As someone who used to do these valuations for a living (albeit in a different State) I have to admit the valuation increases have an impact on the state revenue. However the land tax or emergency services style fees are nothing it is nothing compared to Stamp duty that is collected by the State.

The main difference is that every year, the rate applicable for Land Tax and Council rates are scaled back to cover the increasing cost of inflation across the board. Stamp duty here in SA is approximately 5%, and this figure has remained consistent.

At least in QLD you have land value only which from my perspective is the fairest form of statutory valuations, as the land component is consistently valued based on the land youse. When you compare to the Improved Value approach implemented here in SA which skews towards more charges for people with nicer houses.

Either way, the increases in valuations for rating and taxing are rearward facing, and any revaluation is based on historical sales evidence and data modelling to justify the increases that occur within a council area.

You are correct @tomsmithidg that the main impact is that investors will typically pass whatever legally allowable onto the tenant and cover the remainder in increased rents due to the increased rental demand. This is not always the case, and there are times historically (i.e. 2007-2019) where landlords were doing anything to keep tenants and would have to absorb a lot of these costs. However I don't see things changing anytime soon with the current policies that they have in place

I too would love to also have the $150k per annum to take a year off work, but I would prefer to have the $10m asset that incurred this charge, as I would sell it and invest into equities where the high taxation per annum is distributed amongst the shareholders.

FFS -- The key to national prosperity is expanding the capital stock. You know, the tools, systems, and infrastructure that enable us to produce more and better things.

You cannot increase real wealth by leveraging unproductive consumption assets like residential housing. That may inflate prices and create the illusion of prosperity, but it adds no new value. It simply shifts purchasing power (generally away from those that can least afford it) while increasing systemic risk.

True progress comes from directing time, energy, and capital toward productive ventures that expand our ability to meet future needs.

Bidding up existing assets DOES NOT create value. It only reshuffles claims on what already exists. When this is driven by debt, it amounts to borrowing from the future to overconsume in the present..it's a recipe for long-term decline.

A nation cannot build its future by strip-mining its capital. It must invest in it, nurture it, and be willing to delay gratification.

Unfortunately, our political leaders seem either economically illiterate or more interested in buying votes from a misinformed and anxious electorate.

And that’s the truly depressing part.

Got to keep the new money coming in somehow. (tongue in cheek-ish).

Unfortunately I think its a little of column A, a little of column B. The best predictor of a person's future behavior, is their past behavior. I have weekly discussions with my father in-law about the problems and how to fix them. It is almost impossible to rearrange the thinking and challenge a generation who have done so well out of properties nominal appreciation. Young people will have to think outside the box to find ways to grow their wealth, because trees don't grow to the sky, surely the sky is closer to being reached than ever before.

Our only hope...

Ideas progress one death at a time.

It's also worth noting that these are the ideas being thrown around whilst house prices are going up, it's greed based. Wait until prices stagnate and we have fear based policies, or they go down and people make policies in desperation.

Looking forward to the day I can liquidate my super early, put down a 2% deposit on my 75 year multi-generational mortgage that I have to co-sign with my children.

Edit: @Saasquatch, To your point I do think things are slowly changing, the increase in popularity of minor parties and independents suggests people are looking for new ways of doing things in general. I'm personally hopeful a minority government with a sensible cross bench will drag politics towards being responsible to voters (as opposed to lobbyists and donors), open to being disappointed on that though.

It seems like a desperate political party move trying to find ways to claw their way back into power. Pander to the asset class to keep the party going in the short term.

Seems like the only way to fix housing affordability these days is a long time period of flat prices (or reductions) to dispel the myth that housing always goes up. Until this mindset changes, we will continue to get policies to the same effect.

I've been mulling over this myself ever since the banks took off. IMO, there's a fair amount of TINA involved. There are at least 3 cash streams that must be pouring money into the banks, more or less by default.

1) The property investors who - either because they are being targeted for extra tax or can see that coming and are getting out , or who have reached retirement and suddenly realized that a negatively geared property doesn't produce income to live off - are selling out and that money has to go somewhere and the majority of these folks have never been share investors, so even if they speak with a financial advisor, given they need income, they'll be put into the banks, because that's what they'll be comfortable with.

2) the super funds themselves are taking in more money - the SGC went up to 11.5% in July and will go up to 12% in July next year. That extra inflow month to month - soon to be pay to pay - has to go somewhere, and the funds have to perform, so at least some of this has to go into the banks.

3) the ETFs - many younger investors are piling onto the ETF wagon as an easy way to start, which is understandable. But they will pick VAS, A200, etc as the ones to start with, and...that means money into the banks.

I would't be surprised if there are other streams - managed funds as well? - that are contributing to the inflows. Thing is, I can't see who/which group of those holding banks shares are going to sell. Those who hold them for Income aren't going to be displeased with the SP performance as long as the expected dividends continue to eventuate. And that's 'expected' in absolute $ amounts, not dividend yields, because most who invest in banks are unlikely to look at those (if they even understand them).

I'd love to know where this leads - possibly sideways edging upward slightly for a good long time?

I’d suggest @Strawman s weekend email as a reasonable place to understand this phenomenon! Sorry, Andrew, hope that isn’t too sycophantic!?

It’s clearly an aberration and will revert to mean at some point. Who knows when? Who knows what the catalyst will be?

You can take a bet against it if you’re brave, or you can choose to put your money somewhere else.

As a tangential bear case, other than valuation, Revolut has entered the AU market. It’s worth having a read up on how disruptive they have been in Europe , though they did get -ve press for refusing to recompense account holders who were hacked/scammed. That have just got a banking licence in AU but I haven’t explored if this means they will have a $250k deposit guarantee.

For expats, “global citizens” and digital nomads - Revolut and Wise have basically replaced international services from banks and I believe this trend will continue to include most travel uses for your average punter. It’s an interesting space

I currently own no direct or indirect exposure to AU banks.