Is the end in sight for negative gearing ?

[Cherry Pro]

Hubby, possibly the only property investor in the room, with his volunteer hat on, was at a Vinnies conference last weekend where they solidly talked down negative gearing and how negative gearing lead to investors pushing up property prices making it really difficult for home owners to get into the market.

And then I saw this item today.

http://www.yourinvestmentpropertyma...end-in-sight-for-negative-gearing-186408.aspx

What are your thoughts, will negative gearing (in its present form) be done away with in the next budget ?

 

[D.T.]

Political suicide.

 

[mikezen]

"Instead they led investors to bid up the prices of existing housing to get the tax benefits on offer"

I like this bit the best

Surely people aren't that stupid

 

[D.T.]

Surely people aren't that stupid

I assume you've never met people before?

 

[impala67]

Surely people aren't that stupid

I assume you've never met people before?

hahaha

+1

 

[wategos]

What are your thoughts, will negative gearing (in its present form) be done away with in the next budget ?

I very much hope they will start to phase it out.

It will NOT be political suicide, a lot of people are now in favour of getting rid of it including young people continually being outbid by investors/speculators who now dominate the market and are responsible for pushing prices up. It used to be something that couldn?t be touched, but no longer. It?s great to see the issue adressed frequently in mainstream media these days. The damage it?s doing is too obvious to ignore.

I will personally vote for whoever commits to getting rid of this regressive policy, and I know many others will too.

 

[mikezen]

I very much hope they will start to phase it out.

It will NOT be political suicide, a lot of people are now in favour of getting rid of it including young people continually being outbid by investors/speculators who now dominate the market and are responsible for pushing prices up. It used to be something that couldn?t be touched, but no longer. It?s great to see the issue adressed frequently in mainstream media these days. The damage it?s doing is too obvious to ignore.

I will personally vote for whoever commits to getting rid of this regressive policy, and I know many others will too.

Don't be such a stick in the mud

At least let us have a little bit more before you start setting up your picket lines outside Parliament House

 

[Francesco]

There is another thread discussing NG at:

http://somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96920&highlight=NEGATIVE+GEARING

I personally do not think that the presence of NG will deter a determined FHB. This is ridiculous to cut competition so that there is less people to compete with you for the property you want. Competition by investors serves a lot of good to others, maybe not personally. NG is the outcome of merely applying accounting and tax principles so that tax can be equitably levied. When that is thwarted, market distortion occurs, there is no level field in the market and injustice occurs. I do not think TA will allow that if he has really learnt something in the cabinet of JH.

 

[mystery]

Question - If the Govt ever did remove negative gearing .... Do you think they would stop it for new purchases from a future set date ... or across the board to include all properties already held by investors like back in the 1980's?

Mystery

 

[impala67]

Question - If the Govt ever did remove negative gearing .... Do you think they would stop it for new purchases from a future set date ... or across the board to include all properties already held by investors like back in the 1980's?

Mystery

I don't think this Govt. will touch NG.

Also, hypothetically future Govt.'s would not "backdate" NG it either.

 

[D.T.]

If property represents a good investment, investors gonna invest. If you change one of the variables, such as NG, other variables will change (such as rents or supply/demand ratios). Itll still be a good investment. And while its a good investment investors will have better purchasing power than fhb's.

I dont support keeping it because I need it, but because abolishing it is pointless. If gen y's stop being whiny bitches and save some of their salaries, I promise they'd buy a home.

 

[impala67]

...I dont support keeping it because I need it, but because abolishing it is pointless. If gen y's stop being whiny bitches and save some of their salaries, I promise they'd buy a home.

LOL

Exactly. +1

 

[Hooray]

If ng is removed, that would apply to everything, right? Not just property, but stocks too?

 

[Angel13]

I don't know what it's like in other states but in Canberra I hold the ACT government responsible for driving up the property prices by not releasing any land.

The last lot they released a few months back in a suburb called Lawson they auctioned them off and I'm told they all went for about $100K more than expected.

The next release won't be until later on in the year and it will be at least 18 - 2 years before it will be ready to build on.

In the case of Canberra FHB should ask the ACT Government for answers.

They are the biggest money hungry sharks and unfortunately have all the power. As far as I'm concerned they are a disgrace!!!

 

[Tony3008]

Political suicide.

Why so? I don't see loads of affected Liberal supporters rushing off to vote ALP in protest. If a change is made, no future government will reverse it.

 

[Angel]

If ng is removed, that would apply to everything, right? Not just property, but stocks too?

From what I read in the Henry Report a few years ago, the discussion around calling for NG to be disallowed is about residential housing only, nothing else. It is, to me, as discriminatory as the Qld Bikie Laws that has a different "class" of convicted criminal from all other people convicted of a crime.

 

[Francesco]

Why so? I don't see loads of affected Liberal supporters rushing off to vote ALP in protest. If a change is made, no future
government will reverse it.

What about the PUP? It should be more investor friendly than the ALP or the GREEN.

 

[impala67]

What about the PUP? It should be more investor friendly than the ALP or the GREEN.

PUP - how long will they maintain a party?

Anyone know which way are they aligned?

 

[hobo-jo]

From what I read in the Henry Report a few years ago, the discussion around calling for NG to be disallowed is about residential housing only, nothing else. It is, to me, as discriminatory as the Qld Bikie Laws that has a different "class" of convicted criminal from all other people convicted of a crime.

There are social issues to consider (unlike with most other assets which can be negatively geared). Not all assets can (or should) be treated exactly the same.

 

[willair]

If ng is removed, that would apply to everything, right? Not just property, but stocks too?

It did not happen that way last time around in the 1980's,at the time there seemed to be a logic in such incompetence of the experts around that time
but ASX investment class stayed the same the only cab off the rank was investment property,and the investor % in property back then was low compared too today,never pays to have all your eggs in one basket,then it all ends up a basket case....