Election

<html><body>
<p>GUEST OBSERVER</p>
<p>Australia votes on 2 July 2016 and never before has so much superannuation policy turned on one election. A Liberal victory could mean very different things than a Labor victory.</p>
<p><span>In this article, I explore some of the ins and outs of each party’s announced policies.</span></p>
<p><span>Labor</span></p>
<p><span><strong>The policy</strong></span></p>
<p><span>Labor has been consistent with their policies for superannuation (including SMSF) pensions. Its position is <a href="https://www.alp.org.au/fairer_super_plan" target="_blank"><span>available here</span></a>.</span></p>
<p><span>… reduce the tax-free concession available to people with annual superannuation incomes from earnings of more than $75,000. From 1 July 2017, future earnings on assets supporting income streams will be tax‑free up to $75,000 a year for each individual. Earnings above the $75,000 threshold will attract the same concessional rate of 15 per cent that applies to earnings in the accumulation phase</span></p>
<p><span>… capital gains will be grandfathered …</span></p>
<p><span><strong>The drawbacks</strong></span></p>
<p><span>The key drawback I feel is that the above could be very difficult to implement for those with pensions from multiple funds. For example, consider an individual who receives pensions from two superannuation funds. The earnings from the assets supporting the first pension in the first fund might total $60,000. The earnings from the assets supporting the second pension in the second fund might also total $60,000. Accordingly, total earnings (ie, $60,000 + $60,000 = $120,000) exceed the $75,000 threshold by $45,000. This raises a tricky question: in which fund is the $45,000 excess subject to tax?</span></p>
<p><span>I suspect that the most practical way of dealing with this problem is as follows. I stress that this is only what I suspect what would happen. Again, I have no special inside information.</span></p>
<p><span>At the end of each financial year, each fund tells their pensioners what the associated pension assets earnings of the fund are by way of a document that is similar to a PAYG payment summary.</span></p>
<p><span>Each pensioner has to lodge an income tax return with the total of all associated pension assets earnings from all funds. These figures would not constitute assessable income of the pensioner.</span></p>
<p><span>If total associated pension assets earnings is greater than $75,000, the ATO sends the pensioner a tax bill calculated as the excess (eg, $45,000 in the above example) multiplied by 15 percent.</span></p>
<p><span>The pensioner must give this bill to one or more for their superannuation funds to pay. The superannuation funds can adjust the tax bill by any deductions/losses they have in the relevant year.</span></p>
<p><span>The pensioner can only pay the tax bill him or herself if there is insufficient money in any of their superannuation accounts in any superannuation funds to pay the bill.</span></p>
<p><span>Naturally, the above would be very paperwork heavy. Further, it would be mean that pensioners who might not otherwise have to lodge income tax returns would need to start lodging tax returns. However, I suspect the above — or some version of it — is what would be needed to make the Labor policy work.</span></p>
<p><span>Another drawback is the question of what happens in respect of the sale of ‘lumpy’ assets such as real estate. Real estate can be quite low yielding in rent meaning that in most years the $75,000 threshold might not be used up. However, when sold, there could be a large capital gain. If this capital gain is greater than $112,500 (ie, $75,000 grossed up for the one-third CGT discount that superannuation funds currently get if the asset is held for more than 12 months), then the SMSF would pay tax at usual superannuation fund rates on the excess of the net capital gain over $75,000. However, some of the harshness of this would be mitigated by the fact that ‘capital gains will be grandfathered’. Also, there is no suggestion that the $75,000 threshold will be indexed.</span></p>
<p><span><strong>The pros</strong></span></p>
<p><span>Firstly, ‘capital gains will be grandfathered’. On one construction, this could mean that pension assets already owned in superannuation funds will remain CGT free upon sale. Alternatively, on a more charitable/optimistic reading of the sentence, this could even mean that the second drawback doesn’t even occur (ie, that there’s no limit on the pension exemption that applies to capital gains). Alternatively, it also mean even other things.</span></p>
<p><span>Liberals</span></p>
<p><span>The liberals made three noteworthy policy announcements in the Budget.</span></p>
<p><span><strong>The first policy</strong></span></p>
<p><span>The first policy is to:</span></p>
<p><span>… [f]rom 1 July 2017 … introduce a $1.6 million transfer balance cap on the total amount of accumulated superannuation an individual can transfer into the retirement phase. Subsequent earnings on these balances will not be restricted.</span></p>
<p><span>This $1.6 million cap will be indexed in increments of $100,000 in line with the consumer price index. A fact sheet released on Budget night explains:</span></p>
<p><span>A proportionate method which measures the percentage of the cap previously utilised will determine how much cap space an individual has available at any single point in time. ― For example, if an individual has previously used up 75 per cent of their cap they will have access to 25 per cent of the current (indexed) cap</span></p>
<p><span><strong>The drawbacks of the first policy</strong></span></p>
<p><span>On its face, the Liberals’ policy is similar to Labor’s policy. Afterall, assuming that assets yield income of 4–5% pa, $1.6 million of assets will generate approximately $75,000 of income. However, I suspect the reality could be quite different. My reasoning is as follows. Firstly, remember that under Liberals’ policy ‘[s]ubsequent earnings on these balances will not be restricted.’ Accordingly, a taxpayer with greater than $1.6 million of assets will have a tremendous incentive to try to do a bit of ‘crystal ball gazing’ in order to determine which assets will experience significant capital appreciation and use those assets to fund their pension. This can work out in two ways:</span></p>
<p><span>If the crystal ball gazing is right and assets that will experience significant capital grow are allocated to the pension, then — contrary to the Liberals’ motivation — high wealth individuals could still experience significant tax free income, including net capital gains.</span></p>
<p><span>However, the opposite could occur (ie, the crystal ball gazing is wrong), and indeed I suspect the opposite will occur more regularly. That is, assets are allocated to commence pensions and those assets end up collapsing in value, for example, where the next GFC comes along. Because it very much sounds like the Liberals want to implement a lifetime cap of $1.6 million, if you pick the wrong assets (eg, if you started your pension with $1.6 million of shares in the next Enron), then it appears to be a case of too bad: even though the original assets might collapse in value down to effectively nothing, you can never use your pension exemption again.</span></p>
<p><span>This means that the income tax system would not be taxing income. Rather, it would be giving a tremendous free kick to those who are good at picking investments and it would be giving a tremendous kick in the guts to those who mis-predict future investment performance.</span></p>
<p><span>Other draw backs of this policy include:</span></p>
<p><span>It sounds like there will be a harsh penalty for exceeding one’s cap. This could occur if a fund miscalculates market values and starts a pension not with $1.6 million of assets but with what ends up being valued at, for example, $1.7 million of assets. The penalty would a tax on not just the earnings of the excess but also on the capital of the excess. Hopefully lessons from the poorly drafted excess contributions tax regime would be learnt and a sensible discretion will be given to the ATO (or even to taxpayers themselves) in order to avoid unfair and harsh outcomes.</span></p>
<p><span>It would require tracking of how much of each individual’s lifetime cap — as proportionally indexed — has been used.</span></p>
<p><span><strong>The pros of the first policy</strong></span></p>
<p><span>This policy would be conceptually easier to administer I think than the Labor equivalent.</span></p>
<p><span><strong>The second policy</strong></span></p>
<p><span>The Liberals have said that they will remove ‘the tax exemption on earnings of assets supporting Transition to Retirement Income Streams from 1 July 2017’.</span></p>
<p><span>The key point here is that to date, for those wishing to take no greater than 10% of their assets per annum, it has not made a huge difference whether they receive transition to retirement income streams or full account-based pensions. However, under this policy it would make a big difference. Accordingly, if this policy ultimately becomes law, those wishing to commence transition to retirement income streams will have an incentive to see if they can first ‘trigger’ a retirement event so that they can take a full account-based pension rather than a transition to retirement income stream and thus pension assets can access the pension exemption. It has been noted by many that — particular once someone reaches age 60 — ‘retirement’ as defined in superannuation law can occur in ways that are very unintuitive. For example, according to paragraph 22 of APRA’s Prudential Practice Guide SPG 280 Payment Standard, if a 60 year old works two jobs and quits one job (eg, to work even more in the other job) this constitutes retirement under the superannuation law.</span></p>
<p><span><strong>The third policy</strong></span></p>
<p><span>The Liberals propose to remove the ability to make a reg 995‑1.03 election that ‘allows individuals to treat certain superannuation income stream payments as lump sums for tax purposes.’</span></p>
<p><span>Succession planning</span></p>
<p><span>Both the Liberals and Labor’s proposals could have a massive impact on succession planning.</span></p>
<p><span>Currently, the legislature has been quite explicit that if a fund member dies in pension mode, so long as their benefits are cashed as soon as practical after death, the pension exemption at the fund level will continue and there will be no ‘back door’ death tax by way of CGT at the fund level.</span></p>
<p><span>This could change a lot regardless of who wins. I won’t give this full consideration in this article, however, I will note the following consideration in respect of the Liberals’ policy. Namely, unlike Labor where an infinite amount can support a pension, it appears that under the Liberals’ policy, someone can never receive pensions with assets that were worth more than $1.6 million upon their commencement.</span></p>
<p><span>This might mean in a mum and dad fund with real estate worth say $3.2 million, if dad dies and mum already has a pension, all of dad’s benefits (ie, a 50% interest in the real estate) might need to be cashed out of the fund by way of a lump sum with no scope of a death benefit pension to mum.</span></p>
<p><span>Therefore substantially more CGT may be collected in superannuation funds in respect of death benefits especially given the Liberals’ proposed removal of the anti-detriment deduction.</span></p>
<p><em>Disclaimer: The following is based on my view of materials publicly available as at the date of writing (16 May 2016). I suspect that when more details become known about both parties’ policies, some comments could become redundant.</em></p>
<p><em>This article is for general information only and should not be relied upon without first seeking advice from an appropriately qualified professional. </em></p>
<p><em>Bryce Figot is director, DBA Lawyers and <a href="https://www.dbalawyers.com.au/">can be contacted here</a>.</em></p>
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Liberal v Labor: what different election outcomes could mean for smsf pensions

<html><body>
<p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1"></p>
<p>GUEST OBSERVER</p>
<p>It is well known that retail sales have regular cycles that can be disrupted by external events, such as federal elections. While anecdotally it has been suggested that uncertainty around elections causes shoppers to close their wallets and purses, there appears very little evidence either domestically or globally to support the claim that an election campaign will negatively impact consumer spending.</p>
<h2>The Blame Game</h2>
<p>Retailers are notorious at playing the “blame game” when it comes to their sales and profit reporting. They too quickly point the finger at Mother Nature, for being too hot or too rainy, the releasing of blockbusters that distract shoppers, and even customers themselves for being too price conscious, chasing discounts that erode their margins.</p>
<p>This month, Myer CEO Richard Umbers warned that the election campaign is expected to hit consumer sentiment and negatively affect Myer’s outlook.</p>
<p>Surprisingly, Australia’s other large department store, David Jones, remained silent. It appears David Jones is just getting on with business and delivering store sales growth twice the rate of the Australian department store sector. Seemingly, there are other factors affecting retail stores sales, other than an impending federal election.</p>
<h2>Is there evidence?</h2>
<p>Researchers from Princeton University and the University of Chicago found elections had little impact on how consumers actually spend. In their study, spanning four presidential elections, their initial findings identified a correlation between a voters’ “ideological opposition towards a winning candidate” (measured by a voter-ideology score) and a lower score on the Michigan Consumer Sentiment Survey.</p>
<p>However, the correlation did not prove causality. For example, when President George W. Bush was elected in 2000, negative sentiment had no effect on consumers’ self-reported spending plans or on their subsequent automobile purchases and credit-card use. Consumers ideologically opposed to President Bush were not happy about the election outcome, but this slump in sentiment had no effect on what they planned to spend, or actually spent.</p>
<p>It is a similar picture here in Australia, where commentators are looking a little more closely at claims elections stifle retail spending. A review of the ANZ – Roy Morgan Consumer Confidence Index demonstrates a similar phenomenon to that in the US. With the exception of September to October lead into the November 2001 election, marred by the 9/11 attacks in New York and the collapse of Ansett, in most cases, confidence remained positive.</p>
<p>Prior to the October 9 2004 election, the September consumer confidence grew by over 6 percent on August. Similarly, October 2007 was up nearly 6.5 percent on September in the lead up to the November 24 election.</p>
<h2>Confident but deferred</h2>
<p>The operative word used among consumers during times of uncertainty is “deferred”. IBISWorld chairman Phil Ruthven finds that shoppers tend to take a “wait-and-see approach” during election campaigns, which sees spending curtailed on big ticket items like cars, consumer electronics and high-end fashion, but household basics such as food and basics generally remain insulated. In most cases, consumer confidence tends to bounce directly after elections.</p>
<p>There are far too many variables in play to suggest that an extended federal election alone will derail consumer confidence and stifle retail spending. In fact, some consumers who expect to be the recipients of election sweeteners such as tax cuts, infrastructure projects and or job opportunities, may actually increase spending. The power of suggestion is strong with such consumers. Once consumers anticipate a specific positive outcome will occur, they believe their subsequent thoughts and behaviours will actually help to bring about that outcome.</p>
<h2>What retail categories are most affected?</h2>
<p>Food, groceries, fuel and basic clothing generally remain well protected during uncertain times. Despite increasing price competition between the players, the food and grocery division remain moderately strong.</p>
<p>Ultimately, shoppers still need to put fuel in their cars and food on the table. However, most exposed are “big ticket” retailers selling furniture, consumer electronics and automobiles. Fashion clothing and accessories are expected to struggle as such purchases are tied to discretionary spending.</p>
<h2>Other factors?</h2>
<p>Granted, the combination of unseasonable warmer weather across Australia and the growth of global fashion retailers like H&amp;M, Uniqlo, Zara, Forever 21 and Top Shop in the domestic market, will definitely pose a challenge for retailers.</p>
<p>This year incumbent players like Myer, David Jones, Premier Investment and Specialty Retail Group are not just competing with one another, but also these new entrants. This year, more than ever before, shoppers have more choice.</p>
<p>While most consumers remain confident, some retailers are certainly looking towards challenging times ahead. Granted, this is the first federal election held during winter in 20 years and timed “smack bang” in the middle of half yearly, stocktake sales. With an eight week election period well underway, shoppers will continue to buy the basics, but will defer upgrading big ticket items until an outcome is announced on July 3.</p>
<p>An unseasonably warm autumn and a glut of global fashion retailers in the market, will encourage incumbent retailers to cut prices little deeper this year. Great for shoppers, but tough on the books. It is looking to be a tough year ahead for retailers.</p>
<p><span class="fn author-name">Gary Mortimer s</span><span style="line-height: 1.3em;">enior lecturer, QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gary-mortimer-1322" target="_blank">here</a>.</span></p>
</body></html>

Keep calm and keep shopping – how elections impact retail sales

<html><body>
<p>GUEST OBSERVER</p>
<p>While the weekend’s election was tight, if nothing else, it’s clear that Labor needs to rethink some of their policies if they’re to win a majority government in the future. </p>
<p>After a bruising loss in the 2013 federal election, when Kevin Rudd fell to Tony Abbott in a landslide defeat, the Labor party has made up significant ground on the Liberals – the weekend’s election is clear proof of this.</p>
<p>However, it would seem that Labor’s ability to regain support isn’t necessarily because the Australian voter base is highly attracted to its policies, but rather has come from the party’s so called “mediscare” campaign. </p>
<p>This was evident in the final weeks of the election campaign, when Labor strategically switched its focus from promoting its own policies to a sustained attack on the Liberal party over claims that it wanted to privatise Medicare – a claim that the Liberal’s unequivocally denied. </p>
<p>The tactic clearly worked, though, and as soon as the polls closed, Labor was immediately espousing that it had won the campaign, if not the election.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, if Labor wants to form a majority government in future elections it will have to seriously rethink some of their policies, because they’ve failed to convince many middle-class voters of their plan for Australia’s future. Even though they’ve already won more seats than the 2013 election, Labor’s primary vote is currently the second lowest on record.</p>
<p>Labor’s approach to negative gearing is a prime example of a policy they need to rethink.</p>
<p>Being one of the party’s key policies, and one that is distinctly at odds with the Liberal party, it’s clear Labor’s stance on the matter hasn’t been accepted by ordinary Australians.</p>
<p>If Labor hasn’t already got the message, then maybe the results from a recent survey will show exactly how out of touch their negative gearing policy is with the Australian public.                 </p>
<p>The Real Estate Institute of WA conducted a survey in the weeks leading up to the election.</p>
<p>Asked if negative gearing should be restricted to only newly-built properties, just 3 percent of respondents answered, yes.</p>
<p>That is a resounding rejection of Labor’s negative gearing policy, which if implemented will cause major disruption to Australia’s housing markets.</p>
<p>With more than 9 million houses in Australia owned by owner-occupiers and investors, this is a significant portion of the voter base that will be effected.</p>
<p>These voters would be very hesitant to back a Labor party with their current negative gearing policy for fear they’d see the value of their properties decline.</p>
<p>That’s not even taking into account the huge number of renters that would be negatively affected as well.</p>
<p>Given this, Labor will have to seriously rethink their stance on negative gearing, and other policies, if they’re to have any chance of forming a majority government in future elections.</p>
<p><em>Damian Collins is the founder and managing director of Momentum Wealth and can be contacted <a href="https://www.momentumwealth.com.au/damian-collins/" target="_blank">here</a>.</em></p>
</body></html>

Labor policy rethink needed to win majority government: Damian Collins

<html><body>
<p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1"></p>
<p>GUEST OBSERVER</p>
<p>For committed urbanists, any sign of serious urban policy action by the federal government is welcome. Early announcements by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his appointment of a minister for cities were cause for some celebration.</p>
<p>The subsequent appointment of Angus Taylor as assistant minister for cities and digital transformation continued the positive outlook; a relatively new parliamentarian with a good track record of business development and an analytical disposition was entrusted to advance this policy agenda.</p>
<p>April 29 marked the start of the next phase of policy development, when we got to see what a Smart Cities Plan looks like and whether it was worth the wait.</p>
<p>On first reading it contains all of the right words – smart, innovative, liveability and prosperity. It also advocated some sensible principles – collaboration, co-operation and partnership. But do these nice words and sensible principles add up to a real step change in urban policy thinking, or to a business-as-usual approach wrapped in the latest policy terminology?</p>
<p>At this stage we cannot be sure, but prospective partners in state and local government seem to have a fair degree of optimism about the plan.</p>
<p>Most sensible public bodies will profess their support, in principle, for any initiative that offers the prospect of new money to support development proposals in their area. They will commit, in principle, to working together for the common good in their locality. And, if necessary, they will rebadge their current plans to fit more easily with the rhetorical flavour of the new initiative.</p>
<p>The proof will, however, lie in the detail of partnership arrangements, in the implementation structures that are developed and in the way new money is allocated. Even more importantly, success will depend on whether the actual measures employed work in practice.</p>
<h2>Partnerships in practice</h2>
<p>In each of our cities – large and small – we need all three levels of government to work together if growth is to be supported and managed effectively. Intergovernmental partnerships have been proposed for as long as we have had different levels of government.</p>
<p>There is much research on what makes such partnerships work well and what does not. Where partnerships work, much of this success is based on mutual respect and recognition of the distinctive contribution of each partner.</p>
<p>It becomes more challenging where the reality of an urban area requires horizontal partnerships between local councils as well as vertical partnerships with state and federal bodies.</p>
<p>The patchy experience of Regional Development Australia committees across the country gives some indication of how well this has been achieved to date. Some have worked very well. Others have struggled in the face of varied and variable enthusiasm among partners.</p>
<h2>Getting implementation structures right</h2>
<p>I have argued previously that effective implementation of any policy initiative is often plagued by a lack of long-term commitment and bipartisan support.</p>
<p>Along with a seemingly irresistible belief within governments of any hue that policies need to be fiddled with (the technical terms would be refreshed, refocused or rebadged) every few years, carefully designed initiatives are rarely left to get on with their work and run their course.</p>
<p>Another problem is bureaucratic capture, in which early ambitions to work differently, with greater agility perhaps, are slowly but surely overtaken by implementation regimes that do the opposite in practice. The business experience of both the prime minister and his assistant minister for cities will be needed to prevent this type of sclerosis taking hold.</p>
<h2>Finding and spending new money to best effect</h2>
<p>As Taylor told Michelle Grattan recently, some partnerships between public bodies and private investors have been very effective in the past – the construction of the national rail network in the US, for example. But there is also no shortage of ones that have not gone well for any of the parties.</p>
<p>So, while there has been some enthusiasm for the potential role of value capture of late – and certainly in the new plan – we need to see the detail of particular proposals.</p>
<p>The UK City Deals model includes the principle of transferring some of the increased tax revenue associated with growth from the Treasury back to local partnerships. However, this has sometimes proved difficult to agree in practice.<span style="line-height: 1.3em; font-size: 1em; font-weight: bold;"> </span></p>
<p>And it is here that bipartisan agreement in the urban policy field seems unlikely at present. The shadow minister for cities, Anthony Albanese, has come straight out with a ringing condemnation of the Turnbull-Taylor plan as a policy without substance.</p>
<p>Albanese also joined with the Property Council of Australia in invoking the spectre of Australian families being slugged with a new property tax to capture some of any increased value associated with public investment in infrastructure.</p>
<h2>How will we know what works?</h2>
<p>Tucked away on page 23 of the plan is a small section about measuring success. This acknowledges the importance of having good-quality data to provide a baseline against which future performance can be measured. It cites the need for “unambiguous targets, accountabilities and timeframes for city-level reforms”.</p>
<p>The plan recognises that, without these, it will be impossible for the government to hold itself and its investment partners to account. I would like to think that in five years’ time we will be able to read a National Audit Office report (like this one on the 2011-14 Liveable Cities Program) describing how this bold new Smart Cities Plan heralded a new era of productive intergovernmental collaboration.</p>
<p>That would mean it succeeded in attracting substantial new private investment, which set our cities on a clear path to being smarter, more productive and nicer places in which to live.</p>
<p>Let’s hope that if I shared this view with The Castle’s Darryl Kerrigan he wouldn’t tell me, or indeed Angus Taylor, that we’re dreamin’.</p>
<p><span class="fn author-name"> </span></p>
<p><em><span class="fn author-name">Paul Burton is p</span><span style="line-height: 1.3em;">rofessor of Urban Management and Planning &amp; Director, Urban Research Program, Griffith University and author for The Conversation.</span></em></p>
<p><em><span style="line-height: 1.3em;">He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/paul-burton-5155" target="_blank">here</a>.</span></em></p>
</body></html>

Smart Cities Plan offers signs of hope, but are Turnbull and Taylor just dreamin'?

<html><body>
<p>EXPERT OBSERVER</p>
<p>There has been a turnaround in housing sentiment post-election.<br><br></p>
<div><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2O6ydv5d_yc/XVni9mLphDI/AAAAAAAAxY4/Wqb10jHOMQ8QStGBIlxAYxOTafNm1xwugCLcBGAs/s1600/C8117FDD-B268-4C8B-A681-0065B5FC871E%2B%25282%2529.jpeg"><img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2O6ydv5d_yc/XVni9mLphDI/AAAAAAAAxY4/Wqb10jHOMQ8QStGBIlxAYxOTafNm1xwugCLcBGAs/s640/C8117FDD-B268-4C8B-A681-0065B5FC871E%2B%25282%2529.jpeg" width="640" height="468" data-original-height="607" data-original-width="828"></a></div>
<p>Source: CoreLogic</p>
<div>There have been other factors, of course, including two rate cuts.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The second rate cut was only delivered six weeks or so ago, and there can be a long lag effect - the full impacts many not be felt for up to 18 months</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>In addition, there were very strong auction results reported for the inner suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne by agents and media alike this weekend, especially for properties located within 15 minutes commute of the Central Business District.<br><br>CoreLogic found that every single apartment in Sydney's city or inner south taken to auction this weekend sold under the hammer, which is remarkable.<br><br>For freestanding inner-suburban houses, it was a bit of a frenzy. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<em><strong>PETE WARGENT</strong> is the co-founder of AllenWargent property buyers (London, Sydney) and a best-selling author and <a href="https://petewargent.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">blogger</a>.</em><span> </span>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

pwargent-M4siyDbqQY

The post-election housing sentiment bounce: Pete Wargent

<html><body>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.3em;">If you thought the election debate on negative gearing was interesting watch the new property debates get a whole lot hotter with the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO’s) latest bombshell announcement which guaranteed will send shockwaves through property markets. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.3em;">No doubt this is just the next step following the ATO being handed total ownership of the Australian property transaction register in mid – 2015, a role they had been champing at the bit to control for quite some time.</span></p>
<p>From Friday July 1 2016 (the day before the federal election) all sellers of residential and commercial property worth in excess of $2 million will be deemed as an overseas investor unless they can attain a special tax clearance. Failure to attain the special tax clearance certificate means the seller must deduct ten (10) percent from the purchase price which is immediately paid to the ATO.</p>
<p>No doubt lawyers, accountants and conveyancers would be rejoicing at these newly discovered revenue streams although what has not been announced is when a seller receives their compliant special tax clearance are the associated costs in receiving the compliance tax deductible?</p>
<p>This is all aimed at closing loopholes solely aimed at the leakage of tax revenues. Australian residents will get their tax clearance so long as they are up to date with tax returns, proving that they acquired the property within their declared earnings – which I see as a very good move.</p>
<p>When the ATO took over the property reins they quickly started extrapolating all property transactions back to 1985, so it will take a while to complete the register. This new legislation is simply closing the door on those who acquired property illegally either from proceeds of crime or as non – residents.</p>
<p>For the last five years foreign investors have been running amok buying Australian real estate. The federal governments have laid out the welcome mat when they raised off – the – plan purchase restrictions in 2008 from 50 percent to 100 percent.</p>
<p>This week Fitch Ratings warned that Australia clearly has a significant ‘hidden’ offshore property buyers risk. Andrea Jaehne, a director at Fitch Ratings, stated that she was shocked by the increase of foreign buyers since 2010, where the Foreign Investment Review Board experienced an eightfold increase in approvals up to 2015. She said that it was difficult to know the true number of properties being sold offshore because foreign investment rules did not require an approval for foreigners buying apartments off the plan.</p>
<p>The question that needs to now be asked is (with the recent property frenzy which conveniently replaced the mining boom) with all these new measures what will happen to property prices? Well foreign buyers will almost certainly now hold back and watch what happens to the Australian markets particularly Melbourne and Sydney – we can expect some big corrections in these investment markets.</p>
<p>With a further 250,000 apartments to hit the domestic markets within the next two years it is very difficult to see a happy outcome for these markets – more particularly as we have more evidence that these markets are significantly slowing. Then throw in the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics data which shows that Australian wages are growing at the slowest rate for at least 18 years.</p>
<p>Furthermore, we are now hearing that market analysts are now coming to the conclusion that low interest rates actually cause more damage to the economy. As one commentator said this week “very low interest rates around the world are inhibiting economic recovery rather than encouraging it.”</p>
<p>Australia is now just 44 days away from getting a clearer indication of what will happen to the markets more particularly with negative gearing. Now is not the time to start tinkering with investors clearly preferring existing properties. Agents will tell you that when an existing apartment comes onto the market the ratio of home buyers to investors inspecting is generally 50/50. Take away half the market and of course prices will come down – which in turn will drive rents up.</p>
<p>Of course the opposition treasurer could produce his modelling to show otherwise, however this has not been forthcoming so one can then conclude that no modelling is in existence.</p>
<p>With all that’s happening on the Australian property landscape the timing is a potential disaster. In the meantime, watch how many vendors try and offload their properties before the new ATO legislation comes into effect. No doubt the ATO will be watching too.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>MOSMAN – 2088</p>
<p>Number of houses on the market this time last year – 65</p>
<p>Number of houses on the market last week – 55<span style="line-height: 1.3em;"> </span></p>
<p>Number of houses on the market this week – 55<span style="line-height: 1.3em;"> </span></p>
<p>Number of apartments on the market this time last year – 47</p>
<p>Number of apartments on the market last week – 50</p>
<p>Number of apartments on the market this week – 50</p>
<p> </p>
<p>CREMORNE – 2090</p>
<p>Number of houses on the market this time last year – 5</p>
<p>Number of houses on the market last week – 7<span style="line-height: 1.3em;"> </span></p>
<p>Number of houses on the market this week – 11<span style="line-height: 1.3em;"> </span></p>
<p>Number of apartments on the market this time last year – 10</p>
<p>Number of apartments on the market last week – 23<span style="line-height: 1.3em;"> </span></p>
<p>Number of apartments on the market this week – 22</p>
<p> </p>
<p>NEUTRAL BAY – 2089<span style="line-height: 1.3em;"> </span></p>
<p>Number of houses on the market this time last year – 6</p>
<p>Number of houses on the market last week – 8</p>
<p>Number of houses on the market this week – 8<span style="line-height: 1.3em;"> </span></p>
<p>Number of apartments on the market this time last year – 29<span style="line-height: 1.3em;"> </span></p>
<p>Number of apartments on the market last week – 21</p>
<p>Number of apartments on the market this week – 22</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>ROBERT SIMEON is a director of </em><em><a href="https://www.rwm.com.au/" target="_blank" title="RWM" rel="nofollow">Richardson Wrench Mosman and Neutral Bay</a> </em><em>and has been selling residential real estate in Sydney since 1985. <br>He has also been writing real estate blog </em><em><a href="https://www.rwm.com.au/news/" target="_blank" title="Virtual Realty News" rel="nofollow">Virtual Realty News</a> </em><em>since 2000.</em></p>
</body></html>

robertsimeon-hRNTwJyXkQ

ATO quickly wields its big new property tax

<html><body>
<div dir="ltr">Lady Mary Fairfax, the last owner of the Fairwater harbourfront estate at Double Bay once boasted she was enrolled at Harrington Park, her country estate on the outskirts of Sydney, because her vote mattered more there.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p">
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p">
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p"> </div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p">The longtime society doyenne died last year, with her executors recently securing a <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/90023-fairwater-snapped-up-by-billionaire-mike-cannon-brookes" target="_blank">record setting $100 million.</a>
</div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p"> </div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p">The property had cost £5,350 when bought by her media dynasty forebears in 1901, when the Federation saw the first conservative party local member.</div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p"> </div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p">The electoral pendulum has swung from the ruling Liberal Party representation, but its pricey property has been near endlessly on the rise.</div>
<p>With Sydney house prices having a $980,000 median price, there are almost no opportunities to buy houses at this level across the electorate.</p>
<div dir="ltr">It has the highest valued residential property in the country, given its proximity to the harbour and the coast.</div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p">The residential land value alone - before improvements - of the Woollahra municipality sits at $37 billion.</div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p"> </div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p">It is $29 billion in the Waverley municipality.</div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p"> </div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p">The Wentworth electorate has more haves than have nots among its 103,810 electors.</div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p"> </div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p">Indeed the AFR columnist Christopher Joye speculated before the poll that the affluent Wentworth voters "might inflict massive financial losses on themselves in what is one of Australia's most investment-orientated electorates."</div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p"> </div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p">
<div dir="ltr">Celebrities aplenty, longtime society page doyennes and newbie A-listers, plus even a few rogues call the eastern Sydney suburbs home.</div>
<p>The local estate agents who get around in flash cars, are constantly setting record prices, albeit amid rising homelessness. </p>
<p>The famed Bondi Pavilion on the iconic beach has provided shelter for rough sleepers under its arches.</p>
</div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p">Just across the water, the retailer Mark McInnes recently sold his uninhabitable <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/89166-mark-mcinnes-secures-12-million-north-bondi-penthouse-sale" target="_blank">North Bondi penthouse for $11.5 million</a> to aged care provider Mark Moran who intends a Tobias Architects fit out.</div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p"> </div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p">TV star Larry Emdur sold last year on the cliff at Dover Heights for a<a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/77663-larry-emdur-secures-dover-heights-record" target="_blank"> record $11.5 million</a> to accountant Anthony Bell.</div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p"> </div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p">The Lowy family picked up a <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/77585-14-2-million-watsons-bay-beachfront-sale-through-bradfield" target="_blank">neighbouring beachfront at Camp Cove</a> for $14.2 million taking their holding to three blocks.</div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p"> </div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p">Coastal Tamarama has seen prices hit $13 million when DJ Annie Conley bought the home of pioneering fashion retailer Robbie Ingham.</div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p"> </div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p">The local Tama Surf Living Saving Club president was the Labor candidate Tim Murray.</div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p"> </div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p">At nearby Bronte, which got the $2 million Federal Government grant during the campaign, a record $16.5 million was paid several years ago by a former Keating Government staffer, Seamus Dawes who is now a merchant banker.</div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p"> </div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p">Former state and federal Labor politicians had something of an inland retirement village around Woollahra with the likes of Paul Keating, Graham Richardson and Neville Wran, all owning there at times.</div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p"> </div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p">The departing local member Malcolm Turnbull, with wife Lucy, bought their house, once known as Le Gai Soliel for $5.4 million in 1994, and its likely to be worth $60 million, being on the electorate’s priciest peninsular where prices have hit $61.8 million.</div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p"> </div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p">Centennial Park saw a recent record $16.5 million when tech billionaire Mike Cannon-Brookes and wife Kim sold Braelin, their renovated 1918 home to art gallery owner Gene Sherman and her husband Brian.</div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p"> </div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p">The Atlassian co-founder went on to buy Fairwater, topping the national price record by nearly $30 million on the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/expert-insights/buying/69461-double-bay-harbourfront-elaine-sold-for-70-million" target="_blank">$71 million just next door</a> on Seven Shillings Beach, which has now been nicknamed Atlassian Cove.</div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p"> </div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p">An active climate change advocate, Cannon-Brookes tweeted Saturday night that he'd happily fund the mooted independent, Jane Caro's challenge against former Prime Minister Tony Abbott in Warringah.</div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p"> </div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p">Double Bay was one of the 12 booth's won by Liberal candidate Dave Sharma among the electorate's 35 booths.</div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p"> </div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p">Kerryn Phelps is the local doctor, who resides not far away in Potts Point. Her large medical practice has seen patients through the years including former Channel Nine boss Eddie McGuire. Liberal senator Trent Zimmerman declared he ranked among the practice's current clients.</div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p"> </div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p">High profile publicist Roxy Jacenko and husband Oliver Curtis <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/61486-pr-dynamo-roxy-jacenko-buys-in-vaucluse" target="_blank">recently spent $6.5 million on a Vaucluse home</a> having previously been renting a luxury Bondi Beach apartment block developed by film maker Rebel Penfold Russell, where Hugh Jackman stays in his trips down under.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr">Bar baron Justin Hemmes lives in The Hermitage at Vaucluse which the hotelier family have owned since paying $500,000 in the 1970s recession.</div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr">Tycoon James Packer has sold out completely, though his mum, Ros, who attended a Dave Sharma fundraiser, remains at Cairnton, the longheld 2,450 sqm family estate at Bellevue Hill while his ex wife, Jodee Meares, owns at Watsons Bay.</div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div>John Ibrahim has owned for over two decades at Dover Heights having paid $1,165,000 in 1997.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There was a brief stay at Vaucluse by Salim Mehajer who rented a mansion overlooking Diamond Bay, before he was forced to vacate last year after owing $18,000 in rent.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span>Of occupied private dwellings in Wentworth around 17 percent are freestanding houses, with 20 percent semi-detached, row or terrace houses, and ortownhouses.</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div>
<span><span>Some 61 percent of the dwellings are apartments, making </span></span>Wentworth the most densely populated electorate in the country.</div>
<div><span style="color: #333333;"><span> </span></span></div>
<div><span><span style="color: #333333;">All up some 70,000 privately owned dwellings.</span></span></div>
<div><span><span style="color: #333333;"> </span></span></div>
<div><span><span style="color: #333333;">Around 44 percent of the dwellings are rented, at a $610 a week median, well </span>up on the $380 NSW median, according to the 2016 Census.</span></div>
<div><span style="color: #333333;"><span> </span></span></div>
<div><span style="color: #333333;"><span>For owners, the median monthly $3000 mortgage payments is well up on the $2000 NSW median mortgage. </span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>The are declining numbers of boarding houses along with not enough crisis refuges. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Social housing is available, but sparsely so in the east. <span>Anglicare recently estimated less than one per cent of private rental properties in Wentworth's are affordable for low-income earners.</span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There are NSW Housing Department flats on Neild Avenue, Paddington in the cosmopolitan heartland of the electorate, plus pricey Ramsgate Avenue, North Bondi.</div>
<div>
<div class="page" title="Page 5">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<p><span>Bridge Housing, an organisation that owns properties and manages properties owned by the NSW Land and Housing Corporation (LAHC), the public housing authority within the NSW Department of Family and Community Services (FACS), has 213 dwellings available in the Waverley municipality and 16 in the Woollahra municipality.</span></p>
<div>The cheapest recent sales have include a $491,700 Bondi Beach studio apartment, a $607,000 one bedder in Bellevue Hill and a $640,000 one bedroom apartment in Vaucluse.</div>
<div>  </div>
<div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p">A one bedroom with views of iconic Bondi Beach might set you back $2.8 million.</div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p"> </div>
<div class="m_-1140009158435937648gmail-m_-5445150200022835211gmail-p">And a car space needs an extra $300,000, but good luck finding one. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

Baton change in political outlook from Fairwater, on Double Bay's Seven Shillings Beach, aka Atlassian Cove

<html><body>
<p>The City of Sydney electoral rolls for the 2016 election will close on 1 August.</p>
<p>On this date, the City of Sydney will provide details from the non-residential register to the NSW Electoral Commission.  After this date, they will verify if each individual on the register is eligible for the non-residential electoral roll. </p>
<p>If you are eligible, your name and address will be added to the non-residential electoral roll and you will be required to vote at the next City of Sydney Local Government election in September.</p>
<h3>Checking your name on the electoral roll </h3>
<p>From early August, you should check if your name is on the non-residential electoral roll before election day to confirm if you are required to vote.</p>
<p>You can check the roll by either:</p>
<ul>
<li>checking <a href="https://www.votensw.info/" target="_blank">online with the NSW Electoral Commission </a>
</li>
<li>visiting the City of Sydney Customer Service Centre in Town Hall House, 456 Kent Street Sydney, where the roll will be available</li>
<li>calling our Customer Service team on 1800 101 667.</li>
</ul>
<p>The address on the electoral roll will be that of the property you own, occupy or lease in the City of Sydney Local Government Area.</p>
<p>ad of the City of Sydney Local Government election on 10 September 2016, owners, occupiers and rate-paying lessees of rateable property in the City of Sydney area are required to register for the non-residential register and roll.</p>
<p>This is your final reminder to be on the register and be eligible to vote at the 2016 City of Sydney Local Government election.</p>
</body></html>

Election

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Election

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News