Land Rent Scheme

Thanks george, much appreciated

Yes you can.

I am on a work visa till Nov- 2013, but will get a Permanent Resident status early next year, do i qualify for this Land Rent Scheme?
Also, my partner earns slightly more then 75,000 a year, but i am unemployed and earn nothing at all at the moment, can i apply for land rent ?

If your answer to both these questions is yes, then can i rant a land in Molonglo Valley ( http://www.molonglovalley.com.au/ )

caf I do think rates are a de-facto rent, reason being if they were based only on services provided all rates would be of the same value regardless where you lived.

Thumper: presumably the idea is that once your house-only-mortgage repayments have reduced sufficiently in real terms (given that they stay the same in nominal terms), you can afford to add the land to the mortgage.

Nope, you pay rates for the provision of municipal services (garbos, cops, etc.)

don’t we already rent the land? isn’t that why I pay rates for?

Deano wrote:

“…it does make homes more affordable, but it won’t do anything to improve the long term wealth of people this is targeted at.”

Hey – you are shifting the goalposts here. We were talking about making homes more affordable, not about “the long term wealth”. Sure, it’d be nice to have both, but they are separate issues and we can have one without the other.

spoonbill said :

Don’t we lease the land now – 99 year leases?

Yes but we pay the full rent upfront. When you sell your house you are effectively selling the remaining lease as well. If I remember correctly all 99 year leases were converted to perpetual leases a few years back. So the value of the remaining lease is effectively the same as the value of the land.

In the land rent scheme, rental payments would not go to paying off the land, but tenants could buy their land at any time for its unimproved capital value. Based on historical prices, you can expect land prices to nearly double every 10 years.

So yes, it does make homes more affordable, but it won’t do anything to improve the long term wealth of people this is targeted at.

I quite like this idea, it reduces up front costs for home buyers; making housing more affordable for those on lower incomes which is exactly the idea.

It makes a lot more sense than zeds plan which has to be one of the more mind numbingly dumb ideas i have heared; all zeds plan would seem to do is transfer money from the govt. to those selling houses, while those buying (who this scheme purports to help) are left out in the cold. and before anyone comments on how this is a good thing because it will mean more houses on the market, hence cheaper prices, actually think about it; people selling the homes they live in, will just create another buyer, (people have to live somewhere) so theres no gain there, and by my reckoning the only ‘new’ properties that will open up are those which were formally low profit rental properties (mostly those at the cheaper end of the market) which just shifts the problem from one group of people to another.

So at best zed’s plan is to make the wealthy richer, (and leave low income income home buyers in the cold) and at worst it’ll take away the homes of poor renters. Top work Zed.

When it comes to the policies put forwed by both parties concerning home affordabilty its a pretty clear victory to stanhope (and good on him for getting stuck into the libs for not backing him)