this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
11 points (92.3% liked)
Melbourne
1865 readers
52 users here now
This community is a place created for the people of Melbourne and Victoria. We are a positive, welcoming and inclusive community. We might not agree about everything, but we always strive to stay civil and respectful.
The focus of our discussions is based around things that effect Victoria, but we are also free to discuss our local perspective on wider issues. Or head to the regular Daily Random Discussion thread to talk about anything.
Ongoing discussions, FAQs & Resources (still under construction)
Adoption Certificate for Nellie, the Daily Thread numbat (with thanks to @Catfish)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is this being framed as a bad thing? I thought land tax was the arrow to pierce excessive landholders where it hurts. If the tax is too high, you give up the land rather than horde it like Smaug.
What a land tax needs is a preventative measure to stop landholders passing on the bill to the people they lord over. Then land tax good! Maybe it needs a threshold; some land ok, too much land BAD!
Or is this the ABC just being the shadow of their former self? Anyone got any details of the minutiae of this one?
I think land tax is better than stamp duty. It encourages people to not have more land than they need. Whereas stamp duty discourages people from moving/downsizing.
The article sounds as if it's just reporting the facts to me. There's one comment from the opposition and one response from the Labor govt. The rest of the article is explaining what's going on and why Vic rates are the way they are.
Yes, it is. Reading between the lines the premise is "tax = bad" which everyone knows isn't completely right.
So for me owning one home (family home) this won't apply.
Or am I missing something in there?
I think what you're missing is the ability to be clickbaited into panicked outrage
Exactly. It's not hurting poorer people.
Even though tax is bad, this is a good one. You wouldn't know it from the title and blurb.
Which sort of throws the opposition argument of 'higher housing costs for families' out the window.
Thanks for clearing it up.
I'm not a fan of more taxes, but this seems reasonable.
Yeah. I was just throwing a talking point out, everything seemed reasonable in the whole article but the Lemmy PWA has the title, an article blurb, and then the comment that, to me, leaned the other way.
It sounded like the tax was high to hurt every Victorian but it just isn't. I was wondering if this was poor reporting/clickbaiting or just me.
You cleared it up too.