States kill stamp duty for land tax switch

By Leith van Onselen

Without giving it a moments thought, the states have already rejected Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s insistence that the states raise more of their own revenue via efficient land taxes, preferably at the same time as they abolish stamp duties. From The AFR:

Several states have rebuffed pressure from the federal government to commit to reforming their tax systems in exchange for a share of income tax…

“While we are open to further tax reform, including looking at stamp duty, we believe that the most effective way of tackling housing affordability is to increase supply,” NSW Treasurer Gladys Berejiklian said.

Victorian Treasurer Tim Pallas dismissed the idea as another of Mr Turnbull’s “thought bubbles”…

South Australian Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis said the proposal was raised in the South Australian State Tax Review process in the lead up to the 2015 state budget but viciously attacked by Liberal Leader Steven Marshall.

The arguments for dumping stamp duties in favour of a broad-based land tax are impeccable on efficiency and equity grounds, and include the following benefits:

  • According to the Australian Treasury, Stamp duty creates a cost to the economy of 70¢ for each dollar collected, whereas a broad-based land tax creates a benefit to the economy of $0.10 for each dollar raised.
  • Switching tax bases would, therefore, produce a 1.5% increase in GDP, or $24 billion, without directly changing the amount of tax raised.
  • Stamp duties discourage people from shifting house, therefore, discouraging labour mobility. They also unfairly penalise those that move frequently, whilst the “locking in” effect discourages an inefficient usage of the housing stock.
  • Shifting to a broad-based land tax would promote land supply by raising holding costs and discouraging land banking and vagrancy. Governments would also be encouraged to facilitate infrastructure investment because they would directly capture some of the value uplift.

While the arguments for switching tax bases are strong, there are several key factors holding politicians back.

First, as shown by the RBA, only around 6% of the housing stock is transacted on average in a given year:

This means that in a given year, only a small minority of households pay stamp duty (albeit tens-of-thousands of dollars of dollars). And once they pay it, they automatically become a roadblock to reform (“why should I pay tax twice”, is the common retort).

While having such a small group of taxpayers supporting services for the whole community is ridiculous, rather than governments sharing the tax burden by levying each household a much smaller amount on a regular basis, it is far easier politically to tax a small group than everyone.

One solution to avoid “double taxation” is to provide a credit to anyone that has purchased a home in the past 10 years, equal to the amount of stamp duty paid, and then subtract the hypothetical land tax that would have been paid since the home was purchased.

For example, if someone purchased a home in Adelaide in late 2011 for $500,000, paying stamp duty of $21,000, and their theoretical land tax bill would have been $2,000 for each of the four years since purchasing the home, then their tax credit would be as follows:

  • $21,000 minus
  • $2,000 (2012);
  • $2,000 (2013);
  • $2,000 (2014);
  • $2,000 (2015).
  • $2,000 (2016)
  • equals $11,000 tax credit to be carried forward.

The other major concern with land taxes is that they would be levied on retirees that are asset (house) rich but cash poor. The solution to this problem is to allow retirees to accumulate their land tax liability, with the bill payable upon death (via the estate) or once the house is eventually sold (whichever comes first), with interest charged on any outstandings.

However, even with such a transitional processes in place, politicians would still face the option of maintaining the status quo and taxing a small number of people each year (easy) versus reforming and taxing almost everyone (hard).

The final reason for the struggle to reform land taxes is that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has again undermined the politics of it through poor policy process. Where are his arguments for the land tax? Where is his research for it? Where is the long and intensive national conversation on it to win over the polity?

At the rate he is going the PM will have permanently salted the earth around all good policy in six months.

[email protected]

Unconventional Economist
Latest posts by Unconventional Economist (see all)


  1. This is a true shame. If anyone needed confirmation that the state politicians would prefer to squabble and point fingers than face big issues this is it. Turnbull should be ashamed for bungling a great chance to affect change by imitating Kevin Rudds policy on the fly nonsense.

    • Torchwood1979

      If the COAG debacle was just a ruse to force the states into land taxes then it was a case of terrible politics killing solid policy.

    • Strange Economics

      Politically the current system is a winner. Only FHBs and young families suffer. Not many votes there.. (and not important to the well off older hard right). Upgraders and investors don’t care less, they are still smug with their untaxed CG Taxes.

  2. This would be the same inefficient Stamp Duty the States promised to phase out/remove after the introduction of the GST 16 years ago!!! FFS. They know where their bread is buttered.

    • That’s a common misnomer. The final agreement on GST never mentioned the removal of stamp duty on land transfers (some other minor duties, yes, but not land transfers). I believe that it was on the table during the very early stages, but required a GST rate of around 15%, hence was killed off.

  3. The stamp duty take for NSW and Vic has been fantastic as of late and it makes them look good. Much like the WA mob, they think it’s gonna go on forever, or at least until they’re voted out.

    • Yeah, thats pretty much it, fast forward to any slow down, that is the time to talk about transitioning away from stamp duty, not when its raining stamp duty cash.

    • Torchwood1979

      Yep, a nasty property downturn and recession is the best hope for any reasonable discussion around the stamp duty/land tax switch.

  4. cherry picking to support failed argument

    Land tax in unfair because it taxes only one kind of wealth dominant among middle class income earners and because it increases tax burden of people who buy a house to make it a home for life while it reduces tax burden on housing speculators who flip homes to make quick profit.

    Someone who buys a home to raise kids in that home will pay more than two times in taxes under land tax scheme while someone who buys a house just to sell it in a year or two to make money on capital gains is going to pay 80% less tax.

    In a de-industrialised country where 50% of population lives in two cities and 80% in five using labour mobility as an argument is more than dodgy. There are few % of population among well paid white collar jobs who would benefit from reduced cost of labour mobility because only them can find more or better paid jobs in another city.
    Huge majority of people have equal chance of getting similar jobs within the same suburb if not within the city they lie in. If anything reduced cost of labour mobility will tend to make big cities bigger and small towns and cities smaller.
    Not to mention that abolition of stamp duty will push house prices up even more than Rudd’s FHB grant. People will just be able to pay more with the same savings they have and same LVR loan. Effectively not benefiting people who want to buy their first home whatsoever, but rather providing already wealthy homeowners and speculators with more.

    So reality is that replacement of stamp duty with broad land tax is going to have many more negative effects that will never be mentioned in writings of people who see public policies as cheerleading for personal benefits not as honest moral, economic and social discussion.

    • On that basis – all taxes are unfair!
      The reality is that taxation is a necessary evil in any developed society. The ‘fairest’ way of taxing the population is to tax that which cannot be avoided. If that’s Land Tax, so be it. Nothing else is immovable from the jurisdiction of taxation. Land Tax can’t be “Panamaed” away. Someone has to pay the annual tax, locally.
      Any change to ‘what is’ is going to affect a sector of the community. It always has, and it always will. Not moving forward with change condemns a society to failure. Is Land Tax the answer? No. But it may just be part of it…..

      • All taxes are unfair so let’s bring the most unfair one? this is the stupidest kind of argument ever.

        Stamp duty is even harder tax to avoid. It’s extremely simple – someone cannot get a title unless he/she pays stamp duty
        it’s extremely cheap to implement, no costs involved (no need for appraisers, revaluations, comprehensive records, massive cost of billing, tax collectors, debt collectors, …) with stamp duty people come to government willing to pay tax that will turn them into the most desired kind of person – a homeowner

        and if you want I can go into philosophical discussion about ethics of broad land tax vs. stamp duty (keep in mind that stamp duty is also kind of land tax)

      • What I believe isn’t important. What the State Treasurer’s do, is. And they….don’t want to relinquish Stamp Duty. Not because it’s got anyhting to do with ideology or ‘fairness’ or anyhting else. But because it’s a transactional tax based on a system of market ramping ( the more transactions that can be encouraged; the higher the basic price of the commodity, the greater the cash flow). Stamp Duty encourages the States into profligate and wasteful spending during times of plenty ( when they should be repaying past debt/ saving for the future). If they collect the cash, they’ll spend it!. Drip fed income – Land Tax, doesn’t allow for that. But it is income through thick or thin and allows for far more responsible Government ( if that’s not an oxymoron in itself!).
        New Zealand doesn’t have Stamp Duty or Land Tax or Capital Gains Tax that you guys have, yet the mobility problems and all the other issues that you raise above exist here, equally, if not morso. How do you explain that? (NB: The answer, of course to me, is than we should have…. a Land Tax!)

      • ‘The reality is that taxation is a necessary evil in any developed society.’

        Ummmm Martin Armstrong has already demonstrated there is actually no need for any taxation in ‘developed society’, as money is no longer a physical commodity. Taxation is about power and control, the fact that the states rejected state land tax demonstrates how truly incompetent they really are. It would grant stupendous control and power over their now Serf population. Thank God they don’t have a clue what they are doing otherwise we’d be reverting to the 15th Century.

    • Ronin8317MEMBER

      With tax reform, there will always be winners and losers. The big land bankers will be the biggest loser. This alone makes the tax reform worthwhile.

      • This is not true, land bankers already pay land tax. Stamp duty or broad land tax it will make almost no difference to land bankers because they make money on huge capital gains driven by rezoning (10 years of keeping vacant land will costs only few % more of final sales value even with the assumption that land gets valued realistically before sales and taxed more than now).
        On the other hand this will make initial land banking costs lower effectively allowing them to bank more with the same money. If they bank more land than sell that extra on yearly basis to cover costs they’ll make more than buying less initially and not paying ongoing tax.
        land bankers may be worse off only if they hold for very long decades what in reality never happens.

      • Ronin8317MEMBER

        There is capital gain, and then there is cashflow. If you don’t have cashflow, you have to liquidate.
        The land bankers already own a vast amount of land, so the horse has already bolted. Due to the loophole on ‘primary production land’, up until 2013 they simply stick a horse and a few cows on it and they don’t have to pay anything. (not sure if there is a new loophole now). Land tax reform will have to address these loopholes as well.

      • I’m sure new loopholes will be inserted to make sure land bankers don’t suffer even a bit

      • Agreed. It effectively breaks the developer / corrupt zoning committee symbiotic relationship. I could probably name dozens of power substations here in Brisbane which are built next to kindergartens, houses, schools and dense dwellings. All of these said substations run up to 1 gauss (250 times! the europe/US standards of 4mG(gauss). The endemic corruption and loopholes would be wiped out, as all eyes are focused on the tax revenues obtained vs the rezoning cost to said revenue. Psychopaths find it difficult to operate in an environment with too many factors to consider / too many people watching and questioning. It swaps the power dynamic from the developer to the government, whole also forcing the attention unto it. Thus, the parasites scuttle off to different positions…

    • DoctorX

      As you noted above – “land tax” is a bit vague.

      Rates are also a form of land tax but I haven’t heard too many objecting to the payment of rates – even though they are often levied by reference to the unimproved value of the land – at least in NSW.

      I support a higher level of rates (land tax) to fund more of the infrastructure that supports the value of the land.

      I am less persuaded that land tax as a form of wealth tax can be justified but that is mainly because I think that taxing wealth is quite different to taxes that are designed to ensure that those that benefit from resource allocations contribute to those allocations by reference to the benefit they are likely to receive.

      That way people who dont want to pay for services that increase the value of their land and thus their land tax can campaign to not have govt incurr the expenditures.

      I can think of many people who prefer to keep the crappy road and thereby keep down the value of their land and rates liability.

      Its the socialise the cost of infrastructure / privatise the profits (land values) crowd I have less time for.

    • This objection goes away if we assume CGT discount will be removed at the same time. By the way, I got excited when I read “States kill stamp duty”. A better title would be “States kill land tax for stamp duty switch”.

      • CGT discount will not be changed but even than short terms speculators and flippers will be substantially better off – their flipping cost will go down and they’ll be left with more money to speculate (for them this means no stamp duty and not much different land tax than what they pay now)
        if you assume LVR of 90% and stamp duty at 4%, an speculator with $100k on hand can afford two speculate on two $500k homes instead of just one $700k home

    • You are right about the unfairness of Land Tax dr X.

      The following comment made above is an endorsement of inheritance theft. It appears that the writer does not have family values that include the right of the poor and low income earners to provide their own hard work done to acquire a home for their inheriting children. The inheritance of a family home is often the only way for the poor and low income earners to get ahead without intense suffering.

      “The other major concern with land taxes is that they would be levied on retirees that are asset (house) rich but cash poor. The solution to this problem is to allow retirees to accumulate their land tax liability, with the bill payable upon death (via the estate) or once the house is eventually sold (whichever comes first), with interest charged on any outstandings.”

    • Your opinions are of no worth, doc.

      If you want to crunch the number and put forward some empirical evidence, go for it. I’d like to see some contrary take on land tax and reform to the taxation system, but all that is offered is worthless opinion or deception.

      • how much will a speculator betting on quick capital gains on a $750k PI pay in taxes under these two scenarios?
        how about lower income first home buyer family buying at the fringe of the city for under $500k?
        assume period of 10 years, speculator holding 3 years before selling for profit and buying two with the profit

    • Yep, the day stamp duty is removed prices will increase by the same amount or much more with leverage (think FHB), so we’ll be effectively paying stamp duty anyway AND land tax on top. No thanks.

      Also, who wants to be paying an endless, growing land tax every year when you’re 70, 80 or 90 and running out of money. Not me.

      • Ok than, so you show me that introduction of land tax is going to be fair by taxing more people who make more money and whose behaviuor less benefits the society

    • I’m with you Doc – it’s been a disaster in the ACT and will probably be phased out because it’s turned out to be regressive.. SA removed it from commercial land because it inhibited business activity.
      Even the neoliberal Roy Morgan Summary says this morning: “A McKell Institute report has described land tax as “equitable and efficient”. However, while replacing stamp duty on property purchases with an annual land tax may have its merits, family homes are not subject to the land tax regime at present. Modelling by Deloitte Access Economics in 2015 concluded that a land tax would cost the average homeowner about $A2,360 a year. A report by KMPG has estimated that the annual land tax burden could be much higher for most homeowners in New South Wales.”

      So for the sake of “efficiency” which is an esoteric economic wanky view of life in a petri dish, the flippers get a holiday and the landowners get stung in what is cheered on because it’s “broad based” and can’t be avoided. Yeah, that’s what they claimed about this nasty GST which has turned out to be a dead weight on economic recovery.
      We need less taxes not more otherwise the economy will never crawl out of the toilet. Taxation in a federal sense is an automatic stabiliser so when the economy is going gang busters it can be tweaked upwards to keep inflation under control. In economic doldrums it should be eased to provide an impetus for spending.
      Let’s bring back death taxes too, so we can plunder the inheritance for the children – snort! These old taxes need to stay buried and not dusted off and returned just because the Federal Government are avoiding their funding responsibilities to the states. Even removing NG and CGT as is talked about by the blog cheer squad is not a bright idea given that this will suck demand out of the economy. Save it until the economy is cranking and then fix the distortions. The Government needs to spend otherwise we’ll end up like Europe.

  5. TailorTrashMEMBER

    “Where is his arguments for the land tax?”…………………..where is his arguments for anything ?…………………..for a lawyer he seems surprisingly lacking in this skill ………also where are all those resources of government he has at this disposal to frame an argument he can sell ………..I suspect there is no committed argument
    because he has no committed beliefs ……………short of being in the PM job ……………………….the nation awaits leadership …………..ok …….Kevin Andrews ………..why not …….Bronwyn Bishop once had a similar fantasy ………….

    • Agree. After his last set of thought bubbles, Turnbull has written himself off from any real change. He’s just a caretaker now till Labor get in again.

  6. This does make obvious sense. But in terms of quick fixes, whatever happened to going after the Motor vehicle salary packaging rort. That was a $3B pa cost ?
    I am so cynical these days I actually think it is all part of the LNP plan and the ALP who are spineless and sell outs will just go along with it all. This Grover Norquist strategy. Create a huge amount of deductions and exemptions in tax system that have a giant industrial complex develop around them to make change impossible. Then when public has given up on the tax debate tell the serfs there is no alternative but to close the schools and shut down Social Security.

    • I reckon the FBT on vehicle concession will be wound back in the budget. There hasn’t been much talk about it from either side so there will be a “oh look, something a little bit new” element. Also, the (tenuous) argument for keeping it ie a leg up to the local car industry, has now disappeared.

      That said, we know that the salary packagers have been big donors to the LNP.

      Also, I don’t think the number of $3b pa though – I think it was sub $1b p.a.

  7. The Patrician

    Float state income tax….states reject it….of course they would rather not have to raise their own revenue…
    Float state broadbased land tax….states reject they would have already done it if they wanted to……too hard…
    …and we are certainly not going to increase taxes…so….
    Sorry guys no money in the tin…….unless…..
    …… there always is increasing the GST……….
    ….but you have to sell it to your people…..
    ….the path of least resistance…and all that
    Increasing the GST is the Malcolm/LNP “tax reform” end game

  8. Diogenes the CynicMEMBER

    Listen another main argument for it is equity i.e. that wealthy people will find Land tax very difficult to avoid paying unlike so many other taxes. If the Panama papers show anything is that the top 1% do not really pay much tax. The wealthy however you define them own land so will be paying this tax. Renters and the homeless will not be paying this tax and if is done on unimproved values (i.e. land only) those in small apartments or country towns will also pay little land tax. For full pensioners owning their home with no other assets, they can take it after death as per some council rates situations.

  9. rob barrattMEMBER

    Though you make a good case for abolishing stamp duty, I think you may not have given sufficient thought to the matter of compensation.
    When you state that you can just discount a proportion of the stamp duty people have paid over x (you say 10) years when it comes to paying land tax I believe you might be over simplifying.
    For the vast majority of home owners struggling in our indebted country, the truth is that they have not paid off the stamp duty. It is actually an ongoing part of their debt. In effect, they borrowed Mortgage + Stamp Duty – Deposit and are now having to pay back vast sums in interest and small capital repayments over many years. Stamp duty is in fact an ongoing burden and needs to be regarded as such. If you prefer, you can look at it as though the one-off they paid to the state was money that could have been used very much more efficiently in lowering their mortgage capital debt. Either way, the sum they will be paying is vastly greater than the stamp duty itself.

    • Good point. From the borrower’s perspective the stamp duty is effectively bundled into the price of the home. I think the only difference is whether the ‘tax’ is assessed based on a single discrete transaction (stamp duty), or amortized in perpetuity (land tax). There should be different tax rates depending on how much infrastructure is supporting the land, but one could also argue that land is a fundamentally public resource (much like air, water, and mineral deposits) and should be taxed for its use accordingly.

    • rob barrattMEMBER

      I should I suppose point out that this interest effect is of course most significant in the case of relatively recent borrowers or those who may have had a mortgage for longer but have been unable to pay back significant amounts of the capital component. In effect, the less well off a “home owner” you are, the bigger the hit.

  10. “The final reason for the struggle to reform land taxes is that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has again undermined the politics of it through poor policy process. Where are his arguments for the land tax? Where is his research for it? Where is the long and intensive national conversation on it to win over the polity?”

    Either he is very dumb or very smart. I believe the latter. I can’t accept that he is unable to frame the discussion and present cogent research/arguments/rationale into the benefits of his policies. On the other hand, as Patrician states above, the constant refusal of the states to engage in any tax reform discussions will eventually set him up with a plausible reason why GST must rise – and it will be the states’ fault (according to him).

  11. Most non owner occupied residential and other land is already subject to land tax. There is a threshold which might be equivalent to a couple of median priced investment units in Sydney. The revenue model of the states is not the problem with tax evasion and home prices. There are some positives to the current stamp duty model which would be lost eg the disincentive to flippers. All in all, it’s just not really a solution to much if anything at all especially on a net, after cost basis.

    • Leaving aside all the other things listed above, it’s at a minimum a damn good way of capturing land value uplift from infrastructure spending.

      • Land values benefit from every single little thing that increases GDP because this increases the rent payable on that land which happens in the whole to be a monopoly asset. Why should this go to idle private landholders? Why isn’t this GDP gain captured by the society via land tax? Henry George was right IMO and those interested could read more at Phillip J Anderson ‘The Secret Life of Real Estate and Banking’.

  12. Of course if we had more property investors and fewer owner occupiers, we’d have both stamp duty AND land tax.

  13. Today's Empire Tomorrow's Ashes


    Stamp duties discourage people from shifting house, therefore, discouraging labour mobility. They also unfairly penalise those that move frequently, whilst the “locking in” effect discourages an inefficient usage of the housing stock.

    Suddenly becomes a lot cheaper to flip houses.

    One solution to avoid “double taxation” is to provide a credit to anyone that has purchased a home in the past 10 years, equal to the amount of stamp duty paid, and then subtract the hypothetical land tax that would have been paid since the home was purchased.

    Those who bought their first stamp duty exempt home therefore should receive a future land tax credit on the amount of stamp duty they should have paid, but didn’t.


    If not, buy now, pay stamp. Get your credit. Pay land tax off against credit. Sell house, capital gain. Avoided land tax AND stamp. I.e. stamp and land tax neutral capital gain. Thankyou linesman, thankyou ballgirls.

    • How have you avoided Stamp Duty – you’ve paid it? The credit just avoids double tax.

      • Today's Empire Tomorrow's Ashes

        Unless I’ve misunderstood your q: If you bought a house under one of the state government exemption schemes, you could have bought stamp duty-free. FHBs, etc.

        If then, those who did not pay this tax, then face the prospect of a land-tax, they are going to be on an uneven playing field (net tax paying) compared to those who paid stamp then get a credit against land tax which essentially a neutralising offset.

        Therefore those who did not pay stamp and who do not get a credit, face a higher tax bill.

        Unless of course my logic is anything but logical.

        Which is entirely possible, it is Wednesday after all.

    • rob barrattMEMBER

      I don’t actually think it will become a lot cheaper to flip houses. Reason being, as DocX pointed out, house prices will almost immediately rise to fill the gap. Look at the history of the First Home Owners Grant.
      In the current market, people will buy and work out whether they can pay the land tax later. Zero sum game for house flippers at best. At worst they’ll be paying land tax between flips and the same price for house as (old price + stamp duty).

      • A land tax obviously creates a negative present value. I agree that there will be winners and losers until the market catches up. The biggest issue for property prices is really whether the market perceives that the PV of the land tax is more or less than the cost of SD. One interesting sidelight is that a land tax would be tax deductible for investors but not for OOs so perhaps there should be a surcharge for investors.

    • drsmithyMEMBER

      Suddenly becomes a lot cheaper to flip houses.

      Why do people flip houses ? How many ? Why is it inherently so bad ?

  14. The Federal government has control of the ACT and NT.

    Remember Howard preventing NT from allowing euthanasia?

    So we can have land tax in the NT and ACT.

    Also, why not grandfather the stamp duty in existing houses, so when an old house is sold 5 years from now, there is no stamp duty to be paid – only land tax.

  15. Land taxes might seem progressive in theory – but in many many cases it will be a highly regressive tax that will drive low income workers out of the homes they have owned for decades. Not that long ago only “artists” and the poor wanted to live in the inner cities, and in small coastal towns. But now its so hip for forex dealers and lawyer wives to live in such places prices have exploded.

    Moreover, the suggestion that home prices have been driven by new investment infrastructure is simply laughable. What new infrastructure. And where there has been new infrastructure almost all of it was built via PPP deals that are operated by trolls in suits.

    There are plenty of people living in what are now million dollar terraces who work in low paid jobs – but if the smarties backing land taxes have their way, they will soon be driven out of their homes under the weight of crippling land taxes that in many cases will be higher than their PAYG tax bill. All over Sydney and Melbourne it’s the same story a mix of low, middle and high income earners living in over priced houses

    If anyone seriously thinks state govts are going to whack Sydney and Melbourne homeowners with land taxes of 5-10K a year on top of their rates, and utility bills then they are so utterly deluded they don’t deserve to be heard in public.

    The whole point of a progressive income tax system is to avoid such problems. So just for once can those promoting land taxes at least provide real numbers and not hide behind stats based on recession plagued cities like Adelaide or rural towns Wagga.

    • Ronin8317MEMBER

      Go to your council. You’ll discover what ‘investment infrastructure’ means : it means buying lands from their land developer friends to use as parks. Empty pieces of land with some tree on it is ‘infrastructure’. A few years later they will rezone the land and sell it back to the same people without tender.

      • And then we have to listen to them whine on and on about being amalgamated – while the GM and the rest of the executive staff live off the hog on salaries over 300K for ticking and flicking paperwork.

        People bang on about State Govt being eliminated – it’s local govt that should be abolished and replaced with regional govt – aka state govt.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        People bang on about State Govt being eliminated – it’s local govt that should be abolished and replaced with regional govt – aka state govt.

        The problem with that is when you say “state government” you may as well be saying “capital city government”.

  16. Land tax should be exempt for PPOR property but at the same time the tax free threshold for IP property should be reduced from the current average of approx $300k for most states to $0.

    All property investors should pay land tax.

    Kills 2 birds with one stone I reckon. Raise more land tax revenue while at the same time discourage people from negative gearing those dog boxes who currently pay next to no land tax due to land value bring so low in proportion to it’d ridiculous market value.