Search results

Quite. State and local governments are addicted to property taxes and levies for both existing stock and new developments, but the added costs to the latter are obscene. When homebuyers on the fringe suburbs are being asked to pony up for 20 years of infrastructure costs, it's little wonder...

Not absurd...your initial purchase price isn't indexed either. Are you suggesting it should be? Though it is more complex, it would be more than possible to allow losses incurred over one asset to be offset against profits made over other assets of the same class. I don't have any particular...

As much as I enjoy the word games, do you have an actual view on the subject?

NG hasn't proved to have any value on the supply side...even today a greater % OOs build new stock than investors. Unfortunately, state and local governments continue to both limit limit and and add materially to the cost of supply and, ideally, you would see a transfer of the Cwlth upside from...

Bonus points for the gratuitous shout out to Mr Berlin...deductions for relevance.

Excellent. I would point out that arguing against ng from both a tax and housing policy perspective is no dichotomy; they're interconnected as distinct from contradictory. Just sayin'

qed........

You're not paying attention. Not property investors; negative gearing irrespective of asset class. It doesn't matter where you start, vested interests will object. NG is simply a particularly egregious example that is simply and quickly addressed. By knocking it off for new purchases...

I'll take that as a "no"' then. :rolleyes:

One step at a time grasshopper. Let's get some equity and simplicity inserted into the personal income sector first before we get into the complicated mess that is the business taxation regime.

No, it's my opinion as someone with a strong interest in an equitable and administratively efficient tax policy, who has owned IPs in the past and now owns a freehold PPOR. Unlike your opinions on everything from how to run bank credit policy to the lifestyle choices of pensioners.:rolleyes...

It's poor tax policy, among other reasons, because (a) it amounts to a taxpayer-supported incentive to borrow and speculate that costs a bomb and (b) underpins the more favourable tax treatment income derived in this way receives compared to income generated from working and saving. I'm in...

It's particularly poor tax policy in the property context but the general principle holds for all asset classes.

In a sensible system your early losses would be carried forward and deducted from any subsequent capital gain. Given your heartfelt concern for the ATO' you will pleased to know that this is a far better deal for them ;)

We lend money to for people to buy property in the market as it exists not as it should be. And as you note, many lenders ARE doing something about it by arguing it's bad policy. But you don't like that either, it would appear.

More than 2/3 of investment properties are negatively geared. Negative gearing (be it property or other asset classes) is essentially a subsidy paid by workers and savers to borrowers and speculators and is bad tax policy.

I'm not sure comparing our accomodation costs with those of a country with more than 7000 people per square km and the third highest population density on earth falls into the "perspective" category.