There is a trend away from this sort of tax. Unless it could completely replace another tax then it does add more paperwork etc. One problem is that if you start shifting money back and forward, for whatever reason, the tax is going to start eating away at it, even though you haven't spent it or consumed anything. It may significantly harm certain industries such as online banking. I suspect there may be a sound economic argument against the idea, probably along these lines, but I can't think of it. The GST was supposed to cut a lot of state taxes that are similar to this. I think there is still a tax on payments made from checking accounts, so people who have checking accounts only put money into them when they absolutely have to write a check.

As for the party, it will be adding carbon and water taxes, cutting a lot of handouts (baby bonus and 1st home owners) while at the same time cutting the overall tax burden. So we would be looking for ways to cut other taxes.

For starters, if someone is buying a brand new home, I doubt they are in need of government assistance. But to answer your question, for every $1400 'taken' from the public in the abolition of the handout, more than $1400 will be returned to the public via increased take home wages. Obviously this will be spread over more people. Given that the Howard government has gone to great lengths to hide the true cost of this scheme from the public, I cannot give you a more concrete answer. Nor would I have time to.

Also, if the grant is abolished, the cost of housing will be less than if it wasn't abolished. A large part of the handouts have been swallowed up by price hikes caused by the grant. A lot of it is going to 'welfare' for the housing industry.

So what your saying is that people are given $14000 interest free loan by the government for their first home which is paid back by taxes?

No, nothing like that. A $14000 interest free loan is equivalent to giving them a much smaller amount of money. It is less bad for the economy, but it is still a bad idea, with a much higher paperwork cost as a proportion of the money being shifted.

Yes, subsidising rents would make them rocket.
Same as the 1st home owners grant. It only added fuel to the real estate market that was overdue for a rise anyway..
Amazing how often the govt. gets their timimg absolutely wrong.

Generally, better leaving the free market well alone. The "damage" is over quicker that way.

It's all pushed along by supply and demand.

Unless you subsidise it, in which case you distort the market.

Obviously Howard understands you need to create more supply so that it outstrips demand and that will bring prices down.

I'd like to see Howard create land. Maybe we should send him to Holland. The market creates the supply, not the government.

Lower company tax to 15% rural sectors 300 km outside CBD and to 8% 600km outside CBD. Just a thought.

That would lead to companies basing their decisions on taxes, not on the reality of the situation = bad for the economy. There is a good reason why businesses gather together.

Tell me freediver what are the good reasons why businesses gather themselves together? let me help you. LOGISTICALLY.

To reduce transport costs for one.

Environmentally this has great benefits and economically for rural areas.

Compensating business for extra transport is good for the environment?

Maybe you know how to bring the rents down in the CBD?

I don't want to bring them down. There is nothing inherently wrong with high rents in the CBD.

I stated Quote:


FreeDiver stated Quote:


What do you think LOGISTICALLY means? I already said that transport was the major factor how about giving us your number two reason.

Freediver asked Quote:


Taking bits and pieces from my last post loses meaning of what I was talking about to the reader that only reads your post. Now.. to answer your question... A lot of businesses in Sydney also supply Brisbane or Melbourne etc. or even vice versa. Just say a Barbecue manufacturer that currently has a manufacturing plant in Marrickville moved it's operation to Dubbo, for arguments sake. He would still have to transport goods to Sydney but he would not have to transport out of Sydney to other cities in Australia hence taking transport out of the CBD which causes polution. Dispursed polution is better than concentrated pollution. this is without even looking at wear and tear on the CBD's road infrastructure.

Let's not forget about that Barbecue Manufacturer that also creates concentrated pollution in Marickville from his manufacturing process.

So you acknowledge that the rents in the CBD are high but come accross as an advocate for high rents? Or you don't have a solution to solve the problem except maybe your Tax ideas will put more money in their pockets to make the rents affordable (thought I'd throw that in to help you)?

The people of Sydney have sent a message to our government that they are not happy about their high rents. John Howard is trying to find a solution but, you, who is intent on starting a party refuses to listen to those people. Is it because it does not effect you? How can you start a party and yet not listen to the voice of the people?