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

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?


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!
Filter
Order
Watson Watson 8:14 pm 07 Jun 12

Chop71 said :

Spewing that I paid over 20k in stamp duty and now are being told that I will have to pay up to double rates so others get a stamp duty reduction.

Thanks Andrew and Katy for the increase in rates.

Stamp duty concession has been around for years. They are actually lowering the threshold for existing homes so if anything, less taxes will be spent on this. Also, I doubt you would get stamp duty concession on a property that would normally attract 20K in stamp duty. It is only for properties under 380K and after that it decreases as the value increases.

p1 p1 7:41 pm 07 Jun 12

Mysteryman said :

p1 said :

c_c’s point seems to be that democracy is bad because people are too stupid to vote the way he would like?

That’s not what I thought c_c was trying to say.

Sorry, I was pissed off about something else when I posted that (and in a few other threads this afternoon…).

c_c seems to think though that most green voters would change their vote if only they knew that the end result might be a government including Labor. While I know that 50% of the voting public is of below average intelligence, I think the average lib, lab, or green voter are equally stupid or ill informed.

Chop71 Chop71 4:35 pm 07 Jun 12

Spewing that I paid over 20k in stamp duty and now are being told that I will have to pay up to double rates so others get a stamp duty reduction.

Thanks Andrew and Katy for the increase in rates.

Mysteryman Mysteryman 4:29 pm 07 Jun 12

p1 said :

c_c’s point seems to be that democracy is bad because people are too stupid to vote the way he would like?

That’s not what I thought c_c was trying to say.

p1 p1 3:29 pm 07 Jun 12

Mysteryman said :

Greens held the balance of power after the election in 2008, and decided that the Labor party would be the ones with whom they would form a minority government. They effectively chose the government from 2 possible choices. It’s could happen again this year (God forbid). That was c_c’s point.

So, I could vote Lab, Lib or Grn. I pick Green ’cause it aligns most closely with my feelings about how the place should be run. Everyone else does the same. When the numbers are counted, the Grn & Lab people band together because their stated positions most closely align. They form Government.

c_c’s point seems to be that democracy is bad because people are too stupid to vote the way he would like?

Mysteryman Mysteryman 2:52 pm 07 Jun 12

HenryBG said :

c_c said :

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

Gosh, Democracy. Can’t have that.

Would it be at all possible to explain to the class how, in a Democracy, it is possible for the Party that only gets 4 seats (out of 17) to be the one that “choose government”?

Greens held the balance of power after the election in 2008, and decided that the Labor party would be the ones with whom they would form a minority government. They effectively chose the government from 2 possible choices. It’s could happen again this year (God forbid). That was c_c’s point.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 2:32 pm 07 Jun 12

HenryBG said :

c_c said :

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

Gosh, Democracy. Can’t have that.

Would it be at all possible to explain to the class how, in a Democracy, it is possible for the Party that only gets 4 seats (out of 17) to be the one that “choose government”?

+1

HenryBG HenryBG 2:28 pm 07 Jun 12

c_c said :

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

Gosh, Democracy. Can’t have that.

Would it be at all possible to explain to the class how, in a Democracy, it is possible for the Party that only gets 4 seats (out of 17) to be the one that “choose government”?

rosscoact rosscoact 2:14 pm 07 Jun 12

c_c said :

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

It’s like voting for Lion, Tinman and Scarecrow, if one of them could only grow a heart, a brain and/or courage it would be someone to inspire

p1 p1 2:05 pm 07 Jun 12

wildturkeycanoe said :

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.

Even 700sqm is a pretty tiny block in my opinion. Personally bought the (almost) 400k old house on the 1200sqm block over the comparable size and price new place just up the road on a 550sqm block.

A friend of mine went the other option. I certainly envy some of the things about his place, shiny new, better insulated, door from garage to main house… I don’t envy the terribly shoddy building quality.

Thumper Thumper 1:55 pm 07 Jun 12

kevin22 said :

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

Ain’t going to happen man.

The Greens will be the ones who choose government and they will never side with the tories.

The recent Burch fiasco amply proved this.

c_c 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 kevin22 1:38 pm 07 Jun 12

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

bikhet 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

 Top
Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site