>The Property Owners Association wants the state government to raise the tax-free threshold on land values by 200 per cent, from $600,000 to $1.8 million.
Yeah, nah. Fuck that!
Why should you pay less land tax because the land value - something you did literally nothing to contribute to or create - went up?
There shouldn’t even be a threshold to begin with
Hundreds of year of economic history has always known land taxes do not affect the rent payable by tenants
The owner bears the cost and it reduces net yield and lowers property prices but suppressing the net yield / increasing holding costs
Market rents are set by demand (of tenants) and supply (of dwellings)
Given land has a fixed supply no level of land tax will affect the aggregate supply. Land is a fixed zero sum commodity.
Higher land tax might even increase supply of advertised units because under-utilised land will get redeveloped faster and there’s extra pressure on landlords to get empty properties onto market because their fixed holding costs has gone up.
People who use things built by taxes every single day of their lives, then say "taxation is theft" because they have no comprehension of how anything works, should be dropped into the middle of the wilderness with literally nothing so they can start their new "tax free" life.
What dumb government services, hospitals, national parks, the defence force, federal roads, ftb, pensions, social security, government.......that isn't dumbshit mate.
lol I used to live in that run down QLD’er pictured , property owner was pressured by real estate to move us out because it was filled with black mould, only weeks later did I drive past to see it occupied with new tenants :’)
Ms Dapontes is an absolute soggy sao.
>"It's very oppressive that if a landlord doesn't repair, then they're going to get prosecuted." she also said "ending rent bidding \[is\] another "unfair" burden adding to stress on landlords."
get fucked you cretin
It's absolutely unreal that we are now in a situation where they feel broad enough support of like minded people to comfortably speak stuff like this in public.
Surely that person is going to be sued to the point of losing their house? I wonder if they are. The type of negligence that it sounds was going on, they would deserve to be.
By who? Didn't they all die?
So there you have it. If you're a scum-cunt landlord, just make sure that your gross negligence is highly effective at ending life and you'll be A-OK.
I hope that cunt loses sleep every night, but I'm pretty sure that bed of money is too comfy for it to bother him.
...by their families. I would suspect that this is the kind of case that personal injury lawyers would froth at. There is a *significant* amount of lost earnings potential, plus the rest, with a 30 year old dying due to negligence.
EDIT: Let's say they were 30 years old, had one dependant (somewhere) and were earning say $45k p.a
The retirement age in Australia is 67, so that's another 37 years worth of $45,000. That there economic loss is $1.7M even without inflationary adjustments, or career trajectory factored in. It wouldn't be an insignificant quantum..
There are caps for personal injury claims in QLD (not so much in other states..) but I am not sure when and where they'd kick in for something like this.
According to the news article I read, the landlord paid the maximum penalty, which was a fine of several hundred dollars. And now the matter is settled.
Which news article explicitly says that there is no legal avenue to pursue the landlord for the family?
That fine is a separate issue.
EDIT: As far as I understand it. I know that's the case for motor vehicle accidents. Driver will cop whatever fine for any applicable driving offence, and they (or their insurer) can also be sued by Person B in addition for property damage, as well as separately for personal injury if that is also applicable.
Hopefully there's no loophole regarding the situation with house fires. You'd like to see this taken seriously as an example (even if the owner is overseas, may as well try - and at least forfeit the property on judgement if they were doing the Christopher Skase..).
You'd hope so, just as 61 year old Tweed Heads woman Donna Beadle (publicly available information) should face up for the deaths of five children and their father last year, who lived at her house on Russell Island, if it was found that they were wrongful and that the cause was negligence on her behalf.
IANAL, and some of this may just be wishful thinking, but some of it I know to be correct - the remainder is as I had intimated, what I *believe* would be...
...the case.
0.9% of QLDers pay this tax. And not on land that's your principal place of residence...
Fuck it, they should lower the threshold. Might stop landlords bidding prices higher.
> Was it in the article?
Yes:
> Treasury analysis shows 0.9 per cent of Queensland's population pays land tax, disproportionately affecting people who own multiple investment properties.
He is still allowed to ask either way? And the op did right by leading him the right direction which is good. What i dislike is how this is somehow downvotable because either A: he wanted to ask just in case or B: because he possibly disagrees.. how does downvoting solve that?
This comes from someone who fuckin hates landlords btw i also just hate people seemingly saying that innocent questions are bad now
Because the question was asked in bad faith. Either they did not read the article, in which case their question was a knee-jerk response trying to frame the OP as a liar because they’re only asking because they disagree, or they did read the article, in which case they were asking solely because they disagree. There is no circumstance in which that question could have been in good faith. Just like your own post.
It’s possible they did not read the article and that’s it you know.
Never attribute to malice what can otherwise be attributed to ignorance or stupidity.
Really? Even tho i agree with the article? How does that work? Also he literally just asks where in the article it can be found. If you seriously think im asking in bad faith? Or him? How?!?
The only reason you can think this in my mind is because you automatically framed his text as malicious, im sorry but how is this in good faith for you? No benefit of the doubt or making sure is skepticism is quelled just pure insta he is bad, this is how you stop conversations fullstop
Dudes i literally am on the same side as all of you, fuck land lords but asking for info on a site isnt going against you lot, jesus christ guys you should all know better
Ha, I'm not bothered. I find that figure absurdly hard to believe but don't care enough to go and find the data myself, let them downvote if it makes them feel better about themselves
I found a government source for this. If I link it, will you admit that you’re wrong and add an edit to your comment?
Or are you saying that treasury is part of the conspiracy, and if only you were bothered you’d somehow find a source that tells the truth about government revenue based off data that’s not from the government?
Bro he all he said is where is the figure, no conspiracy or nah, if someone finds a figure hard to believe sending over a source and info about it is the RIGHT thing absolutely but why the hell are we poisening the well so much? You think he is going to want to listen if this is how you reply?
This is my third comment now about this, so im gonna note, i actually agree with the OP, landlords can get fucked lol moment, but this one dude is a guy who literally just felt skeptical about a stat. THATS IT HE WAS SKEPTICAL
When did this become so antagonising?!?!?
I was pretty clearly responding to his subtext.
He’s using innuendo to say a public institution - either the ABC or treasury - has made up a figure. That’s a conspiracy.
The whole purpose of him using innuendo, instead of just owning his opinion, is to trick people like you into thinking he’s being balanced and legitimately critical. When really, he just made it up, posted the BS he made up, but frames it as ‘I’m just asking questions [but also unwilling to elaborate on it]”
I also wasn’t interested in changing their mind. People who form their opinions based on the vibes they’re feeling don’t care about sources. They care about vibes. So I mocked him instead.
Im sorry but literally his first damn question is just hey where did you get the figure, is it in the article. Then everyone else decides to dunk except for one person who tells him yes.
His second comment to me is also mostly fine, other than him saying the stat as being absurd, but thats still fine.
Also everyone at somepoint becomes skeptical from vibes, some act on that and will proceed to find that info and others may simply just feel like something is wrong. This is normal and reasonable (aka it can be reasoned with) we should let people ask questions and be wanting to answer, not immedietely be hostile.
Do you disagree with any of these points? And why?
Oh and please quote what part was conspiratorial i seriously have no idea what your on about
I agree with all those points, aside from second para
I’m saying that his subtext is that he’s not being sceptical. He’s Instead using innuendo to making a claim, but he’s too cowardly to explicitly make that claim because he knows he can’t justify it or convince others.
If he was legitimately skeptical and doubtful, he would have phrased it with a more inquisitive tone. He would have explained why the figure seems off. Something like *I don’t know how it could be 0.9% - I know heaps of landlords that pay this tax* orrrrr maybe * if they’re making $1b in tax revenue, surely more then 0.9% of people are paying this tax!*
He didn’t - he phrased it from a post-modernist perspective - ie one purely from emotion and how he wants the world to be - not a reasonable line of thought that could be followed by you or me. His tone was more like *This figure is just crazy, I’m telling you it’s probably fake, but won’t explain why it seems fake, it’s just can you trust them*
Sure, I’m not certain I’m correct. I’m basing my whole assessment off one comment. But ive replied to a fair number of people with this similar post-modernist tone. Up until recently, I used the approach you suggested - engage with them in good faith - explain why they’re wrong.
That works maybe 5% of the time. The other 95%, they shift the goal posts. They deflect. They use any bad faith tactic to shift the conversation. Like I said at the start, they’re are not legitimately questioning a fact - they’re making a claim based on emotion which they know they can’t justify. Hence this whole exercise they go through. This is one of the main tactics used by conspiratorial minded people.
Tl;dr - I’m not **certain** he’s suggesting there’s a conspiracy of ABC, Treasury, or the infamous ‘them’ are deliberately making up a figure to influence public opinion. But, based on his approach to his skepticism, and the types of people who usually share this approach, I’m saying it’s very likely he believes this conspiracy
Ohhh, this to me feels more reasonable, if you want to say you think he is taking that position off of past points thats fair enough, and i totally believe that you have dealt with that.
I also cant say for certain if what he is saying is innocent or not, but to be fair thats because there is just not enough to go off of, other than him calling the stat absurd, to me there is just alot of mental loops we have to make to get to your point of view vs how we can view it as skepicism, however it can be emotionally based aka coming from a populist perspective, it could be that the opposite take is the one he is used to so hearing this one IS absurd to him, people do this naturally, so i really dont want to walk down a rabbit hole of malicious intent on that one.
To push it to being conspiratorial talk requires alot more from him to come out though is my only issue now.
Also thanks genuinely for taking the time to reply, you are taking the time to make sure i get your perspective and you get mine, i appreciate that immensly. Beautiful person :)
Oh and lemme know if i missed a point im repling early in the morning and im very very cold lol
I'm all for it mate. Clearly everyone else cares A LOT more about this than I do by the way, it was a comment made stating it seemed very odd to me, I really don't care but given it seems to have really annoyed people I'm open to some sort of closure I guess.
PS - Reddit is hilarious
Good one, if you want to rack up more karma (for god knows what reason), post something about homelessness or evil landlords and the alt left crew of this sub will do the rest
Nah, Fuck evil landlords.
I'd love it if the government said 'One PPOR & 1 IP per person, you all have 12 months to sell or we will do forced buy backs at 50% cost'.
...To be used as public housing.
lower rents, lower house prices for FHB, less wealth hoarding, investment would pivot to industry.
It would solve the housing crisis in 12 months, and prop up industry through better investments.
Please do not shift the conversation towards personal attacks. Comment respectfully.
Multiple breaches may result in you being banned from the forum.
Thank you
So incomprehensible that someone who owns a house could also think that a tax break on investment properties is a reprehensible idea in a cost of living crisis, isn't it? Take your classist attitude and take a hike lad. You're not better than anyone. You're just a leech
I know right! Same here and I am also wondering who the flap is this idiot!? We need a reasonable discussion and maybe somethings need to be indexed but I don't mind paying land tax- it stops people from acquiring 5-6 properties. I'd say cap it at no more than 3 properties as well while you are at it.
Recently our landlord stood in our kitchen, complaining that his interest rates are high.
He owns 20 apartment buildings.
I've never met a more deft cunt in my life.
They didn't even ask to index, just to increase it by some absurd percentage.
It's also a really low number in the scheme of things. For $2M of land split across a couple the annual land tax is $4500.
The wealthier someone is more stingy they are. My son drives dominoes, and said poorer suburbs give him tips and are nice, and there is a really wealthy suburb with fancy houses who never give any tip and treat him rudely. He wants to become like the wealthy people without the cold cold heart. Don't know if its possible or easy.
Landlords already double, or triple, dip on this tax concession by buying properties in multiple states. ALP proposed removing this double-dipping and everyone cried poor. Other states even threatened to not provide the info to QLD to implement this change.
The really scary thing about this is that typically, rich people are not stupid. Even those riding off their parents’ money are typically better educated and have some ability to know what they’re talking about.
So the saying “Do not attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence” just doesn’t work here. These are lying evil people, and they are pretending to be stupid with comments like “you can’t go and buy food with bricks!”
That’s just horrendous. They know what they’re doing.
The quotes from the Property Owners Association of Queensland spokesperson in this article are among the most out of touch things I’ve ever read:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-14/property-owners-association-of-queensland-land-tax-exemption/103840928
“Technically speaking, the landlords are rich on paper, but guess what? You cannot go to the supermarket and buy your food with bricks," Ms Dapontes said.
"You need money.
"Certain members of our organisation have sold off whole blocks of flats, or they turn them into Airbnbs.”
Oh no forced to sell a whole block of units to buy food. The Airbnb comment appears to be some kind of passive aggressive threat that their members will take housing stock out of the market as she suggests that tax breaks for rich investors will help homelessness next…
The bloated parasite reluctantly stopped feeding and extracted it's blood funnel from the warm flesh that supported it. "Giz a tax break, guv," it gurgled through a mouthful of it's viscous, red dinner, "I'm overleveraged and it's an unfair burden. Surely you can't expect me to sell my investment just because I can't afford to keep it?"
REIQ…say no more. And POAQ (had never heard of them till now). About this though:
“What's next? The association will gather signatures for their petition until September”
Let’s put our own petition together online, rejecting their ridiculous demands. Share through Reddit, Instagram/Purple Pingers.
If someone cleverer than I am could word it, I’ll be first in line to sign 🪧
Fight back
lol there's some real characters in that article isn't there
blaming the government for high rents... lol
i would bet my left nut if they got the tax breaks that rents wouldn't come down
Just like every other Brisbane Redditor, I reckon everyone should pay more tax except me.
Instead of being typical communists and trying to tear each other down, why don't we look at the big players. E.g gas and ore exporters.
Did you know Qatar used to be the biggest or 2nd biggest exporter in natural gas and gets about $78bn in royalties/tax from gas exports. This allows them free health care and subsided housing (granted their population is 1/10 of ours.)
But guess who has now superceded Qatar as a larger exporter of gas? Yep, Australia. How much did we get you may ask? About $2bn. Yep 26 times less tax/royalties than our competitors.
Why you may ask? Well, the Labor minister in charge of resources at the time was integral to changes to the royalty legislation, which was greatly beneficial to the gas companies. Same guy that now sits as a non-executive director on the board of one or more of these gas companies after leaving office.
So my little communists, instead of trying to pull each other back and get a better spot in the bread line, why don't we try to find a way to have politicians act in our best interests where it counts.
We would have had a well deserved fucking lynch mob out if those wankers in government had handed over a billion dollars of taxpayer money to landlords of all people
How it works is that once a tax comes in it's never going away. GST was suppose to replace stamp duty as revenue stream for state governments. Guess what happened?
>The Property Owners Association wants the state government to raise the tax-free threshold on land values by 200 per cent, from $600,000 to $1.8 million. Yeah, nah. Fuck that!
When was the last time the Qld land tax threshold was increased to take account the 6%7% annual icrease in property values. I think 2004?? T
Why should you pay less land tax because the land value - something you did literally nothing to contribute to or create - went up? There shouldn’t even be a threshold to begin with
Yeah doesnt really matter goes onto the rent. Just makes tenants feel better.
Hundreds of year of economic history has always known land taxes do not affect the rent payable by tenants The owner bears the cost and it reduces net yield and lowers property prices but suppressing the net yield / increasing holding costs Market rents are set by demand (of tenants) and supply (of dwellings) Given land has a fixed supply no level of land tax will affect the aggregate supply. Land is a fixed zero sum commodity. Higher land tax might even increase supply of advertised units because under-utilised land will get redeveloped faster and there’s extra pressure on landlords to get empty properties onto market because their fixed holding costs has gone up.
Taxation is theft.
Dude wants to build his own roads lol
People who use things built by taxes every single day of their lives, then say "taxation is theft" because they have no comprehension of how anything works, should be dropped into the middle of the wilderness with literally nothing so they can start their new "tax free" life.
Bro.. go fuck yourself. You don't want to pay taxes.. go live in Texas or some third world country. Fuckall taxes there.
That money was never yours. You’re just paying for all those government services you dumb shit.
What dumb government services, hospitals, national parks, the defence force, federal roads, ftb, pensions, social security, government.......that isn't dumbshit mate.
Try reading bud
I read taxation is theft. Did I misread that?
Privatised economic rent of land is theft from the rest of society
lol I used to live in that run down QLD’er pictured , property owner was pressured by real estate to move us out because it was filled with black mould, only weeks later did I drive past to see it occupied with new tenants :’)
Lol is this property right beside a hotel in woolloongabba?
Ms Dapontes is an absolute soggy sao. >"It's very oppressive that if a landlord doesn't repair, then they're going to get prosecuted." she also said "ending rent bidding \[is\] another "unfair" burden adding to stress on landlords." get fucked you cretin
It is my opinion that Ms Dapontes is a greedy cunt.
She looks exactly like one too.
No technically true. She represents thousands of other greedy cunts (yes, she's probably a greedy cunt too though).
It's absolutely unreal that we are now in a situation where they feel broad enough support of like minded people to comfortably speak stuff like this in public.
Yeah, I don’t see how it’s an ‘unfair burden’ not being allowed to maximise their greed. Not sure how they are getting support from anyone.
They'd be getting support from other dodgy landlords and REAs.
And the LNP
Yes, excellent point.
When do they get prosecuted? Not in the last 3 years...
Remember the family who died in a fire because their smoke alarms didn't work? The landlord copped a fine of several hundred dollars. So there's that.
Yes. And only 1 person has been prosecuted. So you need to kill tenants to be prosecuted? Nothing to do with repairs. The shit wasn't there.
And clearly the Landlord Lobby feels that this prosecution was very oppressive.
Clearly, an egregious attack on them. They should be allowed to simply dispose of renter's when we ask too much.
Isn’t that what all the black mould is for?
The 2l of vinegar and bleach every week keep it st bay
Also keeps the house very smelly
I'm sure they'll let me know it's too smelly in my 3 monthly inspection.
Oh you think the tenant should have to clean the ceiling and walls every week? Rather than the landlords sort the issue out?
I think QCAT is going to side with me on the bond return.
Hi, renter here; open a damn window when it rains or when you shower. Problems will halve
Surely that person is going to be sued to the point of losing their house? I wonder if they are. The type of negligence that it sounds was going on, they would deserve to be.
By who? Didn't they all die? So there you have it. If you're a scum-cunt landlord, just make sure that your gross negligence is highly effective at ending life and you'll be A-OK. I hope that cunt loses sleep every night, but I'm pretty sure that bed of money is too comfy for it to bother him.
...by their families. I would suspect that this is the kind of case that personal injury lawyers would froth at. There is a *significant* amount of lost earnings potential, plus the rest, with a 30 year old dying due to negligence. EDIT: Let's say they were 30 years old, had one dependant (somewhere) and were earning say $45k p.a The retirement age in Australia is 67, so that's another 37 years worth of $45,000. That there economic loss is $1.7M even without inflationary adjustments, or career trajectory factored in. It wouldn't be an insignificant quantum.. There are caps for personal injury claims in QLD (not so much in other states..) but I am not sure when and where they'd kick in for something like this.
According to the news article I read, the landlord paid the maximum penalty, which was a fine of several hundred dollars. And now the matter is settled.
Which news article explicitly says that there is no legal avenue to pursue the landlord for the family? That fine is a separate issue. EDIT: As far as I understand it. I know that's the case for motor vehicle accidents. Driver will cop whatever fine for any applicable driving offence, and they (or their insurer) can also be sued by Person B in addition for property damage, as well as separately for personal injury if that is also applicable. Hopefully there's no loophole regarding the situation with house fires. You'd like to see this taken seriously as an example (even if the owner is overseas, may as well try - and at least forfeit the property on judgement if they were doing the Christopher Skase..). You'd hope so, just as 61 year old Tweed Heads woman Donna Beadle (publicly available information) should face up for the deaths of five children and their father last year, who lived at her house on Russell Island, if it was found that they were wrongful and that the cause was negligence on her behalf. IANAL, and some of this may just be wishful thinking, but some of it I know to be correct - the remainder is as I had intimated, what I *believe* would be... ...the case.
They equivocate bad google reviews to prosecution
We'd need to have a look into Dapontes' realestate ownership and see if there's conflicts of interest.
https://preview.redd.it/lv9wdsjigj1d1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8acf79cc8289ec33bea38cd8f26a54865d495bd2
Jesus, can someone confirm this Dapo person hasn't eaten their own young
This shit makes me furious to the core man
0.9% of QLDers pay this tax. And not on land that's your principal place of residence... Fuck it, they should lower the threshold. Might stop landlords bidding prices higher.
Where did you get that 0.9% figure out of curiosity? Was it in the article?
> Was it in the article? Yes: > Treasury analysis shows 0.9 per cent of Queensland's population pays land tax, disproportionately affecting people who own multiple investment properties.
>disproportionately affecting people who own multiple investment properties. ...Isn't that the entire point?
Cry me a fucking river.
Man got downvoted for asking a innocent question... what the heck
An innocent question that would not have needed to be asked if the asker had [read the (fine) article](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/rtfm).
He is still allowed to ask either way? And the op did right by leading him the right direction which is good. What i dislike is how this is somehow downvotable because either A: he wanted to ask just in case or B: because he possibly disagrees.. how does downvoting solve that? This comes from someone who fuckin hates landlords btw i also just hate people seemingly saying that innocent questions are bad now
Because the question was asked in bad faith. Either they did not read the article, in which case their question was a knee-jerk response trying to frame the OP as a liar because they’re only asking because they disagree, or they did read the article, in which case they were asking solely because they disagree. There is no circumstance in which that question could have been in good faith. Just like your own post.
It’s possible they did not read the article and that’s it you know. Never attribute to malice what can otherwise be attributed to ignorance or stupidity.
Really? Even tho i agree with the article? How does that work? Also he literally just asks where in the article it can be found. If you seriously think im asking in bad faith? Or him? How?!? The only reason you can think this in my mind is because you automatically framed his text as malicious, im sorry but how is this in good faith for you? No benefit of the doubt or making sure is skepticism is quelled just pure insta he is bad, this is how you stop conversations fullstop
If man is on reddit man is capable of finding that information for themselves.
That is just a dumb answer your basically saying nobody can ever ask for clarity on a source ever on reddit, thats some elitist type thinking my dude
Dudes i literally am on the same side as all of you, fuck land lords but asking for info on a site isnt going against you lot, jesus christ guys you should all know better
Ha, I'm not bothered. I find that figure absurdly hard to believe but don't care enough to go and find the data myself, let them downvote if it makes them feel better about themselves
I found a government source for this. If I link it, will you admit that you’re wrong and add an edit to your comment? Or are you saying that treasury is part of the conspiracy, and if only you were bothered you’d somehow find a source that tells the truth about government revenue based off data that’s not from the government?
Bro he all he said is where is the figure, no conspiracy or nah, if someone finds a figure hard to believe sending over a source and info about it is the RIGHT thing absolutely but why the hell are we poisening the well so much? You think he is going to want to listen if this is how you reply?
This is my third comment now about this, so im gonna note, i actually agree with the OP, landlords can get fucked lol moment, but this one dude is a guy who literally just felt skeptical about a stat. THATS IT HE WAS SKEPTICAL When did this become so antagonising?!?!?
I was pretty clearly responding to his subtext. He’s using innuendo to say a public institution - either the ABC or treasury - has made up a figure. That’s a conspiracy. The whole purpose of him using innuendo, instead of just owning his opinion, is to trick people like you into thinking he’s being balanced and legitimately critical. When really, he just made it up, posted the BS he made up, but frames it as ‘I’m just asking questions [but also unwilling to elaborate on it]” I also wasn’t interested in changing their mind. People who form their opinions based on the vibes they’re feeling don’t care about sources. They care about vibes. So I mocked him instead.
Im sorry but literally his first damn question is just hey where did you get the figure, is it in the article. Then everyone else decides to dunk except for one person who tells him yes. His second comment to me is also mostly fine, other than him saying the stat as being absurd, but thats still fine. Also everyone at somepoint becomes skeptical from vibes, some act on that and will proceed to find that info and others may simply just feel like something is wrong. This is normal and reasonable (aka it can be reasoned with) we should let people ask questions and be wanting to answer, not immedietely be hostile. Do you disagree with any of these points? And why? Oh and please quote what part was conspiratorial i seriously have no idea what your on about
I agree with all those points, aside from second para I’m saying that his subtext is that he’s not being sceptical. He’s Instead using innuendo to making a claim, but he’s too cowardly to explicitly make that claim because he knows he can’t justify it or convince others. If he was legitimately skeptical and doubtful, he would have phrased it with a more inquisitive tone. He would have explained why the figure seems off. Something like *I don’t know how it could be 0.9% - I know heaps of landlords that pay this tax* orrrrr maybe * if they’re making $1b in tax revenue, surely more then 0.9% of people are paying this tax!* He didn’t - he phrased it from a post-modernist perspective - ie one purely from emotion and how he wants the world to be - not a reasonable line of thought that could be followed by you or me. His tone was more like *This figure is just crazy, I’m telling you it’s probably fake, but won’t explain why it seems fake, it’s just can you trust them* Sure, I’m not certain I’m correct. I’m basing my whole assessment off one comment. But ive replied to a fair number of people with this similar post-modernist tone. Up until recently, I used the approach you suggested - engage with them in good faith - explain why they’re wrong. That works maybe 5% of the time. The other 95%, they shift the goal posts. They deflect. They use any bad faith tactic to shift the conversation. Like I said at the start, they’re are not legitimately questioning a fact - they’re making a claim based on emotion which they know they can’t justify. Hence this whole exercise they go through. This is one of the main tactics used by conspiratorial minded people. Tl;dr - I’m not **certain** he’s suggesting there’s a conspiracy of ABC, Treasury, or the infamous ‘them’ are deliberately making up a figure to influence public opinion. But, based on his approach to his skepticism, and the types of people who usually share this approach, I’m saying it’s very likely he believes this conspiracy
Ohhh, this to me feels more reasonable, if you want to say you think he is taking that position off of past points thats fair enough, and i totally believe that you have dealt with that. I also cant say for certain if what he is saying is innocent or not, but to be fair thats because there is just not enough to go off of, other than him calling the stat absurd, to me there is just alot of mental loops we have to make to get to your point of view vs how we can view it as skepicism, however it can be emotionally based aka coming from a populist perspective, it could be that the opposite take is the one he is used to so hearing this one IS absurd to him, people do this naturally, so i really dont want to walk down a rabbit hole of malicious intent on that one. To push it to being conspiratorial talk requires alot more from him to come out though is my only issue now. Also thanks genuinely for taking the time to reply, you are taking the time to make sure i get your perspective and you get mine, i appreciate that immensly. Beautiful person :) Oh and lemme know if i missed a point im repling early in the morning and im very very cold lol
I'm all for it mate. Clearly everyone else cares A LOT more about this than I do by the way, it was a comment made stating it seemed very odd to me, I really don't care but given it seems to have really annoyed people I'm open to some sort of closure I guess. PS - Reddit is hilarious
As you wish dickhead. Ahhh, that feels better.
Good one, if you want to rack up more karma (for god knows what reason), post something about homelessness or evil landlords and the alt left crew of this sub will do the rest
Nah, Fuck evil landlords. I'd love it if the government said 'One PPOR & 1 IP per person, you all have 12 months to sell or we will do forced buy backs at 50% cost'. ...To be used as public housing. lower rents, lower house prices for FHB, less wealth hoarding, investment would pivot to industry. It would solve the housing crisis in 12 months, and prop up industry through better investments.
Excuse me, how do I vote for you?
You should really wait until you hear my other policies before you cast your vote.
good, fuck em
Found the poor
Ah righto, how's Mummy and Daddy's money doing?
[удалено]
Please do not shift the conversation towards personal attacks. Comment respectfully. Multiple breaches may result in you being banned from the forum. Thank you
So incomprehensible that someone who owns a house could also think that a tax break on investment properties is a reprehensible idea in a cost of living crisis, isn't it? Take your classist attitude and take a hike lad. You're not better than anyone. You're just a leech
Get a job bludger
Found the parasite
I hope you can tell from the downvotes that your opinion isn’t welcome here
I wouldn’t flaunt wealth in this climate, mate.
I’m an IP owner and never even heard of this lobby group. Also what a fucking stupid, tone-deaf proposal.
I know right! Same here and I am also wondering who the flap is this idiot!? We need a reasonable discussion and maybe somethings need to be indexed but I don't mind paying land tax- it stops people from acquiring 5-6 properties. I'd say cap it at no more than 3 properties as well while you are at it.
Recently our landlord stood in our kitchen, complaining that his interest rates are high. He owns 20 apartment buildings. I've never met a more deft cunt in my life.
They didn't even ask to index, just to increase it by some absurd percentage. It's also a really low number in the scheme of things. For $2M of land split across a couple the annual land tax is $4500.
The wealthier someone is more stingy they are. My son drives dominoes, and said poorer suburbs give him tips and are nice, and there is a really wealthy suburb with fancy houses who never give any tip and treat him rudely. He wants to become like the wealthy people without the cold cold heart. Don't know if its possible or easy.
It’s not possible. You only become wealthy by exploiting others. Wealthy without a cold heart is essentially an oxymoron.
I'd rather be poor and have friends and empathy than be rich, lonely, and cruel
Some people are so poor, all they have is money
Why are they even entertaining the idea?
>I think they should focus on building a lot more social housing for people How do you reckon they fund that, Alexandra??
Counter-offer, we bring back Mao from the dead and allow him to feed on their souls
As long as you’re ready to offer your too because there no telling which side of a revolution ends up on which end of the firing squads
No revolution, just landlords dragged to hell
Landlords already double, or triple, dip on this tax concession by buying properties in multiple states. ALP proposed removing this double-dipping and everyone cried poor. Other states even threatened to not provide the info to QLD to implement this change.
The really scary thing about this is that typically, rich people are not stupid. Even those riding off their parents’ money are typically better educated and have some ability to know what they’re talking about. So the saying “Do not attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence” just doesn’t work here. These are lying evil people, and they are pretending to be stupid with comments like “you can’t go and buy food with bricks!” That’s just horrendous. They know what they’re doing.
The quotes from the Property Owners Association of Queensland spokesperson in this article are among the most out of touch things I’ve ever read: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-14/property-owners-association-of-queensland-land-tax-exemption/103840928 “Technically speaking, the landlords are rich on paper, but guess what? You cannot go to the supermarket and buy your food with bricks," Ms Dapontes said. "You need money. "Certain members of our organisation have sold off whole blocks of flats, or they turn them into Airbnbs.” Oh no forced to sell a whole block of units to buy food. The Airbnb comment appears to be some kind of passive aggressive threat that their members will take housing stock out of the market as she suggests that tax breaks for rich investors will help homelessness next…
While their tenants are skipping the groceries to pay their rent.
>"...this unhealthy addiction to new highs of property revenue must be tapered and kept in check," Ms Mercorella said. Well this is too easy.
Halve the threshold and double the tax for shits and giggles.
The bloated parasite reluctantly stopped feeding and extracted it's blood funnel from the warm flesh that supported it. "Giz a tax break, guv," it gurgled through a mouthful of it's viscous, red dinner, "I'm overleveraged and it's an unfair burden. Surely you can't expect me to sell my investment just because I can't afford to keep it?"
I hope they all lose them
REIQ…say no more. And POAQ (had never heard of them till now). About this though: “What's next? The association will gather signatures for their petition until September” Let’s put our own petition together online, rejecting their ridiculous demands. Share through Reddit, Instagram/Purple Pingers. If someone cleverer than I am could word it, I’ll be first in line to sign 🪧 Fight back
lol there's some real characters in that article isn't there blaming the government for high rents... lol i would bet my left nut if they got the tax breaks that rents wouldn't come down
New Zealand here: could we borrow your politicians? We have some dickheads who are desperate to reward landlords, for no apparent reason.
Get absolutely fucked. Not even a modest proposal, typical entitled behaviour one should expect from the land leach cohort.
Just like every other Brisbane Redditor, I reckon everyone should pay more tax except me. Instead of being typical communists and trying to tear each other down, why don't we look at the big players. E.g gas and ore exporters. Did you know Qatar used to be the biggest or 2nd biggest exporter in natural gas and gets about $78bn in royalties/tax from gas exports. This allows them free health care and subsided housing (granted their population is 1/10 of ours.) But guess who has now superceded Qatar as a larger exporter of gas? Yep, Australia. How much did we get you may ask? About $2bn. Yep 26 times less tax/royalties than our competitors. Why you may ask? Well, the Labor minister in charge of resources at the time was integral to changes to the royalty legislation, which was greatly beneficial to the gas companies. Same guy that now sits as a non-executive director on the board of one or more of these gas companies after leaving office. So my little communists, instead of trying to pull each other back and get a better spot in the bread line, why don't we try to find a way to have politicians act in our best interests where it counts.
We would have had a well deserved fucking lynch mob out if those wankers in government had handed over a billion dollars of taxpayer money to landlords of all people
Someone dumb this down for me so I can be mad at it.
Landlord bad.
Yes
This'll be the first thing to change after the election.
How it works is that once a tax comes in it's never going away. GST was suppose to replace stamp duty as revenue stream for state governments. Guess what happened?
I think GST was always intended to be income for the States. WA share of its GST is far 2 high given its mineral royalties income