Australia’s housing debate is targeting investors instead of the real problem: artificial land scarcity
Australia keeps debating negative gearing, CGT and how many properties investors own.
But this is mostly a debate about who owns the existing housing stock. Moving a house from an investor to an owner-occupier does not create another house.
The bigger structural question is land.
Why can land that is physically suitable for housing multiply in value simply because government changes its zoning? Why is developable land released so slowly? Why should the right to build depend so heavily on discretionary planning decisions instead of clear, predictable rules?
That system creates artificial scarcity. It also gives enormous economic value to rezoning and planning approvals.
If Australia genuinely wants more affordable housing, the objective should be to increase supply and reduce artificial scarcity, not simply redistribute the existing shortage between investors and first-home buyers.
Tax changes can change who competes for existing homes.
Planning, zoning and land-release reform can change how many homes can actually be built.
Why isn’t this the centre of the housing debate?
Housing / Property / Australian Politics / Economy / Discussion