Family tax benefit rules are up the creek

it won't really affect us, but the stupidity is frustrating. my rant is more agaisnt the perception of the 'wealthy landlord' i.e. "you must be wealthy if you lost $100k on your property"
 
I agree with Ms. Jade. If your properties are such a drain and the negative gearing is so bad you'd sell it. It is a choice you make for your own financial gain in the long term. Yes I know, welfare "punishes" those who work hard, but it's not intended to reward, it's there to assist those who really need it. I get more annoyed at all the handouts people get for having kids full stop. What about those of us who work hard, pay our taxes and always miss out on any of the tax benefits because we sit in the mid-range salary (seems the bottom end get benefits and the top end get tax cuts) and choose not to have kids. I would like some sort of FTB for my baby... my chihuahua. :D
 
surely you need it more when you lose $100k in cash? at least as much as the guy that has no losses


No, because you'd sell the properties first. I don't think taxpayers would want to be funding your investments. If you didn't have the investments, you wouldn't be losing that money. I think the welfare system is flawed in many ways, but I don't think that adding back rental losses is one of them. You choose to lose that money (I know long term you are doing the country good because they won't have to support you in retirement etc.), but your claim about being more needy than the person who doesn't have any money in the first place is really no different to a guy who spends all his money down at the casino and then wants those losses offset against his income. He too could cry that he's lost the $100,000 and therefore 'needs' the money, but he has chosen to lose money he did at one stage have in his pocket. Your properties are your own little casino, but hopefully have better odds of winning in the long term. :)
 
I know where you are coming from Ausprop.

We are in the same boat.

The Government gives NO reward for trying to get ahead.

Even more so since Labor took the reigns.

It's not so much about not receiving anything, it's more the frustration that we know there are so many irresponsible people out there who get handouts for doing absolutely nothing to contribute to this society.

The only comfort you may take from this is none of your hard earned money is going to lazy bludgers who rely on Governemnt Welfare. It's all completely yours.:):)

Childcare payments have also been messed up and made more complicated. It has been made more difficult for not only parents, but the actual Centres are in a mountain of paperwork.

It now takes three months to receive any part payment.

Regards JO


Josko...change the statement under your sig...you clearly don't know what it means ;)
 
Hi all,

Dealing with the 'ss' as they were known, today centrelink.

Ausprop, with $0 income and $100,000 "loss" total income = -$100,000. Added back = $0.

Naturally the 'ss' will reject you, you greedy, system rorting scum, landlord. :rolleyes:

However, you should inform the person who rejected your claim, that you will appeal because they do not know what they are doing. It is amazing how they change decisions when presented with some facts that make them look foolish.

Last year, or whenever it was, ( the 'ss' don't always use the tax year, sometimes the calendar year when it suits them) we were trying to get youth allowance for our kids who have to live away from home to go to uni, unlike those who live in the cities. If only 6 pages of forms,:rolleyes: .

After much argy bargy, denial, more info, "you don't fit into our categories", more forms with lots of crossing out of numbers and replacement of other numbers according to what the latest 'helpline' person had told me...

I just wrote a 3 page letter explaining our exact financial position (luckily assets go on council valuation and farmland is discounted 75%), making it clear how many dollars were in the hand (after the add back), and that I was a persistent bugger and would fight any adverse decision cause I was spoiling for a fight with them.

Miraculously our kids got some living away from home youth allowance, can't work out why they got as much as they did, but it is in the ballpark of us being happy ( we still pay for most of their accommodation), but they have money to pay for food (and uni kid fun ;) )

Ausprop, treat the SS as a game, then go win it.

bye
 
i'm with miss jade ... my personal opinion is that unless you are on poverty level, the government (ie, taxpayers) should't be paying out anything to you as family benefit.

and yes - i do have family! no - i do not get any benefit.

i just don't understand how a family on $100,000+ income could qualify for fbt - but they can.
 
i'm with miss jade ... my personal opinion is that unless you are on poverty level, the government (ie, taxpayers) should't be paying out anything to you as family benefit.

and yes - i do have family! no - i do not get any benefit.

i just don't understand how a family on $100,000+ income could qualify for fbt - but they can.

To hear of a group of people who bang on about financial indepedence whining about the fact that they don't receive government support because they elect to run negatively geared investments in order to take advantage of the generous (by world standards) tax treatment of their investments by the same government is more than my irony meter can accomodate.

There was a time in this country when people were proud that they weren't on the government teat.
 
TF there was also a time when Australian marginal income tax rates weren't so extortionate!

Nevertheless, I do agree - I firmly believe that the only purpose of the social welfare system should be to keep people above the poverty line. IMO, if you earn more than $15k per year you shouldn't be getting welfare. Maybe allow that to drift up a bit for extra children but that's it.

That might free up some money to provide appropriate facilities for the mentally ill who now "sleep rough" because they haven't kept up their meds and there is nowhere for them anymore...

With the money freed up from all this middle class welfare we could just make tax rates a flat 30% - the same as the company tax rate. That would make -ve gearing pretty unattractive but would of course put out of work quite a few accountants who specialise in "tax effective structures".:rolleyes:
 
Hi all,

Dealing with the 'ss' as they were known, today centrelink.

Ausprop, with $0 income and $100,000 "loss" total income = -$100,000. Added back = $0.

no, they add it back again.

$0 income, $100,000 loss, total income = -$100k+$100k+$100k = $100k. nothing actually earned
 
i'm with miss jade ... my personal opinion is that unless you are on poverty level, the government (ie, taxpayers) should't be paying out anything to you as family benefit.

and yes - i do have family! no - i do not get any benefit.

i just don't understand how a family on $100,000+ income could qualify for fbt - but they can.

who is on $100k? she has no income and also has a loss of $100k
 
Hi ausprop,

Nah, they can't add it back twice, just tell them you will appeal it, tell them they are wrong and you will prove their incompetance.

bye
 
because they elect to run negatively geared investments in order to take advantage of the generous (by world standards) tax treatment of their investments by the same government is more than my irony meter can accomodate.

can someone please explain what tax advantage is offered by negative gearing a property when you have no income?
 
Ausprop,

No they are not the rules, they can only add them back once.

They can try to fool you but that is all, Call their bluff and appeal.

bye
 
may do, dunno. not that bothered really. I was pointing out a stupid rule and i seem to be getting a workers unite lecture.

I may appeal on the basis that the rules are stupid and I hate bureacracy.

hmm - are you sayig their interpretation of the rules is wrong? after all they are correct if you make a loss your taxable income is considered nil, and if they have to add the losses back again, hey presto that;s the number the rules come up with
 
Hi Ausprop,

They can only add back once. That's it. If they tell you anything different THEY don't know the rules.

After all you are only dealing with public servants who really couldn't care.

Go them.

Tell them you are going to go them. Tell them they don't know their own rules.

Do not "give in". that is what they presume will happen.

If they try to claim a loss twice in your case, they will lose in court if you are prepared to take it that far. Most people are not prepared to take it that far.

bye
 
Hi Ausprop,

They can only add back once. That's it. If they tell you anything different THEY don't know the rules.

After all you are only dealing with public servants who really couldn't care.

Go them.

Tell them you are going to go them. Tell them they don't know their own rules.

Do not "give in". that is what they presume will happen.

If they try to claim a loss twice in your case, they will lose in court if you are prepared to take it that far. Most people are not prepared to take it that far.

bye

Ausprop is explaining it incorrectly, but the net effect is as described.

They do not add it back twice.

But what they do with their starting point calculations creates the anomaly.

Centrelink don't see a negative income. For the purposes of calculating eligibility for various payments, they take your taxable income as a starting point. Anything less than zero is just called zero. It is at this point any losses from rental property are added back on.

So if you earn 100000 but have 50000 real estate investment loss, your taxable income is 50000, but for purposes of calculating benefits, it will be 100000 (50000 added back on).

But if you earn 50000 and have a 100000 real estate investment loss, your taxable income will be -50000 (which can be carried forward and offest against future income. BUT Centrelink/FAO will take that -50000, call it zero (anything negative is just treated as zero). THEN they add back the real estate investment loss. So, for the purpose of calculating benefits, they say your "adjusted" income is 100000. Worst case scenario is having zero income. Taxable income = -100000, they zero this, then add the 100000 loss on to this.

Doesn't make sense? Seems stupid? That's the point...

This anomaly only exists if you have taxable income is actually a loss...
 
Back
Top