For the past three decades, tax law,public discussion,and media coverage have encouraged Australians to view residential property as “an asset class” to build personal and family wealth. Not surprisingly,that is exactly how residential property has increasingly functioned. For example,half of allstrata title apartments are owned by investors.
Australians have not been encouraged to recognise residential property as a universal necessity for survival and a halfway decent life,and residential property has increasingly failed to perform that function.Homelessness is increasing,entire generations areunable to buy their first home,and millions of people,including those with good incomes,are experiencing housing stress.
Property ownership and markets are not naturally occurring phenomena;they are legal constructs. That is not nearly as pretentious or esoteric as it sounds. In the past,only men could own property,and there was a market in human beings.
Loading
That is no longer the case because the legal system has changed what constitutes enforceable property rights. Property rights,and their regulation,including taxation,are always the result of legal choices that flow from our underlying convictions about what we think property is for.
What ideas should underpin our conception of residential property?
First,residential property is not an optional consumer item;it is essential. Without a secure,affordable home,people will not have the necessary stability to build a decent life,nor can they contribute fully to society or the economy.