You are here

land-costs

Are the Greens on the right track with respect to negative gearing? - Article by Sally Pepper

At first glance The Australian Greens’ announcement that they would abolish the negative gearing 1  tax break, in a bid to increase government revenue through increased taxation and improve homelessness and housing affordability looks like the right move. I have, however a few questions about this.

Cost of housing and cost of dependency in Australia

Republished here to give background to Sheila Newman's remarks in her debate with Steve Bracks on the Jon Faine show 19-4-2010. You can comment on Jon Faine's "Population Forum" about the debate here and you can listen to the podcast here. The sector in Australia that has the most costly dependency ratio must be the property sector, since it costs all Australians an enormous and unreasonable amount just to cover the cost of land for housing, business and agriculture. Most of the very high costs involved are completely unnecessary, except in the eyes of greedy developers and their hangers-on. The only reason that the costs are so high is that the industry wants it that way and our state and federal governments are in cahoots with it. See also on Labor Resources and Labor Holdings etc. Early identification of the Growth Lobby is to be found on my thesis by that name, notably in Chapter 6. The latest article on candobetter on dependency ration is "Discussing Australia's Dependency ratio 2009 with graph by Dr Katharine Betts"

Subscribe to RSS - land-costs