Everybody’s Home Media Release
With property investor tax breaks costing billions every year, making housing more expensive and hindering productivity, Everybody’s Home is urging the government’s economic reform roundtable to make housing tax reform a top priority.
The national housing campaign’s submission to the roundtable, closing today, highlights the urgent need to reform negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount to boost productivity and repair the federal budget.
Investor tax concessions are expected to cost the budget more than $180 billion over the next decade while disproportionately benefiting high-income earners and driving up housing prices.
Everybody’s Home urges the roundtable to consider:
- Abolishing negative gearing and phasing out the capital gains tax discount
- Funding a sustained pipeline of public and community housing.
It comes amid growing calls from politicians, economists, and think tanks for the government to reform the capital gains tax discount on housing.
Everybody’s Home spokesperson Maiy Azizie said: “It doesn’t make sense that we are losing billions of dollars every year through tax concessions that most benefit high-income earners, while everybody else is being pushed out of the housing market. Tax breaks for investors are widening the wealth inequality gap and pushing up the cost of housing for everybody else.
“Without reform, these tax breaks will cost more than $180 billion over the next decade. Abolishing unfair tax breaks would not only improve the budget bottom line, but also boost more productive investments that will actually fix our crisis: more social housing.
“We need a workforce that is mobile, healthy and supported through a safe, stable home – but Australia’s housing system is acting as a handbrake on productivity. Investor tax breaks are working against more productive investments like innovation, business expansion, or new housing supply.
“Every dollar invested in solutions that will fix the housing crisis boosts productivity in our country. Young people in unstable housing are abandoning study, regional employers are struggling to attract workers due to a lack of affordable homes, and parents are forced into long commutes because of housing cost pressures. All of that is hurting workforce participation and increasing stress.
“This is about creating a system that benefits everyone. It’s encouraging to see more and more politicians, economists and think tanks calling for a rethink on these unfair investor tax breaks.
“Every dollar invested in social housing boosts economic activity and creates jobs. We need bold action to tackle inequality while building a fairer and productive Australia. The government must tackle the real drivers of the housing crisis and build a future where everyone can afford a place to call home.”
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
The original Labor polocy on Negative Gearing and Capital Gains tax concessions was that these investor incentives should only apply to new builds not the churn of existing houses.
This remains a sensible approach as investors will continue to invest no matter what and it just means that they will direct their investment dollars into new houses for rent.
Let’s all listen to common sense for once.
The land tax applied (at least in Victoria) has risen very sharply in the past year or 2. It significantly eliminates negative gearing tax benefits.
Governments must seriously overhaul the planning regulations to increase supply.
° encourage high density development over all rail lines, and adjacent to public transport hubs
° ensure there us a high density component to all development projects
° reduce the NIMBY control of local government
You need to look at what’s behind the press releases you publish. Maiy Azizie is a professional marketer for political campaigns. Just because an organisation presents as a charity, that does not mean that it does not have vested interests in real-estate and pushing up demand.
Anglicare is a large organization with numerous agencies across Australia. Its total assets, including land and real estate, reportedly increased from $1.47 billion in 2016 to $2.035 billion in 2020, according to The Klaxon. However, this figure lacks specificity regarding the exact amount of land or real estate involved. For example, Anglicare Sydney purchased a 50% stake in LDK, which operates two retirement villages, highlighting its significant involvement in real estate.
The same applies to Catholic and Salvation Army organizations. They have moved beyond grassroots origins, with property developers now sitting on their boards and aligning with the Property Council of Australia, a multi-billion-dollar lobbying group. The Catholic Church, in particular, is the largest private real estate owner in Australia. None of these organizations, including Anglicare, consider housing demand in their strategies, as it does not serve their interests. They often advocate for high immigration rates—promoting the idea as if it were solely about refugees, despite only 14,000 being classified as such—while pushing for over half a million immigrants annually.
A clear indication that this press release stems from an organization disconnected from sound policy is its use of the term “NIMBY,” suggesting that Australian homeowners are responsible for excessive demand. This reflects a YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard) agenda, which is funded by the US-based Open Philanthropy, supporting YIMBY USA and thriving in densely populated areas like New York and California, where homelessness is rampant.
As of March 2024, 83% of demand in Australia originated from overseas immigrants, with only 17% from local population growth. It is concerning that a significant financial entity like Anglicare promotes the notion of blaming a few homeowners, labeled as “NIMBYs,” for the cynically-engineered demographic crisis that has left many homeless.
Another troubling aspect is the endorsement of high-rise developments, which are often unaffordable for low-income earners. These projects are being pushed through a series of undemocratic planning amendments, recently scrutinized by the Victorian Legislative Council. Many resident groups in Victoria are desperately striving to educate their communities amid a lack of proper communication from the Victorian Government, which also stands to gain through taxing land-transactions.
It seems odd that a publication calling itself The Australian Independent Media Network consistently echoes the mainstream narrative on this issue.
Nero, these press releases are sent to dozens of independent and mainstream sites. We publish them as media releases, not opinion pieces.
We do not always agree with them, but that doesn’t stop us from publishing them.
PS: Regardless, I enjoyed reading your comment. Your argument was well-presented, and has given me food for thought.
Thank you Michael. Press releases are not handed down from the Mount. They can be altered, as long as you don’t assert that a person has said something they did not. You can use them as you wish. If I received such a press release, I would quote bits and comment on them. Thank you for your pleasant reply. 🙂
My pleasure, Nero. I encourage feedback.
Some outlets do rewrite them to look like an article, but I don’t do that for a couple of reasons; 1) it’s sent as a media release so I leave it at that, and 2) we don’t have the time or resources to present them as articles anyway.
As an aside, we don’t publish all the media releases: only those that we think might be of interest to the readers. And whilst with media releases we like to remain impartial, we do shy away from those with an extreme far-right message. We draw the line with them. Yes, it’s hypocritical of me, but we’d lose all our readers if we were seen as a mouthpiece for conspiracy lunacy.