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.

Completely agree. That property value grows over time in a fixed area is natural behaviour, as an area develops, density grows and demand increases. But that growth is not necessarily “productive”. The only time that value is productive is if it incentivises redevelopment into higher density dwellings to meet the demand in that area. However this has been perverted into property owners who have paid off their property to just sit on the valuable land and reap the capital gains.

Capital gains from land value really needs to be taxed in a special way as you suggest. I would propose two approaches:

• Adding land tax (and abolishing stamp duty on property) that’s not based on your property value but on the value of a property you’re on (so high density apartments would end up with minimal land tax

• increasing capital gains from land tax by either having a progressive taxation rate on capital gains due to land value (which would ignore increase property value from renovations etc) or capping it entirely (so gains above that are taxed at 100%).

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.

So what’s not obscene then? 1x?

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.

If it’s known that cars are less manoeuvrable and have poorer sight lines, why do motorcyclists insist on gunning it past cars and swerving into the next lane before they’ve fully cleared the car they’re trying to overtake. Not to mention the constant overtaking from the left, which is a completely moronic thing to do. If they’re weaving in and out of traffic rather than just staying in their lane and spot, they’re far less likely to sneak up on a car unawares and get hit.

That is entirely on them.

Surely they have more incentive to drive safe coz the price of having an accident is so much higher for them (physical injury, maiming and death).

Honestly any business that uses an ISP email address just looks amateurish to me.

There’s a reason insurance companies don’t cover flood plains, because it’s a matter of when, not if, and insurance won’t cover losses that will definitely happen.

Surely what it demonstrates is once you have foreign citizenship, don’t go back to China? That’s not good for the Chinese economy.

I don’t even think it’s necessary to go that far. This should be “don’t work in a political position in/for China”.

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!

My guess is they came to an agreement that their product offering is different enough that they can trade under the same name?

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/27/fast-food-chain-wendys-plans-roll-out-in-australia-but-potential-naming-clash-looms

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.

https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Capital-gains-tax/Property-and-capital-gains-tax/CGT-when-selling-your-rental-property/#Capitalexpenses

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.

I mean if you take that to the extreme you’re arguing for very high density living, which I’m not opposed to, but councils seem to be against that by default.