negative gearing and the labor party
- Thread starter INVESTRON
- Start date
Why should we be afraid?
Let the 90% of other property investors be afraid!
Each property is like buying a business, it could be that you are buying a growth business (with low or negative returns) or a profitable business returning cash to it's investors ( cashflow positive). The value of any investment for an individual should be primarily based on its current earnings and its potential for future earnings.
This link has a report
By the way; I have been away from Australia for 6 years, does the opinions of the Democrats matter now ?
Let the 90% of other property investors be afraid!
Each property is like buying a business, it could be that you are buying a growth business (with low or negative returns) or a profitable business returning cash to it's investors ( cashflow positive). The value of any investment for an individual should be primarily based on its current earnings and its potential for future earnings.
This link has a report
By the way; I have been away from Australia for 6 years, does the opinions of the Democrats matter now ?
Last edited:
Don't be afraid.....i rolled over laughing last night when I saw Mark Latham gaffle away on TV......and it was only his first day on the job!
my bet is for that remark alone Labor will not be voted in!! Simon Crean wants to win the next election, of course he says that he's not in favour of it, he knows the strife it caused last time they tried to roll back negative gearing.
It won't happen.
my bet is for that remark alone Labor will not be voted in!! Simon Crean wants to win the next election, of course he says that he's not in favour of it, he knows the strife it caused last time they tried to roll back negative gearing.
It won't happen.
The Democrats (and Greens and a few Independants) always have been!! And increasing taxes for high income earners, and increasing the Medicare Levy for high income earners, and reducing the benefits of imputation credits for share dividends etc
(and HIGH income earners they consider anyone over 70K)
(and HIGH income earners they consider anyone over 70K)
Re: Re: negative gearing and the labor party
What about Rolf Latham for Treasurer?
...a LOC for every free man, woman and child
God noded and saw that it was good, amen
What about Rolf Latham for Treasurer?
...a LOC for every free man, woman and child
God noded and saw that it was good, amen
Last edited:
Lets not be afraid. I doubt the opposition will change the rules surrounding NG. Simon Crean has subsequently come out and said the Labor Party will not change the tax break which underpins the investment in residential property. Removing tax breaks will force up rents and put higher demands of public housing (which the government does seem to want a bar of).
My two bobs worth.
I doubt the opposition will change the rules surrounding NG. Simon Crean has subsequently come out and said the Labor Party will not change the tax break which underpins the investment in residential property. Removing tax breaks will force up rents and put higher demands of public housing (which the government does seem to want a bar of).My two bobs worth.
Getting rid on negative gearing is not all bad. Sure, I'd loose some equity, but it's more likely that rents would go up overnight. The positive cashflow would help servicablity, which would allow me to buy more property (which is now cheaper). We'd all be out of the rat race sooner
PT,
Maybe so, but then the govt would need to find more public housing as IP becomes less attractive to the private investor. Then the govt will be forced to provide more housing that has to come out of its own pocket (read our pocket=TAXES). I don't mind paying taxes to provide a community that helps the general well being of our society through housing, health, educational and welfare safety nets. My thoughts, the status quo will remain.
G.
Maybe so, but then the govt would need to find more public housing as IP becomes less attractive to the private investor. Then the govt will be forced to provide more housing that has to come out of its own pocket (read our pocket=TAXES). I don't mind paying taxes to provide a community that helps the general well being of our society through housing, health, educational and welfare safety nets. My thoughts, the status quo will remain.
G.
My comment is that negative gearing is not a all or nothing exercise. Full negative gearing or full rollback.
A government could change the rules a little just to make it a little less attractive.
I believe the costs of aquistion (stamp duty) and holding (land tax) need to be reduced significantly, but this loss must be filled and it can be filled by limiting the costs (to the government) of negative gearing. Naturally it is not going to happen because one is state taxes and the other is federal tax.
Lower the barriers to buying and building IP plus reduce the holding costs and simultanously reduce the inbalance of market forces cause by excessive reliance on negative gearing...this I think is the best way forward! (ie it redirects capital from lower value purposes to higher value purposes)
amen
A government could change the rules a little just to make it a little less attractive.
- Limit negative gearing losses for 5 years on individual properties from time of purchase.
- Limit negative gearing losses from 100% offset against PAYG earnings to 80%
- Limit negative gearning losses to only building (improvements) only, the interest compenent of costs for land are deductable as negative gearing benefits.
I believe the costs of aquistion (stamp duty) and holding (land tax) need to be reduced significantly, but this loss must be filled and it can be filled by limiting the costs (to the government) of negative gearing. Naturally it is not going to happen because one is state taxes and the other is federal tax.
Lower the barriers to buying and building IP plus reduce the holding costs and simultanously reduce the inbalance of market forces cause by excessive reliance on negative gearing...this I think is the best way forward! (ie it redirects capital from lower value purposes to higher value purposes)
amen
Last edited:
Look at the effects of removing negative gearing in the period 1985-87....it was VERY bad for the rental market.
The government still remembers this experience (though probably won't for much longer...getting close to 20yrs on now).
Consider how many politicians hold property investments - if they are extensively using negative gearing then there is little chance of a change in legislation, just lots of policy hot air.
Cheers,
Aceyducey
The government still remembers this experience (though probably won't for much longer...getting close to 20yrs on now).
Consider how many politicians hold property investments - if they are extensively using negative gearing then there is little chance of a change in legislation, just lots of policy hot air.
Cheers,
Aceyducey
In all honesty, I remember the high interest rates of the 80s, but I wasn't thinking about property then, so I really can't say what getting rid of negative gearing would do.
The US did get rid of it though. I believe that they had a very rough patch at first but eventually the market recovered. Nowdays the market has recovered to the point that the rent once again doesn't cover the costs, but they don't get the tax benifits either. I don't know a whole lot about it, but I do know that the ppl there I know don't invest to save a few dollars on tax.
The US did get rid of it though. I believe that they had a very rough patch at first but eventually the market recovered. Nowdays the market has recovered to the point that the rent once again doesn't cover the costs, but they don't get the tax benifits either. I don't know a whole lot about it, but I do know that the ppl there I know don't invest to save a few dollars on tax.
Re: Re: Re: negative gearing and the labor party
That's the most sensible thing I have heard...
Hey we can just take over entirely, Sim for PM, Rolf as Treasurer, Ruby as Deputy PM, Les as Minister for the Environment, I just want to rewrite the whole country's Real Estate legislation... Ooooh, this could be fun!!!
asy
That's the most sensible thing I have heard...
Hey we can just take over entirely, Sim for PM, Rolf as Treasurer, Ruby as Deputy PM, Les as Minister for the Environment, I just want to rewrite the whole country's Real Estate legislation... Ooooh, this could be fun!!!
asy
Can I please be the Minister for Planning and Urban Design
If anything the governments should give greater incentives for private property investment, rather than less. Many of us end up with average to poor performing property investments. This is the risk that the government does not want to take on themselves by providing more public housing funding. Its the individual investor that shoulders the risk and thus should be supported in every way possible by the government, to help minimise those risks.
