6 June 2012

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

| johnboy
Join the conversation
25

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!

Join the conversation

25
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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”?

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

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.

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

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

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.

wildturkeycanoe5:35 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.

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.

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.

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…

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.

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.

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’.

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.

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 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!

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.

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.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.