<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Over the weekend the Andrews government announced a tax on foreign investment in Victorian real estate. This includes a 3% Stamp Duty surcharge and a 0.5% Land Tax premium. On top of the $5,000 foreign investment fee announced by the Federal government, this will add some much needed balance between those looking for housing and those wanting an investment.
However, we wait with baited breath for the devil in the detail. The one sure winners are Australian property investors who will enjoy less competition from foreign investors. A national property spruiker is currently touring the nation a seminar beckoning investors to enjoy their ‘unfair advantage’. Such a move by Andrews will do nothing to unwind local investor advantage.
In fact, this ‘reform’ may add further benefit to Australian investors. Whilst the policy announcement allows New Zealand citizens and those with permanent residency to enjoy their unfair advantage, we are yet to see the detail on Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) and property syndicates. Will foreigners be able to invest in local investment entities if under say a 20% capital threshold? REITs are already benefitting from the <a href="https://www.prosper.org.au/2015/02/24/the-foreign-investment-future/" target="_blank">Significant Investment Visa</a> program.
We are pleased to see<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-02/foreign-home-buyers-set-to-pay-higher-taxes-in-victoria/6439650" target="_blank"> Treasurer Tim Pallas stating: </a>
“We think it’s inherently unfair on Victorians for foreign purchasers to take the gains of owning property in Victoria through the services and infrastructure that Victorians pay over an extended period of time without contributing their fair share,”
This implies it is bad for foreigners to <a href="https://www.prosper.org.au/georgist-glossary#Unearned%20Income" target="_blank">make money in their sleep</a>, but perfectly acceptable for Victoria’s elite to do so. Hypocrisy we say!
An upfront Stamp Duty will curb some demand but established foreign investors will see this as requiring even greater capital gains to justify investments. This may extenuate the number of vacant properties and the investment window held. It could also see further cuts in quality product by foreign developers.
The Andrews government did have the common sense to include a Land Tax component to the impositions on foreign investment. Whilst the new 3% stamp duty on a $600,000 home will add some $18,000 to a foreign investment, the 0.5% increase in Land Tax is minimal. For the same home, that equates to an extra $1750 imposition.
If Andrews was serious he would have reversed the tax imposition with a minor Stamp Duty increase and a major Land Tax increase. This would put pressure on foreign investments to be leased out or on-sold quickly, adding to supply. A higher Stamp Duty does the opposite by slowing turnover. Buyers will hold a property until the $18,000 in stamp duty plus their desired capital gain is achieved. Charging $1750 in Land Tax will do little to alter investment behaviour at just 10% of possible rental income. With capital gains running at $40,000 – $60,000 per annum, a $1750 charge is minimal. We will be very interested to see if the new change affects auction clearance rates and off-the-plan sales.
With foreign investments doubling in the last five years and hitting some 20% of purchases nationally in 2014, a policy move was needed to protect our sovereignty. Well done Treasurer Pallas for admitting Victorian taxpayers need a return on investment for their public infrastructure. If only we could extend that concern to the immense capital gains those owning real estate near <a href="https://www.prosper.org.au/2015/04/30/value-capture-for-victoria/" target="_blank">the new Melbourne Metro loop will enjoy.</a> That would reflect the ‘fair go for all’ mantra Australians live by. To meet this, Andrews must go further by demonstrating the exponential wealth delivered by property is bad for the economy, whether for a foreign or local investor.
Karl Fiztgerald is project director of <a href="https://www.prosper.org.au/" target="_blank">Prosper Australia</a>.
This article first appeared on Prosper's website.
</body></html>

KarlFitzgerald-5HzVbxHhJb

Foreign investment curbs benefit Australian investors: Karl Fiztgerald

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The Abbott government’s lurch at a foreign investment fee to fund the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) will be a minor inconvenience. 
“There is significant global evidence from recent times including Canada, Singapore and Hong Kong where these types of taxes on foreign investment have been totally counterproductive, caused significant corrections within the markets and harmed the construction industry” CBRE residential projects chairman Justin Brown was quoeted as saying in the <a href="https://www.afr.com/p/national/politics/foreign_property_buyers_to_pay_approval_TnnDgOvoNycdqw7V5urAAN" target="_blank">AFR</a>.
The response from the real estate sector has been typical. 
Whilst we are supportive of some traction towards the taxation of excessive real estate profits, the 1% charge will mean little in comparison to last year's capital gains.
As outlined in <a href="https://www.prosper.org.au/2015/02/24/the-foreign-investment-future/" target="_blank">the foreign investment future</a>, the average $3,375,000 FIRB approved investments last year would pay a foreign investment fee of $33,750. The capital gains were running at $229,500. Such a fee will not break the bank.
In that same post I mentioned how effective Singapore’s foreign investment fee of 18% was in maintaining the public interest – low land prices. The property lobby have convinced the news cycle that rising property prices are a good thing. They are if you are a property seller or a bank. For the public this means rising debts and thus interest payments.
We do however see merit in the commentary of Ray White chairman Brian White in comparing such a charge as a stamp-duty like charge. Such a foreign investment fee will curb some demand, impeding turnover.
However, it is likely to be minor as the above capital gains to foreign investment fee comparison demonstrates. Treasurer Hockey was adamant the fee was purely an administrative one so that the FIRB could do its job.
Only $200 million is needed yearly to fund an expanded FIRB. <a href="https://www.firb.gov.au/content/default.asp" target="_blank">Will we get a new website for that?</a> The relative size of such fundraising is again minor to the <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6416.0" target="_blank">$418 billion in land price increases in the 13-14 year.</a>
After a minor skirmish, we expect this will have little imposition on the global land bubble. The fact it is set at a much lower rate than Hong Kong and Singapore ensures global investors will still be set upon buying up locations of inspiring natural beauty.
If the government knew what they were doing, a Federal Land Value Tax would be reimposed nearly <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Taxation_Office#History" target="_blank">100 years since our first federal tax was announced</a>. Accompanying this would be a significant 5-10% income tax deduction and a doubling of the pension. The LVT would curb speculative foreign investment, reigniting the Australian creative spirit alongside lower land prices and a lower tax burden for all.
Karl Fiztgerald is project director of <a href="https://www.prosper.org.au/" target="_blank">Prosper Australia</a>.
This article first appeared on Prosper's website.
</body></html>

Foreign investment fee will only be a minor inconvenience: Karl Fitzgerald

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
With Sydney’s clearance rate hitting 87% on the weekend and a modest three bedroom weatherboard homes selling for $1.36 million, (some 40 minutes commute from the CBD), concerns over the role of speculative investment continue.
The ‘golden ticket’ to fast track residential status, the Significant Investment Visa (SIV), has seen <a href="https://news.domain.com.au/domain/real-estate-news/significant-investor-visa-approvals-increase-fivefold-in-a-year-20150220-13kkzr" target="_blank">a five-fold increase in applications</a> over the last year. This program has attracted$3.2 billion in investments. Direct investments in real estate are not recognised as a qualifying factor.
The federal government has expanded such incentives with the Premium Investment Visa, developed for those willing to make a $15 million investment in non-real estate related investments. We commend the government for recognising further investment in real estate undermines the competitiveness delivered by lower land prices.
However the carefully worded statement by Minister Robb <a href="https://trademinister.gov.au/releases/Pages/2014/ar_mr_141017.aspx" target="_blank">announcing the Premium Investment Visas said</a>:
"Minister for Trade and Investment Andrew Robb said that direct investment in residential real estate would not be a complying investment under the government’s proposed new Premium Investor Visa (PIV)."
Repeat – ‘no direct investment in real estate’. This implies real estate investment trusts (REITs) and other managed investments into real estate are allowed, encouraging both the further centralisation of economic power and additional investments in land. Those in the finance and real estate sectors will be delighted.
The chair of the parliamentary inquiry into foreign investment, Kelly O’Dwyer, said <a href="https://www.kellyodwyer.com.au/housing-supply-affordability-and-investment-address-to-the-committee-for-economic-development-of-australia/" target="_blank">in a speech last week:</a>
"Non resident foreign investors, while they can purchase new dwellings cannot generally purchase existing dwellings.
"Applications to purchase new dwellings are therefore generally granted, while applications to purchase existing homes are only granted if the purchaser is a temporary resident.
"So who is a temporary resident and what are the rules? Temporary residents in Australia, that is those people who have a visa to reside in Australia for over 12 months, are allowed to purchase an existing dwelling as a home but they must divest that home within three months of leaving the country at the expiry of their visa...
"The Committee found that there were loopholes in the current framework – that far from penalising individuals who made illegal purchases, in some instances it rewarded them.
"Let me give you an example. If a non-resident foreign person purchased an existing home this would be contrary to the rules. Just as it would be if that non-resident foreign person purchased multiple existing homes.
"Under the current regime, if FIRB found out and successfully divested that person of those properties – and those properties had appreciated in value from the time of purchase to the time of sale, that non-resident foreign investor would get to keep the windfall gain.
"Clearly this loophole needs to be closed."
Finally a recognition of windfall gains! If the naturally rising value of land is not fit for unlicensed foreign investors, does that mean in time the public will question all windfalls as <a href="https://www.prosper.org.au/georgist-glossary#Unearned%20Income" target="_blank">Unearned Income</a>? If the community creates that value through their development, their existence, shouldn’t they too benefit? O’Dwyer continues:
"All foreign investors in residential real estate must apply for approval from the FIRB prior to purchase.
"According to the most recent FIRB statistics, last financial year, FIRB approved foreign investment into residential property of around $34 billion, double the $17 billion approved during 2012-13.
"Much of this investment is concentrated in the Melbourne and Sydney markets. Approximately 80% of total investment is attributable to new property, which at over $27 billion 2013-14 is 170% higher than 2012-13.
"The total number of established property approvals for 2013-14 is nearly 8,000 as compared to just over 5,000 for 2012-13."
The 8,000 approved foreign investments averaged $3,375,000 – with totals up 170%!
We fear the foreign investment ‘tightening’ further elaborated on in O’Dwyer’s speech will do little to stem the tide of international capital.The capital gain on a $3,375,000 investment at the national average of 6.8% for the last year equated to $229,500 (<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6416.0" target="_blank">ABS 8 Capital Cities</a>). A $1,500 application fee for purchases limited to new stock only, alongside the rigmarole of applying via the Foreign Investment Review Board, will do little when such large amounts are being invested on average.
If the windfall gains for an illegal foreign investor are to be forfeited to the government, then why not all such capital gains? The conflict between sovereignty and savvy investment is mounting in the eyes of <a href="https://www.prosper.org.au/2015/02/19/the-rotting-fruits-of-a-100-year-old-trend/" target="_blank">the speculative onslaught</a>. Foreign investment is a direct challenge to the control of national resources.
Singapore has taken <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/a-highendproperty-collapse-in-singapore-20150219-13jkf5#ixzz3ScPhbzcR" target="_blank">a more direct approach</a>.
As progressive as that is, refinement is needed. A <a href="https://www.prosper.org.au/2012/10/02/council-rating-subsidies/" target="_blank">property tax penalises improvements</a> – install solar or renovate and you are penalised under this perverted system. This is not productive. The tax should focus on land values. Rising locational land values are the trigger for property price increases, so that is where the focus need be. The <a href="https://www.iras.gov.sg/irasHome/page04.aspx?id=2094" target="_blank">Singaporean property tax does the opposite, by not including any land value</a>. This will encourage run down properties (accompanied by generous depreciation allowances no doubt).
It must be noted Singapore has also imposed additional measures limiting debts to income ratios.
Despite the property tax shortfalls, Singaporean property prices fell 4% last year, with further falls to come. After a close election with foreign investment a major election issue, we hope the political elite can hold their nerve in the face of the predictable vested interests backlash. Perhaps the recent five year extension of <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-23/singapore-to-extend-tax-breaks-for-property-trusts-by-five-years" target="_blank">the tax amnesty on REIT foreign earnings</a> is a payback for such reform.
For Australia, the much vaunted housing supply mantra is being undermined by foreign investment in new homes. New re-zonings are being snapped up off the plan as a safehaven to park money. The mobility of capital is set to increase alongside technology, ensuring the commodification of housing escalates as the global housing marketplace matures. Housing supply alone cannot keep up with international demand for a commodity returning (barely taxed) huge capital gains.
<a href="https://www.prosper.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Speculative_Vacancies-2014_final.pdf" target="_blank">Our recent report</a> highlights the underutilised nature of many prime locations. It is important this measure expands to other cities to help the public understand just how extensive speculative holdings of housing are becoming. Then perhaps a more vocal political opposition will develop.
Until the unearned incomes in real estate are more highly taxed, the pressures on those trying to find a place to live will continue to grow.
Karl Fiztgerald is project director of <a href="https://www.prosper.org.au/" target="_blank">Prosper Australia</a>.
This article first appeared on Prosper's website.
</body></html>

Foreign investment is a direct challenge to the control of national resources: Karl Fitzgerald

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The new Victorian Andrews government has lost no time putting its stamp on the future shape of Melbourne, funding the planning stage of the Melbourne Metro Rail tunnel – while fretting about the $9 billion cost.
Victoria can fund this vital connection, lifting train speeds and frequency throughout the network.
Land prices along this route will soar and government is entitled to use some of this to fund the project through value capture.
People forget 30% of the Melbourne underground loop was funded by a special city levy on land values from 1963. The Melbourne Underground Rail Loop Authority ensured city land owners shared a small portion of benefits they gained from the project. There is no reason we can’t do this again.
There are <a href="https://www.prosper.org.au/26p/" target="_blank">very good studies</a> that prove the merit of this approach. In London, the recent Jubilee rail line delivered £13 billion in windfall gains to landowners within 1,000 yards of the eleven new rail stations. Construction costs were just £3.5 billion.
The rise in land values directly attributable to this civic improvement was enough to pay for the rail link <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.transportblog.com/archives/000344" target="_blank">nearly four times over</a>.
The ALP referred directly to land value capture to fund the removal of level crossings in its <a href="https://www.danielandrews.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Victorian-Labors-Project-10000.pdf" target="_blank">Project 10,000 </a>election manifesto. It is economically sound, fair to taxpayers and, in practice, drives powerful infrastructure improvement by recycling investment funds.
Doubts remain as to whether the roads-biased Abbott government will assist this vital Victorian rail project. There is more than enough embedded in land values to fund the cross-city rail – with or without federal help.
After mentioning the soft option of tolling drivers, which has <a href="https://www.prosper.org.au/2014/04/11/superannuation-the-next-sacrificial-lamb-in-failed-infrastructure-model/" target="_blank">failed spectacularly as a financing mechanism in NSW and QLD</a>, an article <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/victoria/toll-motorists-to-pay-for-rail-tunnel-expert-says-20141210-124azo" target="_blank">in The Age </a>recently quoted the RACV’s Bryan Negus:
"RACV public policy head Brian Negus said tolling level crossings would be impractical.
"He said some on Labor’s list could be removed in a public-private partnership, with the private sector given development rights around the rail line.
"'If you remove six or seven together in one package and put those out to the private sector in a value capture arrangement with government funding as well, that’s a good way of trying to deliver them,' he said."
With <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/rash-financial-deals-dilute-philanthropy-20121223-2btp6" target="_blank">the cost of Public Private partnerships continuing to rise</a>, one wonders when a Labor government will ever question them? From <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-tunnel-vision-will-cost-all-victorians-big-time-20130623-2oq8h" target="_blank">the cost of finance at 2% above government financing</a>, the public interest is immediately at a disadvantage.
Then there is the incredible cost per train station. The Wyndham Vale and Tarneit stations are rumoured to have cost $50 million each. These are jaw dropping costs, for which the developer paid nothing to see his land values skyrocket. But the millennium falcon of train stations – the Williams Landing station – tops them all at $110 million (including overpasses). The size of these costs ensures the government mustutilise the most efficient form of revenue raising possible. Under the current arrangements, the public will recognise such immense infrastructure projects as nothing more than <a href="https://www.earthsharing.org.au/2014/12/the-code-to-housing-wastage/" target="_blank">developer welfare</a>.
The academic with the lead quote in the article almost got it right:
"Speaking this week on a panel organised by Engineers Australia, Professor Stanley of the Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies said the revenue could go into a transport fund that would help the government deliver a long-term plan for Melbourne.
"'The general principle is you identify who the beneficiaries are from implementing public policy initiatives and ask them to make a contribution, and the people who are going to benefit from this are the motor vehicle users who get a better run,' he later told Fairfax Media."
But Professor Stanley looks only at the users – the car drivers. The real beneficiaries are the surrounding land owners. Some property valuers estimate the value of a train station adds $70,000 to each property within walking distance. A sway of <a href="https://www.prosper.org.au/26p/" target="_blank">high level reports</a> have pointed to the use of a fairer infrastructure financing system.
Former Prosper Australia President Robert McAlpine was a Melbourne City Council bureaucrat who played a significant role in ensuring surrounding land owners to the City Loop paid something back to the community to say thanks for the new service – and the windfall gains. However, today landowners scream poor when they have to pay even 2% of the benefits back.
But alas we face the usual battle: One real estate industry figure said imposing such a special levy on land along the route would be met with spirited opposition from property groups.
The tenor of the first few comments accompanying the article suggest the people have had enough.
With the new Victorian government introducing the <a href="https://www.vic.gov.au/contactsandservices/directory/?ea0_lfz149_120.&amp;roleWithSubordinates&amp;d8469aeb-74d4-4051-acac-e822b89ac64d" target="_blank">Ministry of Equality</a>, this policy innovation is a vital step forward.
Karl Fiztgerald is project director of <a href="https://www.prosper.org.au/" target="_blank">Prosper Australia</a>.
</body></html>

Karl Fitzgerald

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News