Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
...
If NG was given the boot, then alot of investors will park their money elsewhere eg shares, bank interest etc for a better return. Also consider that without NG some investors won't have the cashflow to service a loan.
IF NG is abolished on investment properties only, then of course other forms of investment will become more popular. SS would probally become a stock market forum!
When you have around 3 mil renters scrounging around our major big cities and towns, looking for a limited commodity ie a roof over your head, rents will go up not down.
Keep negative gearing but get rid of depreciation would be a decent move imo
A) its really just giving property holders a few grand a year per property for free
B) itll slow down spruikers that flog otp
No this never happened, just a myth, pushed by vested interests ever since.I'm sure I read somewhere that NG was abolished in the 80s and investors left the market in droves. This created a shortage in housing and rent increases and put pressure on the government to supply housing, so they re-introduced it again.
Yep!Any move by the govt to make property investing less attractive will mean less investors. Less property investors will affect the building industry and cause rents to rise. It will also put a greater strain on public housing. More people will be living on the street, in cars, in factory units, on lounges in friends or relo's place etc. I just cant see the govt doing it.
This is the part I don't understand.
If Neg. Gearing abolished, then the rents will rise?
My understanding, if NG abolishes it means less property investor, then it means a drop in property price. If the property price drop, it means more people (especially first home buyer) can afford to buy a house. If more FHB can afford to a house, it means rents to drop. So, am I correct to assume this?
The taxman can get-back all the benefit that we got from depreciation schedule, when we sell the property.
Yep!
Its all about supply and demand.
Fewer property investors means fewer rental properties. If there are fewer rental properties, then the demand for those properties increases, driving up the rents.
No matter what you do, many renters will never purchase a home.
Keep negative gearing but get rid of depreciation would be a decent move imo
A) its really just giving property holders a few grand a year per property for free
B) itll slow down spruikers that flog otp
....help older Aussies who cant get by.
There will be more of these to "help" if we go down that path.
They not stopping you from booking your loss, carry them forward until such time your properties is sold for profit.....most heavily negative gear people are speculators anyway conservative investors don't go down that path.
...It would just line up the pockets of most somersofters or property developers.
Most property investors buy pre-existing housing, not brand new. They are only increasing the supply if they buy new. All the established homes will still be there regardless of whether an investor buys them or not.I think its all about supply and demand.
Fewer property investors means fewer rental properties (ie supply down). Renters (demand) will be bidding for fewer rental properties, therefore, us greedy landlords will be rubbing our hands together and jacking up the rent as potential tenants jump all over us, wanting to live in our properties lol
Another way to look at it, when banana's were in short supply due to the storms in Qld, prices of banana's in the supermarket shot up.
Exactly, it's not about supply and demand at all.Most property investors buy pre-existing housing, not brand new. They are only increasing the supply if they buy new. All the established homes will still be there regardless of whether an investor buys them or not.