The new rates regime

Sebastian Fernandez 19 June 2014 69
household-rates

I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I have to again raise that I’m extremely worried about the direction this city is heading in re household rates.

I’m a homeowner and I intend to stay in my house for a long time.

I understand that on average, Canberra homeowners move every 7 years, but I intend to be well above that average.

Those of us who do stay in a home for 10, 15 or 20 years will end up paying more than we did under the old system. We won’t benefit from the saving of the reduction in stamp duty.

I know this hasn’t been in the news cycle of late, but I think it should be.

We’re setting up Canberra to be one of the most expensive places in which to live in the entire country, if it isn’t already. Sure, you won’t have to pay that dastardly stamp duty when you buy a house, but if you’re got to pay 10K in rates every year, what’s the diff.

I still can’t believe that Andrew Barr’s only answer to this when questioned in a some Legislative Assembly committee, his only answer was get a higher paid job, or negotiate for more pay.

What planet are these people from.

I’m not a huge fan of Jeremy Hanson, or for that matter Zed Seselja, but I have to concur with their assertion that our rates will triple in around a decade. Where do you think rents will go ? In a city which is already way to expensive to rent in, it’ll just get worse.

How sad if we have hundreds of Canberrans who make the call to move out of town because they can’t afford to pay the rates.

I guess the big question is, could the Libs wind this all back should be elected, given that they’re going to be so busy ripping light rail out of the ground ?

 


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
69 Responses to The new rates regime
Filter
Order
Canberroid Canberroid 7:06 pm 23 Jun 14

dungfungus said :

Aren’t the young still getting a first new home owner’s grant? This is ontop of stamp duty concessions.
This is something older Canberrans never got yet who do you think is subsidising this?

You only get that if you buy a brand new home, and given that shoddy houses on tiny blocks on the outskirts cost $800k, it’s not much of a concession.

Older Canberrans didn’t face the current ridiculous realestate prices; in fact they benefitted from it and helped make it happen.

banco banco 6:43 pm 23 Jun 14

dungfungus said :

Aren’t the young still getting a first new home owner’s grant? This is ontop of stamp duty concessions.
This is something older Canberrans never got yet who do you think is subsidising this?
If you claim the new policies are not making things any better for the young then what are the policies doing for us at the other end of the scale?

First home owners grant benefits the seller not the buyer. There are a lot of one bedroom apartments on the market perhaps the baby boomers can look into downsizing.

dungfungus dungfungus 6:18 pm 23 Jun 14

HiddenDragon said :

aussieboy said :

Abolishing stamp duty is very good policy.

You should not be rewarded for staying in the same house for 20 years – if anything you should be punished. There are far too many retired couples living in 4-5 bedroom houses in Canberra’s inner suburbs. Meanwhile, young families are pushed into the abysses of Tuggeranong and Gunghalin where facilities/services are lacking.

If retirees can’t afford the new rates, they should move into a smaller place.

In the long term, this won’t be an issue – basic economics suggests that house prices will fall to compensate for the PV of increased rates – people will just need to factor rate costs into their affordability calculations.

This policy isn’t going to make things any better for the young families who are currently “being pushed into the abysses of Tuggeranong and Gunghalin where facilities/services are lacking” – they’ll still be heading in that direction, and just paying a bit less for stamp duty when they buy, and somewhat more each year, for rates, for ever after. The desirable houses in desirable inner suburbs will continue to go to people with deep pockets – all this policy will do is make the total cost of buying such houses a bit lower if it’s a buyer’s market, and the seller’s net proceeds a bit higher if it’s a seller’s market.

If the ACT Government really cared about housing affordability they would take a different approach to the zoning, pricing and release of land – but they are heavily dependent on land revenues and cannot afford to do so.

The real financial issue at the heart of all of this is the level and sustainability of ACT Government spending, not how the land revenue component of funding for it is derived. The arguments about the supposed economic efficiency and fairness of the rates/stamp duty trade off is ultimately just diverting window dressing (“it has to be paid for somehow, so let’s not engage in selfish debates about who pays what”) and a quite clever exercise in divide and rule.

Aren’t the young still getting a first new home owner’s grant? This is ontop of stamp duty concessions.
This is something older Canberrans never got yet who do you think is subsidising this?
If you claim the new policies are not making things any better for the young then what are the policies doing for us at the other end of the scale?

Maya123 Maya123 6:17 pm 23 Jun 14

HiddenDragon said :

aussieboy said :

Abolishing stamp duty is very good policy.

You should not be rewarded for staying in the same house for 20 years – if anything you should be punished. There are far too many retired couples living in 4-5 bedroom houses in Canberra’s inner suburbs. Meanwhile, young families are pushed into the abysses of Tuggeranong and Gunghalin where facilities/services are lacking.

If retirees can’t afford the new rates, they should move into a smaller place.

In the long term, this won’t be an issue – basic economics suggests that house prices will fall to compensate for the PV of increased rates – people will just need to factor rate costs into their affordability calculations.

This policy isn’t going to make things any better for the young families who are currently “being pushed into the abysses of Tuggeranong and Gunghalin where facilities/services are lacking” – they’ll still be heading in that direction, and just paying a bit less for stamp duty when they buy, and somewhat more each year, for rates, for ever after. The desirable houses in desirable inner suburbs will continue to go to people with deep pockets – all this policy will do is make the total cost of buying such houses a bit lower if it’s a buyer’s market, and the seller’s net proceeds a bit higher if it’s a seller’s market.

If the ACT Government really cared about housing affordability they would take a different approach to the zoning, pricing and release of land – but they are heavily dependent on land revenues and cannot afford to do so.

The real financial issue at the heart of all of this is the level and sustainability of ACT Government spending, not how the land revenue component of funding for it is derived. The arguments about the supposed economic efficiency and fairness of the rates/stamp duty trade off is ultimately just diverting window dressing (“it has to be paid for somehow, so let’s not engage in selfish debates about who pays what”) and a quite clever exercise in divide and rule.

“facilities/services are lacking”. If that’s the case it’s more important that older people live closer to the facilities/services, as some might no longer drive, and the older the person generally the more things like medical facilities are needed. They also need to be closer to shops, or at least on a direct bus route to one. Older people are no longer as physically active and need to be closer to services. That’s probably why near where I live many of the government retirement homes have been built near to shops or on a bus route. Younger people, on average, need to visit the doctor less, are more capable of cycling/walking to the closest shops (surveys show most trips are five kms or less, and these distances are easy to cycle); they also are more likely to have a car and drive. The children can attend the nearest school, even in the outer suburbs. Any other school is a choice and the parents shouldn’t use that to complain about having to travel so far. It was their free choice. The people living in the outer suburbs can save, live frugally and when they get older move to a better location. I get the feeling that a lot of groaning from people who find they can’t get a place to live that matches the standard of accommodation they will accept in an inner suburb, is because they want to be able to walk to a perceived ‘fancy’ cafe area such as Manuka. The lack of facilities/services is just an excuse. Is there really that much difference in availability for schools, etc across Canberra.

bikhet bikhet 5:59 pm 23 Jun 14

bikhet said :

watto23 said :

I don’t see how this policy is unfair.

It is unfair because, as others have pointed out, existing owners have already paid the stamp duty and so the changed rating arrangements should not affect their properties until the blocks are sold.

It may be more efficient, it may be necessary to fund better services, but it is unfair.

Missed a “not.” Fixed in the quote.

HiddenDragon HiddenDragon 5:41 pm 23 Jun 14

aussieboy said :

Abolishing stamp duty is very good policy.

You should not be rewarded for staying in the same house for 20 years – if anything you should be punished. There are far too many retired couples living in 4-5 bedroom houses in Canberra’s inner suburbs. Meanwhile, young families are pushed into the abysses of Tuggeranong and Gunghalin where facilities/services are lacking.

If retirees can’t afford the new rates, they should move into a smaller place.

In the long term, this won’t be an issue – basic economics suggests that house prices will fall to compensate for the PV of increased rates – people will just need to factor rate costs into their affordability calculations.

This policy isn’t going to make things any better for the young families who are currently “being pushed into the abysses of Tuggeranong and Gunghalin where facilities/services are lacking” – they’ll still be heading in that direction, and just paying a bit less for stamp duty when they buy, and somewhat more each year, for rates, for ever after. The desirable houses in desirable inner suburbs will continue to go to people with deep pockets – all this policy will do is make the total cost of buying such houses a bit lower if it’s a buyer’s market, and the seller’s net proceeds a bit higher if it’s a seller’s market.

If the ACT Government really cared about housing affordability they would take a different approach to the zoning, pricing and release of land – but they are heavily dependent on land revenues and cannot afford to do so.

The real financial issue at the heart of all of this is the level and sustainability of ACT Government spending, not how the land revenue component of funding for it is derived. The arguments about the supposed economic efficiency and fairness of the rates/stamp duty trade off is ultimately just diverting window dressing (“it has to be paid for somehow, so let’s not engage in selfish debates about who pays what”) and a quite clever exercise in divide and rule.

bikhet bikhet 4:24 pm 23 Jun 14

watto23 said :

I don’t see how this policy is unfair.

It is unfair because, as others have pointed out, existing owners have already paid the stamp duty and so the changed rating arrangements should affect their properties until the blocks are sold.

It may be more efficient, it may be necessary to fund better services, but it is unfair.

watto23 watto23 12:32 pm 23 Jun 14

Maya123 said :

rommeldog56 said :

I should have included context :

1) Tuggeranong
2) An “average” location in an “average” Tuggers suburb – not Fadden, Monash or Gowrie.
3)And I suppose this is the killer – a 948sm block – which is common in a suburb established 24 years or so ago.

640sq m block. Typical size (Lower) Narrabundah. Rates 2014 $2266. (Established 50 – 60 years ago.) A previous house, also in Narrabundah, which I sold a year ago, had only slightly lower rates. That house’s block was about 460 (possibly a bit less) sq ms. That small 99sq m fibro house would definitely have been worth much less than most houses in Tuggeranong, had a smaller block, but still higher rates.

You have both highlighted why the new tax system is better, because people who want to either have larger blocks of land or live closer to the city pay for that privelege.
No body is forcing anyone to move houses, but making it easier to downsize or upsize when needed. My parents downsized happily after 25+ years in a 4bedroom house on a battleaxe block to something smaller because they didn’t want to look after the large block of land and the extra space. Others might be happy to do so, but relying on people moving houses is a bad way to tax people and unfair overall.
The money was always going to come from somewhere and the Liberals like their federal counterparts haven’t exactly put up any other ideas have they?
The rates policy is similar to how rego is done, the bigger the vehicle the more you pay. In fact its a very Liberal idea that people pay for what they want/use. I don’t see how this policy is unfair.
It may be unfair if you want to have a large block land close to the city and unwilling to pay for it. As for growing vegetables, I can grow them in my small courtyard townhouse, my rates are under $1k a year as well. Under the new system you have a choice, nobody is forcing you to do anything. As the liberals would say, live within your means and end the age of entitlement, which is exactly what this labor policy is doing.

Maya123 Maya123 9:50 am 23 Jun 14

rommeldog56 said :

I should have included context :

1) Tuggeranong
2) An “average” location in an “average” Tuggers suburb – not Fadden, Monash or Gowrie.
3)And I suppose this is the killer – a 948sm block – which is common in a suburb established 24 years or so ago.

640sq m block. Typical size (Lower) Narrabundah. Rates 2014 $2266. (Established 50 – 60 years ago.) A previous house, also in Narrabundah, which I sold a year ago, had only slightly lower rates. That house’s block was about 460 (possibly a bit less) sq ms. That small 99sq m fibro house would definitely have been worth much less than most houses in Tuggeranong, had a smaller block, but still higher rates.

rommeldog56 rommeldog56 7:29 am 23 Jun 14

I should have included context :

1) Tuggeranong
2) An “average” location in an “average” Tuggers suburb – not Fadden, Monash or Gowrie.
3)And I suppose this is the killer – a 948sm block – which is common in a suburb established 24 years or so ago.

rommeldog56 rommeldog56 11:18 pm 22 Jun 14

BreeGirl said :

The Chief Minister still says that the Liberals were lying when about rates tripling. Difficult to know who to believe on this, but it looks to me as though rates will triple well before 2022

“Difficult to know” ? Not really. Here is my calculation for my Annual Rates over the next few years. It is predicated on 9.5% (which in my case, is the actual increase – others may be more – but the ACT Gov’t claim avg.10% pa) :

2013-14 $1,765
2014-15 $1,965
2015-16 $2,151
2016-17 $2,355
2017-18 $2,578
2018-19 $2,822

So, if u keep on calculating, at least in my case, the Lib’s claims of tripling in 11 years or so are pretty accurate. So, there it is in black and white – just for the ACT Government !

True. Annual Rates would have tripled anyway – but over a much, much, much longer timeframe – not in 11 years or so. I hope u are doing your Annual Rates forward projections in the ACT – something the ACT Government might call “vision”.

So, next time I hear the spin from the ACT Government that “Annual Rates Will Not Triple” – remind me to grab the nearest bucket ’cause I’m certain that I will chuck up !

gazket gazket 6:53 pm 22 Jun 14

BreeGirl said :

The Chief Minister still says that the Liberals were lying when about rates tripling. Difficult to know who to believe on this, but it looks to me as though rates will triple well before 2022

Katy Gallagher pretty much admitted the rates would triple a few weeks ago on 2CC . Parton said the rates are going to triple aren’t they and Gallagher said said “well not straight away”

The Government only gets bigger it never gets smaller. Government bringing in more money creates more Government bureaucracy so Government spend more money to pay for it , so Governments rise rates and taxes again.

While we get the calluses Government bums get shinier and their hands get softer.

old canberran old canberran 3:57 pm 22 Jun 14

aussieboy said :

If retirees can’t afford the new rates, they should move into a smaller place.

I suppose you are thinking of something small and comfortable like a coffin.

What a ridiculous and heartless suggestion.

My parents lived in a house in Braddon for over 50 years and we lived in Watson for 25 years and left in 1988 when self government arrived. Back then I could see that Canberra was going to become a very expensive place to live without the development controls that the NCDC had in place. Someone has to pay for the unbridled development that has taken place over the past 25 years and unfortunately it is the people who live there.

Maya123 Maya123 12:27 pm 22 Jun 14

dungfungus said :

People with large houses not only pay for the “priveledge” as you refer to but they also pay higher rates and taxes and also subdidise first home owners with smaller homes. We all started with smaller homes. It’s the first home buyers that are the burden.

It’s not the size of the house that increases rates, but where the block of land is. Two blocks side by side might pay the same rates, but one might have a small two bedroom house on it, while the other a large, two storey, many bedroom house on it. Same rates for each, as it is the land that the rates is calculated from.

Maya123 Maya123 11:49 am 22 Jun 14

aussieboy said :

Maya123 said :

I live in an inner suburb. So you would punish me for wanting to be within cycling distance of facilities and for wanting to grow my own food – fruit trees and vegetable gardens. Yes, I could move out of my house and into a unit. No room to grow anything, but what does that matter; I’m expendable. That’s how I read your post. But then being cynical, my house is only three bedrooms, one living area and doesn’t have a separate entertainment area or theatrette. What first home buyer would be interested in that? And first home buyers are usually younger; they can cycle further.
I retired (forced redundancy) and after saving for over twenty years finally managed to upgrade my house and get a bigger one (but still smaller than most built today). No, I am not moving after only just moving in, just to please your prejudices.

Every single person living in a 3 br house rather than a unit or terrace is another greenfield development site required for which the Government must build roads, sewers, electricity etc. Most first home buyers I know would much rather a 3br cottage in O’Connor than a 4br McMansion in woop woop.

There are real and signficant financial costs to society when bedrooms go spare in the inner city. Someone has to pay. While my comment might have made people seem ‘expendable’, yours makes them sound incredibly entitled.

If someone chooses to burden society with these costs by living in a house that’s way too big for them, that’s fine – but they should be forced to pay for that privilege.

So it would be alright then if someone built a one bedroom house on a block of land, so they could still grown their vegetables and be self sufficient and not need a car! No spare bedrooms then. And should families be allowed spare bedrooms too? How about demanding that children should share a bedroom. It worked in the past.
It could be pointed out that the population growth is what is causing these problems. Without that there would be no need for green field developments. We can’t keep expanding forever. It has to stop sometime and it’s better to stop now than cause an even bigger problem to future generations. This is not the fault of local government though. They are responding to policies enacted by the Federal government with its large immigration rate and the baby bonus.
If someone can’t afford to live in an inner suburb because what they expect/demand in a house is not available for their price range, and they are not willing to lower their expectations, then they might have to move to an outer suburb, but this doesn’t have to be forever. They can live frugally (as I did) by growing a large percentage of your food (might need to build a smaller house though – the size people thought was normal fifty years ago, rather than a McMansion – to have enough land to grow the food), forgoing overseas holidays, wearing cheap clothes until they wear out, riding a bicycle where you can (and even in outer suburbs you don’t have to drive everywhere), catch public transport, keep the same car for over twenty years, rent out spare rooms, then in twenty to thirty years you might be able to afford a nice three bedroom house in an inner suburb as I did. Some first home buyers have too much of a sense of entitlement and want it now. It’s likely your parents didn’t get it to start with. My first home with my parents was a flat over shops. Later we moved to a small house. It doesn’t have to be forever. But what you are implying is that after all this self sacrificing we should be willing to live in a one bedroom unit. Sorry, but singles and doubles have as much right as families to have a study and a spare room. We are not subhuman and we are not burdening society. The ones who are burdening society are those people who have more than a replacement number of children. The cost of infrastructure is huge for an expanding population. The normal taxes that extra people pay does not cover this increased infrastructure (hospitals etc).
Older people have likely lived in an area for many years, their friends are there, they know the area, the garden they planted and waited for to mature, has rewarded them and now you say they must give all this up and be discarded in some little unit, and likely all this bulldozed so someone else can build a McMansion (older houses are too small for the younger generation). That’s a waste of resources! The house they now live in might have been the outer suburbs when they moved there, or in my case an inner suburb that few people wanted to live in, and in fact other people warned me about and did their best to dissuade me from buying there. Hence the first house I bought, in an inner suburb, was the cheapest on the market at the time in all Canberra.
Suburbs do regenerate in time without moving out the present occupants into units before they are ready. People move into an area, they get older, their children grow up, move on, the people eventually (by their own free will) move to a retirement unit or die. Then younger people have the chance to move in and the cycle starts again.

dungfungus dungfungus 10:39 am 22 Jun 14

aussieboy said :

Maya123 said :

I live in an inner suburb. So you would punish me for wanting to be within cycling distance of facilities and for wanting to grow my own food – fruit trees and vegetable gardens. Yes, I could move out of my house and into a unit. No room to grow anything, but what does that matter; I’m expendable. That’s how I read your post. But then being cynical, my house is only three bedrooms, one living area and doesn’t have a separate entertainment area or theatrette. What first home buyer would be interested in that? And first home buyers are usually younger; they can cycle further.
I retired (forced redundancy) and after saving for over twenty years finally managed to upgrade my house and get a bigger one (but still smaller than most built today). No, I am not moving after only just moving in, just to please your prejudices.

Every single person living in a 3 br house rather than a unit or terrace is another greenfield development site required for which the Government must build roads, sewers, electricity etc. Most first home buyers I know would much rather a 3br cottage in O’Connor than a 4br McMansion in woop woop.

There are real and signficant financial costs to society when bedrooms go spare in the inner city. Someone has to pay. While my comment might have made people seem ‘expendable’, yours makes them sound incredibly entitled.

If someone chooses to burden society with these costs by living in a house that’s way too big for them, that’s fine – but they should be forced to pay for that privilege.

Greenfield development costs = headworks. These are paid for by the developer (LDA) which is an ACT Government Agecy. Across the border they are paid by the private developer. The cost is capitalised into the finished product. The LDA in Canberra gests en-globo land for zilch and yet they make a miserable profit. This agency should be abolished and private enterpise (competition) should take over.
People with large houses not only pay for the “priveledge” as you refer to but they also pay higher rates and taxes and also subdidise first home owners with smaller homes. We all started with smaller homes. It’s the first home buyers that are the burden.

miz miz 10:11 am 22 Jun 14

This whole policy trying to ‘encourage’ older people to ‘downsize’ is very rude and misinformed. Does the Treasurer (or whoever designed this daft, social engineering policy) really think that suddenly, on reaching a certain age, older people don’t need space for family members to stay, and don’t have hobbies that need space?
It is also clearly inconsistent with all the policies and services aimed at keeping people in their homes longer before having to enter aged care facilities (which are a great expense on the public purse).
A few may benefit from this policy, but they probably would have moved anyway without it. I think we can safely say it’s a Claytons budget sweetener.

aussieboy aussieboy 10:01 am 22 Jun 14

Maya123 said :

I live in an inner suburb. So you would punish me for wanting to be within cycling distance of facilities and for wanting to grow my own food – fruit trees and vegetable gardens. Yes, I could move out of my house and into a unit. No room to grow anything, but what does that matter; I’m expendable. That’s how I read your post. But then being cynical, my house is only three bedrooms, one living area and doesn’t have a separate entertainment area or theatrette. What first home buyer would be interested in that? And first home buyers are usually younger; they can cycle further.
I retired (forced redundancy) and after saving for over twenty years finally managed to upgrade my house and get a bigger one (but still smaller than most built today). No, I am not moving after only just moving in, just to please your prejudices.

Every single person living in a 3 br house rather than a unit or terrace is another greenfield development site required for which the Government must build roads, sewers, electricity etc. Most first home buyers I know would much rather a 3br cottage in O’Connor than a 4br McMansion in woop woop.

There are real and signficant financial costs to society when bedrooms go spare in the inner city. Someone has to pay. While my comment might have made people seem ‘expendable’, yours makes them sound incredibly entitled.

If someone chooses to burden society with these costs by living in a house that’s way too big for them, that’s fine – but they should be forced to pay for that privilege.

Maya123 Maya123 8:27 am 22 Jun 14

dungfungus said :

rommeldog56 said :

aussieboy said :

Abolishing stamp duty is very good policy.

You should not be rewarded for staying in the same house for 20 years – if anything you should be punished. There are far too many retired couples living in 4-5 bedroom houses in Canberra’s inner suburbs. Meanwhile, young families are pushed into the abysses of Tuggeranong and Gunghalin where facilities/services are lacking.

If retirees can’t afford the new rates, they should move into a smaller place.

In the long term, this won’t be an issue – basic economics suggests that house prices will fall to compensate for the PV of increased rates – people will just need to factor rate costs into their affordability calculations.

People did factor Annual Rates increases into their affordability – and Stamp duty – and purchased a house that they could afford given both those things.

They also raised families in those houses – and had blocks that their kids could run around in safely.

To say, decades later, that they should not have done that IN CASE some idiot, economically and fiscally incompetent ACT Government decided to potentially triple those Annual Rates, is simply absurdly ludicrous.

No one would have seen that coming all those years ago.

For those people who have already paid their full share of Stamp Duty when they purchased a house, what the ACT Gov’t has now done is akin to “legalised” theft.

Retirees, after a lifetime of contribution to the economy and working to own a house, should not be “forced” to move into a shoebox somewhere (that will also be subject to proportionally increased Rates too btw). Particularly self funded retirees who are not a drain on the economy. These people should be looked after – not penalised financially by this idiot ACT Gov’t.

There must surely be better ways of encouraging the “target” people out of their larger homes and into smaller ones. The ACT Gov’t way of up to tripling Annual Rates is far, far too blunt.

I agree 100%.
We have to realize that the person who is causing all this future grief for us in not a family man so he is not considering the hopes, aspirations and needs of people who want to have a family as most of have. He is also totally clueless about the what able bodied retired people need.
He probably lives in a home unit, hmmmm, that could explain a few things.
Yet so many people claim to hate Tony Abbott who is about as family orientated as you can get.
There is a big article in the Canberra Times today about the big movers and shakers in Canberra. It’s long on their power and influence but short on their family values.
The times are changing.

What has being a “family man” got to do with this? Whether people have a family or not they need a place to live, and many live in houses. People with families can be so arrogant and excluding. Couples and singles too have a right to want a garden, and some make better use of it than families; growing vegetables for instance.
I’ve noticed that families living in ‘large’ houses generally is a modern thing. In the past three bedrooms did for many; even two, and growing up this was what my friends and I had; even the neighbours with seven kids only had three bedrooms. I bought my first three bedroom (99 sq metres) house from a family of five. Children shared rooms, but today that appears unthinkable. Why, according to some parents I’ve spoken to, children these days can’t even be expected to sleep in a single bed; these days they demand a double bed. So if you think the houses of the present retirees are large, just wait to see the size of the houses of the next generation; the ones demanding now that retirees should get out.
If one wants to encourage retirees to downsize, perhaps a better rating system would be one that took size of house into account, no matter what suburb that was in, because how will making rates so expensive for a retiree living in a small inner city house help a family who wants a large house for a family? Even if they can afford to buy the house, can they then afford to knock down the two or three bedroom house and build the bigger house many are demanding these days? Most likely couldn’t.

dungfungus dungfungus 7:36 am 22 Jun 14

rommeldog56 said :

aussieboy said :

Abolishing stamp duty is very good policy.

You should not be rewarded for staying in the same house for 20 years – if anything you should be punished. There are far too many retired couples living in 4-5 bedroom houses in Canberra’s inner suburbs. Meanwhile, young families are pushed into the abysses of Tuggeranong and Gunghalin where facilities/services are lacking.

If retirees can’t afford the new rates, they should move into a smaller place.

In the long term, this won’t be an issue – basic economics suggests that house prices will fall to compensate for the PV of increased rates – people will just need to factor rate costs into their affordability calculations.

People did factor Annual Rates increases into their affordability – and Stamp duty – and purchased a house that they could afford given both those things.

They also raised families in those houses – and had blocks that their kids could run around in safely.

To say, decades later, that they should not have done that IN CASE some idiot, economically and fiscally incompetent ACT Government decided to potentially triple those Annual Rates, is simply absurdly ludicrous.

No one would have seen that coming all those years ago.

For those people who have already paid their full share of Stamp Duty when they purchased a house, what the ACT Gov’t has now done is akin to “legalised” theft.

Retirees, after a lifetime of contribution to the economy and working to own a house, should not be “forced” to move into a shoebox somewhere (that will also be subject to proportionally increased Rates too btw). Particularly self funded retirees who are not a drain on the economy. These people should be looked after – not penalised financially by this idiot ACT Gov’t.

There must surely be better ways of encouraging the “target” people out of their larger homes and into smaller ones. The ACT Gov’t way of up to tripling Annual Rates is far, far too blunt.

I agree 100%.
We have to realize that the person who is causing all this future grief for us in not a family man so he is not considering the hopes, aspirations and needs of people who want to have a family as most of have. He is also totally clueless about the what able bodied retired people need.
He probably lives in a home unit, hmmmm, that could explain a few things.
Yet so many people claim to hate Tony Abbott who is about as family orientated as you can get.
There is a big article in the Canberra Times today about the big movers and shakers in Canberra. It’s long on their power and influence but short on their family values.
The times are changing.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

 Top
Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site