Desperately seeking cure for agent underquoting
REAL ESTATE
As a parent of a child who has attended fruitless auction sales and paid for building inspections, my heart bled for the young couple who spent $500 for a building report on a place they 'could not afford' (″ This couple spent $500 trying to buy their dream home. They never stood a chance ″, 17/8.
I am also concerned about the dishonesty of real estate representatives with underquoting. The 'cure' I see is relatively simple. Anyone placing their house up for auction should be required to provide three separate building reports similar to those provided by a vendor of a used car.
Those three reports should be provided by building inspectors known to the agent and not the vendor. That would save the pain of potential buyers forking out and losing potential deposit money.
The price guide has been a furphy for a long time. My wife and I attended an auction many years ago where we were told by the agent 'we would get it' at a price we found later was at least $40,000 lower than the reserve which that agent would have fully known.
When a 'price guide' is given, it should also be mandatory that if someone offers the top reserve plus 5 per cent, that offer must be legally accepted. It may put an exaggerated price on a house but would give a buyer a fair guide and save the grief of auctions that many experience.
Auctions do not contribute to economic productivity.
At a federal level, any overseas 'investor' buying property – and not a resident – should be subject to a 100 per cent, or close to it, capital gains tax. If they have no intention of contributing to Australia economically on a full-time basis, why should they profit? Real estate is not productive investment.
As for Australian investors and capital gains tax: For people who have been forced to relocate for work, two houses (one primary and one secondary residence) are fair enough.
Otherwise, they should be subject to a far heavier capital gains tax than they do at present on a subsequent house.
Trevor Gibbs, Ocean Grove
Vendor should provide building report
As The Age's 'Bidding Blind' investigation (17/8) shows, many house hunters are unnecessarily out of pocket in investigating a prospective property when the practice of underquoting renders that property out of reach.
While revealing the reserve price prior to auction would go some way to resolving the situation, I consider there is another way similar to the private sale of a vehicle for which the seller must obtain a roadworthy certificate: Why not make the property's vendor responsible for providing an independent building inspection report?
Not only would this redress the balance between vendors and potential buyers and reduce buyer futility, but it would also improve housing sector productivity by significantly reducing the number of unnecessary building inspection reports.
Kevin Bailey, Croydon
Lock in price expectations
Significant disparity in the values between the real estate
agent's ″quoted range″ and the vendor's ″locked in″ reserve figure for properties will continue until these two decisions have
to be made concurrently and collaboratively.
Andrea Middling, Canterbury
Cooling on real estate agents
Why is there no cooling-off period with real estate agents? There needs to be, as with most other contracts, particularly given the size of the asset.
When selling, one agent was so rude the moment the contract was signed that I waited out the 90 days. I eventually sold very well with a responsible agent. Not everyone has the luxury of being able to hold off. This is a serious anomaly with contract law.
Katharine Anderson, Windsor
THE FORUM
Not affordable
Thank you, Daniella White for exposing the appalling failures of the Victorian government's fast-track planning regime ‴ Apartments for the rich': Developments fast-tracked with no affordable housing,″ (17/8). In metropolitan Melbourne, multi-storey apartment blocks are being fast-tracked under the guise of providing affordable housing while actually allowing expensive apartments affordable only by the well-off.
In the Geelong suburb of Rippleside a similar story is unfolding. With 93 apartments and a marina built and a further four-storey apartment block approved, the site's developer consortium applied for an increase to seven storeys with a further 84 apartments. This was rejected last July by the Geelong Council.
The developers have now gone to the DFP for fast-track approval of a seven-storey block of 83 apartments and a marina office on a waterfront site that already includes 96 apartments each valued at $2-$3 million and a marina.
It is clear that affordable housing is, at best, the Cinderella of the planning story unfolding, while the developers get the golden slipper. The Allan government must stop this rort.
Rosemary Kiss, Rippleside
Bendigo festival
Re ' Not quite a full stop for writers festival', (7/8). What good can come from placing restrictions on those engaged in literature? Writers' festivals should consider it an opportunity to discuss delicate topics in an intelligent and thoughtful manner.
Craig Tucker, Newport
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
28 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Google slugged $55m over Telstra, Optus deal
Tech giant Google has agreed to pay a $55m fine for a deal with Australia's major telcos aimed at reducing search competition. According to the ACCC, the deal involved Telstra and Optus pre-installing only Google Search on Android phones the telcos sold to consumers. In return, Telstra and Optus would receive a share of the revenue generated from ads displayed to consumers via Google Search on these devices. The ACCC said by pre-installing Google Search engines on these devices, the telcos and tech giant engaged in anticompetitive business practices. Google has been fined up to $55m for anticompetitive practices NewsWire / Gaye Gerard Credit: News Corp Australia The ACCC said the breaches in competition laws occurred between December 2019 and March 2021. Google admitted that this relationship with the telcos substantially lessened competition, the ACCC said. The proceedings started on Monday in the Federal Court, with Google admitting liability and agreeing to pay $55m. 'Conduct that restricts competition is illegal in Australia because it usually means less choice, higher costs or worse service for consumers,," ACCC chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said. Telstra, Optus and TPG last year agreed with the ACCC not to enter into new search exclusive deals with Google. The breaches occurred between 2019 and 2021. NewsWire / Gaye Gerard Credit: News Corp Australia 'Today's outcome, along with Telstra, Optus and TPG's undertakings, have created the potential for millions of Australians to have greater search choice in the future and for competing search providers to gain meaningful exposure to Australian consumers,' Ms Cass-Gottlieb said. The three telcos could configure search services on a device-by-device basis and in ways that may not align with Google settings, the ACCC said. It said Google didn't agree with all of the ACCC's concerns but gave an undertaking to address them.
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
‘Distasteful': Growing calls to tax the family home
A radical proposal to tax the family home has been described as a 'distasteful' but necessary measure to reduce 'inequality'. Ahead of Labor's three-day Economic Reform Roundtable in Canberra this week, economists from the University of Technology Sydney and Melbourne University have put forward their own 'bold' proposal, arguing it's time to 'time to consider taxing the family home' by ending the capital gains tax (CGT) exemption. 'This may seem distasteful, but there are some strong arguments for doing so,' Peter Siminski and Roger Wilkins wrote in The Conversation on Wednesday. Australia's capital gains tax, introduced by the Hawke Labor government in 1986, applies to the increase in value between when an asset was bought and sold. The family home, or technically the 'main residence', has always been exempt from CGT. Treasury estimates it forgoes around $50 billion a year in revenue by exempting family homes from CGT. In 1999, the Howard government also introduced a 50 per cent CGT discount if the asset is owned for at least 12 months. The CGT discount equates to around $19 billion a year in lost tax revenue. Scrapping the CGT discount, along with negative gearing — allowing property investors to deduct losses from their from taxable income — has long been called for by critics who argue the tax concessions help drive up house prices and fuel inequality. But touching the family home CGT exemption would be far more controversial. Neither major party has proposed scrapping the CGT exemption. As of the 2021 Census, 67 per cent of Australian's 9.8 million households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage, while 31 per cent were renters. The overall rate of home ownership has remained steady at between 67 per cent to 70 per cent since the early '70s, but has dropped sharply among younger age groups who face greater barriers to ownership including rising prices and stagnant wage growth. Home ownership among 30- to 34-year-olds fell from 64 per cent in 1971 to 50 per cent in 2021, and from 50 per cent to 36 per cent among 25- to 29-year-olds. Prof Siminski and Prof Wilkins argue 'owner-occupied housing exacerbates inequality'. In a draft research paper, the economists have modelled what they argue is the true picture of Australia's income inequality by taking into account the 'income' that owner-occupiers derive from their family home — by including the 'imputed rental income', or what a homeowner would pay in rent, and unrealised gains on the value of the property. 'When these are included in the income measure, inequality is higher, and it increases more strongly over time,' they wrote. 'The effect is large enough to shift Australia's inequality from 16th to 10th highest amongst OECD countries. Unsurprisingly, outright homeowners are much better off than renters when income from the home is counted. They have an average income 86 per cent higher than the average income of renters — compared with 34 per cent higher if housing income is ignored, as it usually is.' They argue that in when viewed this way, Australia's progressive tax system, which reduces inequality by charging higher tax rates for people with higher incomes, is 'largely a mirage'. 'The income tax system reduces inequality by a lot less (about 40.5 per cent less) if we include such housing income,' they wrote. 'Because this income is tax-free, the average tax rate for the rich is much lower than it seems.' Similarly they found for that the pension, which excludes 'housing wealth' from the assets test, the effect of pensions and benefits on inequality was 18.9 per cent smaller 'when housing income is included'. 'Overall, the combined impact of income taxes and pensions/benefits on inequality is 26.7 per cent lower when we include income from the family home,' they wrote. Prof Siminski and Prof Wilkins argue that, overall, these tax concessions may increase house prices and encourage 'inefficient allocation of resources'. They suggest that this 'tax-free income from investing in owner-occupied housing' — which is not actual cash but 'imputed' rent and unrealised gains — could instead be invested into private businesses, 'stimulating entrepreneurial activity and lifting productivity, wages and profits'. 'We know of no recent studies that have estimated the size of this effect, but it is likely to be large and therefore make the move into home ownership more difficult,' they write. 'The absence of recent studies may be because taxing owner-occupied housing is not seen as a politically viable option.' Reducing the incentive to invest in housing would benefit the 'Australian community as a whole' due to 'increased investment in productive activities', but renters would stand to benefit the most 'since the tax burden would shift towards homeowners'. The economists put forward several possible options for 'more fairly incorporating owner-occupied housing in the tax system', such as a broadbased land tax — supported by many economists — an explicit tax on owner-occupied housing wealth, or even a broader wealth tax. 'We should have a national conversation on whether the current tax treatment of owner-occupied housing is sensible,' they wrote. 'Moving away from complete exemption would open up opportunities for reduced reliance on income taxes and more food on the table for renters, and owners of modest homes.' Glenn Davies and Chris Evans from the UNSW School of Accounting have also argued that it is time to rethink the main residence exemption, saying both the underlying policy rationale and complex legislation are no longer 'fit for purpose'. 'Australia, like many other countries, is plagued by rising housing unaffordability and significant intergenerational wealth inequality, and the tax shelter provided by the MRE not only does nothing to alleviate these problems, it exacerbates them considerably,' they wrote in a paper for the eJournal of Tax Research last year. But the proposal has sparked backlash on social media. 'First government stopped you from getting on the property ladder by removing the bottom rungs (cheap housing),' Libertarian commentator Topher Field wrote on X. 'Now government is being urged to shackle everyone on to their existing rung of the ladder, by making it cost hundreds of thousands of dollars if you sell the family home. If you have to pay capital gains tax when you sell the family home then it will be nearly impossible to save enough money to be able to sell your house and move into a different house of the same value, let alone one of higher value.' 'Disgusting,' another user wrote. 'And confusingly, didn't they want empty nesters to downsize to make bigger homes available? This just discourages that.' Meanwhile the Australia Institute, a progressive think tank, has also called for scrapping the CGT discount as one of 'three ways Australia can tax wealth better' in a discussion paper ahead of this week's roundtable. 'Australia is a low tax country, with increasing demands for government spending,' the Australia Institute's David Richardson and Matt Grudnoff wrote in the paper released on Monday. 'Australia has a long history of taxing wealth lightly: it taxes capital gains concessionally; it does not have a wealth tax; nor does it have an inheritance tax.' They propose scrapping the CGT discount, imposing a 2 per cent wealth tax on those with net assets over $5 million, and introducing inheritance taxes on large estates. The three measures combined would raise an estimated $70 billion a year — $19 billion by fully taxing capital gains, $41 billion from a wealth tax, and $10 billion from death taxes, which were abolished in the '70s. An inheritance tax 'would need to be supplemented by a gift tax to reduce the tax avoidance that would otherwise occur if asset-holders could make large tax-free gifts in the years prior to their demise'. 'Targeted wealth taxes have the advantage of raising large amounts of revenue while only impacting the very wealthy,' they wrote. 'This is a group with the greatest capacity to pay. They are also a group that have been largely ignored by Australia's current tax system.'
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
ACCC fines Google over Telstra, Optus search deals
Tech giant Google has agreed to pay a $55m fine for a deal with Australia's major telcos aimed at reducing search competition. According to the ACCC, the deal involved Telstra and Optus pre-installing only Google Search on Android phones the telcos sold to consumers. In return, Telstra and Optus would receive a share of the revenue generated from ads displayed to consumers via Google Search on these devices. The ACCC said by pre-installing Google Search engines on these devices, the telcos and tech giant engaged in anticompetitive business practices. The ACCC said the breaches in competition laws occurred between December 2019 and March 2021. Google admitted that this relationship with the telcos substantially lessened competition, the ACCC said. The proceedings started on Monday in the Federal Court, with Google admitting liability and agreeing to pay $55m. 'Conduct that restricts competition is illegal in Australia because it usually means less choice, higher costs or worse service for consumers,," ACCC chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said. Telstra, Optus and TPG last year agreed with the ACCC not to enter into new search exclusive deals with Google. 'Today's outcome, along with Telstra, Optus and TPG's undertakings, have created the potential for millions of Australians to have greater search choice in the future and for competing search providers to gain meaningful exposure to Australian consumers,' Ms Cass-Gottlieb said. The three telcos could configure search services on a device-by-device basis and in ways that may not align with Google settings, the ACCC said. It said Google didn't agree with all of the ACCC's concerns but gave an undertaking to address them.
