My first instinct is “yes” but then I thought about it and I think it’s just going to exacerbate the short-stay problem unless combined with other measures.

    • Rusty Raven @aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why does being a house they live in mean it is not also an asset? If someone prefers to rent and save up more money towards their retirement instead of buying a house why should they be penalised? If someone wants to buy an inner city appartment that is worth less and have more money put aside to pay the body corporate fees why should they get less pension than if they have a freestanding house? If someone wants to sell their house, put that money aside while they travel in a van around Australia for a few years and then buy something suitable when it is time to settle down again, why should they lose their pension compared to someone who leaves the house mostly empty while they travel so it doesn’t count as an asset?

      We definitely should have some consideration for the fact that this is someone’s house and they shouldn’t lose it because of unrealised capital gains, but we also shouldn’t be creating a two-tier system which also ties people in to keeping a house which may not be suitable for them any more.

      • Taleya@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because the value is not immediately and readily accessible without uprooting their entire life.

        Tax the shit outta the sale, sure but basically penalising someone for living in their own house opens up a lot of very bad doors.

        • Rusty Raven @aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s exacty what I’m arguing. A land tax which is able to be put off until the sale where people have low incomes. That would not penalise anyone, it just means some of the windfall gains from rising property prices go towards paying taxes rather than being a freebie to be passed on to the next generation as inheretance.

          • Taleya@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re still playing the same issue - penalisation.

            Ok, you have person A. Been living in their house for yonks, now getting taxed because real estate turned into a batshit ponzi scheme outside their window.

            Low income for an pensioner? Well now the can has just been kicked on to penalise the next generation if they sell or want to move into the property.

            It’s going to hurt people it shouldn’t, because the ones who aren’t paying their dues will just find a way to skae this as well

            • Rusty Raven @aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t see inheritance as a right, and I definitely don’t think the kids having a small amount of tax owing on the house they inherit as “penalisation”.

              Any tax change will involve some changes in who and how much people pay and needs to be handled carefully, but protecting inheritances should come far below paying for services: things like hospitals, schools and nursing homes. The next gereration will hurt a lot more from proposals like an income tax levy, and that will also hurt those who are not priveleged enough to inherit a house.

              • Taleya@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah i don’t think this is going to be the revenue stream you think it is. We’re better served removing fuel excise and other business tax breaks to raise funding

          • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            … so now instead of paying $10k per year, my kids will need to pay $500k when I die? And their only way to avoid it is to move into my place and sell whatever home they currently live in? That sounds pretty crap to me.

            Instead of an asset, the family home has become a liability.

            • Rusty Raven @aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Didn’t the whole proposal start with a hypothetical 80 year old pensioner? You think she’s going to live to 130, and her million dollar house is going to suddenly stop appreciating in value, so her poor put upon 100 year old kids will only inherit $500k?

              Obviously it is far better to scrap any sort of tax on property than burden the poor kids with a reduced inheritance. Far better to make the poor kids (and grandkids, and everyone else’s kids, including those who won’t get an inheritance at all) cough up now with something like the income tax levy that has been proposed.