Changes tabled in Henry Tax review
- Thread starter warrenkh
- Start date
IMHO
It would be good if you record your tax obligations through out the year eg. you go to Bunnings to buy things for your IP + things for your private use so you record these purchases in 2 transactions at the cash register.
Realistically everything is either private use or cost and business use or cost.
I really dislike the amount of unpaid and unclaimable time that is lost to do tax related things - my leisure time is a premium.
regards
Sheryn
It would be good if you record your tax obligations through out the year eg. you go to Bunnings to buy things for your IP + things for your private use so you record these purchases in 2 transactions at the cash register.
Realistically everything is either private use or cost and business use or cost.
I really dislike the amount of unpaid and unclaimable time that is lost to do tax related things - my leisure time is a premium.
regards
Sheryn
I find it funny that I mentioned the removal of negative gearing as a real possibility in this review and everyone jumped on me as being hysterical...
Oh and for everyone out there that believes that any fallout from any such policy would benefit landlords are in for a rude shock....anyone ever heard of rent caps? I know many will jump on me for suggesting this as a possibility, but its been proven time and time again that the government will sacrifice anyone that belongs to a minority over the benefit of the majority(votes people)...and when you are talking about a small portion of the population that has large RE portfolio's compared to the large number renting...we will lose out. I am from Europe and I have seen first-hand the socialist way of thinking...regulation of prices. When I try and counter them with the free market approach, they state it doesnt work...they compare it to health care, or electricity etc etc. Housing is seemed a necessity of life and therefore should be price-controlled. Im not saying this is going to happen...but its a reality.
Oh and for everyone out there that believes that any fallout from any such policy would benefit landlords are in for a rude shock....anyone ever heard of rent caps? I know many will jump on me for suggesting this as a possibility, but its been proven time and time again that the government will sacrifice anyone that belongs to a minority over the benefit of the majority(votes people)...and when you are talking about a small portion of the population that has large RE portfolio's compared to the large number renting...we will lose out. I am from Europe and I have seen first-hand the socialist way of thinking...regulation of prices. When I try and counter them with the free market approach, they state it doesnt work...they compare it to health care, or electricity etc etc. Housing is seemed a necessity of life and therefore should be price-controlled. Im not saying this is going to happen...but its a reality.
rent caps are already a reality.
why would someone rent from you, when they can get next door at 20% under market under NRAS?
the NRAS income brackets are so average that NRAS will have a downward effect on rental yields.
The reality is that Keating un-quarantined NG, though, presumably because of political pressure. It almost doesn't matter whether axing NG will cause rents to rise and prices to fall (I think it will, but that's just me). I say almost because there is a slim chance voters might see the big picture instead of focusing on their own situations, but I doubt it. I remember some article that said that people want more affordable housing but not lower prices, because most of them own homes.
The opposition will mount a scare campaign making it impossible for any govt to do it. The key is not the investors: it's the renters (30-odd%) and the home owners (everybody else). It won't be hard for the opposition to convince voters that rents will go up and prices will go down.
There will be a lot of great ideas in the Henry Review that will make the tax system fairer. But there are so many entrenched interests and the opposition willing to sacrifice the truth to get votes that they'll likely be buried.
The opposition will mount a scare campaign making it impossible for any govt to do it. The key is not the investors: it's the renters (30-odd%) and the home owners (everybody else). It won't be hard for the opposition to convince voters that rents will go up and prices will go down.
There will be a lot of great ideas in the Henry Review that will make the tax system fairer. But there are so many entrenched interests and the opposition willing to sacrifice the truth to get votes that they'll likely be buried.
renters are generally the sheep that swing vote too - so you could very wel be right, alexee.
Discussion on the topic has been around for years, I thought you meant there was some recent development that was going to literally see it removed, not just speculation. You spoke about it as if the removal was fact.
By the way while googling I couldn't help but chuckle at this poorly worded and argued case against negative gearing:
http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/submissions/post_14_november_2008/Xiao_Charlie_20090225.pdf
Let's blame all our problems on negative gearing shall we??
I wonder when this was writen? If it was in the last 18 months, the author clearly is in la la land as evidenced by this statement in his argument
EU countries and US, Canada abolished negative gearing many years ago, their general housing affordability is much much better than Australians and their economy is much more robust and healthy and normal. They have no rental crisis. I suggest the government to copy their housing policies.
