Jacinta Allan - Leading a zombie government

[Sttew]

With their careers peaking decades ago, these people get dumped on Australia to try to eek a little more out on the preface of being an “international star”.

To be fair, though, he’s out here to promote his movie that was mostly filmed in Melbourne. And the show at Fed Square this afternoon is free.

I still think Robbie Williams’ GF half time show is the best yet.

 

[FIGJAM]

That’s 25,000 new home owners. They said the tax wouldn’t work

There will be bugs to iron it though

The main "bug" to iron though is that eradicating the appetite for investors in Victoria means that high density developments are unfeasible and can't get off the ground.

Plus there ain't 25,000 new homes; just a bit of relief in some rental markets.

I'm all for strong vacant property taxes (within reason for some development sites), but the increases in land tax and an already blisteringly high stamp duty, has seen investors move out of the market, meaning that the Vic Govt miss out on those land taxes. Ultimately, these tax increases had nothing to do with getting people into their own home, but paying for the eye watering debt from botched Covid responses and painfully slow reopening, cost blow outs, Comm Games faceplants, etc.

 

[peetoo]

The main "bug" to iron though is that eradicating the appetite for investors in Victoria means that high density developments are unfeasible and can't get off the ground.

Plus there ain't 25,000 new homes; just a bit of relief in some rental markets.

I'm all for strong vacant property taxes (within reason for some development sites), but the increases in land tax and an already blisteringly high stamp duty, has seen investors move out of the market, meaning that the Vic Govt miss out on those land taxes. Ultimately, these tax increases had nothing to do with getting people into their own home, but paying for the eye watering debt from botched Covid responses and painfully slow reopening, cost blow outs, Comm Games faceplants, etc

It clearly states they sold their investment properties

Who bought them? I didn’t say 25000 new homes

 

[nut]

It clearly states they sold their investment properties

Who bought them? I didn’t say 25000 new homes

What will be the Herald Sun Headline?

Jacinta gets 25000 first home buyers a home.

Home buyers rejoice- well done Jacinta.

Victoria - the Home buyer state!

What cost of living Crisis? New home buyers galore!!

 

[Sttew]

What will be the Herald Sun Headline?

Jacinta gets 25000 first home buyers a home.

Home buyers rejoice- well done Jacinta.

Victoria - the Home buyer state!

What cost of living Crisis? New home buyers galore!!

“ ALLAN GOVERNMENT PLANS FOR HIGH RISE APARTMENTS IN KEY SUBURBS IN TATTERS AS DEVELOPERS AND INVESTORS DESERT VICTORIA IN DROVES”

 

[nut]

“ ALLAN GOVERNMENT PLANS FOR HIGH RISE APARTMENTS IN KEY SUBURBS IN TATTERS AS DEVELOPERS AND INVESTORS DESERT VICTORIA IN DROVES”

Yep. They’ll go with the negative.

 

[peetoo]

Allen getting the Julia Gillard edit here.

While the post metro city loop improvements should happen, it’s wrong for the headline to say other services will be cut. It’s just they won’t be improved as much as they would have been, which the report actually says later in the footage.

Just media desperation to blunt the good news story of metro

 

[peetoo]

“ ALLAN GOVERNMENT PLANS FOR HIGH RISE APARTMENTS IN KEY SUBURBS IN TATTERS AS DEVELOPERS AND INVESTORS DESERT VICTORIA IN DROVES”

Yep, and there are still more empty residences than people looking for homes

 

[FIGJAM]

It clearly states they sold their investment properties

Who bought them? I didn’t say 25000 new homes

I know you didn’t say that, but you did infer that the "taxes" has somehow "worked".

In my view, the threat of the VRLT would have some minor impact for land bankers and people who've bought apartments and can't be bothered leasing them out (happens a lot in the city with overseas purchasers).

But that's rats and mice stuff in the scheme of things. Most places get leased out, even those in Urban Growth Zones or Green Wedge Zones that are clearly getting land banked.

The windfall gains tax I get, as the jump from a Green Wedge Zone to Urban Growth, or Gen Res to Res Growth, can jump tenfold in value at the stroke of a pen. But then the effect will be twofold in that is will reduce demand and prices for GWZ properties on the metro fringe and thus they will get less land tax.

And with land tax and stamp duty increases over $2M, we can't pretend that it's sole intent is to address our spiralling net debt, which we saw finally twig with Andrews / Pallas / Allan shitting the bed in real time, which coincided with the embarrassing Comm Games dump.

So we lose 25,000 rented apartments for 25,000 first home buyers (they wont all be, but let's run with that!). That's 25,000 less pre-change land tax recepts. I can only assume that they have crunched various numbers allowing for this reduction in an infinitely better way than they crunched the numbers for the Comm Games and various infrastructure projects?

And again, if future supply is being restricted by a lack of feasibility, what exactly has "worked" about the taxes?

 

[peetoo]

I know you didn’t say that, but you did infer that the "taxes" has somehow "worked".

In my view, the threat of the VRLT would have some minor impact for land bankers and people who've bought apartments and can't be bothered leasing them out (happens a lot in the city with overseas purchasers).

But that's rats and mice stuff in the scheme of things. Most places get leased out, even those in Urban Growth Zones or Green Wedge Zones that are clearly getting land banked.

The windfall gains tax I get, as the jump from a Green Wedge Zone to Urban Growth, or Gen Res to Res Growth, can jump tenfold in value at the stroke of a pen. But then the effect will be twofold in that is will reduce demand and prices for GWZ properties on the metro fringe and thus they will get less land tax.

And with land tax and stamp duty increases over $2M, we can't pretend that it's sole intent is to address our spiralling net debt, which we saw finally twig with Andrews / Pallas / Allan shitting the bed in real time, which coincided with the embarrassing Comm Games dump.

So we lose 25,000 rented apartments for 25,000 first home buyers (they wont all be, but let's run with that!). That's 25,000 less pre-change land tax recepts. I can only assume that they have crunched various numbers allowing for this reduction in an infinitely better way than they crunched the numbers for the Comm Games and various infrastructure projects?

And again, if future supply is being restricted by a lack of feasibility, what exactly has "worked" about the taxes?

It’s over to the feds to fix the rest

 

[Golden_6]

I know you didn’t say that, but you did infer that the "taxes" has somehow "worked".

In my view, the threat of the VRLT would have some minor impact for land bankers and people who've bought apartments and can't be bothered leasing them out (happens a lot in the city with overseas purchasers).

But that's rats and mice stuff in the scheme of things. Most places get leased out, even those in Urban Growth Zones or Green Wedge Zones that are clearly getting land banked.

The windfall gains tax I get, as the jump from a Green Wedge Zone to Urban Growth, or Gen Res to Res Growth, can jump tenfold in value at the stroke of a pen. But then the effect will be twofold in that is will reduce demand and prices for GWZ properties on the metro fringe and thus they will get less land tax.

And with land tax and stamp duty increases over $2M, we can't pretend that it's sole intent is to address our spiralling net debt, which we saw finally twig with Andrews / Pallas / Allan shitting the bed in real time, which coincided with the embarrassing Comm Games dump.

So we lose 25,000 rented apartments for 25,000 first home buyers (they wont all be, but let's run with that!). That's 25,000 less pre-change land tax recepts. I can only assume that they have crunched various numbers allowing for this reduction in an infinitely better way than they crunched the numbers for the Comm Games and various infrastructure projects?

And again, if future supply is being restricted by a lack of feasibility, what exactly has "worked" about the taxes?

25,000 pre-change land tax tax receipts but 25,000 additional stamp duty receipts.

I think the Victorian Government would much prefer the significantly higher one off tax than the significantly lower ongoing one.

Stamp duty is a major reason why people don’t move houses often. It’s a horrific tax that hasn’t been adjusted to keep pace with the rate of house price growth and actually makes zero sense.

Why should a primary residence homeowner be slugged $50k+ just for purchasing a main residence?

 

[FIGJAM]

It’s over to the feds to fix the rest

Why?

And how?

 

[FIGJAM]

25,000 pre-change land tax tax receipts but 25,000 additional stamp duty receipts.

You're assuming that the investors have all jumped because of the new taxes only and not because of everything else with regards to cost of living pressures.

Then you're assuming that the volume of transactions in Victoria have gone up in 2024 to 2023. I don't have data on that, but I do know that there is a solid chance that that has gone backwards, as listings definitely went up and prices (on the whole) went backwards in Victoria (indicating much reduced demand).

I'm not begrudging first home buyers getting a foot in the market and indeed, think the Shared Equity arrangement has been an excellent policy.

I'm just of the opinion that there are people unfairly gunning at landlords as though they're to blame for the housing crisis, which is a worldwide phenomena (save for like a few exceptions). I mean, if higher land tax was the simple solution, then Allan should just bump it to 20% and get every Victorian a joint. Of course, that would throw us into a peculiar state-only depression that would be catastrophic for a variety of reasons, largely because the Victorians wouldn't have a job to be able to afford the dwellings that they were lamenting not being able to afford in the first place!

FWIW, I don't own an investment property.

Stamp duty is a major reason why people don’t move houses often. It’s a horrific tax that hasn’t been adjusted to keep pace with the rate of house price growth and actually makes zero sense.

Why should a primary residence homeowner be slugged $50k+ just for purchasing a main residence?

Could not agree more with you. It's a disgrace!

 

[Deliverance]

The age late to the party like normal.
Some of this stuff was descoped 5 years ago.

2nd time the6ve done that in 12 months. Literally no purpose other than to manipulate people to vote LNP

 

[Deliverance]

It’s over to the feds to fix the rest

Doubt they care, considering many of them own more properties than they need, for the purposes of making themselves richer.

 

[peetoo]

Really it’s “labor’s doing nothing”

They do something and its

“Labor’s doing the wrong thing”

 

[Saint]

The main "bug" to iron though is that eradicating the appetite for investors in Victoria means that high density developments are unfeasible and can't get off the ground.

Plus there ain't 25,000 new homes; just a bit of relief in some rental markets.

I'm all for strong vacant property taxes (within reason for some development sites), but the increases in land tax and an already blisteringly high stamp duty, has seen investors move out of the market, meaning that the Vic Govt miss out on those land taxes. Ultimately, these tax increases had nothing to do with getting people into their own home, but paying for the eye watering debt from botched Covid responses and painfully slow reopening, cost blow outs, Comm Games faceplants, etc.

High density isn't feasible because the cost comparison of a high rise apartment against a 4br new-build in the oodles of space in the north and west is still pretty poor.

A 2br apartment in Box Hill or Carnegie is $600-650k, there's stacks on the market.

In Tarneit, you can get a 4br house on its own 450sqm land for that price.

Unlike Sydney, there's still stacks of land to build on in Melbourne and instead of accommodating what most people want, by providing the infrastructure to those Western Growth areas, we have a Govt committed to building a train line to sustain high density living which simply doesn't have the demand.

The project is a shambles, the value capture trigger won't happen and the state will be more broke in 10 years if it goes ahead than if it doesn't. And everyone who moves to the west and north will pay the price in packed trains and traffic gridlock.

 

[Gralin]

High density isn't feasible because the cost comparison of a high rise apartment against a 4br new-build in the oodles of space in the north and west is still pretty poor.

A 2br apartment in Box Hill or Carnegie is $600-650k, there's stacks on the market.

In Tarneit, you can get a 4br house on its own 450sqm land for that price.

Unlike Sydney, there's still stacks of land to build on in Melbourne and instead of accommodating what most people want, by providing the infrastructure to those Western Growth areas, we have a Govt committed to building a train line to sustain high density living which simply doesn't have the demand.

The project is a shambles, the value capture trigger won't happen and the state will be more broke in 10 years if it goes ahead than if it doesn't. And everyone who moves to the west and north will pay the price in packed trains and traffic gridlock.

Urban sprawl is ****ing terrible though

 

[Saint]

Urban sprawl is ****ing terrible though

Yes, for lots of reasons, but it's still the preferred form of living for most people. Noting that these new estates are 3-4x more dense than suburbs like Templestowe or 2x as dense as Altona.

The estates in the west are twice as dense as most of the eastern suburbs where the SRL goes through.

So why do new estates with more density get deprived?

Sure, we'd like to discourage low density, but building a new train line through low-density suburbs and hoping everyone changes their preferences isn't the answer.

 

[Gralin]

Yes, for lots of reasons, but it's still the preferred form of living for most people. Noting that these new estates are 3-4x more dense than suburbs like Templestowe or 2x as dense as Altona.

The estates in the west are twice as dense as most of the eastern suburbs where the SRL goes through.

So why do new estates with more density get deprived?

Sure, we'd like to discourage low density, but building a new train line through low-density suburbs and hoping everyone changes their preferences isn't the answer.

We don't build infra for new estates

The government council and developer all fight over who pays and in the end nothing is done

People will live where they can afford the SRL itself isn't the problem, the part they are choosing to work on shows what they are interested in vs what they aren't though

Opening up new estates further from existing infrastructure isn't the answer either though

 

[Saint]

We don't build infra for new estates

The government council and developer all fight over who pays and in the end nothing is done

People will live where they can afford the SRL itself isn't the problem, the part they are choosing to work on shows what they are interested in vs what they aren't though

Opening up new estates further from existing infrastructure isn't the answer either though

Most estates have infrastructure planned and the Infrastructure plans assume that at some point the Government will build stations, bus routes etc. For example, the new stadium in Wyndham has a proposed town centre nearby as well as proposed station. The Town Centre and stadium is to be built privately, but eventually the Govt will need to build the train station and provide metro-trains there.

The VPA has all this stuff on their website of what is planned where. The only party in the Infrastructure contributions who doesn't commit to timelines is the State Govt who develops them. Developers and Councils have to commit to projects in-line with the rate of development. But the state can choose to ignore the need for new stations for decades, even though it's all planned and thought-out. Now all the money is spent on SRL, so those new planned stations get pushed back 20 years.

 

[Gralin]

Most estates have infrastructure planned and the Infrastructure plans assume that at some point the Government will build stations, bus routes etc. For example, the new stadium in Wyndham has a proposed town centre nearby as well as proposed station. The Town Centre and stadium is to be built privately, but eventually the Govt will need to build the train station and provide metro-trains there.

The VPA has all this stuff on their website of what is planned where. The only party in the Infrastructure contributions who doesn't commit to timelines is the State Govt who develops them. Developers and Councils have to commit to projects in-line with the rate of development. But the state can choose to ignore the need for new stations for decades, even though it's all planned and thought-out. Now all the money is spent on SRL, so those new planned stations get pushed back 20 years.

Again the problem isn't the SRL itself it's how government priorities work

And also again continuing to spread out and require more infrastructure to be built where population density is lower is bad value of infrastructure spend

We already don't maintain what we havez we are already way behind on promises infrastructure

Opening more estates that aren't going to be serviced doesn't fix anything

Canning the SRL won't move that money into fixing any of that either it's not a new issue

 

[Saint]

Again the problem isn't the SRL itself it's how government priorities work

And also again continuing to spread out and require more infrastructure to be built where population density is lower is bad value of infrastructure spend

We already don't maintain what we havez we are already way behind on promises infrastructure

Opening more estates that aren't going to be serviced doesn't fix anything

Canning the SRL won't move that money into fixing any of that either it's not a new issue

I'm only talking about estates which are already opened. And again, density in those areas is a lot more dense than the areas which got train lines 100 years ago like Glen Waverley and Lilydale and even Sandringham.

Are we really saying "We can't afford the infrastructure for medium density housing because we can barely afford to maintain the many more services we're providing to low-density areas"? It's only exacerbating the inequality.

Sorry new families, we can only afford apartments for you because we need to upgrade the trains through leafy Box Hill, Glen Waverley and Southland. It's a crap argument.

 

[eddiesmith]

There’s one area down near Cranbourne with lots of estates that was supposed to get a new fire station built to service the area.

But of course the governments run out of money and it’s still not built. Last year there was a house fire that spread to 2 houses right across the road from the vacant block of land…

This governments incompetence will cost lives, but that’s alright because someone in 50 years can visit all the Unis on a train line.

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

A 2br apartment in Box Hill or Carnegie is $600-650k, there's stacks on the market.

Clearly it's not priced appropriately if there's stacks on the market.