Is it the end of negative gearing
- Thread starter Dan_p
- Start date
Then this person deserves to lose. They made their own choice. No one stuck a gun to their head.
Also I don't know how removing the negative gearing leads to a more "transparent market". Why not remove taxable losses altogether? Let's just tax revenue, not profits.
I reckon its fairly simple, the whole system just need to be much more heavily weighted towards new property developments.
Minimum block size for development also needs to be reduced in all councils.
The problem is there is just not the appetite for new developments locally.
Need to be a lot more owner builder work. I mean where are all the little guys building small lots of duplexes/ small apartment blocks of under say 12 apartments in the burbs? Its too hard and too expensive.
Not to mention carving up what should be regarded as a double block and is not for two seperate dwellings.
Make it happen by just abolishing negative gearing? Don't think so. I reckon the biggest problem is NIMBYism by local councils. Sydney for a start needs to take a leaf out of Brisbanes books. Get one big mega council overseeing the lot to get stuff done.
Minimum block size for development also needs to be reduced in all councils.
The problem is there is just not the appetite for new developments locally.
Need to be a lot more owner builder work. I mean where are all the little guys building small lots of duplexes/ small apartment blocks of under say 12 apartments in the burbs? Its too hard and too expensive.
Not to mention carving up what should be regarded as a double block and is not for two seperate dwellings.
Make it happen by just abolishing negative gearing? Don't think so. I reckon the biggest problem is NIMBYism by local councils. Sydney for a start needs to take a leaf out of Brisbanes books. Get one big mega council overseeing the lot to get stuff done.
Return on investment is shocking, but rents doubling? Puhlease. Most renters simply couldn't afford to pay double. The house of cards would collapse.
....but what about the support for the poorer members of our community.
How are you going to help them ??
rent control buildings like in the states.
and not admitting it any time soon either
What about this idea as a more equitable solution for all stakeholders (would only be applicable to new transactions ie existing arrangements should be grandfathered). Not suggesting I agree with this but does this not have merit?
Have property losses capped at the amount of income the underlying asset produces each year.
For example...
1) property costs are $20K pa and rent received is $10K pa. Tax payer just pays tax on normal PAYG or business taxable income. Cops the $10K non deductible loss.
2) property costs are $20K pa and rent received is $30K pa. Tax payer pays tax on normal PAYG or business taxable income + their net $10k rental income profit.
When they say abolish neg gearing do you think they mean this or abolishing all dedcutions full stop?
Have property losses capped at the amount of income the underlying asset produces each year.
For example...
1) property costs are $20K pa and rent received is $10K pa. Tax payer just pays tax on normal PAYG or business taxable income. Cops the $10K non deductible loss.
2) property costs are $20K pa and rent received is $30K pa. Tax payer pays tax on normal PAYG or business taxable income + their net $10k rental income profit.
When they say abolish neg gearing do you think they mean this or abolishing all dedcutions full stop?
They did this in the UK until the 1980s. Disaster. My dad was one of the very few private landlords from WW2 onwards and our flats were OK by the standards of the time. He would advertise in the local paper with a box number and generally get 200+ applications (by post) from people who were desperate to find somewhere. You needed to be a professional married couple with good jobs (and perfect spelling!) just to make the shortlist. Once you had your tenancy you were there for life (or until you chose to leave) with the rent assessed by a local inspector every three years - the increase would then be phased across the next three years - so currently paying £600, current fair rent assessed as £750, so you pay £650 this year, £700 the following and £750 two years down the line. Not surprising that rental properties were few and far between and standards low.
Forward to when assured shorthold tenancies came in (not dissimilar to what we have here) and there was a BTL explosion: instead of tenants being pathetically grateful to be offered anything, they then had the upper hand, looking at several properties and discounting anything not up to scratch. In my more recent years in the UK we went through all our flats installing gas central heating, washing machines and later dishwashers, as this was what tenants demanded. Sure, they paid a bit more but market competition checked rents. Better to have a choice - at a reasonable price - than have the outside chance of a cheap low quality home.
Sure there may be people who genuinely cannot afford market rents, but the answer is to give them the appropriate help, not to force landlords to do so. T.
I'm amazed that renting a house seems to be so easy for ones on government assisstance here.
I'm used to seeing people with options of only renting an apartment...then the rent must not be more than xxx
Do you see this a s a good or bad thing ?
I've never pondered about it as an issue before, which is why I'm asking what you think about it ?
At our 11 unit family apt building we own, it is in a town that is heavily dependant on welfare renters.
Depending on the market we are sometimes above their rates which welfare will pay. Once I asked a welfare case worker why they wouldn't approve an applicant, and she told me they don't want them having a place too nice.There needs to be an incentive to get off welfare.
Personally, I don't like welfare recipients receiving a house. (one of our more expensive properties is housing a welfare family in a 4 bedroom house, paid by our taxes..in Canada)
Give them something they don't really want.
So do you think it's a good thing or bad thing "that renting a house seems to be so easy for ones on government assisstance here" ?
2) is what we have. I don't see the logic of 1). Apart from anything else, no one would want to buy an IP in May-June since you'd have all the initial outgoings and minimal income.
It's perfectly reasonable to set up a business knowing that it will lose money in year 1 or 2, and to be able to roll forward the losses to set against future profits (UK system, above). If you couldn't do this lots of businesses that take time to establish themselves would never be set up. The situation, as a detached observer, I would have a big problem with is the 2% yielding IP in Hawthorn on a big IO mortgage where the buyer doesn't really expect it to become income positive in the forseeable future and doesn't care since 40% of their losses are being paid for by the tax man whilst they will only pay 20% on the projected significant CG. T.
Obviously it wasn't obvious to me...
Where do you think people who are on any form of welfare should live ?
dividend ARE considered income and are taxed the same as income earned at say a PAYG job or the same as rent......
Similar threads
