The Queensland government will tomorrow announce plans to scrap the $7,000 first-home owners grant and replace it with a $15,000 handout only available for those first-home owners buying a new home.
The details of the changes to first-home owner handouts, leaked to the Courier Mail, will be announced by Queensland treasurer Tim Nicholls tomorrow when he delivers the 2012-13 state budget at 2.30pm.
It is less than the $17,000 available to first-home owners buying or building a new home under the previous Bligh government, who were eligible for the $7,000 first home owners grant and the $10,000 Building Boost.
The Building Boost ended on April 30 (applications can be lodged up until August 30) and was available to all classes of buyers.
The Queensland changes mirror a similar move by the NSW state government in its June budget, which will see the end of the $7,000 first-home owners’ grant on October 1 replaced by a $15,000 handout for those buying a new home, including homes bought off-the-plan.
The changes to Queensland first-home owner grants follows the decision by Queensland premier Campbell Newman to reinstate the transfer duty home concession scheme from July 1.
It provides a concessional stamp duty rate of 1% up to a value of $350,000, with stamp duty charged at normal rates for the remaining value of the home purchase.
The Real Estate Institute of Queensland (REIQ) expressed disappointment at the decision and warned that thousands of Queensland first-time property buyers may delay purchasing their first home following the scrapping of the long-standing handout.
“REIQ analysis of Office of State Revenue (OSR) figures show only 24% of first home buyers opted to buy a new home when the First Home Owners Boost, which featured up to $21,000 for new-builds, was in play during the GFC,” says REIQ CEO Anton Kardash.
The REIQ expects the decision to remove the $7,000 grant in favour of a $15,000 grant for new homes will impact the majority of prospective first home buyers.
‘‘The main reason for this is that new homes are usually too expensive for first-time buyers and are often located in outlying suburbs where young people do not necessarily want to live.
“New units and townhouses can also be more expensive than established and often have higher body corporate fees than older apartments.”
Kardash says the removal of the grant failed to take into consideration the complexity of the real estate market and comes as OSR figures show that over the June quarter more than 5,400 First Home Owner Grants were paid in Queensland compared to 4,000 over the same period in 2011.
‘‘The first home buyer segment of the market has been one of the few positives over recent times, so we are likely to see their level of activity decrease significantly once the grant is removed next month,’’ says Kardash.
Not surprisingly, the announcement was welcomed by residential developer Stockland, which described it as a “massive shot in the arm for the state economy” and one which would “underpin the future of the state’s housing industry” and provide thousands of jobs.
“We fully support the Newman Government’s critical boost to the Queensland housing market – it is good news for the entire state because it will increase confidence, generate thousands of construction jobs, and bring home ownership within reach of more young Australians,” said Stockland Queensland general manager, Kingsley Andrew.
“An extra $15,000 is a significant saving for first home buyers and coupled with no stamp duty, today’s announcement creates an unprecedented incentive from the Queensland Government”.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Monday, August 6, 2012
PROPERTY TO PAY SOON...
THE property wars are heating up and commentators are taking to Twitter to assert their views. The contention is around the different measures of house prices and whether or not the housing market has bottomed but the good news is that now may be the perfect time for the property investor.
CommSec economist Craig James is of the view that the worst may be over and we might start to see some slow growth in property markets.
Data out on Wednesday from the Australian Bureau of Statistics was broadly in line with RP Data numbers out earlier in the week. The weighted average of prices in the eight capital cities rose 0.5 per cent over the quarter but remained down by 2.1 per cent over the year.
Better numbers from RP Data
James says that in terms of comprehensiveness and scope of data, as an economist he believes RP Data is superior to the ABS.
“RP Data and Rismark have got data on almost every single property transaction in Australia,” he says.
“And if somebody is going to know what’s happening in terms of property prices its going to be them.”
The ABS, James says, covers houses, rather than the total market.
Affordability
Prices may now be more affordable than they have been in a decade. The median average dwelling price for the aggregate of the eight capital cities was $460,000, RP Data states, and the range was from $300,000, in Perth, right up to $535,000 in Sydney.
“Property prices have bottomed. You’ve had two interest rate cuts, you’ve now got the best housing affordability in a decade,” he says.
If you’re looking to buy an investment property, now may be as good a time as any, as yields are improving in some areas.
“I think we are going to see growth in house prices. The RP Data figures show its still quite attractive, the property returns are still pretty good.”
Click here to view source
THE REASONS FOR THE DE-AMALGAMATION OF REDCLIFFE FROM THE MORETON BAY REGION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
REDCLIFFE was a viable Local Authority with a sufficient population base of 53,000 people. A budget of
$55 Million with the lowest staff ratios per head of population in its category. Redcliffe's financial management was judged by the then Dept. of Treasury as being in the top five Councils of then 105 in the state. It was "Strong with a Neutral Position". It lived within it means.
1.Redcliffe had LOWER operational costs for the Council per head of population than this Amalgamated Council. It was cheaper to live in Redcliffe.
2. From a COMMUNITY aspect, RESEARCH clearly shows that Bigger is not Better as far as Local Government goes.
3. The only reason given to forcibly Amalgamate was that this Amalgamated Council would be cheaper for its residents. This is clearly not the case in both Rates as well as Water and Sewerage services. It is now more expensive to live in this huge Council and any discount on Rates has been lost.
4. "Community of Interest" between Redcliffe and surrounds as well as the matters mentioned above, was not assessed prior to forced Amalgamation.
5. The IDENTITY of Redcliffe has been lost since forced Amalgamation. Promotion of Redcliffe alone has ceased and "WELCOME" signs removed at the west of the City.
6. Previously you had eight votes for RCC. you could vote a whole Council in or out in the undivided City. Now you have one vote. You are worse off Democratically.
7. Services such as Town Planning, within the Redcliffe Council Chambers have been lost to Redcliffe
8. Water and Sewerage should come under Council's control.
9. The more money the amalgamated Council of Moreton Bay has the more it has to waste. The level of borrowing of Amalgamated Councils has trebled since they were put in place. They are living beyond their means and who is paying?
10. The 25% levy on general rates which now applies to non owner occupied residences, is responsible for forcing up RENTS
11. The cost estimated by Treasury to De amalgamate is $3 Million (for a Local Authority our size) We estimated a figure of $2.5 Million which could easily be accommodated in the budget. It would have very little impact on ratepayers if spread over several years.
12. A return to the old boundaries of Redcliffe (as the minister now requires) would result in the cheapest most viable council in the long term.
SCOTT DRISCOLL MP. HAS INITIATED A PETITION. IN SUPPORT, ALL VOTERS SHOULD RETURN SIGNED COPIES TO HIS OFFICE ASAP TO MEET THE AUGUST 29TH DEADLINE SET BY THE MINISTER. REMEMBER OTHER PETITIONS DON'T COUNT. A NEW PETITION IS REQUIRED.
Click here to view Source
Advertisement Authorised by: Redcliffe Branch of the Ratepayers Action Group - Dennis Austen Shop 6,133 Redcliffe Parade, Redcliffe 4020
$55 Million with the lowest staff ratios per head of population in its category. Redcliffe's financial management was judged by the then Dept. of Treasury as being in the top five Councils of then 105 in the state. It was "Strong with a Neutral Position". It lived within it means.
1.Redcliffe had LOWER operational costs for the Council per head of population than this Amalgamated Council. It was cheaper to live in Redcliffe.
2. From a COMMUNITY aspect, RESEARCH clearly shows that Bigger is not Better as far as Local Government goes.
3. The only reason given to forcibly Amalgamate was that this Amalgamated Council would be cheaper for its residents. This is clearly not the case in both Rates as well as Water and Sewerage services. It is now more expensive to live in this huge Council and any discount on Rates has been lost.
4. "Community of Interest" between Redcliffe and surrounds as well as the matters mentioned above, was not assessed prior to forced Amalgamation.
5. The IDENTITY of Redcliffe has been lost since forced Amalgamation. Promotion of Redcliffe alone has ceased and "WELCOME" signs removed at the west of the City.
6. Previously you had eight votes for RCC. you could vote a whole Council in or out in the undivided City. Now you have one vote. You are worse off Democratically.
7. Services such as Town Planning, within the Redcliffe Council Chambers have been lost to Redcliffe
8. Water and Sewerage should come under Council's control.
9. The more money the amalgamated Council of Moreton Bay has the more it has to waste. The level of borrowing of Amalgamated Councils has trebled since they were put in place. They are living beyond their means and who is paying?
10. The 25% levy on general rates which now applies to non owner occupied residences, is responsible for forcing up RENTS
11. The cost estimated by Treasury to De amalgamate is $3 Million (for a Local Authority our size) We estimated a figure of $2.5 Million which could easily be accommodated in the budget. It would have very little impact on ratepayers if spread over several years.
12. A return to the old boundaries of Redcliffe (as the minister now requires) would result in the cheapest most viable council in the long term.
SCOTT DRISCOLL MP. HAS INITIATED A PETITION. IN SUPPORT, ALL VOTERS SHOULD RETURN SIGNED COPIES TO HIS OFFICE ASAP TO MEET THE AUGUST 29TH DEADLINE SET BY THE MINISTER. REMEMBER OTHER PETITIONS DON'T COUNT. A NEW PETITION IS REQUIRED.
Click here to view Source
Advertisement Authorised by: Redcliffe Branch of the Ratepayers Action Group - Dennis Austen Shop 6,133 Redcliffe Parade, Redcliffe 4020
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)