Re: Porky's (Beazley) Return ? hahahahaha

"Beable van Polasm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Kevin Hendrikssen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Beable van Polasm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > No, really, what's the difference? Let's say a house costs
> > > $500,000 and stamp duty is $20,000. That means that a house buyer
> > > has to pay $520,000 for the house. If they abolish stamp duty
> > > tomorrow, and the price of the house goes up to $520,000, then the
> > > buyer still pays $520,000, but the state government doesn't get
> > > $20,000 in stamp duty.  It doesn't cost the buyer any more, and
> > > the seller gets a little bit more. Why does that upset you?
> >
> > Because house prices have just jumped by $20,000! At least when the
> > government took the $20k it went to (supposedly) benefit our society
> > rather than just sheer profiteering by the vendor. That's why. Do
> > you understand that?
>
> I understand what you're saying, but I don't understand what your
> source of information is. You say you're happy with the government
> taking the stamp duty because they might spend it on "benefitting
> society" (but you don't seem totally convinced of this), but you don't
> want the vendor to get it.

If the government drops stamp duty, it should benefit homebuyers, not greedy
vendors.

> Firstly, people only pay as much as they
> want to for houses. If the price is too high, then they don't pay it,
> so there really is no "sheer profiteering by the vendor". Nobody is
> out there forcing people to pay outrageously high house prices. At
> least, I never got forced. And I've also discovered that if you buy
> real estate which isn't in a capital city, it's remarkably cheap. In
> fact you can offer significantly less than the vendor is asking, and
> they might well accept.

My point is that vendors (and agents, for that matter) are all too eager to
take advantage of such an event.

> Secondly, what do you think the vendor does with the money? Do you
> think they get it all as cash and burn it or something? More than
> likely, they spend it, and that means that somebody else pays tax on
> it, (or the vendor might have to pay capital gains tax on the money
> themselves). Once the tax is paid, a government gets it, and they can
> use it to "(supposedly) benefit our society". What's the problem?

Let me see... 20 million people benefitting, or just one greedy vendor.

> > By slowly reducing stamp duty over a period of time it reduces the
> > chance that buyers will get screwed by vendors.
>
> This is the part I don't understand. Suppose that in the example
> above, instead of stamp duty being abolised one day, they reduce it by
> 10% of whatever it is each year for ten years. So the stamp duty would
> be $18,000 the first year, $16,000 the second year, and so on until it
> was gone after the tenth year. Why wouldn't prices go up by $2,000 per
> year? How does this "reduce the chance"? And how are the "buyers
> getting screwed by the vendors" when in each example they are paying
> the exact same amount of money? Why is it "getting screwed" to pay a
> vendor $520,000, but not "getting screwed" to give the vendor 96% of
> that and give the other $20,000 to the government? Or does the 4%
> government screwing somehow make the 96% vendor screwing OK in your
> view?

Because sudden jumps in housing prices aren't good for anyone except greedy
investors. Gradual reductions in stamp duty would be more slowly absorbed by
the economy as a whole.

> > Given your example above I'd rather the money went into health and
> > education than some greedy seller's pocket.
>
> It sounds like you don't want stamp duty abolished at all.

Australians are taxed too much already, so what makes vendors more deserving
of a cash grab?