wildturkeycanoe said :

chewy14 said :

You may be right that people who have massively overextended themselves may struggle but I wouldn’t necessarily call the majority of those people poor, they’ve simply put too many of their eggs in one basket. Which is exactly the reason why the change is being phased in over 20 years to minimise the shock.

So buying a home or renting somebody else’ is “putting too many eggs in one basket”? How do you expect people to live without making such a huge commitment? Housing is one of the most important needs for survival and if it has somehow now become a “choice” instead of a necessity, I guess the world has gone totally crazy.
Homeowners that have already bought houses paid stamp duty, expecting to get steady rate rises. Those who are buying now get the benefit of stamp duty savings to offset their future rates. Who is the winner here? Previous buyers get the double whammy, stamp duty plus ever increasing rate rises. How is that fair? As for 20 years to minimize the shock, I don’t think annual increases of 10% is minimal at all, that is over double the rate of inflation, wage growth and possible bank interest rate increases. It is a lot of money for people who in your own words are “overextended”. They probably weren’t in that situation when they bought their properties, but with all the increased costs of living and new taxes, levies and government increases it has put them in that situation. Why is it not applicable to only new transactions instead of being retrospective? It isn’t like people knew this was coming before they bought up last decade or last century, likewise for apartment and unit dwellers who are even worse off. The housing market is already dropping and this is going to hurt even more. I dread what other taxes and levies will be introduced to offset the billions we are are paying because of a silly little toy train set for a spoiled government who wants to be like their bigger brothers and sisters in the world.

No, buying a house isn’t putting too many eggs in one basket. Buying a house where the ability to pay your mortgage is put under serious strain by the current transition away from stamp duty is. Particularly with interest rate levels at historic lows. If people are struggling now, then wait until interest rates normalise.

As a person who is one of your “previous buyers” who has paid both stamp duty and the higher rates, I realise that over the long term nearly everyone will benefit. The chances of those previous buyers continuing to remain in the one property forever is small, the vast majority of people move houses a number of times throughout their lives and this reform allows that to happen far easier than is in the past.

The increase in housing mobility allows people to move to suit their current circumstances without placing a huge stamp duty roadblock in their way which leads to higher property prices and inefficient use of land. For some people in the short term, it will cost them but on a macro and long term level, we’ll all be better off.

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

Garfield said :

JC said :

Garfield said :

chewy14 said :

Garfield said :

chewy14 said :

Yes.

On one hand we have the Labor party promoting wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on unecessary infrastructure and basically looking like an arrogant government who’s been too long in power.

Vs.

a Liberal party with no direction or stated plan other than they’ll waste as much money as the Labor party but somehow we’ll be better off.

Then the Greens party who are promoting even more social control to fit their ideology as well as the obligatory monstrous spend of other people’s money.

hmmm, who to choose? Clearly none of the above.

In relation to the Liberals, its seemed to me that quite frequently in this campaign their policy announcements have been substantially copied by Labor. For example the Libs announced $395m to expand Canberra Hospital and then some weeks later Labor announced $622m for a bigger better version of the Liberal promise. There’s been similar announcements on extra education and even bus policy. To say the Liberals are planning to spend/waste as much money as Labor does not sound correct to me. If we factor in the cost of Labor’s promised LR Stage 2, Labor’s spending commitments are much greater than the Liberals, so it may be fairer to say that the Liberals want to be a lower spending and lower taxing government.

If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge in Sydney them at you might be interested to buy.

The Liberals won’t be spending less, their priorities will simply be in different areas.

I’m almost certain too that there will be a lot of broken election promises in coming years regardless of who wins.

ABC news totalled the promises on Friday night. Labor’s promises were hundreds of millions more than the Liberals, and the totals included the cost of cancelling Stage 1 for the Libs while there was no cost assigned to Stage 2 for Labor. A Liberal government would spend less than a continuation of Labor. There may well be broken promises regardless of who wins, but Labor would have to break many more to get its spending under that of the Libs.

Academic now but for the record the ABC tallied the costed policies of each party. The Libs however left two big ones so late that treasury didn’t have time or sufficient detail to cost them.

Quite cleaver but didn’t pay off it would seem

Yes very academic now, but however big those 2 policies were, they would have been much smaller than the cost of stage 2 of light rail.

Accept the light rail cost will presumably be spread over 20 years like stage 1. So impact on budget no where near as big as ones of equal size spread over 3 for example.

And besides maybe after the PM’s praise of ACT Labor and the light rail scheme maybe some federal money may eventually come the ACTs way. Good timing those comments.

Why would the feds invest in a project that’s almost certain to have a cost benefit ratio of less than 1?

Because not everything in this world especially public infrastructure needs to have a cost benifit. Sometimes for the sake of the community things need to be built that are not 100% fiscally viable on their own.

Yes, sometimes things need to be paid for that do not have a direct financial return. Those things do not include public transport projects who have far cheaper and viable alternatives.

You yourself have said that you don’t support the second stage on this website and it’s clear that whatever the costs and benefits of the first stage, the second will have higher costs and far lower benefits due to the lack of demand and possible landuses/chances for redevelopment along the chosen route.

dungfungus said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

Garfield said :

JC said :

Garfield said :

chewy14 said :

Garfield said :

chewy14 said :

Yes.

On one hand we have the Labor party promoting wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on unecessary infrastructure and basically looking like an arrogant government who’s been too long in power.

Vs.

a Liberal party with no direction or stated plan other than they’ll waste as much money as the Labor party but somehow we’ll be better off.

Then the Greens party who are promoting even more social control to fit their ideology as well as the obligatory monstrous spend of other people’s money.

hmmm, who to choose? Clearly none of the above.

In relation to the Liberals, its seemed to me that quite frequently in this campaign their policy announcements have been substantially copied by Labor. For example the Libs announced $395m to expand Canberra Hospital and then some weeks later Labor announced $622m for a bigger better version of the Liberal promise. There’s been similar announcements on extra education and even bus policy. To say the Liberals are planning to spend/waste as much money as Labor does not sound correct to me. If we factor in the cost of Labor’s promised LR Stage 2, Labor’s spending commitments are much greater than the Liberals, so it may be fairer to say that the Liberals want to be a lower spending and lower taxing government.

If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge in Sydney them at you might be interested to buy.

The Liberals won’t be spending less, their priorities will simply be in different areas.

I’m almost certain too that there will be a lot of broken election promises in coming years regardless of who wins.

ABC news totalled the promises on Friday night. Labor’s promises were hundreds of millions more than the Liberals, and the totals included the cost of cancelling Stage 1 for the Libs while there was no cost assigned to Stage 2 for Labor. A Liberal government would spend less than a continuation of Labor. There may well be broken promises regardless of who wins, but Labor would have to break many more to get its spending under that of the Libs.

Academic now but for the record the ABC tallied the costed policies of each party. The Libs however left two big ones so late that treasury didn’t have time or sufficient detail to cost them.

Quite cleaver but didn’t pay off it would seem

Yes very academic now, but however big those 2 policies were, they would have been much smaller than the cost of stage 2 of light rail.

Accept the light rail cost will presumably be spread over 20 years like stage 1. So impact on budget no where near as big as ones of equal size spread over 3 for example.

And besides maybe after the PM’s praise of ACT Labor and the light rail scheme maybe some federal money may eventually come the ACTs way. Good timing those comments.

Why would the feds invest in a project that’s almost certain to have a cost benefit ratio of less than 1?

Because not everything in this world especially public infrastructure needs to have a cost benifit. Sometimes for the sake of the community things need to be built that are not 100% fiscally viable on their own.

I know we don’t agree on many things JC but I respect you general knowledge and you insider knowledge on the machinations of our “everGreen” Labor government.

So, what category does the Westside Container Village come under?
Is it public infrastructure or public art?

Either-way I think you would have to agree with me that it is not 100% fiscally viable so why is it still there?

Good question. Wish it was removed too.

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

Garfield said :

JC said :

Garfield said :

chewy14 said :

Garfield said :

chewy14 said :

Yes.

On one hand we have the Labor party promoting wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on unecessary infrastructure and basically looking like an arrogant government who’s been too long in power.

Vs.

a Liberal party with no direction or stated plan other than they’ll waste as much money as the Labor party but somehow we’ll be better off.

Then the Greens party who are promoting even more social control to fit their ideology as well as the obligatory monstrous spend of other people’s money.

hmmm, who to choose? Clearly none of the above.

In relation to the Liberals, its seemed to me that quite frequently in this campaign their policy announcements have been substantially copied by Labor. For example the Libs announced $395m to expand Canberra Hospital and then some weeks later Labor announced $622m for a bigger better version of the Liberal promise. There’s been similar announcements on extra education and even bus policy. To say the Liberals are planning to spend/waste as much money as Labor does not sound correct to me. If we factor in the cost of Labor’s promised LR Stage 2, Labor’s spending commitments are much greater than the Liberals, so it may be fairer to say that the Liberals want to be a lower spending and lower taxing government.

If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge in Sydney them at you might be interested to buy.

The Liberals won’t be spending less, their priorities will simply be in different areas.

I’m almost certain too that there will be a lot of broken election promises in coming years regardless of who wins.

ABC news totalled the promises on Friday night. Labor’s promises were hundreds of millions more than the Liberals, and the totals included the cost of cancelling Stage 1 for the Libs while there was no cost assigned to Stage 2 for Labor. A Liberal government would spend less than a continuation of Labor. There may well be broken promises regardless of who wins, but Labor would have to break many more to get its spending under that of the Libs.

Academic now but for the record the ABC tallied the costed policies of each party. The Libs however left two big ones so late that treasury didn’t have time or sufficient detail to cost them.

Quite cleaver but didn’t pay off it would seem

Yes very academic now, but however big those 2 policies were, they would have been much smaller than the cost of stage 2 of light rail.

Accept the light rail cost will presumably be spread over 20 years like stage 1. So impact on budget no where near as big as ones of equal size spread over 3 for example.

And besides maybe after the PM’s praise of ACT Labor and the light rail scheme maybe some federal money may eventually come the ACTs way. Good timing those comments.

Why would the feds invest in a project that’s almost certain to have a cost benefit ratio of less than 1?

Because not everything in this world especially public infrastructure needs to have a cost benifit. Sometimes for the sake of the community things need to be built that are not 100% fiscally viable on their own.

I know we don’t agree on many things JC but I respect you general knowledge and you insider knowledge on the machinations of our “everGreen” Labor government.

So, what category does the Westside Container Village come under?
Is it public infrastructure or public art?

Either-way I think you would have to agree with me that it is not 100% fiscally viable so why is it still there?

chewy14 said :

You may be right that people who have massively overextended themselves may struggle but I wouldn’t necessarily call the majority of those people poor, they’ve simply put too many of their eggs in one basket. Which is exactly the reason why the change is being phased in over 20 years to minimise the shock.

So buying a home or renting somebody else’ is “putting too many eggs in one basket”? How do you expect people to live without making such a huge commitment? Housing is one of the most important needs for survival and if it has somehow now become a “choice” instead of a necessity, I guess the world has gone totally crazy.
Homeowners that have already bought houses paid stamp duty, expecting to get steady rate rises. Those who are buying now get the benefit of stamp duty savings to offset their future rates. Who is the winner here? Previous buyers get the double whammy, stamp duty plus ever increasing rate rises. How is that fair? As for 20 years to minimize the shock, I don’t think annual increases of 10% is minimal at all, that is over double the rate of inflation, wage growth and possible bank interest rate increases. It is a lot of money for people who in your own words are “overextended”. They probably weren’t in that situation when they bought their properties, but with all the increased costs of living and new taxes, levies and government increases it has put them in that situation. Why is it not applicable to only new transactions instead of being retrospective? It isn’t like people knew this was coming before they bought up last decade or last century, likewise for apartment and unit dwellers who are even worse off. The housing market is already dropping and this is going to hurt even more. I dread what other taxes and levies will be introduced to offset the billions we are are paying because of a silly little toy train set for a spoiled government who wants to be like their bigger brothers and sisters in the world.

chewy14 said :

JC said :

Garfield said :

JC said :

Garfield said :

chewy14 said :

Garfield said :

chewy14 said :

Yes.

On one hand we have the Labor party promoting wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on unecessary infrastructure and basically looking like an arrogant government who’s been too long in power.

Vs.

a Liberal party with no direction or stated plan other than they’ll waste as much money as the Labor party but somehow we’ll be better off.

Then the Greens party who are promoting even more social control to fit their ideology as well as the obligatory monstrous spend of other people’s money.

hmmm, who to choose? Clearly none of the above.

In relation to the Liberals, its seemed to me that quite frequently in this campaign their policy announcements have been substantially copied by Labor. For example the Libs announced $395m to expand Canberra Hospital and then some weeks later Labor announced $622m for a bigger better version of the Liberal promise. There’s been similar announcements on extra education and even bus policy. To say the Liberals are planning to spend/waste as much money as Labor does not sound correct to me. If we factor in the cost of Labor’s promised LR Stage 2, Labor’s spending commitments are much greater than the Liberals, so it may be fairer to say that the Liberals want to be a lower spending and lower taxing government.

If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge in Sydney them at you might be interested to buy.

The Liberals won’t be spending less, their priorities will simply be in different areas.

I’m almost certain too that there will be a lot of broken election promises in coming years regardless of who wins.

ABC news totalled the promises on Friday night. Labor’s promises were hundreds of millions more than the Liberals, and the totals included the cost of cancelling Stage 1 for the Libs while there was no cost assigned to Stage 2 for Labor. A Liberal government would spend less than a continuation of Labor. There may well be broken promises regardless of who wins, but Labor would have to break many more to get its spending under that of the Libs.

Academic now but for the record the ABC tallied the costed policies of each party. The Libs however left two big ones so late that treasury didn’t have time or sufficient detail to cost them.

Quite cleaver but didn’t pay off it would seem

Yes very academic now, but however big those 2 policies were, they would have been much smaller than the cost of stage 2 of light rail.

Accept the light rail cost will presumably be spread over 20 years like stage 1. So impact on budget no where near as big as ones of equal size spread over 3 for example.

And besides maybe after the PM’s praise of ACT Labor and the light rail scheme maybe some federal money may eventually come the ACTs way. Good timing those comments.

Why would the feds invest in a project that’s almost certain to have a cost benefit ratio of less than 1?

Because not everything in this world especially public infrastructure needs to have a cost benifit. Sometimes for the sake of the community things need to be built that are not 100% fiscally viable on their own.

So all the feds would have to do is to setup 1 or 2 multi million dollar positions to buy off Labor members causing a recount? They would then resign and hand over the win to the liberals? Thats the same as Labor before the election.

JC said :

Garfield said :

JC said :

Garfield said :

chewy14 said :

Garfield said :

chewy14 said :

Yes.

On one hand we have the Labor party promoting wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on unecessary infrastructure and basically looking like an arrogant government who’s been too long in power.

Vs.

a Liberal party with no direction or stated plan other than they’ll waste as much money as the Labor party but somehow we’ll be better off.

Then the Greens party who are promoting even more social control to fit their ideology as well as the obligatory monstrous spend of other people’s money.

hmmm, who to choose? Clearly none of the above.

In relation to the Liberals, its seemed to me that quite frequently in this campaign their policy announcements have been substantially copied by Labor. For example the Libs announced $395m to expand Canberra Hospital and then some weeks later Labor announced $622m for a bigger better version of the Liberal promise. There’s been similar announcements on extra education and even bus policy. To say the Liberals are planning to spend/waste as much money as Labor does not sound correct to me. If we factor in the cost of Labor’s promised LR Stage 2, Labor’s spending commitments are much greater than the Liberals, so it may be fairer to say that the Liberals want to be a lower spending and lower taxing government.

If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge in Sydney them at you might be interested to buy.

The Liberals won’t be spending less, their priorities will simply be in different areas.

I’m almost certain too that there will be a lot of broken election promises in coming years regardless of who wins.

ABC news totalled the promises on Friday night. Labor’s promises were hundreds of millions more than the Liberals, and the totals included the cost of cancelling Stage 1 for the Libs while there was no cost assigned to Stage 2 for Labor. A Liberal government would spend less than a continuation of Labor. There may well be broken promises regardless of who wins, but Labor would have to break many more to get its spending under that of the Libs.

Academic now but for the record the ABC tallied the costed policies of each party. The Libs however left two big ones so late that treasury didn’t have time or sufficient detail to cost them.

Quite cleaver but didn’t pay off it would seem

Yes very academic now, but however big those 2 policies were, they would have been much smaller than the cost of stage 2 of light rail.

Accept the light rail cost will presumably be spread over 20 years like stage 1. So impact on budget no where near as big as ones of equal size spread over 3 for example.

And besides maybe after the PM’s praise of ACT Labor and the light rail scheme maybe some federal money may eventually come the ACTs way. Good timing those comments.

Why would the feds invest in a project that’s almost certain to have a cost benefit ratio of less than 1?

Garfield said :

JC said :

Garfield said :

chewy14 said :

Garfield said :

chewy14 said :

Yes.

On one hand we have the Labor party promoting wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on unecessary infrastructure and basically looking like an arrogant government who’s been too long in power.

Vs.

a Liberal party with no direction or stated plan other than they’ll waste as much money as the Labor party but somehow we’ll be better off.

Then the Greens party who are promoting even more social control to fit their ideology as well as the obligatory monstrous spend of other people’s money.

hmmm, who to choose? Clearly none of the above.

In relation to the Liberals, its seemed to me that quite frequently in this campaign their policy announcements have been substantially copied by Labor. For example the Libs announced $395m to expand Canberra Hospital and then some weeks later Labor announced $622m for a bigger better version of the Liberal promise. There’s been similar announcements on extra education and even bus policy. To say the Liberals are planning to spend/waste as much money as Labor does not sound correct to me. If we factor in the cost of Labor’s promised LR Stage 2, Labor’s spending commitments are much greater than the Liberals, so it may be fairer to say that the Liberals want to be a lower spending and lower taxing government.

If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge in Sydney them at you might be interested to buy.

The Liberals won’t be spending less, their priorities will simply be in different areas.

I’m almost certain too that there will be a lot of broken election promises in coming years regardless of who wins.

ABC news totalled the promises on Friday night. Labor’s promises were hundreds of millions more than the Liberals, and the totals included the cost of cancelling Stage 1 for the Libs while there was no cost assigned to Stage 2 for Labor. A Liberal government would spend less than a continuation of Labor. There may well be broken promises regardless of who wins, but Labor would have to break many more to get its spending under that of the Libs.

Academic now but for the record the ABC tallied the costed policies of each party. The Libs however left two big ones so late that treasury didn’t have time or sufficient detail to cost them.

Quite cleaver but didn’t pay off it would seem

Yes very academic now, but however big those 2 policies were, they would have been much smaller than the cost of stage 2 of light rail.

Accept the light rail cost will presumably be spread over 20 years like stage 1. So impact on budget no where near as big as ones of equal size spread over 3 for example.

And besides maybe after the PM’s praise of ACT Labor and the light rail scheme maybe some federal money may eventually come the ACTs way. Good timing those comments.

JC said :

Garfield said :

chewy14 said :

Garfield said :

chewy14 said :

Yes.

On one hand we have the Labor party promoting wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on unecessary infrastructure and basically looking like an arrogant government who’s been too long in power.

Vs.

a Liberal party with no direction or stated plan other than they’ll waste as much money as the Labor party but somehow we’ll be better off.

Then the Greens party who are promoting even more social control to fit their ideology as well as the obligatory monstrous spend of other people’s money.

hmmm, who to choose? Clearly none of the above.

In relation to the Liberals, its seemed to me that quite frequently in this campaign their policy announcements have been substantially copied by Labor. For example the Libs announced $395m to expand Canberra Hospital and then some weeks later Labor announced $622m for a bigger better version of the Liberal promise. There’s been similar announcements on extra education and even bus policy. To say the Liberals are planning to spend/waste as much money as Labor does not sound correct to me. If we factor in the cost of Labor’s promised LR Stage 2, Labor’s spending commitments are much greater than the Liberals, so it may be fairer to say that the Liberals want to be a lower spending and lower taxing government.

If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge in Sydney them at you might be interested to buy.

The Liberals won’t be spending less, their priorities will simply be in different areas.

I’m almost certain too that there will be a lot of broken election promises in coming years regardless of who wins.

ABC news totalled the promises on Friday night. Labor’s promises were hundreds of millions more than the Liberals, and the totals included the cost of cancelling Stage 1 for the Libs while there was no cost assigned to Stage 2 for Labor. A Liberal government would spend less than a continuation of Labor. There may well be broken promises regardless of who wins, but Labor would have to break many more to get its spending under that of the Libs.

Academic now but for the record the ABC tallied the costed policies of each party. The Libs however left two big ones so late that treasury didn’t have time or sufficient detail to cost them.

Quite cleaver but didn’t pay off it would seem

Yes very academic now, but however big those 2 policies were, they would have been much smaller than the cost of stage 2 of light rail.

JC said :

Academic now but for the record the ABC tallied the costed policies of each party. The Libs however left two big ones so late that treasury didn’t have time or sufficient detail to cost them. Quite cleaver but didn’t pay off it would seem

It is all academic now, the people have spoken. So be it.

the Libs were not clever re those non submitted costings. But ACT Labor did not even cost or submit their costing for their commitment/promise to sign contracts in the next term for tram stage 2 to Woden. That’s a hugely more expensive non submitted & uncosted commitment/promise than anything the Libs didnt submit.

Garfield said :

chewy14 said :

Garfield said :

chewy14 said :

Yes.

On one hand we have the Labor party promoting wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on unecessary infrastructure and basically looking like an arrogant government who’s been too long in power.

Vs.

a Liberal party with no direction or stated plan other than they’ll waste as much money as the Labor party but somehow we’ll be better off.

Then the Greens party who are promoting even more social control to fit their ideology as well as the obligatory monstrous spend of other people’s money.

hmmm, who to choose? Clearly none of the above.

In relation to the Liberals, its seemed to me that quite frequently in this campaign their policy announcements have been substantially copied by Labor. For example the Libs announced $395m to expand Canberra Hospital and then some weeks later Labor announced $622m for a bigger better version of the Liberal promise. There’s been similar announcements on extra education and even bus policy. To say the Liberals are planning to spend/waste as much money as Labor does not sound correct to me. If we factor in the cost of Labor’s promised LR Stage 2, Labor’s spending commitments are much greater than the Liberals, so it may be fairer to say that the Liberals want to be a lower spending and lower taxing government.

If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge in Sydney them at you might be interested to buy.

The Liberals won’t be spending less, their priorities will simply be in different areas.

I’m almost certain too that there will be a lot of broken election promises in coming years regardless of who wins.

ABC news totalled the promises on Friday night. Labor’s promises were hundreds of millions more than the Liberals, and the totals included the cost of cancelling Stage 1 for the Libs while there was no cost assigned to Stage 2 for Labor. A Liberal government would spend less than a continuation of Labor. There may well be broken promises regardless of who wins, but Labor would have to break many more to get its spending under that of the Libs.

Academic now but for the record the ABC tallied the costed policies of each party. The Libs however left two big ones so late that treasury didn’t have time or sufficient detail to cost them.

Quite cleaver but didn’t pay off it would seem

bj_ACT said :

I absolutely stand by my original claim that the changes benefit the property industry (why would they have lobbied the government for the change from stamp duty to higher rates?)

There will always be isolated examples that differ from the norm, but I can’t believe you think rates rises for working poor with high mortgages are better off with less stamp duty and higher annual rates.

Labor’s new Stamp Duty policy was poorly designed and should have been better targeted to improve land usage without hitting the poor of canberra so hard.

Whilst I totally agree with you, it matters nothing as according to the ABCs Anthony Green, Labor/Greens have been returned.

Garfield said :

chewy14 said :

Garfield said :

chewy14 said :

Yes.

On one hand we have the Labor party promoting wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on unecessary infrastructure and basically looking like an arrogant government who’s been too long in power.

Vs.

a Liberal party with no direction or stated plan other than they’ll waste as much money as the Labor party but somehow we’ll be better off.

Then the Greens party who are promoting even more social control to fit their ideology as well as the obligatory monstrous spend of other people’s money.

hmmm, who to choose? Clearly none of the above.

In relation to the Liberals, its seemed to me that quite frequently in this campaign their policy announcements have been substantially copied by Labor. For example the Libs announced $395m to expand Canberra Hospital and then some weeks later Labor announced $622m for a bigger better version of the Liberal promise. There’s been similar announcements on extra education and even bus policy. To say the Liberals are planning to spend/waste as much money as Labor does not sound correct to me. If we factor in the cost of Labor’s promised LR Stage 2, Labor’s spending commitments are much greater than the Liberals, so it may be fairer to say that the Liberals want to be a lower spending and lower taxing government.

If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge in Sydney them at you might be interested to buy.

The Liberals won’t be spending less, their priorities will simply be in different areas.

I’m almost certain too that there will be a lot of broken election promises in coming years regardless of who wins.

ABC news totalled the promises on Friday night. Labor’s promises were hundreds of millions more than the Liberals, and the totals included the cost of cancelling Stage 1 for the Libs while there was no cost assigned to Stage 2 for Labor. A Liberal government would spend less than a continuation of Labor. There may well be broken promises regardless of who wins, but Labor would have to break many more to get its spending under that of the Libs.

This damning assessment should have been promulgated to the electorate several days ago. To announce it 13 hours before the election is calculated bastardry and it will probably get Labor over the line again.

Garfield said :

chewy14 said :

Garfield said :

chewy14 said :

Yes.

On one hand we have the Labor party promoting wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on unecessary infrastructure and basically looking like an arrogant government who’s been too long in power.

Vs.

a Liberal party with no direction or stated plan other than they’ll waste as much money as the Labor party but somehow we’ll be better off.

Then the Greens party who are promoting even more social control to fit their ideology as well as the obligatory monstrous spend of other people’s money.

hmmm, who to choose? Clearly none of the above.

In relation to the Liberals, its seemed to me that quite frequently in this campaign their policy announcements have been substantially copied by Labor. For example the Libs announced $395m to expand Canberra Hospital and then some weeks later Labor announced $622m for a bigger better version of the Liberal promise. There’s been similar announcements on extra education and even bus policy. To say the Liberals are planning to spend/waste as much money as Labor does not sound correct to me. If we factor in the cost of Labor’s promised LR Stage 2, Labor’s spending commitments are much greater than the Liberals, so it may be fairer to say that the Liberals want to be a lower spending and lower taxing government.

If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge in Sydney them at you might be interested to buy.

The Liberals won’t be spending less, their priorities will simply be in different areas.

I’m almost certain too that there will be a lot of broken election promises in coming years regardless of who wins.

ABC news totalled the promises on Friday night. Labor’s promises were hundreds of millions more than the Liberals, and the totals included the cost of cancelling Stage 1 for the Libs while there was no cost assigned to Stage 2 for Labor. A Liberal government would spend less than a continuation of Labor. There may well be broken promises regardless of who wins, but Labor would have to break many more to get its spending under that of the Libs.

Link?

There’s also different types of spending, how much was recurrent vs infrastructure or other investment that would be expected to gain a direct financial return?

bj_ACT said :

chewy14 said :

bj_ACT said :

I am a Rabbit™ said :

Garfield said :

Liberals want to be a lower spending and lower taxing government.

I’m surprised people still don’t realise this. It’s pretty obvious that the Liberals boycott of the rate increases are going to lead to significantly decreased tax revenue. Unlike previous years stamp duty simply can’t be relied upon anymore as we’ve come to the end of the housing boom which has lasted decades, The liberals have so far zealously avoided the issue of what services they’re going to cut (roadworks? health? education? aged care?) in order for their revenue policies to be sustainable.

I think the issue with this argument is that Labor said the Rates rises would be ‘revenue neutral’ so ‘in theory’ there would be not be the significantly decreased tax revenue between the two tax plans that you claim.

However, I think in reality you are probably right. Labor’s rate rises hit the outer suburbs, whose homeowners were struggling to pay off their first house. These strugglers are not the people who would benefit from less sales tax when moving up to a bigger and better house in inner Canberra.

So in reality the working poor with mortgages have paid extra in rates, while property investors and the people trading up to a bigger and better house have saved Stamp Duty money.

Labor unfortunately got the new Rates model wrong and collected too much tax from the working poor homeowners, too much from renters of someone else’s investment property and too much from self funded retirees who had long paid off their house. The Canberra times ran a story where Andrew Barr conceded that tax year Revenue was above expectations due to the changes in rates and Stamp Duty.

I think this means that the Liberals will have to fess up to reduced revenue by their policy to cut the Rates increases. Talk about being painted into a corner.

You’ve got this completely back to front.

Labors changes affect property investors and speculators far more than poor, working homeowners.

It increases holding costs whilst encouraging housing mobility and efficient uses of land. This means that housing investors can’t simply sit on inner city blocks of land paying lower rates and waiting for capital gains as easily.

You can see a perfect example of this in yesterday’s Canberra Times where a multi-millionaire property developer was complaining about the massive increase in his rates (holding costs) whilst he was not utilising his land to the full extent capable. This means he has to either use the land more efficiently or sell and can’t simply hoard the land on the hope of the evenuation of capital gains which is what property investors are after.

You say I’ve got it completely back to front. You might like to re-read the article. The major cause of that rates increase was due to rezoning of the land to allow the owner to build a 5 Storey building with shops and Units. Something he was not able to do.

I absolutely stand by my original claim that the changes benefit the property industry (why would they have lobbied the government for the change from stamp duty to higher rates?)

There will always be isolated examples that differ from the norm, but I can’t believe you think rates rises for working poor with high mortgages are better off with less stamp duty and higher annual rates.

Your own words might be correct for inner city blocks where more efficient use of the land could be made, but for this gain you are hitting a huge percentage of people out in the suburbs where more efficient use of their land is not viable for at least a century.

Labor’s new Stamp Duty policy was poorly designed and should have been better targeted to improve land usage without hitting the poor of canberra so hard.

No, ill stick by my comment too and you even provide part of my argument. The whole reason some people have such high mortgages is due to the ability of property investors to hold the market to ransom and bid up prices.

The change to higher rates will actually normalise prices and reduce the ability to hold property cheaply for speculative gain from those investors. “battlers” won’t have such onerous mortgages because land will be used more efficiently and will be cheaper overall.

You may be right that people who have massively overextended themselves may struggle but I wouldn’t necessarily call the majority of those people poor, they’ve simply put too many of their eggs in one basket. Which is exactly the reason why the change is being phased in over 20 years to minimise the shock.