The ACT Government was creating a climate where people were questioning whether to invest in ACT housing, the president of the Landlords Association, Peter Jansen, said yesterday.
His comments came after the Opposition Housing spokesman, Greg Cornwell, accused the Government of breaking a promise on land tax. The Government denied it.
Mr Cornwell said the Government had promised last year to stagger land tax and rates payments, but they were still both due on August 15.
The Chief Minister, Rosemary Follett, said the Government had put back the land-tax date last year to September 15, but that was when instalments were not available. It said at the time that in future the tax could be paid in quarterly instalments, but they would fall on the same date as rates. It was more convenient for both payers and collectors.
Mr Jansen said the failure to stagger rates and tax, the increase of land tax this year on land over $100,000, the failure to have quarterly assessments and the high vacancy rates were all factors that made investors question the ACT’s value as a place to invest.
Some landlords were finding it difficult to pay tax and rates at the same time.
Last year the ACT made $80 million in stamp duty. Of that $30 million came from investors.
“”The ACT is killing the golden goose,” he said. “”The loss in stamp duty will more than outweigh some concessions to landlords.”
If investors did not take up housing the Government would be stuck with the expense of having to provide more government housing, he said. The ACT had the most rapacious and iniquitous system of land tax of any state or territory. It was a factor when investors decided where to invest.
He called for quarterly assessment of tax as well as quarterly instalments. At present the tax liability was assessed for the whole year according to the position at July 1 and a landholder had to pay a whole year’s tax (either in instalments or one hit), even if the house was sold or the owner moved back into residence part way through the year.
Quarterly assessment would not cost much administratively, would be fairer, and would be revenue neutral an equal number of people could be expected to become liable during the year as those who cease to be liable.