There was a podcast episode, I think from Democracy Sausage, that talked about how historically referendum no campaigning parties actually do poorly in the subsequent general election since they lean in to absolutely insane arguments during the campaign, which gets them the referendum win, but the loss in the general election. I hope that happens here.
It is, but unfortunately it's the smallest increase in representation that we could offer to our First Australians that could actually get up. I don't need to comment on how even that little increase in influence that I'd bring proposed is going down.
I think your first paragraph nails it. Developers are holding off development not to introduce artificial scarcity, but to maximise development. So they keep the land empty until either they can convince the council to approve a higher density, or a change in state government gives them an avenue to bulldoze through the council roadblocks.
At least in NSW a single graph is needed to show this relationship: https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/policy-and-legislation/housing/housing-supply-insights/quarterly-insights-monitor-q1/trends-in-housing-supply the correlation between number of approvals and number of constructions is basically exact. Which means, the roadblock to construction is council approval, not corporate greed or developers gaming the system to generate artificial scarcity or any other conspiracy you can think of.
I do agree that removing infrastructure charges is not a solution. From my perspective, this won't do anything since developers aren't blocked because of costs, but either materials supply or council blockades. Removing infrastructure charges solves neither of these issues.
The opposing viewpoint is that the reason apartment building is slowed is because developers are incentivised to maximise profit, and thus they are disincentivised from building too many apartments at once, creating an artificial scarcity and keeping home prices high. Developers are land-banking to the detriment of society as a whole.
I find this hard to believe. Every time council releases land, or the state government increases allowable density, developers are licking their lips and inundating councils with applications. Why submit an application, with the architect and application costs to get a DA to sit on, if they want to create artificial scarcity. Just don't sit on the land without a DA.
The reality is, since covid, building companies have been collapsing left right and centre due to supply chain issues which has led to way higher building materials costs. Projects builders have started are now operating at a loss and causing builders to go bust. Furthermore, the lack of building supplies means projects can't proceed, despite the record demand for construction work. It's really one of those rare situations where a highly in demand industry is in recession.
Just just way more convenient and fits the narrative to, once again, put it down to pure corporate greed.
I don't understand why state liberals who support the voice are not out in droves to rebuff Dutton's acrobatic positions. At this stage "Liberals for Yes" is an impotent empty shell of a campaign group.
Seems like she was convicted on a technicality, possibly that by the letter of the law she committed the crime, even if it was done under duress and she didn't benefit from it.
It seems the judge recognised this by not recording a conviction against her and no additional jail time. The bond seems unfair though but maybe it's to provide assurance that she won't start the prostitution ring again.
While I'm a strong supporter of the Voice, I fear it's going to be defeated. I've spoken to a number of people around me and there's genuine confusion around whether it's something indigenous Australians want. While the statistics show 80-90% support amongst indigenous Australians for the Voice, when the Coalition trots out Price and Mundine, the public sees a sizable dissenting indigenous faction. Those I've spoken to are unsure if they should vote yes solely on the basis that they aren't sure if indigenous Australians want it, and that's from my more progressive mates.
Labor has and is botching this campaign in a major way. Their near silence and passive approach to this campaign is failing and it's shifting normally supportive people into undecideds, let along flipping the undecided voters.
Either Labor and the Greens lift their game fast or this referendum is dead. Polling is suggesting that support has already dipped below 50%.
Let me put it another way, where do you think her loyalties lie before her arrest? China or Australia? If you don't think that matters, I'd urge you to examine what citizenship means.
I'm not claiming any moral high ground, I'm merely staying that she worked for a Chinese media organisation and that essentially makes her part of China's political apparatus. That makes her at risk of being a political prisoner.
Also as Raltoid said, she's spent 37/47 years of her life in China. Coupled with her career choice, her government is the Chinese Government, not the Australian government despite what her papers say.
Extra speed of build is a pretty good draw card even if it is 30% more expensive, and just diversifying the range of materials available for building high rises is always good for the industry. It'll be interesting to see where it ends up!
This might be harsh but I have little sympathy for this woman. Remember she was the news anchor at CGTN from 2012 - 2020 and based on Beijing at that time. CGTN is a state owned news (i.e. propaganda) outlet. She was an Australian Citizen prior to taking that position, so surely she should be aware of what she was walking into a conflict between Australian values of freedom and the oppression that the CGTN apparatus represents.
Instead of being an ethical and fearless journalist, she picked money, clout and prestige, betraying the very principles of the country that she's pleading for sympathy from now.
The fact that the role become a poisoned chalice is entirely predictable. It's disappointing that our government is now having to expend political capital for her.
I'm not sure what point you're making, but someone sitting on 10 properties with a total networth of $20M cannot spent any of that until they sell the property. That's $20M is on paper wealth. That $20M only becomes real wealth when they sell up, at which point it attracts CGT.
In that case, if the renovation wasn't deducted off primary income by negative gearing, it would be deducted off the CGT tax when the property is sold as it could count as a capital expense.
I think the focus on negative gearing is a bit of a distraction. As many have pointed out, properties are only negatively geared because they are losing money, which makes them looks like poor investments in the first place.
What people miss is on a whole, property actually makes money through capital gains on sale of the property, which will easily offset any of the operating cost that's been accrued. Note though double dipping doesn't happen because what has been deducted on negative gearing is taken away from the initial value of the property, thereby attracting more capital gain tax at the end.
The primary problem is, land value and hence property value naturally rises over time and is unavoidable. As cities grow, they spread out or they get more dense. Therefore an single property will be demanded by more people as it closer than more properties (as cities spread, or more city centres crop up nearby), and lower density than nearby buildings (as density of the area grows). No amount of anger will change the fact that land is a scarce resource, particularly convenient land. And so that price signal is important to allow that land to be used as efficiently as possible (you couldn't want a giant farm near a CBD when it could house and cut commute costs for 50k people).
What we really should be doing is discouraging profiting off this natural and unproductive growth in value. Perhaps this could take the form of having a different capitals gain tax tier explicitly for residential properties. The other aspect is changing the primary residence exemption to be that you have to have lived in the property for at least 50% of the time you've owned it for, rather than just the last 12 months. Though overall, this would need to be designed carefully to prevent disadvantaging people who are simply wanting to upsize, or simply to relocate to an equivalent location.
·9 months ago
·10 months ago
There was a podcast episode, I think from Democracy Sausage, that talked about how historically referendum no campaigning parties actually do poorly in the subsequent general election since they lean in to absolutely insane arguments during the campaign, which gets them the referendum win, but the loss in the general election. I hope that happens here.