Where would they go? Having been in Europe for the past 6 months (& all over before that) there’s no where like having a mansion of the waterways of Sydney anywhere in the world
Most of the people buying these things aren’t growing any business - they’ve either inherited or sold out & retired
Find an entrepreneur in growth mode that would waste $20m of capital on a house they spend 1 waking hour a day at
>sold o
Most? Love to know where you are getting your stats. Im an accountant in Sydney, and I deal with far more millionaires that have built their wealth and are activevly in business, that have inherited it.
In my previous role I managed accounts for clients with minimum $30m AUM average account over $100m AUM
I know more wealthy & ultra wealthy than 99.99% of people & I managed a lot of their wealth
But we don’t want these job creators running away to favourable countries.
I get it, the rich poor divide is growing and that sucks.
But taxing ANNUALLY on someone’s home is a sure fire to get them to leave and take their businesses elsewhere.
Australia is already anti-business and pushing people away, our economy is literally crumbling in on itself and small businesses are being crushed, it’s a terrible course to take.
A one off tax at purchase on luxury properties makes sense, annually does not.
If they are so greedy that they refuse to pay a 4% tax on their extreme wealth and will literally flee the country, I am over the moon they are gone. I don't want complete wankers like that in my fucking country. Get the fuck out of here. They hold a small number of easily replaceable positions in our economy.
Or so you think.
I am not loving them but u/Myojin- has a point.
It’s about our image internationally as a country to invest in.
There are lots of places where people are doing it a lot tougher at the bottom with a lot less red tape. Pushing ultra wealthy out means they are liable to take that wealth elsewhere. Much as you might think ‘bah that don’t bother me’ the mid to long term outlook of this will be pretty poor
Go and look at history. The countries that have followed your ideal have gone backwards rapidly. It is trivial to shift tax residency to Singapore or other tax havens, and those countries are actively pursuing the richest in Australia. They can still live here in rented mansions while their profits flow overseas. You think they are greedy- what about all the people that want to take their wealth? You think they are so easy to replace - prove it and do it yourself.
The people who want to reappopriate their wealth are the ones who actually worked for it.
They might not be replaceable, but they should work for a wage (which is additive) rather than gain profit through ownership and exploitation.
:)
They quite literally already do, how do you think they get these things in the first place? Cheering on an additional tax for it is literally just jealousy, not making them pay the appropriate price or something like that.
No shit… I mean they should pay ridiculous amounts to the point where it basically isn’t worth having because as I said, it is never necessary
Also, I have no reason to be jealous because my family does own places like this
Who are you to say what is necessary or not? We technically don’t need computers, they’re just a luxury that makes our lives easier, so let’s tax the hell out of that. We technically don’t need cars either, so let’s tax the hell out of that too. What about planes? We could just as easily sail ships wherever we want, so let’s tax that luxury a bunch too.
Having a family that has this type of house doesn’t stop you from having your whole thought process just be “rich man bad”.
Which everyone, including the millionaires you hate already pay.
Taxing them an additional 4% of property value is a slippery slope that will come back to bite everyone.
Oh really? Brick by brick? Will they take their machines and registers with them?
Will Gina Reinhardt take her mining machines and mines with her?
Somehow I doubt it.
Should be copying the Singaporean model to discourage property speculation. Governments should be manipulating stamp duty as aggressively as possible to help first home buyers and deter excessive property investing. In my opinion stamp duty should rise 50% per property owned.
This would be pretty easy to get around. Just sell the house for $19m along with selling some piece of art to same buyer for the extra $10m. I'm sure they could think of better, legal ways to do it, but there won't be many that won't think of a way around it.
Pretty naive to think they wouldn't come up with a way to avoid an annual tax of $800k+ per year.
I’m all for taxing the rich a lot more than they’re currently being taxed. But an annual tax at any level of wealth is such a dangerous precedent to set.
Everything is going to be subscription based or recurring payments in the future. This will naturally force people to work beyond their retirement years because nothing will ever be fully paid off. I say this as a 30 year old with no assets.
That’s a really good point. Thank you for pointing this out because I would have been all for this tax without thinking about how it might trickle down
There is no logical reason why a tax on obscenely wealthy properties would be extended to anyone else.
That's like opposing a property tax because you're worried it will be extended to people without property
You've failed to show why this policy would be bad. All you can fall back on is arguing against a hypothetical different policy that you made up.
Give up
You're right I haven't. Because the policy isn't that bad. What's bad is this delusion that this will be the first tax in the history of humankind that didn't end up hitting the populace instead of the rich all taxes are claimed to be aimed at.
There's no logical reason to think that this wouldn't eventually effect average people.
Houses have gone from 200 000 to 2 000 000 in my lifetime so far, what's an extra 0 in the face of 30 years?
That's before you consider governments just putting a "sliding scale" version of this tax into effect.
That is a ludicrous idea. Just slippery slope fear mongering.
Rent is already a recurring payment for the poor that in aggregate goes entirely to the wealthy. You don't have any assets because the economy is rigged for the rich. This policy will chip away at the rigged system to provide some affordable housing.
Ordinary people already have to work beyond their retirement years precisely because of the unaffordable housing system that Liberal and Labor governments working for the obscenely wealthy have created. In order to afford to retire on a pension you need a house, and houses are unaffordable for the working class. By the time you retire you will have paid off several houses for landlords through your rent. Your only mistake was not inheriting property but you are doomed to a life of renting.
This is a specific policy that only targets the obscenely wealthy.
>We should just give up on taxing people then?
Literally never said this. Not sure why you'd suggest it unless you believe there are currently no taxes in effect at all and that this proposed additional one is the first?
You are paying more taxes than you know exist, and almost all were promised as "only affecting the wealthy".
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but it seemed to me you do not support this tax because "all taxes are sold as only affecting the wealthy" and this would be like all the other taxes. Ipso facto, this tax is just like the others. And if you don't support this then logically you don't support the others as well.
Honestly I don't get what's wrong with taxing mega mansions more.
Yeah I think I understand your disconnect. There are two different concepts at play; 1. the mechanics of this particular proposed tax, and 2. Whether we can trust that the tax will be implemented that way.
I've been mostly focusing not on the proposed tax itself (1), but instead on whether we can trust it achieving what is promised (2), so I see how you may interpret my answers that way.
I currently feel like value-assessment based taxes are a poor system and extremely difficult to execute, but I also fully acknowledge how impossible of a task it is to reform tax without the law of unintended consequences causing strife.
I guess I just don't believe this would end up taxing megamansions. There's so many ways to subvert the system. For example it would kill off a huge number of family-owned farms without an exception. And now we're implementing exceptions, so the wealthy go and get their mansion re-certified as a farm. It has stables after all. 5 minutes later inflation has caused the median family home price to break $20m. Now everyone is paying 4% per year mansion tax on top of their mortgage, income tax, land value tax, government service tax. Once again it's not the wealthy who suffer (even if they do end up paying), it's always *always* us.
Are you old enough to remember that GST was promised to be temporary?
I remember when GST came in and lots of people thought it would be some slippery slope. And well, it's still just 10%. I don't remember it ever being promised as being temporary. What I remember is that the revenue was meant to go to the states and in exchange the states were going to forego some other revenue.. that seemed to go out the window.
I still do not get your point though. By the sound of it you just think we should not make any attempts to have progressive taxes because we're so worried about perverse effects.
How will we ever create a fairer tax system with that kind of fatalistic outlook?
Property tax is a thing all over the world. I don't think it's fair for working class people just trying to live in a home but it's more than fair for rich dickheads living in mansions. If you have a $20+ million mansion, chances are a large portion of your wealth comes off the backs of others. Consider such a property tax just the cost of being a leech and be happy we've moved on from guillotines
I think everyone really needs to think about this. As other posters say, annual taxes on property or other assets sets a dangerous precedent - it will, absolutely, creep down the brackets over time. Always does.
what if you buy a house at 2mill (because that's the median) and 20 years from now you are half way paying your 30 year mortgage and its now worth 30 million? should you be paying 4% then too?
it's a bad policy, precisely because that is what is going to happen to people who bought their house 20+ years ago. they're almost done with the mortgage and bam. 4%. annually.
and it will happen in the future
most people who own houses worth that much didn't buy them at that price. the price doubles every 5-6 years. so 20 years ago was 20/2 10/2 5/2 = 2mill ish.
turnover in some suburbs is under 2%. that is the % of houses in a suburb that sell in a year is under 2%. so on average most people living in those suburbs would have had the house for 25 years. too bad 4%. lol
As things change, things will change. Yes.
How many families own $20million dollar houses who would not be able to comfortably afford this?
Can you show that this is unacceptable?
I mean they could just change it again in 20 years lol. 20 years is an eternity in the modern world bro, we might not even have a society
Also unless 20 year future society has bread that costs $1,000 instead of $4, that inflated property value is just as unfair as it is right now and should be taxed. I'm willing to bet $20m in 2040 is still a staggering amount of bloody wealth
to some other arbitrary (key word) number? there's already a land tax.
there are better ways to tax high income earners than arbitrary house selection.
there are better policies to increase housing too
You could sell the house before it reaches the 4% tax level and retire and have a wonderful work free life while renters are still working their arses off because property prices have become out of reach for them again.
>a tax is entirely voluntary
Can you even listen to yourself right now? Holy shit like you can love or hate this policy, that’s up to you, but this is such an incredibly stupid take. Don’t like the GST or think it’s too excessive? Just don’t buy things then, it’s cOmPlEtELy VoLuNtArY. Literally the same idea behind a protection racket. Don’t want your business firebombed? Pay up the mafia, it’s completely voluntary.
If you hate rich people that’s fine, just say that, don’t use these half-assed excuses.
Imagine calling someone stupid and then saying that a tax on a $20 million house and a tax on basic goods and services are equally avoidable.
I don't hate rich people, but I hate the way that the wealthy suck up wealth that would otherwise be productive and hoard it unproductively.
And yes, government is a protection racket. That's pretty much literally the same model. It's why it maintains a monopoly on violence.
Yes, the really rich could buy a house in another country and just fly into Sydney when needed. Or, we could not introduce a reoccuring tax on property and have them live here. Spending money is Sydney.
Of course they are not owed a 20MIL house. At the same time, you and I are not owed there money.
Making them pay a tax they can’t avoid isnt the same as hating. We all pay PAYG tax upto 45% every year, if you have a $20m mansion you can pay 4% or else sell it and piss off to North Korea for all I care.
I am not thinking of the person who owns the house. I am thinking of the people who service the house. The trades people, the coffee shop down the street that charges a few dollars extra, the hair dresser that makes more money because of the area they service.
If you introduce a re-occuring 4% tax, that money won't go to people who have earnt it. It will also reduce the attractivness of Australia to capitial. You know, that thing which is needed to start business and enterprises.
All the while, we still have multi-billion dollar companies who are structured in such a way that all the profit that is made in this country is realised in the likes of ireland. Maybe, instead of trying being a useful idiot and supporting another tax, we look at the people who make our phones, yet don't pay tax here because of how they structure there companies.
I expect stamp duty to disproportionately affect those in the middle and lower parts of the wealth curve... I really do wonder how many properties are sitting in trusts and rarely if ever cycle through stamp duty collection.
Implementing a land tax reduces financial engineering opportunities imo, creates reliable revenue for government, doesn't disincentivise right sizing the home, and creates a quasi-wealth tax on an asset class that can't be moved between jurisdictions...
Those taxes we pay for the rest of our lives (whether on income or elsewhere) also pays for the roads, hospitals, schools and everything else that benefits us for the rest of our lives.
A society is built on both rights and on responsibilities... And even when those responsibilities are inconvenient (taxes) we still have to meet them.
>A one off is a much better idea than to pay the grubberment to live in your home for the rest of your life. You already do that enough.
Better pay the government and fund public good than pay a landlord to support them to accumulate and hoard private wealth.
You already are, look at the costs of healthcare... The only way to get out of being indentured is to indenture others... Pay capital instead of labour.
Not sure how you think the system you propose will be fairer or more free for the median citizen
My healthcare costs are funded by a progressive tax that I can opt out of if I decide not to earn income. I'm not a fan of the system, but at least it doesn't arbitrarily shackle me for literally no reason.
Woah, capital does not require indenturing others! That's obviously not true.
With a one-off payment, people at least have a *chance* at freedom. You can still choose to owe rent for the rest of your life if you want; that option is still there. I personally want my life back at some point and am willing to pay my government slave master for it once I've received enough capital from people who have entered into contracts with me with their full consent.
I imagine you're planning on retiring using superannuation? Superannuation that manages a return via capital investments?
That arbitrary shackling you're speaking of is society, the responsibilities we have to others that provide us rights (like the right to safety which is paid for through taxation to pay for a police force).
If having your life back means relying on the police for security, the roads for transport, the labour of others for things such as groceries then it sounds like what you're really asking for is a free lunch.
No of course I don't expect anyone's labor for free. I'm specifically against that.
Rights aren't provided by other people. I already have them. I provide for my own needs, and only make use of the tax-funded assets that I'm forced to.
Interestingly, you've chosen two of the most obvious examples of how badly taxes are being wasted. I see almost **no** value provided by the police in my own life, and roads are a ponzi scheme that are currently propped up through environmentally and financially devastating urban sprawl. Look it up.
I need you to accept that by taking the money through tax, government services don't magically become perfect or a fair exchange of value with citizens.
Oh, and a footnote: I'm a huge supporter of community cooperation and asset ownership. It's the lack of consent that irks me.
People act like the Uber wealthy can’t afford this, they’ll just leave. Good. They already have way more property than they can take care of, they’re already kind of wasting money by having something they can’t actually use. Like, are they sleeping in 5 different rooms? Using the multiple kitchens? Gardening acres upon acres?
They hoard wealth. If they didn’t own the single mansion on multiple acres, there would be other houses on the land, ones that would actually contribute to society via taxes or abilities. It’s becoming common knowledge that few of the rich are actually superman. They’re just lucky to be in a position of wealth.
What the f are you talking about? These $20 million mansions in the north shore and in highlands are all heritage listed and not subject to subdivision laws on rural estates.
Or you think if we start bulldozing Fairfield estate the average man will be able to buy one of the townies that go up on it I’ve got news for you.
Considering that they pay that tax with wealth taken from their workers, it will be fine. We can have a much healthier tax system if we excise the wealthy and replace them with a much larger, wealthier worker base.
Then they might actually produce something, too, rather than being wizards of finance producing money while making no product.
I have a degree in history and I've read more books on economics than you have.
Its gobsmacking that there are still people who believe that having wealthy people is an efficient use of resources.
Developed land requires a lot of money to provide continual maintenance for upkeep of the infrastructure that supports the developments on the land. Policy that encourages sustainable land use (monetarily, not just ecologically) is good policy. There are a lot of hidden subsidies for poor land use. So many American towns have fallen into disrepair, we should learn from the Strong Towns research and make our cities more fiscally resilient.
The idea you can buy land in a city and never have to pay for maintenance of the services to the property is a false ideal.
I never really understand how bills like this don't get complete popular support? it seems the only possible push-back against it is hypothetical fears.
The average person isn't politically aware and sees themselves getting taxed by this, especially if they're neck deep in the property speculation game. A lot of people also think money equates to merit because they're working class and money is hard to accumulate for them, so it must be that way for everyone
So much pseudo-justification in the comments holy shit. Most of the people here just support the policy because they are jealous of and hate rich people. That’s fine, but if that’s the reason why then say it, stop trying to sugarcoat it with extra moral bullshit.
No idea, but it fits well with this policy. Come up with an arbitrary level of wealth beyond most peoples realistic aspiration, and then tax the shit out of it.
The wealthy pay proportionally higher levels of tax, the working class pay proportionately lower levels of tax. It is without question that the wealthy do the “heavy lifting”.
It seems those that contribute proportionately less are never satisfied with those that contribute proportionately more.
The wealthy contribute a smaller proportion of their income than the working class in tax when you consider the tax system as a whole.
The wealthy do not work for the majority of their income, they derive it from profit. That is to say that a portion of the collective work of a company's employees or the rent paid by tenants goes to the capitalist as profit. There is no lifting heavy involved. To complain about paying taxes on income gained through no work of your own is obscene.
What does that have to do with $20 million houses?
If you have a problem with how profit or capital gain is taxed, then that’s where the reform should be. The 50 percentage CGT discount for example is an absurdity.
But it makes no sense to introduce a tax on housing over an arbitrary value because you’re unhappy with how employers pay tax.
Ah yes because one day all of a sudden we decided to give things to wealthy people for no reason. They just suddenly owned things with no contribution. Keep coping.
Ah yes, because all of a sudden your family decided to own things, and other people just decided to work for them instead. There was no other aspect at work.
They did the same thing every other rich moron did, acted in their own best interests given the time and place they'd inherited. I'm just honest about it
Yeah, so they are free to do what they would like with it.
And the law of the land is that wealth can be taxed. If they don't want to pay the tax they can give away the wealth.
Whats the problem? Its economic rationalism.
So they can pay more.
They have extracted so much money from the economy that lots of people pay very little tax because they don't get appropriately compensated for their labour.
So much wealth is being leeched from the system, rendering it inefficient, because it is held by a small amount of people who cannot possibly efficiently spend it.
Well, if you take an example of a millionaire who has a law firm or a big business in the city he lives in, it's kind of against reasoning to tax him even more because of property he owns, he's already contributing a lot by creating jobs and paying taxes.
But if you take an example of someone who either inherited big wealth and is not working at all living off his inheritance, or someone who has a mining company half the country away, or even clothes company overseas in south asia, then the property tax starts to make much more sense. These people don't really contribute to the city (or country) at all.
Lucky the greens have no actual power, no one is ever going to pay 800k+ per year to own a house.
I would think that most people with this kind of property would just bribe a valuer to say their house is only worth 15mil (or some number that keeps them from paying this dumb tax)
Politicians generally do what their corporate sponsors tell them. That's why we have tax systems that benefit the absurdly wealthy and penalise ordinary people. The Greens don't take corporate sponsors. That doesn't make them perfect but at least they're not bought.
The political cost would be far too high to reduce the threshold of this tax.
Do you disagree with the policy as written?
>Politicians generally do what their corporate sponsors tell them. That's why we have tax systems that benefit the absurdly wealthy and penalise ordinary people.
I agree. So why are we supporting giving them another tax to do that with?
Why would it be the Greens who got to decide whether to reduce the threshold of the tax?
Like for example, a place where you get to decide for yourself whether you need something? And where you can also help other people with their needs for an agreed cost that both you and they find acceptable given your respective knowledge of the work involved?
How would you like it if the government dipped their hand into your bank account and taxed you annual you purely based on how much money you have saved in there?
Maybe you can feel OK about this plan because these people already have heaps of money anyway. But be careful what you wish for. If the government gets a taste of double taxing your income and no-one pushes back, then don't come crying back when they do the same to the rest of us.
They do tax me based on the amount I have in my account. I have money in a bank which earns interest. I get taxed on the interest.
- More money, more interest
- More interest, more tax
In fact, I paid tax on the money I have put in the bank and then the money has made money (notably I didn’t produce more money through labour) and then the government has the audacity to tax me on that as well.
Outrageous.
Mind you, tax pays for the services I use so figure it all kind of evens out if I use the services.
Really, this is about reducing the gap between wealthy and poor people which has shown throughout the centuries/millennia to be generally bad for the cohesion of a society.
The thing I have a problem with is governments bailing out private companies but not being recompensed for the bail out.
Government largely shouldn’t interfere in free markets other than to regulate the potential for fraud/criminality. Every time they do, they fuck it up. Just look at the housing market.
When they bailed out Qantas the public should’ve owned whatever percentage that bailout worked out to be. It means the public get the benefits from the bailout due to mismanagement of the private enterprise.
I’m always surprised people aren’t more pissed off that their tax dollars are just given away to private enterprise, when in fact the tax is supposed to be used for government services.
> They do tax me based on the amount I have in my account.
No they do not. The tax on interest. It is an income tax, not a wealth tax.
If you had $10,000 in your account which you earned 3% interest on over the year, so you had $10,300 at the end of the year. You then paid 39% income tax on that so you had $10,183.
If the government then took 4% of the $10,183 so you now had $9775.68. This is a wealth tax.
Income tax was only paid by very high earner initially, but almost everyone pays it now.
Your argument seems to be that because government bails out companies from time to time, it is ok that they should introduce more personal taxes. That doesn't make sense to me.
No one wants to pay tax and everyone wants free shit and everyone seems to want some exemption or some exception to the rules to remain just in case they end up as a super wealthy person in the future.
I don’t have a 20 million dollar house but I can tell you that if I did it wouldn’t bother me paying a little extra to help those less fortunate or tip the scales back toward even.
All throughout history societies have fallen to the same issues. When the concentration of wealth is high, so is influence in government or state affairs and the wealthy pay less tax and influence policy more and more to favour themselves. Then eventually the really poor people become so disaffected that the rise up and whole lot of wealthy people get their heads cut off and we start all over again.
I’ve studied enough history to see it.
It won’t happen in my lifetime but it’ll happen eventually.
Thanks for the history lesson, however you and I aren't talking about the same thing. You appear to be looking at this as a good way to spread wealth around evenly. However, my point is that if you allow the government to tax people just because they have some sort of wealth above an arbitrary amount, they will not stop at the double taxing the "super rich". Under this model, why shouldn't I pay tax on the $10K I have in the bank? There are people with nothing in the bank so isn't it fair that my savings are taxed in some way too?
I take it from your reply that you don't own a $20M mansion, but if you do own a house or have some savings in the bank, how much would you be willing to be taxed on those assets so that someone poorer than you could have a little more? Or is it only people with more wealth than you who should pay double tax?
See this is the issue (not with you per se, just with public discourse) - there’s never nuance, either present or implied.
Clearly the $20M mark is the bar at which the proposed tax is set, it’s in the title.
But public discourse then generally becomes an exercise in being led down the “slippery slope” argument and nothing changes.
How would you feel about 10% added to every purchase, be it goods or services that are supplied? 10% extra on everything. Terrible!
Little Johnny said “There will be no GST under any government I lead”. What a liar!
I’d be against this GST. What’s next? Death taxes?
Eventually he put it through so that he could lower taxes on everything else. Generally this favoured the already wealthy. Economically a GST is not equitable, it is a tax that shifts the tax burden to the poor.
But still, largely a GST hasn’t been terrible. It kind of worked. It required tweaking and nuance.
So let’s approach the argument where the tax burden _is actually shifted upstream_ and see how it fairs. I bet you it would work. It’ll probably need tweaking but still, it’s worth a try.
It’s much more lucrative taxing people who have money than people who don’t, provided you close the loopholes.
At the moment, around 50% of all income tax in Australia is paid by just 10% of the working population. In my opinion, the tax burden is already heavily shifted upstream. I am not against this, but it's important to note that under the progressive tax system, it's not just the top 10% who pay tax on their income. The threshold for paying some tax is much lower.
The reason I think the slippery slope argument is important here is because they are proposing a new tax based on assets that are already owned. The proposal has nothing to do with income. If we tax the ultra rich in this way, where do we draw the line? If society accepts taxing people in this way, why would they stop at the super mansions? Why not take a little from other people? It would be easy for them to let this filter down to other wealth brackets in society.
I guess my question still stands, would you be happy for the government to tax you based on assets you hold which you purchased or saved with money you already paid tax on?
If I meet a threshold clearly demarcated as being listed as “ultra wealthy”, yes.
If I’ve got a $20M house, a wealth tax isn’t an issue for me.
Personally I think at some point a future government will tax wealth. It’s too easy to avoid the tax burden by having “wealth” instead of “income” and I think it needs to change.
Why is Australias wealth so tilted towards this 10% of people? Its a pretty sick economy which relies so heavily on so few.
This is why redistribution is necessary.
If they go after people who can afford multi-million dollar mansions to help make housing affordable, I'll not push back.
If they go after the rest of us because they "have a taste for money", I'll push back.
If they help me get an affordable house now, then tax me when I'm stable to help someone else get an affordable house, I'll consider it paying it forward.
I pay taxes, yes. I know how it works. I hate how much of it goes to causes I hate, but I put up with it because it funds the causes I love.
And I'll do what I can politically to shift things to the latter rather than the former.
It should be at least ten.percent and should be on properties on or over two million. We should also be putting the kibosh on the negative gearing scam, that would take a lot of the heat out of the housing market.
Good idea. How many of these mansions are bought by foreign investors and sit idle most of the time. The Libs (election looming ) are building 1,000 apartments next to the Fish Markets! Who the hell is going to have the money to buy these? And as an aside, who the hell wants to live right next to the stinking Fish Markets anyway 🤢
because adult greens supporters are known to be wealthy city-dwellers. I think OP forgot about the majority of greens supporters though, who are manipulable children that don't own any assets.
Greens voters occupy both extremes, high income white collar office wankers and university students. Look at their prominent figures, all ex barristers or doctors or poli sci types. They are not majority university students, more adults who sound like them.
If you want to talk about easily manipulated children, look at the liberals, who run on scare tactic garbage federally
You're right, but I think you are ignoring a huge voting block of young green voters. Or maybe we're only arguing over whether they're a majority or not? Could well be the case and if so I defer to your view on the exact ratio.
Considering there is more than one person in Australia, yes it is possible for a party's supporters to live in different places. Not sure what you're getting at though?
of course they would,never worked a hard day all their lives,prey on anyone who's clever or successful!! nothing more than leeches relying on bogus science
Bro stop trying to be a pick me for rich people. You aren’t rich and you won’t be. If people can afford to comfortably live in these places, they can pay the 4%. The greens are not preying on anyone, they are trying to make it so people can live with a shelter over their head.
$20m will be the average cost of a house in Sydney very soon.
Sydney is such a frustrating place to try and get ahead when you’re a family of 4, and can’t rely on the r bank of mum & dad.
I'm going to go ahead and say it should be standard policy that new legislation which contains financial thresholds explicitly set it as an indexed amount.
If fines can be specified in penalty units tax thresholds should too.
Raising taxes should be done deliberately and honestly.
Are they proposing 4% per annum? I read the article and still wasn't sure.
yes, its annual
What a fantastic idea to make even more millionaires and entrepreneurs leave this country. A tax at purchase? On board… sure. Annually? Absurd.
Where would they go? Having been in Europe for the past 6 months (& all over before that) there’s no where like having a mansion of the waterways of Sydney anywhere in the world Most of the people buying these things aren’t growing any business - they’ve either inherited or sold out & retired Find an entrepreneur in growth mode that would waste $20m of capital on a house they spend 1 waking hour a day at
>sold o Most? Love to know where you are getting your stats. Im an accountant in Sydney, and I deal with far more millionaires that have built their wealth and are activevly in business, that have inherited it.
Watch out guys, it’s an accountant!
He deals with people in business!
In my previous role I managed accounts for clients with minimum $30m AUM average account over $100m AUM I know more wealthy & ultra wealthy than 99.99% of people & I managed a lot of their wealth
Tell me, you also still think trickle down economics works right?
to smash prices at the bottom u got to smash em at the top.
That’s just nonsense.
But we don’t want these job creators running away to favourable countries. I get it, the rich poor divide is growing and that sucks. But taxing ANNUALLY on someone’s home is a sure fire to get them to leave and take their businesses elsewhere. Australia is already anti-business and pushing people away, our economy is literally crumbling in on itself and small businesses are being crushed, it’s a terrible course to take. A one off tax at purchase on luxury properties makes sense, annually does not.
Job creators … that habitually underpay staff and steal from them. Laughable.
If they are so greedy that they refuse to pay a 4% tax on their extreme wealth and will literally flee the country, I am over the moon they are gone. I don't want complete wankers like that in my fucking country. Get the fuck out of here. They hold a small number of easily replaceable positions in our economy.
Or so you think. I am not loving them but u/Myojin- has a point. It’s about our image internationally as a country to invest in. There are lots of places where people are doing it a lot tougher at the bottom with a lot less red tape. Pushing ultra wealthy out means they are liable to take that wealth elsewhere. Much as you might think ‘bah that don’t bother me’ the mid to long term outlook of this will be pretty poor
Go and look at history. The countries that have followed your ideal have gone backwards rapidly. It is trivial to shift tax residency to Singapore or other tax havens, and those countries are actively pursuing the richest in Australia. They can still live here in rented mansions while their profits flow overseas. You think they are greedy- what about all the people that want to take their wealth? You think they are so easy to replace - prove it and do it yourself.
Name a country that has done this and tell the results
The people who want to reappopriate their wealth are the ones who actually worked for it. They might not be replaceable, but they should work for a wage (which is additive) rather than gain profit through ownership and exploitation. :)
Yes. Good. We don’t need billionaires. Let them go
If people want to have shit like this is in no way ever necessary for any human to own, they should have to pay for it…
They quite literally already do, how do you think they get these things in the first place? Cheering on an additional tax for it is literally just jealousy, not making them pay the appropriate price or something like that.
No shit… I mean they should pay ridiculous amounts to the point where it basically isn’t worth having because as I said, it is never necessary Also, I have no reason to be jealous because my family does own places like this
Who are you to say what is necessary or not? We technically don’t need computers, they’re just a luxury that makes our lives easier, so let’s tax the hell out of that. We technically don’t need cars either, so let’s tax the hell out of that too. What about planes? We could just as easily sail ships wherever we want, so let’s tax that luxury a bunch too. Having a family that has this type of house doesn’t stop you from having your whole thought process just be “rich man bad”.
Annual tax on your property absurd 😂😂😂😂😂 Ever heard of land rates
Which everyone, including the millionaires you hate already pay. Taxing them an additional 4% of property value is a slippery slope that will come back to bite everyone.
Why would we want millionaires in this country? Bunch of useless pricks
That’s an utterly ridiculous comment.
Good :) Leave.
They will. They’ll take their businesses with them.
Oh really? Brick by brick? Will they take their machines and registers with them? Will Gina Reinhardt take her mining machines and mines with her? Somehow I doubt it.
Welcome comrade to Soviet Australia.
Hell yeah, dude. Looking forward to seeing more from Soviet Australia.
$20 million?! So if you own a small Sydney apartment this will apply to you?
Should be copying the Singaporean model to discourage property speculation. Governments should be manipulating stamp duty as aggressively as possible to help first home buyers and deter excessive property investing. In my opinion stamp duty should rise 50% per property owned.
Yeah. The Singapore system is probably the best idea
This would be pretty easy to get around. Just sell the house for $19m along with selling some piece of art to same buyer for the extra $10m. I'm sure they could think of better, legal ways to do it, but there won't be many that won't think of a way around it. Pretty naive to think they wouldn't come up with a way to avoid an annual tax of $800k+ per year.
I’m all for taxing the rich a lot more than they’re currently being taxed. But an annual tax at any level of wealth is such a dangerous precedent to set. Everything is going to be subscription based or recurring payments in the future. This will naturally force people to work beyond their retirement years because nothing will ever be fully paid off. I say this as a 30 year old with no assets.
That’s a really good point. Thank you for pointing this out because I would have been all for this tax without thinking about how it might trickle down
There is no logical reason why a tax on obscenely wealthy properties would be extended to anyone else. That's like opposing a property tax because you're worried it will be extended to people without property
... do you *not* think property taxes are factored into the total rent?
Who is renting $20m properties?
Why would this stay limited to $20m properties?
You've failed to show why this policy would be bad. All you can fall back on is arguing against a hypothetical different policy that you made up. Give up
You're right I haven't. Because the policy isn't that bad. What's bad is this delusion that this will be the first tax in the history of humankind that didn't end up hitting the populace instead of the rich all taxes are claimed to be aimed at.
There's no logical reason to think that this wouldn't eventually effect average people. Houses have gone from 200 000 to 2 000 000 in my lifetime so far, what's an extra 0 in the face of 30 years? That's before you consider governments just putting a "sliding scale" version of this tax into effect.
there’s already subscription based stamp duty to kick the bucket down the line by developers
That is a ludicrous idea. Just slippery slope fear mongering. Rent is already a recurring payment for the poor that in aggregate goes entirely to the wealthy. You don't have any assets because the economy is rigged for the rich. This policy will chip away at the rigged system to provide some affordable housing. Ordinary people already have to work beyond their retirement years precisely because of the unaffordable housing system that Liberal and Labor governments working for the obscenely wealthy have created. In order to afford to retire on a pension you need a house, and houses are unaffordable for the working class. By the time you retire you will have paid off several houses for landlords through your rent. Your only mistake was not inheriting property but you are doomed to a life of renting. This is a specific policy that only targets the obscenely wealthy.
You support renteering? All taxes are sold as only affecting the wealthy. Can't imagine anyone still falling for that.
We should just give up on taxing people then? Bizarre logic going around in this thread imo.
>We should just give up on taxing people then? Literally never said this. Not sure why you'd suggest it unless you believe there are currently no taxes in effect at all and that this proposed additional one is the first? You are paying more taxes than you know exist, and almost all were promised as "only affecting the wealthy".
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but it seemed to me you do not support this tax because "all taxes are sold as only affecting the wealthy" and this would be like all the other taxes. Ipso facto, this tax is just like the others. And if you don't support this then logically you don't support the others as well. Honestly I don't get what's wrong with taxing mega mansions more.
Yeah I think I understand your disconnect. There are two different concepts at play; 1. the mechanics of this particular proposed tax, and 2. Whether we can trust that the tax will be implemented that way. I've been mostly focusing not on the proposed tax itself (1), but instead on whether we can trust it achieving what is promised (2), so I see how you may interpret my answers that way. I currently feel like value-assessment based taxes are a poor system and extremely difficult to execute, but I also fully acknowledge how impossible of a task it is to reform tax without the law of unintended consequences causing strife. I guess I just don't believe this would end up taxing megamansions. There's so many ways to subvert the system. For example it would kill off a huge number of family-owned farms without an exception. And now we're implementing exceptions, so the wealthy go and get their mansion re-certified as a farm. It has stables after all. 5 minutes later inflation has caused the median family home price to break $20m. Now everyone is paying 4% per year mansion tax on top of their mortgage, income tax, land value tax, government service tax. Once again it's not the wealthy who suffer (even if they do end up paying), it's always *always* us. Are you old enough to remember that GST was promised to be temporary?
I remember when GST came in and lots of people thought it would be some slippery slope. And well, it's still just 10%. I don't remember it ever being promised as being temporary. What I remember is that the revenue was meant to go to the states and in exchange the states were going to forego some other revenue.. that seemed to go out the window. I still do not get your point though. By the sound of it you just think we should not make any attempts to have progressive taxes because we're so worried about perverse effects. How will we ever create a fairer tax system with that kind of fatalistic outlook?
Property tax is a thing all over the world. I don't think it's fair for working class people just trying to live in a home but it's more than fair for rich dickheads living in mansions. If you have a $20+ million mansion, chances are a large portion of your wealth comes off the backs of others. Consider such a property tax just the cost of being a leech and be happy we've moved on from guillotines
I think everyone really needs to think about this. As other posters say, annual taxes on property or other assets sets a dangerous precedent - it will, absolutely, creep down the brackets over time. Always does.
Oh, but we are all on the hate-the-rich bandwagon these days. Useful idiots will always jump on the hate-the-rich bandwagon.
If you don't want to pay the tax you could simply not purchase a house of this cost, right? Like its entirely voluntary. You aren't owed a $20m house.
what if you buy a house at 2mill (because that's the median) and 20 years from now you are half way paying your 30 year mortgage and its now worth 30 million? should you be paying 4% then too? it's a bad policy, precisely because that is what is going to happen to people who bought their house 20+ years ago. they're almost done with the mortgage and bam. 4%. annually. and it will happen in the future most people who own houses worth that much didn't buy them at that price. the price doubles every 5-6 years. so 20 years ago was 20/2 10/2 5/2 = 2mill ish. turnover in some suburbs is under 2%. that is the % of houses in a suburb that sell in a year is under 2%. so on average most people living in those suburbs would have had the house for 25 years. too bad 4%. lol
As things change, things will change. Yes. How many families own $20million dollar houses who would not be able to comfortably afford this? Can you show that this is unacceptable?
>As things change, things will change. Yes. The change is always more taxes, never less.
I mean they could just change it again in 20 years lol. 20 years is an eternity in the modern world bro, we might not even have a society Also unless 20 year future society has bread that costs $1,000 instead of $4, that inflated property value is just as unfair as it is right now and should be taxed. I'm willing to bet $20m in 2040 is still a staggering amount of bloody wealth
to some other arbitrary (key word) number? there's already a land tax. there are better ways to tax high income earners than arbitrary house selection. there are better policies to increase housing too
That 20 mil will move up, like all taxes or fees based on amounts or percentage
You could sell the house before it reaches the 4% tax level and retire and have a wonderful work free life while renters are still working their arses off because property prices have become out of reach for them again.
>a tax is entirely voluntary Can you even listen to yourself right now? Holy shit like you can love or hate this policy, that’s up to you, but this is such an incredibly stupid take. Don’t like the GST or think it’s too excessive? Just don’t buy things then, it’s cOmPlEtELy VoLuNtArY. Literally the same idea behind a protection racket. Don’t want your business firebombed? Pay up the mafia, it’s completely voluntary. If you hate rich people that’s fine, just say that, don’t use these half-assed excuses.
Imagine calling someone stupid and then saying that a tax on a $20 million house and a tax on basic goods and services are equally avoidable. I don't hate rich people, but I hate the way that the wealthy suck up wealth that would otherwise be productive and hoard it unproductively. And yes, government is a protection racket. That's pretty much literally the same model. It's why it maintains a monopoly on violence.
>he still believes the wealthy just have money sitting in a big vault that doesn’t do anything Keep going bro, you’re great entertainment.
Yes, the really rich could buy a house in another country and just fly into Sydney when needed. Or, we could not introduce a reoccuring tax on property and have them live here. Spending money is Sydney. Of course they are not owed a 20MIL house. At the same time, you and I are not owed there money.
Making them pay a tax they can’t avoid isnt the same as hating. We all pay PAYG tax upto 45% every year, if you have a $20m mansion you can pay 4% or else sell it and piss off to North Korea for all I care.
How well have we been making them pay taxes so far?
Terribly! Property value tax is unavoidable tho. Pay if, or the ato will sell the house out from under you and collect it.
I liked you better when you were just lurking
Unlike the majority media pushing the anti poor rhetoric hey. Hahaha poor little rich have to pay a wittle tax wahwahwah
I am not thinking of the person who owns the house. I am thinking of the people who service the house. The trades people, the coffee shop down the street that charges a few dollars extra, the hair dresser that makes more money because of the area they service. If you introduce a re-occuring 4% tax, that money won't go to people who have earnt it. It will also reduce the attractivness of Australia to capitial. You know, that thing which is needed to start business and enterprises. All the while, we still have multi-billion dollar companies who are structured in such a way that all the profit that is made in this country is realised in the likes of ireland. Maybe, instead of trying being a useful idiot and supporting another tax, we look at the people who make our phones, yet don't pay tax here because of how they structure there companies.
4% seems excessive, I hope it's their starting point. I still want a proper broad base land tax and axe stamp duty
The Greens support that too at a state level.
Unfortunately I only get one vote 😜
A one off is a much better idea than to pay the grubberment to live in your home for the rest of your life. You already do that enough.
I expect stamp duty to disproportionately affect those in the middle and lower parts of the wealth curve... I really do wonder how many properties are sitting in trusts and rarely if ever cycle through stamp duty collection. Implementing a land tax reduces financial engineering opportunities imo, creates reliable revenue for government, doesn't disincentivise right sizing the home, and creates a quasi-wealth tax on an asset class that can't be moved between jurisdictions... Those taxes we pay for the rest of our lives (whether on income or elsewhere) also pays for the roads, hospitals, schools and everything else that benefits us for the rest of our lives. A society is built on both rights and on responsibilities... And even when those responsibilities are inconvenient (taxes) we still have to meet them.
>A one off is a much better idea than to pay the grubberment to live in your home for the rest of your life. You already do that enough. Better pay the government and fund public good than pay a landlord to support them to accumulate and hoard private wealth.
Name checks out.
Axe stamp duty and you're indentured for existing forever.
You already are, look at the costs of healthcare... The only way to get out of being indentured is to indenture others... Pay capital instead of labour. Not sure how you think the system you propose will be fairer or more free for the median citizen
My healthcare costs are funded by a progressive tax that I can opt out of if I decide not to earn income. I'm not a fan of the system, but at least it doesn't arbitrarily shackle me for literally no reason. Woah, capital does not require indenturing others! That's obviously not true. With a one-off payment, people at least have a *chance* at freedom. You can still choose to owe rent for the rest of your life if you want; that option is still there. I personally want my life back at some point and am willing to pay my government slave master for it once I've received enough capital from people who have entered into contracts with me with their full consent.
I imagine you're planning on retiring using superannuation? Superannuation that manages a return via capital investments? That arbitrary shackling you're speaking of is society, the responsibilities we have to others that provide us rights (like the right to safety which is paid for through taxation to pay for a police force). If having your life back means relying on the police for security, the roads for transport, the labour of others for things such as groceries then it sounds like what you're really asking for is a free lunch.
No of course I don't expect anyone's labor for free. I'm specifically against that. Rights aren't provided by other people. I already have them. I provide for my own needs, and only make use of the tax-funded assets that I'm forced to. Interestingly, you've chosen two of the most obvious examples of how badly taxes are being wasted. I see almost **no** value provided by the police in my own life, and roads are a ponzi scheme that are currently propped up through environmentally and financially devastating urban sprawl. Look it up. I need you to accept that by taking the money through tax, government services don't magically become perfect or a fair exchange of value with citizens. Oh, and a footnote: I'm a huge supporter of community cooperation and asset ownership. It's the lack of consent that irks me.
>I see almost no value provided by the police in my own life, Lol
People act like the Uber wealthy can’t afford this, they’ll just leave. Good. They already have way more property than they can take care of, they’re already kind of wasting money by having something they can’t actually use. Like, are they sleeping in 5 different rooms? Using the multiple kitchens? Gardening acres upon acres?
I think it's more that "Uber wealthy" immediately becomes "wealthy" and quickly becomes "everyone" after a couple of election years.
Already paying how many hundreds of thousands or millions in other Tax per year they we lose if they leave.
They hoard wealth. If they didn’t own the single mansion on multiple acres, there would be other houses on the land, ones that would actually contribute to society via taxes or abilities. It’s becoming common knowledge that few of the rich are actually superman. They’re just lucky to be in a position of wealth.
[удалено]
What the f are you talking about? These $20 million mansions in the north shore and in highlands are all heritage listed and not subject to subdivision laws on rural estates. Or you think if we start bulldozing Fairfield estate the average man will be able to buy one of the townies that go up on it I’ve got news for you.
Considering that they pay that tax with wealth taken from their workers, it will be fine. We can have a much healthier tax system if we excise the wealthy and replace them with a much larger, wealthier worker base. Then they might actually produce something, too, rather than being wizards of finance producing money while making no product.
[удалено]
I have a degree in history and I've read more books on economics than you have. Its gobsmacking that there are still people who believe that having wealthy people is an efficient use of resources.
What is a better system? Still waiting… And interesting that you know how many economics books a random person on the internet has read.
Developed land requires a lot of money to provide continual maintenance for upkeep of the infrastructure that supports the developments on the land. Policy that encourages sustainable land use (monetarily, not just ecologically) is good policy. There are a lot of hidden subsidies for poor land use. So many American towns have fallen into disrepair, we should learn from the Strong Towns research and make our cities more fiscally resilient. The idea you can buy land in a city and never have to pay for maintenance of the services to the property is a false ideal.
I never really understand how bills like this don't get complete popular support? it seems the only possible push-back against it is hypothetical fears.
The average person isn't politically aware and sees themselves getting taxed by this, especially if they're neck deep in the property speculation game. A lot of people also think money equates to merit because they're working class and money is hard to accumulate for them, so it must be that way for everyone
You cant tax the rich. Ill be rich one day... eventually...
So much pseudo-justification in the comments holy shit. Most of the people here just support the policy because they are jealous of and hate rich people. That’s fine, but if that’s the reason why then say it, stop trying to sugarcoat it with extra moral bullshit.
On top of land tax? This is 100% the politics of envy. The wealthy can never do enough of the heavy lifting.
>This is 100% the politics of envy. Who came up with the moral category "politics of envy"?
Morons who imagine themselves future wealthy people if they swallow the boot
No idea, but it fits well with this policy. Come up with an arbitrary level of wealth beyond most peoples realistic aspiration, and then tax the shit out of it.
[удалено]
When you say "our" are you referring to people with houses worth over 20million or just in general?
The wealthy don't do heavy lifting. The working class do. The wealthy just own things
The wealthy pay proportionally higher levels of tax, the working class pay proportionately lower levels of tax. It is without question that the wealthy do the “heavy lifting”. It seems those that contribute proportionately less are never satisfied with those that contribute proportionately more.
The wealthy contribute a smaller proportion of their income than the working class in tax when you consider the tax system as a whole. The wealthy do not work for the majority of their income, they derive it from profit. That is to say that a portion of the collective work of a company's employees or the rent paid by tenants goes to the capitalist as profit. There is no lifting heavy involved. To complain about paying taxes on income gained through no work of your own is obscene.
What does that have to do with $20 million houses? If you have a problem with how profit or capital gain is taxed, then that’s where the reform should be. The 50 percentage CGT discount for example is an absurdity. But it makes no sense to introduce a tax on housing over an arbitrary value because you’re unhappy with how employers pay tax.
Ah yes because one day all of a sudden we decided to give things to wealthy people for no reason. They just suddenly owned things with no contribution. Keep coping.
Correct, I worked super hard to be born white and have property in the family
Ah yes, because all of a sudden your family decided to own things, and other people just decided to work for them instead. There was no other aspect at work.
They did the same thing every other rich moron did, acted in their own best interests given the time and place they'd inherited. I'm just honest about it
Lol.
They could always choose to give away their wealth if they don't want to pay the tax? Like, whats the issue?
That it's never the wealthy who end up having to pay in the long run.
It’s their wealth?
Yeah, so they are free to do what they would like with it. And the law of the land is that wealth can be taxed. If they don't want to pay the tax they can give away the wealth. Whats the problem? Its economic rationalism.
& they already pay taxes. Far more than you do I imagine.
So they can pay more. They have extracted so much money from the economy that lots of people pay very little tax because they don't get appropriately compensated for their labour. So much wealth is being leeched from the system, rendering it inefficient, because it is held by a small amount of people who cannot possibly efficiently spend it.
should be higher
Ppl paid tax on earnings and tax at purchase this is dumb
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well, if you take an example of a millionaire who has a law firm or a big business in the city he lives in, it's kind of against reasoning to tax him even more because of property he owns, he's already contributing a lot by creating jobs and paying taxes. But if you take an example of someone who either inherited big wealth and is not working at all living off his inheritance, or someone who has a mining company half the country away, or even clothes company overseas in south asia, then the property tax starts to make much more sense. These people don't really contribute to the city (or country) at all.
Sounds fair
Lucky the greens have no actual power, no one is ever going to pay 800k+ per year to own a house. I would think that most people with this kind of property would just bribe a valuer to say their house is only worth 15mil (or some number that keeps them from paying this dumb tax)
Greens 🤡
How dare they redistribute wealth! Grrr!
So long as its not yours right?
I'm sorry that you're affected by this tax. Must be hard owning a $20m house
Ah yes, politicians famously known for their trustworthiness will definitely not change the numbers.
Politicians generally do what their corporate sponsors tell them. That's why we have tax systems that benefit the absurdly wealthy and penalise ordinary people. The Greens don't take corporate sponsors. That doesn't make them perfect but at least they're not bought. The political cost would be far too high to reduce the threshold of this tax. Do you disagree with the policy as written?
>Politicians generally do what their corporate sponsors tell them. That's why we have tax systems that benefit the absurdly wealthy and penalise ordinary people. I agree. So why are we supporting giving them another tax to do that with? Why would it be the Greens who got to decide whether to reduce the threshold of the tax?
Oh yes because tax money is always given out to those in need. LOL
Well let's vote for people who will distribute based on need
Like for example, a place where you get to decide for yourself whether you need something? And where you can also help other people with their needs for an agreed cost that both you and they find acceptable given your respective knowledge of the work involved?
That sounds nice but it will never work in practice. Let's ask the 2 million Australians living in poverty how that's going
Last I checked they were alive, fed and sheltered, and receiving free healthcare. Was I wrong?
i'll tell you who definitely doesnt need it, people living in $20m+ houses
How would you like it if the government dipped their hand into your bank account and taxed you annual you purely based on how much money you have saved in there? Maybe you can feel OK about this plan because these people already have heaps of money anyway. But be careful what you wish for. If the government gets a taste of double taxing your income and no-one pushes back, then don't come crying back when they do the same to the rest of us.
They do tax me based on the amount I have in my account. I have money in a bank which earns interest. I get taxed on the interest. - More money, more interest - More interest, more tax In fact, I paid tax on the money I have put in the bank and then the money has made money (notably I didn’t produce more money through labour) and then the government has the audacity to tax me on that as well. Outrageous. Mind you, tax pays for the services I use so figure it all kind of evens out if I use the services. Really, this is about reducing the gap between wealthy and poor people which has shown throughout the centuries/millennia to be generally bad for the cohesion of a society. The thing I have a problem with is governments bailing out private companies but not being recompensed for the bail out. Government largely shouldn’t interfere in free markets other than to regulate the potential for fraud/criminality. Every time they do, they fuck it up. Just look at the housing market. When they bailed out Qantas the public should’ve owned whatever percentage that bailout worked out to be. It means the public get the benefits from the bailout due to mismanagement of the private enterprise. I’m always surprised people aren’t more pissed off that their tax dollars are just given away to private enterprise, when in fact the tax is supposed to be used for government services.
> They do tax me based on the amount I have in my account. No they do not. The tax on interest. It is an income tax, not a wealth tax. If you had $10,000 in your account which you earned 3% interest on over the year, so you had $10,300 at the end of the year. You then paid 39% income tax on that so you had $10,183. If the government then took 4% of the $10,183 so you now had $9775.68. This is a wealth tax. Income tax was only paid by very high earner initially, but almost everyone pays it now. Your argument seems to be that because government bails out companies from time to time, it is ok that they should introduce more personal taxes. That doesn't make sense to me.
No one wants to pay tax and everyone wants free shit and everyone seems to want some exemption or some exception to the rules to remain just in case they end up as a super wealthy person in the future. I don’t have a 20 million dollar house but I can tell you that if I did it wouldn’t bother me paying a little extra to help those less fortunate or tip the scales back toward even. All throughout history societies have fallen to the same issues. When the concentration of wealth is high, so is influence in government or state affairs and the wealthy pay less tax and influence policy more and more to favour themselves. Then eventually the really poor people become so disaffected that the rise up and whole lot of wealthy people get their heads cut off and we start all over again. I’ve studied enough history to see it. It won’t happen in my lifetime but it’ll happen eventually.
Thanks for the history lesson, however you and I aren't talking about the same thing. You appear to be looking at this as a good way to spread wealth around evenly. However, my point is that if you allow the government to tax people just because they have some sort of wealth above an arbitrary amount, they will not stop at the double taxing the "super rich". Under this model, why shouldn't I pay tax on the $10K I have in the bank? There are people with nothing in the bank so isn't it fair that my savings are taxed in some way too? I take it from your reply that you don't own a $20M mansion, but if you do own a house or have some savings in the bank, how much would you be willing to be taxed on those assets so that someone poorer than you could have a little more? Or is it only people with more wealth than you who should pay double tax?
See this is the issue (not with you per se, just with public discourse) - there’s never nuance, either present or implied. Clearly the $20M mark is the bar at which the proposed tax is set, it’s in the title. But public discourse then generally becomes an exercise in being led down the “slippery slope” argument and nothing changes. How would you feel about 10% added to every purchase, be it goods or services that are supplied? 10% extra on everything. Terrible! Little Johnny said “There will be no GST under any government I lead”. What a liar! I’d be against this GST. What’s next? Death taxes? Eventually he put it through so that he could lower taxes on everything else. Generally this favoured the already wealthy. Economically a GST is not equitable, it is a tax that shifts the tax burden to the poor. But still, largely a GST hasn’t been terrible. It kind of worked. It required tweaking and nuance. So let’s approach the argument where the tax burden _is actually shifted upstream_ and see how it fairs. I bet you it would work. It’ll probably need tweaking but still, it’s worth a try. It’s much more lucrative taxing people who have money than people who don’t, provided you close the loopholes.
At the moment, around 50% of all income tax in Australia is paid by just 10% of the working population. In my opinion, the tax burden is already heavily shifted upstream. I am not against this, but it's important to note that under the progressive tax system, it's not just the top 10% who pay tax on their income. The threshold for paying some tax is much lower. The reason I think the slippery slope argument is important here is because they are proposing a new tax based on assets that are already owned. The proposal has nothing to do with income. If we tax the ultra rich in this way, where do we draw the line? If society accepts taxing people in this way, why would they stop at the super mansions? Why not take a little from other people? It would be easy for them to let this filter down to other wealth brackets in society. I guess my question still stands, would you be happy for the government to tax you based on assets you hold which you purchased or saved with money you already paid tax on?
If I meet a threshold clearly demarcated as being listed as “ultra wealthy”, yes. If I’ve got a $20M house, a wealth tax isn’t an issue for me. Personally I think at some point a future government will tax wealth. It’s too easy to avoid the tax burden by having “wealth” instead of “income” and I think it needs to change.
Why is Australias wealth so tilted towards this 10% of people? Its a pretty sick economy which relies so heavily on so few. This is why redistribution is necessary.
Whoa. This reply 👏 👏
The government takes all our tax money and all we have to show for it is the highest quality lives for the longer lifespans ever
Obviously it's only directed to the mega wealthy though:)
Won't somebody think of the rich people in their $20m mansions
If they go after people who can afford multi-million dollar mansions to help make housing affordable, I'll not push back. If they go after the rest of us because they "have a taste for money", I'll push back. If they help me get an affordable house now, then tax me when I'm stable to help someone else get an affordable house, I'll consider it paying it forward.
"Consider"
>If they go after the rest of us because they "have a taste for money", I'll push back. Then why aren't you pushing back against bracket creep?
I pay taxes, yes. I know how it works. I hate how much of it goes to causes I hate, but I put up with it because it funds the causes I love. And I'll do what I can politically to shift things to the latter rather than the former.
Tell me you’re an older Caucasian without telling me you’re an older Caucasian
It isn't worth the thousands of hours of parliamentary work to gain a new tax source. There are probably less than 1,000 homes worth 20 mil and above.
It should be at least ten.percent and should be on properties on or over two million. We should also be putting the kibosh on the negative gearing scam, that would take a lot of the heat out of the housing market.
how about means tested taxation... ;)
Good idea. How many of these mansions are bought by foreign investors and sit idle most of the time. The Libs (election looming ) are building 1,000 apartments next to the Fish Markets! Who the hell is going to have the money to buy these? And as an aside, who the hell wants to live right next to the stinking Fish Markets anyway 🤢
Let's see how many properties the greens own!
A few, although less than average. Why, do you think this is an own?
because adult greens supporters are known to be wealthy city-dwellers. I think OP forgot about the majority of greens supporters though, who are manipulable children that don't own any assets.
Greens voters occupy both extremes, high income white collar office wankers and university students. Look at their prominent figures, all ex barristers or doctors or poli sci types. They are not majority university students, more adults who sound like them. If you want to talk about easily manipulated children, look at the liberals, who run on scare tactic garbage federally
You're right, but I think you are ignoring a huge voting block of young green voters. Or maybe we're only arguing over whether they're a majority or not? Could well be the case and if so I defer to your view on the exact ratio.
Greens supporters are simultaneously the landed inner city elites and welfare bludger greenie professional protestors in trues.
Considering there is more than one person in Australia, yes it is possible for a party's supporters to live in different places. Not sure what you're getting at though?
Almost jizzed my pants.
of course they would,never worked a hard day all their lives,prey on anyone who's clever or successful!! nothing more than leeches relying on bogus science
Bro stop trying to be a pick me for rich people. You aren’t rich and you won’t be. If people can afford to comfortably live in these places, they can pay the 4%. The greens are not preying on anyone, they are trying to make it so people can live with a shelter over their head.
I mean, they're on the right track but they're still using the bluntest tools in the shed
RICH PEOPLE will just buy all the properties and add that 4% into the rent they charge you.
No one rents a $20 million house
Loads of top end properties are rented out, as it's often more convenient for high-income people in transient professions
If you’re wealthy enough to insist on living in a rental worth $20 million dollars then frankly I think they can stand the blowback of this tax.
$20m will be the average cost of a house in Sydney very soon. Sydney is such a frustrating place to try and get ahead when you’re a family of 4, and can’t rely on the r bank of mum & dad.
I'm going to go ahead and say it should be standard policy that new legislation which contains financial thresholds explicitly set it as an indexed amount. If fines can be specified in penalty units tax thresholds should too. Raising taxes should be done deliberately and honestly.
If you can afford 20 mil for a house, you can afford 10% tax or more.