200K! Oh yes, but they should probably just be grateful they made any money at all! Lucky all investors are filthy rich. Do the maths on the interest payments on a $800K loan; it’s about $1,000/wk, add in land tax, rates, insurance and maintenance costs and the $700/wk rental income only covers about half the weekly costs. But negative gearing allows investors to cut their losses from $1,000/wk to ONLY $600/wk. Keating already tried to remove negative gearing, and that didn’t work out so well did it!
These are all huge disincentives for investors. So, if there wasn’t any capital gain, they simply wouldn’t invest. If the Government also wants to tax the entire capital gain, there will barely be any investors left. Yes, a Billionaire may own 100 houses, but if you actually did some research, you would see that the average investor gives up after 1. The government doesn’t seem interested in building public housing. So if there weren’t any evil investors buying properties, where would renters live?

Another factor no one mentioned was the introduction of a second $7000 incentive to first home buyers in 2000. Before the Sydney Olympics the inventive was $7000. But even with this incentive first home buyers were still struggling slowing down the construction industry. So soon after the 2000 Sydney Olympics John Howard doubled the incentive to $14000 which put a rocket under the property prices. In the next five years values doubled. Net result was zero for first home buyers. But property owners had a big smile on their face. Needless to say John Howard too had a smile on his face as he won another election in 2004 on the support of the happy property owners.

devils_advocate12:10 pm 15 Nov 24

The reason Howard doubled the FHOG to $14k FOR NEW BUILDS ONLY was to – wait for it – encourage construction of new homes following the Asian Financial Crisis. By incentivising new builds he encouraged the economic recovery as well as the supply of new homes. It’s one of the few defensible housing policy reforms that have been implemented in my lifetime.

In addition to the overall economic recovery a little thing called the GST might have contributed to general price increases across the economy

The capital gains discount is not the reason house prices have gone up in Canberra since 2000: that is absolute rubbish. They went up by the same amount in a similar period (24-25 years) before 2000 as they have done since 2000.

The increased participation of women in the workforce from 2000 onwards has had a significant impact on the housing market. With more dual-income households, families have had greater financial capacity to bid for properties, driving up demand and prices. This trend, combined with other factors like limited land releases, stable employment, and government investments, has contributed to the rise in house prices in Canberra since 2000.

Correlation is not causation. If it is true that a GGT discount would cause a rush on investment properties, then what can be said about no CGT at all?
Let’s not forget that CGT only came into effect in 1986. Were were the big property increases prior to thar time?

The answer is simple, ACT Government is the cause. The supply and price of land has been incredibly poorly managed. Between the rates, lease, and insane upfront cost, and poor public services (looks squarely at the hospital) no one can afford to live in the ACT. New, land (only) house blocks are just insane or blocks for tissue boxes. What a life.

Another factor that no one has mentioned is that 1997-2000 was a real low point in the Canberra market due to the big public service cuts that were made when Howard first came to office. It was 2000 that the market started to turn around, so there was a lot of catch up growth in the years following. That’s not to say that CGT, negative gearing and the other things mentioned in the comments weren’t also important factors in the dramatic increase.

HiddenDragon8:24 pm 10 Nov 24

“The median house price in the ACT is now $1,049,719 – about 12 times the median annual income, compared to just five times 50 years ago.”

That measure, which is so often used as an illustration of house price growth, and in debates about inter-generational equity/inequity, overlooks the reality that a much higher proportion of homes are now being paid for with more than one income due to policies which have encouraged and enabled much higher rates of participation in the paid workforce by women with younger children.

In 1974, federal government spending on child care was only $2.5m, which had risen to about $1.1bn in 2000 and $15bn in the current financial year – along with growing support from other levels of government and employers.

There is a fair argument to be made that much of this funding has been capitalised into inflated home prices (and profits for private child care providers) rather than clearly improved living standards for families with younger children.

Along with other asset classes, house prices have also been inflated by interest rates which were held at artificially low levels until quite recently and by large increases in the money supply in Australia and overseas – with many billions of the overseas money finding its way into Australian housing due to significantly relaxed foreign ownership practices and policies.

Stephen Saunders5:11 pm 10 Nov 24

Sure, get rid of the tax breaks for housing, but also you’d have to slash net migration into Australia.

Before 2000, it averaged less than 100K annually. Over 2022-25, thanks to Labor, it’s averaging 500K. Result is all-time rental distress and housing unaffordability.

GrumpyGrandpa4:30 pm 10 Nov 24

CGT only impacts non-owner occupied properties, but yes, it contributes to the overall housing prices, but in itself. it’s not the principal cause.
In the same way, Negative Gearing contributes, but is not the cause.

I believe increased housing prices may have started with the GST, then years of significant falls in interest rates, making housing more “affordable”, pushing up demand. Then with higher immigration and a reduction in supply we have that perfect storm.

Absolutely, with falling interest rates, investors did buy up, due to the benefits afforded through discounted CGT. They were prepared to lose money every year (NG), for hopefully, the longer term bonus of 50% free capital gains, but without the other factors, it’s much more benign.

People will always look at what gives them the best return.

Who remembers Kevin Rudd, promising to make interest on savings accounts (up to I think $1,000 per year) tax free. Fantastic. Basically, risk free/ tax free returns. After an election, it was scrapped.

We shouldn’t overlook the impact of State /Territory local government etc. With the proliferation of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments – say along a LR line, and policies like the 70/30, young couples eventually find that 60-75 square metres of living space are too small for their expanding family and are forced into searching for a 3 or 4 bedroom home. With an absence of new houses being built, the market into which they are looking is undersupplied, pushing up prices. Our son is in that position. There is nothing to buy, because nothing is being built.

The sad thing is that all of these factors, in some way, are a result of government. Governments elected on a 3 or 4 year cycle. Short-term planning and promises made to appease the voter of the day.

Shorten and Bowen tried to make changes to things like GCT & NG, but lost an unlosable election doing it.
When they started talking about grandfathering provisions, I knew they were doomed. Only bad legislation needs grandfathering protection clauses.

But even had they been elected and had they received support of the Senate, without supply being resolved and with increased demand via immigration, would the situation been any better.

Then of course there was Covid…..

When you look at percentage increases you have to adjust for inflation to find the increase due to other factors. So a 500% increase comes down to a much smaller number. Comparisons of affordability over time also have to take into account wage growth over the same period. Simplistic analysis is not useful in understanding changes over time in the housing market.

devils_advocate12:37 pm 10 Nov 24

While all the factors listed above are correct, additional factors include punitive regulations and taxes which create artificial limits on new supply and raise the price of whatever new supply does make it to the market.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.