ACT Ratepayers Bill Shock (Ratepayers Assn. Media Release)

Also, what is this association’s full and correct name? Is it “Ratepayers Association ACT, or “ACT Ratepayers and Property Owners Association”, or something else?

dungfungus said :

rommeldog56 said :

Oh, add negative gearing to that list.

We don’t talk about negative gearing in Canberra.

And yet to change this would cause an uproar similar to replacing stamp duty with rates. Thus neither the Libs or Labor have the guts to make changes to it. Its actually got to the point where people are advised to sell their profit making rental property to invest in more negative geared properties…. To me that is just wrong. I don’t have an issue with negative gearing per se, but when the system favours it over positive geared property then I feel its out of balance.

Go see a financial advisor and wealth creation is all about reducing your tax because that is easy rather than increasing your income, which is harder to do. So some tightening up on tax reduction would help thus country a lot, but be politically dangerous to do.

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

See above, around 80% of seniors receive a government welfare payment.
Pension, part pension, health care card etc. And for those who have Super, tax free earnings for over 60’s is a nice kicker too.

You have been reading too many socialist doctrines from The Australia Institute.
Having a CSHC Card is a choice and it is now being more stringently income tested for new applicants (income from SMSF pensions is no longer non-assessable). Ironically, retired public servants with huge defined benefit taxpayer funded pensions (which are taxable) will also miss out on the CSHC Card (I am crying?).
And when you complain about “tax free pensions” remember that in accumulation phase, contributions and earnings were taxed at 15% which means that any self-funded retiree who paid contributions of $1 million through the accumlation phase would have had $100K of that taken at contributions tax. Additionally, taxes were paid on the income the fund would have generated.
I don’t know any self-funded retirees who have manipulated their affairs to get a pension. That story, like the The Australia Insitute’s (who want to tax SF retirees twice) claim that self-funded retirees’ concessions cost the taxpayer $30 billion a year is a total myth.
Remember, people on taxpayer funded defined benefits pensions paid nothing at all during accumulation so it is only fair that they are taxed now according to their pension income.
I know plenty of people in this category who manipulate their affairs to get part pensions and anything else that is going.
Providing for one’s retirement is a choice made many years before it happens. That is an alien concept for socialists.

Yes, when down is up and up is down. I’m the one specifically arguing against socialist policies, you are the one supporting them.
And I will preface this comment by saying that I’ve got nothing against people who structure their finances to lower taxation or receive available government concessions. I do it myself and anyone that doesn’t is kidding themselves.

The health care card is welfare, plain and simple. The fact that they are limiting access to it now is a good thing.

We need to limit people’s access to the pension in coming years, those that can afford to look after themselves, should do so. See my previous comment.

Taxing earnings on superannuation funds is not double taxation, the earnings have never been taxed previously. And Superannuation has always had various levels of concessional contributions to allow people to receive taxation concessions for their input as well as non-concessional contributions that receive taxation concessions on earnings in future years. There is legitimate debate about what level of taxation concession should be given to Superannuation.
The aim of the policy is to get people to save for their retirement, if it’s not achieving those aims or is costing the government more in revenue than the policy is worth, then we need to look at adjusting it.

How is any of that “socialist” policy?

And if you don’t know any self-funded retirees who structure their finances to receive government assistance, I would say:
a) you don’t actually know any self funded retirees or
b) your self funded retiree friends are getting some bad financial advice.

rommeldog56 said :

Oh, add negative gearing to that list.

We don’t talk about negative gearing in Canberra.

Oh, add negative gearing to that list.

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

rosscoact said :

What about self funded retirees – you know, those who planned not to rely on taxpayers in their retirement, via a Centrelink pension.

If you’re earning above what the average family does, no matter what the source, then pay up and stop bludging off the system.

Please tell me this is not seriously suggesting that those who have saved into superannuation during their working lives instead of taking a welfare handout during retirement are ‘bludging’.

The problem is that the true self funded retiree is as rare as hen’s teeth. Due to the extremely lax assets and income tests as well as various types of concessions, the majority of retirees are taking a welfare handout whether they’ve saved into superannuation or not.

So, what is the differenece between a true self funded retiree and an “ordinary” one and what are the “welfare handouts” they are taking?

See above, around 80% of seniors receive a government welfare payment.
Pension, part pension, health care card etc. And for those who have Super, tax free earnings for over 60’s is a nice kicker too.

You have been reading too many socialist doctrines from The Australia Institute.
Having a CSHC Card is a choice and it is now being more stringently income tested for new applicants (income from SMSF pensions is no longer non-assessable). Ironically, retired public servants with huge defined benefit taxpayer funded pensions (which are taxable) will also miss out on the CSHC Card (I am crying?).
And when you complain about “tax free pensions” remember that in accumulation phase, contributions and earnings were taxed at 15% which means that any self-funded retiree who paid contributions of $1 million through the accumlation phase would have had $100K of that taken at contributions tax. Additionally, taxes were paid on the income the fund would have generated.
I don’t know any self-funded retirees who have manipulated their affairs to get a pension. That story, like the The Australia Insitute’s (who want to tax SF retirees twice) claim that self-funded retirees’ concessions cost the taxpayer $30 billion a year is a total myth.
Remember, people on taxpayer funded defined benefits pensions paid nothing at all during accumulation so it is only fair that they are taxed now according to their pension income.
I know plenty of people in this category who manipulate their affairs to get part pensions and anything else that is going.
Providing for one’s retirement is a choice made many years before it happens. That is an alien concept for socialists.

Correction: Contributions tax would have been $150K.

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

rosscoact said :

What about self funded retirees – you know, those who planned not to rely on taxpayers in their retirement, via a Centrelink pension.

If you’re earning above what the average family does, no matter what the source, then pay up and stop bludging off the system.

Please tell me this is not seriously suggesting that those who have saved into superannuation during their working lives instead of taking a welfare handout during retirement are ‘bludging’.

The problem is that the true self funded retiree is as rare as hen’s teeth. Due to the extremely lax assets and income tests as well as various types of concessions, the majority of retirees are taking a welfare handout whether they’ve saved into superannuation or not.

So, what is the differenece between a true self funded retiree and an “ordinary” one and what are the “welfare handouts” they are taking?

See above, around 80% of seniors receive a government welfare payment.
Pension, part pension, health care card etc. And for those who have Super, tax free earnings for over 60’s is a nice kicker too.

You have been reading too many socialist doctrines from The Australia Institute.
Having a CSHC Card is a choice and it is now being more stringently income tested for new applicants (income from SMSF pensions is no longer non-assessable). Ironically, retired public servants with huge defined benefit taxpayer funded pensions (which are taxable) will also miss out on the CSHC Card (I am crying?).
And when you complain about “tax free pensions” remember that in accumulation phase, contributions and earnings were taxed at 15% which means that any self-funded retiree who paid contributions of $1 million through the accumlation phase would have had $100K of that taken at contributions tax. Additionally, taxes were paid on the income the fund would have generated.
I don’t know any self-funded retirees who have manipulated their affairs to get a pension. That story, like the The Australia Insitute’s (who want to tax SF retirees twice) claim that self-funded retirees’ concessions cost the taxpayer $30 billion a year is a total myth.
Remember, people on taxpayer funded defined benefits pensions paid nothing at all during accumulation so it is only fair that they are taxed now according to their pension income.
I know plenty of people in this category who manipulate their affairs to get part pensions and anything else that is going.
Providing for one’s retirement is a choice made many years before it happens. That is an alien concept for socialists.

milkman said :

chewy14 said :

I think it’s reasonable then to start looking at slowly limiting welfare payments to these groups through the rise in retirement age and stricter means testing. It’s ridiculously generous that a couple can have a million dollar plus home as well as $1.1 million dollars in other assets and still be receiving a part pension and the benefits that go with it. With the ageing population and shrinking ratio of workers to rerirees, we simply can’t afford this sort of largesse for people who really should be looking after themselves.

I agree. At the moment we have financial advisors helping retirees structure affairs so as to still get welfare even when they have 7 figures in investable assets.

It needs to be a gradual change, but it does need to happen.

I couldn’t agree more. There is also much other Gov’t largesse going on too that also needs to be addressed. eg. Family Tax Benefits, baby bonus, the Fed’s new parental payment scheme, school kids bonus, overhaul of the Centrelink Newstart system and other payment types, etc, and agreed about easing back on part aged pensions too as more self funded or part self funded retirees move into the 65+ age bracket. There are far, far too many people in Oz with their snouts in the Gov’t trough.

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

rosscoact said :

What about self funded retirees – you know, those who planned not to rely on taxpayers in their retirement, via a Centrelink pension.

If you’re earning above what the average family does, no matter what the source, then pay up and stop bludging off the system.

Please tell me this is not seriously suggesting that those who have saved into superannuation during their working lives instead of taking a welfare handout during retirement are ‘bludging’.

The problem is that the true self funded retiree is as rare as hen’s teeth. Due to the extremely lax assets and income tests as well as various types of concessions, the majority of retirees are taking a welfare handout whether they’ve saved into superannuation or not.

So, what is the differenece between a true self funded retiree and an “ordinary” one and what are the “welfare handouts” they are taking?

See above, around 80% of seniors receive a government welfare payment.
Pension, part pension, health care card etc. And for those who have Super, tax free earnings for over 60’s is a nice kicker too.

chewy14 said :

I think it’s reasonable then to start looking at slowly limiting welfare payments to these groups through the rise in retirement age and stricter means testing. It’s ridiculously generous that a couple can have a million dollar plus home as well as $1.1 million dollars in other assets and still be receiving a part pension and the benefits that go with it. With the ageing population and shrinking ratio of workers to rerirees, we simply can’t afford this sort of largesse for people who really should be looking after themselves.

I agree. At the moment we have financial advisors helping retirees structure affairs so as to still get welfare even when they have 7 figures in investable assets.

It needs to be a gradual change, but it does need to happen.

chewy14 said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

rosscoact said :

What about self funded retirees – you know, those who planned not to rely on taxpayers in their retirement, via a Centrelink pension.

If you’re earning above what the average family does, no matter what the source, then pay up and stop bludging off the system.

Please tell me this is not seriously suggesting that those who have saved into superannuation during their working lives instead of taking a welfare handout during retirement are ‘bludging’.

The problem is that the true self funded retiree is as rare as hen’s teeth. Due to the extremely lax assets and income tests as well as various types of concessions, the majority of retirees are taking a welfare handout whether they’ve saved into superannuation or not.

So, what is the differenece between a true self funded retiree and an “ordinary” one and what are the “welfare handouts” they are taking?

rommeldog56 said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

rommeldog56 said :

I dunno. Maybe its the politics of “envy” ? If so, then aspiring house owners anywhere (not just in the ACT) need to do what those before them have done ie. work hard, earn more $ and save hard.

From my viewpoint, if aspiring home owners in the ACT rely or use on the reduction in Stamp Duty to be able to purchase a house, then I suppose it is those aspiring home owners who are doing the “bludging” – on all ACT Ratepayers because all ACT Ratepayers are subsiding that adffordability via the avg.10% pa rises in Annual Rates.

No, what YOU are saying is that anyone who chooses to move house, EVER, is bludging, should they pay no stamp duty and instead that cost is absorbed through higher rates.

Would you prefer that no one EVER move house AND that that rates remained the same? In that case, the government would raise very little money at all. I believe it was stated earlier in this thread, or in a previous one, that the average homeowner moves house every 7 years. If you buy your first house at 30, then you are likely to have paid stamp duty 6 times by the time you are 72, which is probably the likely retirement age for a current 30 year old.

So, if the average person is likely to move house that often, does the abolition of stamp duty actually offset the increase in rates over their lifetime while also provided the government with a constistent stream of funding, rather than one that is at the mercy of the market?

Ghettosmurf87 said :

rommeldog56 said :

I dunno. Maybe its the politics of “envy” ? If so, then aspiring house owners anywhere (not just in the ACT) need to do what those before them have done ie. work hard, earn more $ and save hard.

From my viewpoint, if aspiring home owners in the ACT rely or use on the reduction in Stamp Duty to be able to purchase a house, then I suppose it is those aspiring home owners who are doing the “bludging” – on all ACT Ratepayers because all ACT Ratepayers are subsiding that adffordability via the avg.10% pa rises in Annual Rates.

No, what YOU are saying is that anyone who chooses to move house, EVER, is bludging, should they pay no stamp duty and instead that cost is absorbed through higher rates.

Would you prefer that no one EVER move house AND that that rates remained the same? In that case, the government would raise very little money at all. I believe it was stated earlier in this thread, or in a previous one, that the average homeowner moves house every 7 years. If you buy your first house at 30, then you are likely to have paid stamp duty 6 times by the time you are 72, which is probably the likely retirement age for a current 30 year old.

So, if the average person is likely to move house that often, does the abolition of stamp duty actually offset the increase in rates over their lifetime while also provided the government with a constistent stream of funding, rather than one that is at the mercy of the market?

This is a bizarre conversation.

If someone wants to move house every 7 years, then they pay stamp duty – its in their cost/benefit/affordability consideration.

If u can not afford it, then don’t move or buy something slightly less expensive.

It’s people who move house that frequently, who are being subsidised by the higher Annual Rates of those who don’t.

If u move house and enjoy lower or zero stamp duty, then your Annual Rates should go up accordingly. Those who don’t move house shouldn’t have subsidise those who do. Unless we seek to create some sort of socialist utopia of course……..

I don’t expect Annual Rates to never increase. They should increase with CPI or by some other index (which they already do with changing UCV assessments anyway).

The problem with your assertion is that housing mobility is a good thing for society. We want people to be able to easily move for work or into more appropriate accommodation. We want to make sure that inner city land is used as efficiently as possible. We don’t want people being discouraged from moving out of large inner city blocks because of transaction charges. It’s the point of the policy.

Your idea that somehow people who don’t move are subsidising people who do under this policy is wrong. There is no cross subsidisation, the government are simply moving to a more stable and efficient revenue stream. Your argument seems to be based on pure self interest rather than any rational economic points.

justin heywood said :

chewy14 said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

rosscoact said :

What about self funded retirees – you know, those who planned not to rely on taxpayers in their retirement, via a Centrelink pension.

If you’re earning above what the average family does, no matter what the source, then pay up and stop bludging off the system.

Please tell me this is not seriously suggesting that those who have saved into superannuation during their working lives instead of taking a welfare handout during retirement are ‘bludging’.

The problem is that the true self funded retiree is as rare as hen’s teeth. Due to the extremely lax assets and income tests as well as various types of concessions, the majority of retirees are taking a welfare handout whether they’ve saved into superannuation or not.

Yes it’s true that the majority of retirees* are receiving some form of welfare, but it’s a bit more complicated than that. Most retirees (59%) don’t have super, and the number of retirees on some form of welfare has been falling as people retire with the modern super arrangements.

It seems to have been a recent thing, this idea that retirees are the new ‘dole bludgers’. Very unfair. Some people seem to believe that retirees should voluntarily forgo benefits that are available to them. I wonder if those same people will be so willing to do so themselves when the time comes.

http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/news/superannuation/2014/welfare-still-main-income-for-retirees
* I am not a retiree, self funded or otherwise

I’ve got no problem with retirees who were around before super getting some welfare because it was expected that they would get government assistance on retirement. However, people retiring this year have had compulsory Super for 20+ years which will only get higher as the years pass.

I think it’s reasonable then to start looking at slowly limiting welfare payments to these groups through the rise in retirement age and stricter means testing. It’s ridiculously generous that a couple can have a million dollar plus home as well as $1.1 million dollars in other assets and still be receiving a part pension and the benefits that go with it. With the ageing population and shrinking ratio of workers to rerirees, we simply can’t afford this sort of largesse for people who really should be looking after themselves.

I think we all agree that stamp duty is a money for nothing grab from governments though I can’t see how this ever increasing of land rates promotes a happy and forward looking community. If anything it strikes fear into the hearts of those who have worked hard to have a roof over their heads in their old age and wondering if they will be able to afford to keep it. Forget leaving anything to the kids.

Ghettosmurf87 said :

rommeldog56 said :

I dunno. Maybe its the politics of “envy” ? If so, then aspiring house owners anywhere (not just in the ACT) need to do what those before them have done ie. work hard, earn more $ and save hard.

From my viewpoint, if aspiring home owners in the ACT rely or use on the reduction in Stamp Duty to be able to purchase a house, then I suppose it is those aspiring home owners who are doing the “bludging” – on all ACT Ratepayers because all ACT Ratepayers are subsiding that adffordability via the avg.10% pa rises in Annual Rates.

No, what YOU are saying is that anyone who chooses to move house, EVER, is bludging, should they pay no stamp duty and instead that cost is absorbed through higher rates.

Would you prefer that no one EVER move house AND that that rates remained the same? In that case, the government would raise very little money at all. I believe it was stated earlier in this thread, or in a previous one, that the average homeowner moves house every 7 years. If you buy your first house at 30, then you are likely to have paid stamp duty 6 times by the time you are 72, which is probably the likely retirement age for a current 30 year old.

So, if the average person is likely to move house that often, does the abolition of stamp duty actually offset the increase in rates over their lifetime while also provided the government with a constistent stream of funding, rather than one that is at the mercy of the market?

Ghettosmurf87 said :

rommeldog56 said :

I dunno. Maybe its the politics of “envy” ? If so, then aspiring house owners anywhere (not just in the ACT) need to do what those before them have done ie. work hard, earn more $ and save hard.

From my viewpoint, if aspiring home owners in the ACT rely or use on the reduction in Stamp Duty to be able to purchase a house, then I suppose it is those aspiring home owners who are doing the “bludging” – on all ACT Ratepayers because all ACT Ratepayers are subsiding that adffordability via the avg.10% pa rises in Annual Rates.

No, what YOU are saying is that anyone who chooses to move house, EVER, is bludging, should they pay no stamp duty and instead that cost is absorbed through higher rates.

Would you prefer that no one EVER move house AND that that rates remained the same? In that case, the government would raise very little money at all. I believe it was stated earlier in this thread, or in a previous one, that the average homeowner moves house every 7 years. If you buy your first house at 30, then you are likely to have paid stamp duty 6 times by the time you are 72, which is probably the likely retirement age for a current 30 year old.

So, if the average person is likely to move house that often, does the abolition of stamp duty actually offset the increase in rates over their lifetime while also provided the government with a constistent stream of funding, rather than one that is at the mercy of the market?

This is a bizarre conversation. If someone wants to move house every 7 years, then they pay stamp duty – its in their cost/benefit/affordability consideration. If u can not afford it, then don’t move or buy something slightly less expensive.

It’s people who move house that frequently, who are being subsidised by the higher Annual Rates of those who don’t.

If u move house and enjoy lower or zero stamp duty, then your Annual Rates should go up accordingly. Those who don’t move house shouldn’t have subsidise those who do. Unless we seek to create some sort of socialist utopia of course……..

I don’t expect Annual Rates to never increase. They should increase with CPI or by some other index (which they already do with changing UCV assessments anyway).

Ghettosmurf87 said :

rommeldog56 said :

I dunno. Maybe its the politics of “envy” ? If so, then aspiring house owners anywhere (not just in the ACT) need to do what those before them have done ie. work hard, earn more $ and save hard.

From my viewpoint, if aspiring home owners in the ACT rely or use on the reduction in Stamp Duty to be able to purchase a house, then I suppose it is those aspiring home owners who are doing the “bludging” – on all ACT Ratepayers because all ACT Ratepayers are subsiding that adffordability via the avg.10% pa rises in Annual Rates.

No, what YOU are saying is that anyone who chooses to move house, EVER, is bludging, should they pay no stamp duty and instead that cost is absorbed through higher rates.

Would you prefer that no one EVER move house AND that that rates remained the same? In that case, the government would raise very little money at all. I believe it was stated earlier in this thread, or in a previous one, that the average homeowner moves house every 7 years. If you buy your first house at 30, then you are likely to have paid stamp duty 6 times by the time you are 72, which is probably the likely retirement age for a current 30 year old.

So, if the average person is likely to move house that often, does the abolition of stamp duty actually offset the increase in rates over their lifetime while also provided the government with a constistent stream of funding, rather than one that is at the mercy of the market?

The claim that “the average homeowner moves house every 7 years” (or words to that effect) has been mentioned in previous threads on this subject. It would be most interesting to know how that figure has been derived – i.e. is it the average just for owner-occupied properties, or is it the (mean) average for all properties, including investment properties? For a number of reasons, I suspect it’s the latter, and that the (mean) average for owner-occupied properties (including those which might be rented out for a period due to overseas or interstate postings of the owners) would be somewhat higher – with the (median) average for owner-occupied properties somewhat higher still. All of this is, of course, relevant to the equity and efficiency arguments which have been presented in support of rapidly rising annual rates, and to the politics of it.

chewy14 said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

rosscoact said :

What about self funded retirees – you know, those who planned not to rely on taxpayers in their retirement, via a Centrelink pension.

If you’re earning above what the average family does, no matter what the source, then pay up and stop bludging off the system.

Please tell me this is not seriously suggesting that those who have saved into superannuation during their working lives instead of taking a welfare handout during retirement are ‘bludging’.

The problem is that the true self funded retiree is as rare as hen’s teeth. Due to the extremely lax assets and income tests as well as various types of concessions, the majority of retirees are taking a welfare handout whether they’ve saved into superannuation or not.

Yes it’s true that the majority of retirees* are receiving some form of welfare, but it’s a bit more complicated than that. Most retirees (59%) don’t have super, and the number of retirees on some form of welfare has been falling as people retire with the modern super arrangements.

It seems to have been a recent thing, this idea that retirees are the new ‘dole bludgers’. Very unfair. Some people seem to believe that retirees should voluntarily forgo benefits that are available to them. I wonder if those same people will be so willing to do so themselves when the time comes.

http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/news/superannuation/2014/welfare-still-main-income-for-retirees
* I am not a retiree, self funded or otherwise

rommeldog56 said :

I dunno. Maybe its the politics of “envy” ? If so, then aspiring house owners anywhere (not just in the ACT) need to do what those before them have done ie. work hard, earn more $ and save hard.

From my viewpoint, if aspiring home owners in the ACT rely or use on the reduction in Stamp Duty to be able to purchase a house, then I suppose it is those aspiring home owners who are doing the “bludging” – on all ACT Ratepayers because all ACT Ratepayers are subsiding that adffordability via the avg.10% pa rises in Annual Rates.

No, what YOU are saying is that anyone who chooses to move house, EVER, is bludging, should they pay no stamp duty and instead that cost is absorbed through higher rates.

Would you prefer that no one EVER move house AND that that rates remained the same? In that case, the government would raise very little money at all. I believe it was stated earlier in this thread, or in a previous one, that the average homeowner moves house every 7 years. If you buy your first house at 30, then you are likely to have paid stamp duty 6 times by the time you are 72, which is probably the likely retirement age for a current 30 year old.

So, if the average person is likely to move house that often, does the abolition of stamp duty actually offset the increase in rates over their lifetime while also provided the government with a constistent stream of funding, rather than one that is at the mercy of the market?

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

rosscoact said :

What about self funded retirees – you know, those who planned not to rely on taxpayers in their retirement, via a Centrelink pension.

If you’re earning above what the average family does, no matter what the source, then pay up and stop bludging off the system.

Please tell me this is not seriously suggesting that those who have saved into superannuation during their working lives instead of taking a welfare handout during retirement are ‘bludging’.

I dunno. Maybe its the politics of “envy” ? If so, then aspiring house owners anywhere (not just in the ACT) need to do what those before them have done ie. work hard, earn more $ and save hard.

From my viewpoint, if aspiring home owners in the ACT rely or use on the reduction in Stamp Duty to be able to purchase a house, then I suppose it is those aspiring home owners who are doing the “bludging” – on all ACT Ratepayers because all ACT Ratepayers are subsiding that adffordability via the avg.10% pa rises in Annual Rates.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

rosscoact said :

What about self funded retirees – you know, those who planned not to rely on taxpayers in their retirement, via a Centrelink pension.

If you’re earning above what the average family does, no matter what the source, then pay up and stop bludging off the system.

Please tell me this is not seriously suggesting that those who have saved into superannuation during their working lives instead of taking a welfare handout during retirement are ‘bludging’.

The problem is that the true self funded retiree is as rare as hen’s teeth. Due to the extremely lax assets and income tests as well as various types of concessions, the majority of retirees are taking a welfare handout whether they’ve saved into superannuation or not.

rosscoact said :

Each to his own.

Unless you’re bludging, of course.

I welcome the forward thinking by the act govt – reducing stamp duty and increasing rates equivalently.

it’s rare to see a govt thinking past the next three years.

Each to his own.

rosscoact said :

What about self funded retirees – you know, those who planned not to rely on taxpayers in their retirement, via a Centrelink pension.

If you’re earning above what the average family does, no matter what the source, then pay up and stop bludging off the system.

Please tell me this is not seriously suggesting that those who have saved into superannuation during their working lives instead of taking a welfare handout during retirement are ‘bludging’.

roscoact said : “So? Are you opposed to pensioners getting greater dollar value discounts? Doesn’t seem very fair on the pensioners.”

My Response : Well, that’s a Hockey’ism if I’ve ever seen one ! Nicely twisted. No – its not about denying pensioners greater discounts. They still wont be able to afford the other 50%. Surely, that concept it can not be that hard to get your head around ?

roscoact said re self funded retirees : “If you’re earning above what the average family does, no matter what the source, then pay up and stop bludging off the system. I though your lot was against middle class welfare?”

My Response : I should have said “lower $ pension” self funded retirees. I don’t think any self funded retiree is bludging off the system. IMHO, that’s a bizarre comment ! But you are right is one regard. Being a lower $ pension self funded retiree is something I would never suggest + living in Canberra. all those potential self funded retirees should divest them selves of that superannuation somehow and throw them selves on the Centrelnk pension. Of course self funded retirees are “buldgers” – how else can it be !

roscoact said : “Of course, and what’s wrong with the the people who need the benefit transferring the cost of that benefit to the ones getting the windfall, ie. the inheritors of the estate?”

My Response : Yeah. Another form of Labor’s old death tax I suppose. So much for working hard to leave something modest for the kids. Again, I’d rather join the list for ACT Gov’t housing and “bludge” off ACT Ratepayers for the rest of my life !

I’m actually happy about a 10% annual increase in rates…that is, so long as I get a corresponding 10% increase in pay. Or, how about we peg rates to a reasonable CPI increase. If our local government needs to spend more than it is getting in revenue then it….doesn’t. See, not complicated.

I’m pretty sure if you asked most ratepayers what they would prefer most, massive rates increases or a tram, I know what the answer would be?

A $675 rebate is 2 years of rate increases for me. For now. In a few years, it will be one year of rate increases. Break out the champers!

And yes,self-funded retirees are apparently ineligible. The reward for not being a drain on taxpayers is to be financially disadvantaged. Why would anyone in that position stay around?

I don’t think the ACT government has any idea of the tsunami of politican pain – not to mention people leaving the Territory – that is heading their way in the next few years.

rommeldog56 said :

pajs said :

It might be worth mentioning, given the statements about elderly people being ‘forced’ to move from their homes because of rates, that eligible pensioners can receive a rates rebate of up to 50% in the ACT.

There is also a deferment option for ratepayers facing financial hardship. In the case of the elderly, there are options for an indefinite deferment at a low rate of interest of their rate payments, if:

– they are aged 65 and over; and
– the combined income of all property owners must be below the annual average earnings ($86,750); and
– the unimproved value of the property must be higher than the 80th percentile value ($407,000); and property owners must have at least 75 percent equity in their home.

http://www.revenue.act.gov.au/duties-and-taxes/rates/rates-assistance has the details.

Yep – knew about that.

A couple of issues the ACT Gov’t must have recognised and planned for ? :

1) 50% rebate on $1,600pa Annual Rates is a lot less than 50% rebate on say, $5,000+ Annual Rates.

2) What about self funded retirees – you know, those who planned not to rely on taxpayers in their retirement, via a Centrelink pension.

3) Deferment ?

So, the principle + interest comes out of the Estate ?

Any answers to these questions from those on here who think the avg. 10% pa increase in Annual Rates is a great idea ?

1) 50% rebate on $1,600pa Annual Rates is a lot less than 50% rebate on say, $5,000+ Annual Rates.

So? Are you opposed to pensioners getting greater dollar value discounts? Doesn’t seem very fair on the pensioners.

2) What about self funded retirees – you know, those who planned not to rely on taxpayers in their retirement, via a Centrelink pension.

If you’re earning above what the average family does, no matter what the source, then pay up and stop bludging off the system. I though your lot was against middle class welfare?

3) Deferment ?

So, the principle + interest comes out of the Estate ?

Of course, and what’s wrong with the the people who need the benefit transferring the cost of that benefit to the ones getting the windfall, ie. the inheritors of the estate?

pajs said :

It might be worth mentioning, given the statements about elderly people being ‘forced’ to move from their homes because of rates, that eligible pensioners can receive a rates rebate of up to 50% in the ACT.

There is also a deferment option for ratepayers facing financial hardship. In the case of the elderly, there are options for an indefinite deferment at a low rate of interest of their rate payments, if:

– they are aged 65 and over; and
– the combined income of all property owners must be below the annual average earnings ($86,750); and
– the unimproved value of the property must be higher than the 80th percentile value ($407,000); and property owners must have at least 75 percent equity in their home.

http://www.revenue.act.gov.au/duties-and-taxes/rates/rates-assistance has the details.

Yep – knew about that.

A couple of issues the ACT Gov’t must have recognised and planned for ? :

1) 50% rebate on $1,600pa Annual Rates is a lot less than 50% rebate on say, $5,000+ Annual Rates.

2) What about self funded retirees – you know, those who planned not to rely on taxpayers in their retirement, via a Centrelink pension.

3) Deferment ? So, the principle + interest comes out of the Estate ?

Any answers to these questions from those on here who think the avg. 10% pa increase in Annual Rates is a great idea ?

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

Sorry, if you are complaining about rip offs, you do realise the government would have to get money by some other means, like increased car rego, increased car parking, increased rates anyway! I’ve paid stamp duty also, but applaud a government willing to look past their term of government for once. Yes on a personal level it isn’t great, yes some people are vulnerable to this change but in the long term, this is an excellent policy and finally a government doing whats best for everyone instead of pandering to a minority of whingers. The shambles the current and previous federal government are in because they do all these short term fixes, that give money to people to buy votes rather than doing what is needed.

I’m sorry the economists and scientists in Australia get ignored far too often by government. Stamp duty is like working for a commission. Some weeks you’ll get a lot and other weeks you’ll get little. Its not popular with workers, so I can understand why a government wants to get rid of it as well and replace it with a steady income stream.

You appear to be the only apologist for the ACT Labor Minority Government on this issue.
Remember that the flaw in this new revenue system is that UCV valuations can be challenged and if enough people are compelled to do just that then the law/regulation is wrong.
Also, what happens if property values crash in the ACT? The rates pitched against valuations will fall commensurately and leave the Barr-blitz in tatters. It won’t be such and “excellent policy” then.

I’m not an apologist for anyone. I’ve PAID stamp duty and now paying extra rates. Do I like it… NO not at all. But i’m not as selfish as many rusted on conservative voters. I’ll vote for whoever at each election provides the best overall policies. I’m socially progressive and financially conservative/moderate.

Go look at the USA if you want to see what happens when you swing too far to the conservatives side of politics. No better than a Communist government! Go see what an excessive homeless problem looks like. See what happens to a population when crime rises, because unemployment is high. Yeah its great while ever its not happening to you.

Getting rid of stamp duty is a good thing. Your rates might be going up by 10%, but under liberal gov, I bet they’d have gone up 6-7% anyway. If the liberals couldn’t win last election on the “Triple your rates” slogan and with Zed pulling votes down here in Tuggers, I’m not sure what they’ll be able to do next election. Especially given that they are devoid of ideas for Canberra itself.

By all means complain, but at least offer some solutions or idea. Because all I hear are NIMBY attitudes and that is why government in this country is so bad of late. Nothing would get achieved ever if thats what won over all the time.

pajs said :

It might be worth mentioning, given the statements about elderly people being ‘forced’ to move from their homes because of rates, that eligible pensioners can receive a rates rebate of up to 50% in the ACT.

There is also a deferment option for ratepayers facing financial hardship. In the case of the elderly, there are options for an indefinite deferment at a low rate of interest of their rate payments, if:

– they are aged 65 and over; and
– the combined income of all property owners must be below the annual average earnings ($86,750); and
– the unimproved value of the property must be higher than the 80th percentile value ($407,000); and property owners must have at least 75 percent equity in their home.

http://www.revenue.act.gov.au/duties-and-taxes/rates/rates-assistance has the details.

The exact wording is confusing:
“Property owners who receive a Centrelink or Department of Veterans’ Affairs pension with entitlement to a Pensioner Concession Card, or a War Veteran’s pension, may be eligible for a rebate of up to 50% of their rates.

Rebate assistance is limited to a pensioner’s principal place of residence and to a maximum concession of $675 per property for all new pensioners in 2014-15. Pensioners in receipt of a rates rebate prior to 1 July 1997 are not affected by the $675 cap and maintain their level of concession until they cease to be an eligible pensioner”
All eligible owners will receive a 50% rebate ($65.00 per property) on their portion of the 2014-15 Fire and Emergency Services Levy.

Appears that most pensioners who were receiving the “full rebate” (not disclosed how much) before the $675 cap was introduced in 1997 would be deceased by now. In any case, the maximum concession on rates is $675. The 50% rebate only applies on the Fire and Emergency Services Levy and currently this amounts to $32.50 (whoopee).

It might be worth mentioning, given the statements about elderly people being ‘forced’ to move from their homes because of rates, that eligible pensioners can receive a rates rebate of up to 50% in the ACT.

There is also a deferment option for ratepayers facing financial hardship. In the case of the elderly, there are options for an indefinite deferment at a low rate of interest of their rate payments, if:

– they are aged 65 and over; and
– the combined income of all property owners must be below the annual average earnings ($86,750); and
– the unimproved value of the property must be higher than the 80th percentile value ($407,000); and property owners must have at least 75 percent equity in their home.

http://www.revenue.act.gov.au/duties-and-taxes/rates/rates-assistance has the details.

justin heywood said :

rosscoact said :

…They (the Libs) might of course say that to get elected, then do the opposite, but I guess that’s ok for the gullible half of the population.

OK, so everyone who didn’t vote Labor is considered the ‘gullible half’. Presumably then, the smart ones only vote for your team. Good to know you’re putting some rational thought into your views.

Not all of them no.

breda said :

My rates went up $300 last year, and will rise about that much again this year. All I get for them is garbage collection and street sweeping, and since I live alone I only put the bins out every 2 or 3 weeks. I have discussed this with family members in NSW who live in comparable properties, and their rates are half of what mine are right now, let alone what mine will be in a few years time.

I paid stamp duty when I bought my property.

It’s a rip-off of major proportions. Adding in soaring energy costs, I have calculated that I have to sell my house, because like many people, I am on a fixed income which does not get indexed at anything like these percentage increases. I am going backwards financially every year, and for medical reasons I can’t do anything about it in terms of earning income.

My next home purchase will not be in the ACT. Knowing that this incompetent government is signing up for hundreds of millions of dollars of debt to pay for its vanity project (light rail) tells me that things are only going to get worse for beleaguered ratepayers.

And yes – this sort of social re engineering (eg. people being artificially “forced” to sell their home because of the avg.10% pa increase in Annual Rates for the next 20 years, is a “social” cost to which I referred.

Many are or will be in the same boat breda – and I’m sure they will not forget at the next ballot box because they will see it in black and white on their Annual Rates assessment notices. In terms of social “fairness”, we seem to have lost the plot totally in the ACT now.

My 2 cents worth :

1) Of course economists and financial commentators like the reduction in stamp duty on purchase of a house to an avg 10$ pa increase Annual Rates over 20 years. They look at $ – nothing else. What it does is to take away incentive from the ACT Gov’t to look for innovative ways to grow its revenue base because it has guaranteed itself of a “minimum” guaranteed revenue from Annual Rates.

2) Funny how the ACT Gov’t will use “social benefits” to swing the Benefits Costs Ratio (BCR) for the Gunners-Civic Light Rail to be better than 1:1, but did not use a “social costs” consideration of the impact on aged/disabled pensioners, self funded retirees, low income earners, etc, on the Annual Rates issue. Its all about selective spin. People who support this need to consider what will happen if, for whatever reason in say another 15 years or so, they have to go onto one or lower wage while paying $8K pa in Annual Rates. It will be bye bye to the house/unit you purchased because of that cheaper stamp duty.

3) If it is really “revenue neutral” over the next 20 years, how is the Light Rail and other infrastructure “stimulus” projects and associated borrowings/interest, going to be paid for. Let alone the cost of the fanciful extension of the Light Rail to the the rest of Canberra. Anyone who thinks that the increase will remain fixed at avg.10% pa for the next 20 years is living in la la land I’m afraid. Regard that as the “minimum”.

4) Its fair and reasonable for those who have already paid stamp duty on the purchase of a house in the ACT to feel angry, ripped off and disillusioned. They have every right to voice that in the strongest possible terms if they so want. After all, its their future potentially going up in smoke.

5) So, stamp duty is a “regressive” tax. I hear that argument and understand it – especially about it being a disincentive those who aspire to own a home or to move. It is not a perfect tax and there will always be winners and losers – as with all taxes. So, by that reckoning, the income tax I pay each week is also “regressive” as its a substantial disincentive to me to earn more $.

6) The 10% avg. rate of increase over 20 years : This “compounds” each year. So, it not a flat 10% of year 1’s Annual Rates added to each of those 20 years. The math is astounding as that 10% compounds each year.

7) The ACT Gov’t has steadfastly refused to make the costings available for public scrutiny. This should be warning enough to all Ratepayers.

8) If they must increase Annual Rates, do that as a last resort – I don’t see the ACT Gov’t reigning in their expenditure !

Whilst i think the ACT Ratepayers Assn. could have done better in their wording – IMHO, the general thrust of their comments is 100% correct. Logic, common sense and a sense of fairness, says so.

Now, I’ll put on my full metal jacket, crawl into my foxhole and await the attacks………

At least with stamp duty if people come by hard times they can avoid paying the tax at the expense of living in a home longer than they would like.

With the increase in rates everyone is hit even those who can’t afford it. Rates are much more open to abuse by the government to do more light rail projects. If government decides to build more light rail links into gunners then they’ll just jack up the rates and everyone is forced to pay.

If they rely on stamp duty people will just stop moving and the government would have to reconsider the amount of spending they are doing. There’s also nothing stopping them from targeting certain locations for tax hikes. If people who earn higher income in certain suburbs those suburbs will end up with higher rates and less to show for it.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberra-pay-packets-by-suburb-show-gungahlin-at-the-top-20131220-2zqaa.html

As it stands the south side of Canberra brings in the majority of the GST money yet benefits from it the least.

davo101 said :

dungfungus said :

Remember that the flaw in this new revenue system is that UCV valuations can be challenged and if enough people are compelled to do just that then the law/regulation is wrong.
Also, what happens if property values crash in the ACT? The rates pitched against valuations will fall commensurately and leave the Barr-blitz in tatters. It won’t be such and “excellent policy” then.

I’m not sure you really understand how the rates system works. It doesn’t matter what the UCV’s are in absolute terms only how yours compares to everyone else’s. If the UCV’s all dropped to one tenth of what they are now the government would just increase the rating factors tenfold and the amount collected would be identical. They know what the UCV’s are and set the rating factors as required to collect the rates they want, it’s not as if they are taking a punt on which way they are going to go.

It’s yet to be tested because individuals who challenge the UCV are swatted like flies.
Wait until there is an organised attempt.

In all the threads which the RiotAct has had on this subject, one of the pithiest comments I have seen was along the lines of Labor/Green = double your rates plus stamp duty ; Liberal = double your rates plus stamp duty.

I think that sums it up very neatly – even the rusted-on, tribal Labor/Green polity of the ACT will not stand for the level of annual rates which would be sufficient to completely do away with stamp duty (particularly with income growth in the future likely to be somewhat lower than in recent years). Likewise, the expectations of Canberra Liberal supporters about the range and quality of government services and handouts means that it would not be politically viable for the ACT Liberals to promise to cut ACT government spending sufficiently to avoid significant rate rises (even with the retention of stamp duty).

Beyond that, I will just add that while the critics of this policy are typically arguing based on their own circumstances, so too are supporters – if and when the circumstances of the latter change, they may gain surprising new insights about what’s fair, equitable and efficient (which would be poetic).

Finally, anyone who thinks that this will do wonders for the ACT economy is kidding themselves – all it does is entrench Canberra as a high cost enclave for central government, a few tertiary institutions, and some niche/boutique knowledge economy businesses.

rosscoact said :

…They (the Libs) might of course say that to get elected, then do the opposite, but I guess that’s ok for the gullible half of the population.

OK, so everyone who didn’t vote Labor is considered the ‘gullible half’. Presumably then, the smart ones only vote for your team. Good to know you’re putting some rational thought into your views.

dungfungus said :

Remember that the flaw in this new revenue system is that UCV valuations can be challenged and if enough people are compelled to do just that then the law/regulation is wrong.
Also, what happens if property values crash in the ACT? The rates pitched against valuations will fall commensurately and leave the Barr-blitz in tatters. It won’t be such and “excellent policy” then.

I’m not sure you really understand how the rates system works. It doesn’t matter what the UCV’s are in absolute terms only how yours compares to everyone else’s. If the UCV’s all dropped to one tenth of what they are now the government would just increase the rating factors tenfold and the amount collected would be identical. They know what the UCV’s are and set the rating factors as required to collect the rates they want, it’s not as if they are taking a punt on which way they are going to go.

Ah, the politics of envy strike again.

When I bought my house, the UCV was low, because it was considered to be a less desirable suburb, and I didn’t have much money.

Due to things beyond my control, that has changed. Therefore, according to you, I am now rich, and should be punished.

Well, although I am within 100m of a shopping centre, the ACT government has deemed that my block is 30 sqm too small to put a couple of townhouses on – which would not only make sense in planning terms, but would also prevent me from being effectively evicted from my home.

I love this “kick people out for a Higher Purpose” stuff that is equally applied to villagers when a new dam is built in China and to low-income people who bought relatively cheap housing years ago because they were not well off, in Canberra.

Here’s a hint – people who bought cheap houses because they were poor years ago and are still living there are not likely to be bathing in champagne these days. And even if they are, so what?

Perversely, only the rich can afford to stay under these stupid policies. But it’s the vibe, right?

DeadlySchnauzer said :

Getting rid of Stamp Duty and replacing it with rate increases is an excellent move by the ACT government and they should be applauded for their forward thinking. You will not find a single economist or sociologist who thinks that Stamp Duty is a good idea. But you know… let’s all have a whinge about having to pay more.

Let’s see what Sir Henry has to say:

http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/finalreport.aspx?doc=html/publications/papers/final_report_part_1/chapter_6.htm

“Conveyance stamp duty is highly inefficient and inequitable. It discourages transactions of commercial and residential property and, through this, its allocation to its most valuable use. Conveyance stamp duty can also discourage people from changing their place of residence as their personal circumstances change or discourage people from making lifestyle changes that involve a change in residence. It is also inequitable, as people who need to move more frequently bear more tax, irrespective of their income or wealth.”

Spot on and of course the government went to the last election with this as a policy and the people of the ACT thought that it was a good idea then and the nonsense spouted by the opposition was simply that, nonsense.

I’m wondering of the Libs will go to the next election with the policy of reducing the cost of rates and increasing the cost of stamp duty? They might of course say that to get elected, then do the opposite, but I guess that’s ok for the gullible half of the population.

watto23 said :

Sorry, if you are complaining about rip offs, you do realise the government would have to get money by some other means, like increased car rego, increased car parking, increased rates anyway! I’ve paid stamp duty also, but applaud a government willing to look past their term of government for once. Yes on a personal level it isn’t great, yes some people are vulnerable to this change but in the long term, this is an excellent policy and finally a government doing whats best for everyone instead of pandering to a minority of whingers. The shambles the current and previous federal government are in because they do all these short term fixes, that give money to people to buy votes rather than doing what is needed.

I’m sorry the economists and scientists in Australia get ignored far too often by government. Stamp duty is like working for a commission. Some weeks you’ll get a lot and other weeks you’ll get little. Its not popular with workers, so I can understand why a government wants to get rid of it as well and replace it with a steady income stream.

You appear to be the only apologist for the ACT Labor Minority Government on this issue.
Remember that the flaw in this new revenue system is that UCV valuations can be challenged and if enough people are compelled to do just that then the law/regulation is wrong.
Also, what happens if property values crash in the ACT? The rates pitched against valuations will fall commensurately and leave the Barr-blitz in tatters. It won’t be such and “excellent policy” then.

breda said :

It’s an inequitable tax which bears no relation to anything except the government’s insatiable need to extract more money from the populace.

See my opening post, and I suggest you read up on what “equitable” means. Rates based on land value are far more equitable than most government revenue sources, especially when they use a progressive scale relative to land value (precisely how the ACT system works). To put it bluntly, people with higher incomes who can afford to live in more expensive residences on larger/inner blocks pay much higher rates.

Interestingly enough your example of car rego is one of the *least* equitable forms of government revenue. It doesn’t matter how much you earn or can afford, everyone has to pay the same rego rate.

The common whinge about this seems to be “I moved recently and paid stamp duty and now I also have to pay higher rates”. Well guess what… unless you are never going to move house again, you will benefit from this change the *next* time you move. And the time after that.

In fact statistically (http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features30Dec+2010) you are likely to benefit from this change a number of times over your remaining life time.

But yeah. Boo government and all that.

If the government increases car rego, at least it is tied to something that people actually use. Increasing rates is just a lazy way of making housing less affordable, irrespective of what people use or what they can afford to pay. It’s an inequitable tax which bears no relation to anything except the government’s insatiable need to extract more money from the populace.

Of course, if you can get into government housing, you don’t have to worry about any of this, because ratepayers are subsidising all those costs. So, not only does this policy punish those who pay their own way, it increases the incentives to get on the waiting list for even more subsidies.

This is the “vision” that currently informs the ACT government’s fiscal policy.

Sorry, if you are complaining about rip offs, you do realise the government would have to get money by some other means, like increased car rego, increased car parking, increased rates anyway! I’ve paid stamp duty also, but applaud a government willing to look past their term of government for once. Yes on a personal level it isn’t great, yes some people are vulnerable to this change but in the long term, this is an excellent policy and finally a government doing whats best for everyone instead of pandering to a minority of whingers. The shambles the current and previous federal government are in because they do all these short term fixes, that give money to people to buy votes rather than doing what is needed.

I’m sorry the economists and scientists in Australia get ignored far too often by government. Stamp duty is like working for a commission. Some weeks you’ll get a lot and other weeks you’ll get little. Its not popular with workers, so I can understand why a government wants to get rid of it as well and replace it with a steady income stream.

Another reason to move over the border. Looks like its a good time to invest in Queanbeyan, Jerrabomerra and Googong.

My rates went up $300 last year, and will rise about that much again this year. All I get for them is garbage collection and street sweeping, and since I live alone I only put the bins out every 2 or 3 weeks. I have discussed this with family members in NSW who live in comparable properties, and their rates are half of what mine are right now, let alone what mine will be in a few years time.

I paid stamp duty when I bought my property.

It’s a rip-off of major proportions. Adding in soaring energy costs, I have calculated that I have to sell my house, because like many people, I am on a fixed income which does not get indexed at anything like these percentage increases. I am going backwards financially every year, and for medical reasons I can’t do anything about it in terms of earning income.

My next home purchase will not be in the ACT. Knowing that this incompetent government is signing up for hundreds of millions of dollars of debt to pay for its vanity project (light rail) tells me that things are only going to get worse for beleaguered ratepayers.

Gee, rates are going to triple?
Shame the Canberra Liberals didn’t get onto that at the time of the 2012 election as it sounds like an election winner.

Ratepayers will eventually have to pay on average three times more in real terms and 6 times more in actual dollar terms.

Err, maths is obviously not your strongest suit. If we accept that “real terms” means relative to wages then on average ratepayers will have to pay exactly what they do now. The swap over is revenue neutral so by definition the average will not go up relative to the indexation that they use (the WPI). Some people will pay more and some people will pay less (depending on how often they buy a property or how the relationship between land value and rates changes) but overall these will cancel each other out.

Getting rid of Stamp Duty and replacing it with rate increases is an excellent move by the ACT government and they should be applauded for their forward thinking. You will not find a single economist or sociologist who thinks that Stamp Duty is a good idea. But you know… let’s all have a whinge about having to pay more.

Let’s see what Sir Henry has to say:

http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/finalreport.aspx?doc=html/publications/papers/final_report_part_1/chapter_6.htm

“Conveyance stamp duty is highly inefficient and inequitable. It discourages transactions of commercial and residential property and, through this, its allocation to its most valuable use. Conveyance stamp duty can also discourage people from changing their place of residence as their personal circumstances change or discourage people from making lifestyle changes that involve a change in residence. It is also inequitable, as people who need to move more frequently bear more tax, irrespective of their income or wealth.”