Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Get RSM on your side at tax time.

Zed not happy about the Stamp Duty fiddle. Tuggers families to be forced northside!

By johnboy - 6 June 2012 26

Liberal Leader Zed Seselja is hopping mad about yesterday’s ACT Budget changes to stamp duty.

ACT Opposition Leader Zed Seselja today labelled ACT Labor’s supposed
commitment to cutting stamp duty as deceptive, saying ACT Labor’s plan would leave many first home buyers who are currently eligible for concessions $8,338 worse off on the purchase of an average priced home.

“Under ACT Labor?s plan, a young family living in Tuggeranong would have to buy a brand new home in a north side greenfields development to receive any stamp duty concession,” Mr Seselja said today.

“Before yesterday?s Budget, this same family would have been eligible for stamp duty concession on established homes.

“Won’t anyone think of the Tuggeranong families” is certainly narrowing the scope of this election down to its bare essentials!

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
26 Responses to
Zed not happy about the Stamp Duty fiddle. Tuggers families to be forced northside!
c_c 1:48 pm 07 Jun 12

Whether you vote Labor or Liberal is redundant, it’s the wankers who vote Green that will choose the next government.

kevin22 1:38 pm 07 Jun 12

Bring on the Election, can’t wati to Vote Labor out.

bikhet 6:20 pm 06 Jun 12

satyr said :

Ensuring that concessions apply to greenfields developments ensures that there is increased demand for new builds without the money just going straight into the pockets of home owners.

Instead it goes straight into the pocket of the developers. Subsidies and/or concessions serve to increase demand. As the supply of the good – in this case housing – is limited, the price goes up and someone, other than the taxpayer, makes more profit.

wildturkeycanoe 5:35 pm 06 Jun 12

Solidarity said :

You got till the end of August to get the concession on established houses, or end of December to get it on new houses.

Makes no sense to me, if you’re buying at the bottom of the market, shouldn’t you be buying established property? Seems to be like your first car, you don’t go out buying a brand new car as your first one…

The new houses ARE in the bottom of the market, because established suburbs have 700+ sqm yards and with land values the way they are, cost $300k just for the block. The only resort for first home buyers is a new 300 sqm dog box. Also, first home buyers don’t want to go and buy a $400k 30-40 y.o building that needs another $100k in renovations and upgrades to make it energy efficient and liveable, then have to knock down and rebuild half way through their mortgage. Buying new is a smarter approach.

satyr 4:07 pm 06 Jun 12

Concessions to first home buyers don’t help young people, they pump more cash into the housing market and act as a transfer to home owners. Zed isn’t out to defend poor young families, he’s defending wealthy home owners in established suburbs whose properties have been slightly devalued by this decision. Ensuring that concessions apply to greenfields developments ensures that there is increased demand for new builds without the money just going straight into the pockets of home owners.

djk 3:19 pm 06 Jun 12

Solidarity said :

You got till the end of August to get the concession on established houses, or end of December to get it on new houses.

The concession on new homes does not end in December, it is ongoing.

Solidarity 2:57 pm 06 Jun 12

You got till the end of August to get the concession on established houses, or end of December to get it on new houses.

Makes no sense to me, if you’re buying at the bottom of the market, shouldn’t you be buying established property? Seems to be like your first car, you don’t go out buying a brand new car as your first one…

Keijidosha 2:34 pm 06 Jun 12

I don’t see why Zed is upset (beyond his usual grandstanding). Any house-buying incentives I have seen favour the purchase of new property over existing property to stimulate industry (and the economy). Changes to stamp duty seem to be a more permanent measure to achieve the same goal.

Watson 2:27 pm 06 Jun 12

So he is complaining that families earning $120,000+ have to pay stamp duty on an established house? Or make the decision to buy a new house if they earn less than $150,000.

I don’t really understand why there needs to be a difference between new and established properties though?

Cut them all off at $120,000 I say. On that kind of income you can afford to add another $10K to your purchase.

thatsnotme 2:25 pm 06 Jun 12

Oh Zed, are you even trying any more? Or are you just taking the lead from your Federal counterpart, where you think you can just say whatever you wish as long as it’s negative, in the hope that everyone will blindly believe you?

According to your press release;

And this hypothetical scenario reflects current practice. According to a Question
on Notice, in 2008-09, 2,466 first home owner grants were paid to the owners of
established homes, while only 492 were paid to the owners of newly constructed
homes. Clearly, first home buyers overwhelmingly purchase established homes,
and they will not be helped under ACT Labor?s transparent announcement.

‘Current Practice?!’ Why did you choose to use the figures from 2008/09, instead of the figures from 2010/11, when 1,700 purchases were for established homes, and 1,116 were for new builds? I’d have thought that far more accurately reflects ‘current practice’.

djk 2:16 pm 06 Jun 12

I like how Zed picks the older stats that suit his whinge to try and scare-monger:

“According to a Question on Notice, in 2008-09, 2,466 first home owner grants were paid to the owners of established homes, while only 492 were paid to the owners of newly constructed homes.”

when the most recent stats (clearly shown below on his release) show in that in 2010-11 the breakdown was only 1,700:1,116 in favour of established homes. In my opinion and experience, the trend towards new homes is reflective of what most first home buyers want these days.

Not denying that Labor has tried to hide the change (or rather “focus on the positive/s”), but picking and choosing stats to try and add weight to your argument is just misleading.

p1 2:13 pm 06 Jun 12

I think you will find this wasn’t a appeal by Zed to get the vote of the Tugger Families, but rather an appeal to everyone else – this budget might make tuggie thuggies move near YOU!

KB1971 1:59 pm 06 Jun 12

KB1971 said :

I see your point Evan but if I were to move closer to work I would give up a few things I like such as riding 30k m to work. Sitting in my back yar a looking at Tuggeranong Hill & Mt Rob Roy, the 5 minute drive to the Murrumbidgee for a swim in summer.

Yep, I like the inner city suburbs but for the oney I have spent on my current house I would be going severely backwards in size, rooms & quality.

I like to think I am pretty economical in commuting, I only drive the car 1-2 times a week & bus/ride the rest of the time.

Zed is right though, the Tuggeranong valley is pretty well full with no foreseeable major development plans for housing. Untits mayby but not housing, buggered if I would want to move to Gunners, I would rather live in Kiandra.

Gawd….spell check please…….you get the gist though!

KB1971 1:52 pm 06 Jun 12

I see your point Evan but if I were to move closer to work I would give up a few things I like such as riding 30k m to work. Sitting in my back yar a looking at Tuggeranong Hill & Mt Rob Roy, the 5 minute drive to the Murrumbidgee for a swim in summer.

Yep, I like the inner city suburbs but for the oney I have spent on my current house I would be going severely backwards in size, rooms & quality.

I like to think I am pretty economical in commuting, I only drive the car 1-2 times a week & bus/ride the rest of the time.

Zed is right though, the Tuggeranong valley is pretty well full with no foreseeable major development plans for housing. Untits mayby but not housing, buggered if I would want to move to Gunners, I would rather live in Kiandra.

EvanJames 1:37 pm 06 Jun 12

I guess he’s being truthful using the term “families” as you have to be one to afford a house.

It is irksome though if their focus grouping is telling them that use of the term “families” is successful and the snarling non-families aren’t numerous enough to matter.

One thing I do like with the removal of stamp duty is it will (hopefully) make it more attractive for people to move. I’m flabbergasted by the number of people who live at one corner of Canberra, and commute to the very furthest corner every day. But if moving closer to work and schooling means a slug of $20k or whatever it is (I’ve never paid it), that certainly would affect your decision to move. Shame it’s being done at snail’s pace though.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site