Negative Gearing

ABC Fact Check

"The verdict

During the period that negative gearing was abolished real rents notably increased only in Sydney and Perth - where rental vacancies were at extremely low levels.

This is inconsistent with arguments that negative gearing was a significant factor, with negative gearing likely to have a uniform impact on rents in all capital cities.

At the same time, high interest rates and the share market boom of the mid 1980s increased consumer demand for rental properties, encouraged existing investors to pass on high mortgage costs to renting consumers, and discouraged additional investors from investing in the rental property market.

While the rent increases in two cities did coincide with the temporary removal of negative gearing tax deductions, it is unlikely that change had a substantial impact on rents in any major capital city in Australia.

Mr Hockey's claim doesn't stack up."


This quote is from the ABC Fact Check about negative gearing. Given it is way past a poor below-average-income earning teacher's Friday beer o'clock, I will attempt to state that The Fact Check has determined that when negative gearing was abolished, rents only increased in Sydney and Perth, and that was probably due to other economic factors anyway.

Fine, so lets extrapolate to infer that currently in 2015, housing costs are only unaffordable in Sydney and to a lesser degree Melbourne. The rest of the country does not have a housing affordability crisis. If anyone feels the need to remove negative gearing on rental properties to make housing more affordable, then they can do it on houses in Sydney and Melbourne and leave the rest of us alone.

Mr Mark - would you please start with the preface that housing is NOT unaffordable in the rest of the country before trying to make it more affordable by totally stuffing any attempt that my husband and I have made to get "ahead" in this country and to provide for our retirement.
 
I think we're all missing the point of negative gearing, its a political tool more so than a financial one.
Negative gearing is a mechanism targeted at, for want of a better term, average Joes on a median or below wage to give them the impression that if they work hard enough despite their low income they can still afford an investment property and retire early on the good life like all the "rich people".
This is a very powerful idea and one not to be messed with lightly by goverment IMHO.
 
Thanks for all the replies.

I should have said up the top that I'm doing a piece for 7.30 on ABC TV - so I'm looking to do an interview on camera with a property investor. As I said previously no agenda - just want to hear your side of the story. If anyone is willing please get in contact: [email protected]

Yeah right. Get some mom&pop investor in front of the camera and then have a bunch of other people from various NGOs with full media training who have spent time with their message houses to present the other side of the story. Then call it "balanced".

Sod off.

And yes I have media training and at one time spent time playing the media for a living.
 
One thing that hasn't been mentioned, with all this talk about the supposed investors pushing up prices is that many investors look at property, at open homes, at auctions, etc, NOT to buy (unless there's a bargain), but to keep up with what is going on in the market.

For instance, a lot of the local agents, when taking your details at open homes, are now recording if your are looking as an owner occupier, or investor. So, we go and get our name recorded, along with everyone else, and we are recorded as investors, but we are NOT there to buy something, we are there keeping abreast of the situation as we have something that will be going up for sale soon.
True.

I haven't bought an IP for a number of years now (not able to due to house build and business purchase and subsequent massive going broke phase thereafter :rolleyes:), but I still look at properties every day on the websites and even go to local "open home" sessions in our area occasionally..

I'm sure loads of folks here do similar.
 
REA agents know the investor buys on price not emotion, the PPOR buys on emotion.

If the sums don't add up the investor walks away where as a PPOR is okay with spending an additional 20k to get the house they want.
 
REA agents know the investor buys on price not emotion, the PPOR buys on emotion.

If the sums don't add up the investor walks away where as a PPOR is okay with spending an additional 20k to get the house they want.
They do have different motivations, but both investors and home buyers are affected by emotions, including fear and greed.

Many investors buy because they think an area will see price growth & eventually erase their losses from early negative gearing of the property, so the sums they make to purchase may only be whether they can afford to carry the cost of the loan, much the same as a home buyer.
 
I emailed David and he said that he was interested in interviewing me and that it would air late this week, but I haven't heard from him since Saturday. Considering the tight deadline, I'm assuming that boat has sailed.

Oh well, fame can wait! :D
 
I emailed David and he said that he was interested in interviewing me and that it would air late this week, but I haven't heard from him since Saturday. Considering the tight deadline, I'm assuming that boat has sailed.

Oh well, fame can wait! :D

He might call you at 5pm on Friday and ask you to go in to your local ABC studio where you will get "made up" and that's about all the preparation you will be given. Would you expect the list of questions to be asked 24 hours ahead of time?

Or he'll be back late on Tuesday night to ask us our comments about the budget instead.
 
Not since we were each endowed with a higher education than the folks back in the 40s and 50s who would swear by the integrity of the ABC.
If this is the case, then why do shows such as Q&A have such a large representation of younger and left-leaning folks in the audiences?

They should rename that show "The Colosseum";

The Audience and the panel are the Romans and the Lions, the Liberals are the Jews and slaves trotted out to be devoured.

It's a disgrace; much like most of their "current affairs" programs.

Lib bashing, Rich bashing, Labour backslapping...:rolleyes:
 
If this is the case, then why do shows such as Q&A have such a large representation of younger and left-leaning folks in the audiences?

They should rename that show "The Colosseum";

The Audience and the panel are the Romans and the Lions, the Liberals are the Jews and slaves trotted out to be devoured.

It's a disgrace; much like most of their "current affairs" programs.

Lib bashing, Rich bashing, Labour backslapping...:rolleyes:

Just to confirm, you sometimes make reference to and clearly watch andrew bolt but you're calling abc current affair programs a disgrace?
 
Just to confirm, you sometimes make reference to and clearly watch andrew bolt but you're calling abc current affair programs a disgrace?
Andrew Bolt invites many Left folks on his show...including the Opposition Leader and others in their main party structure.

He also has a Lib and a Lab in his panel each week - it cannot get more equal than that.

The discussions are very interesting, and sometimes get animated, but they always leave it with a high degree of professional courtesy and (from my observation) good spirited.

If you watched it you would know all this.

Very few Lefts accept his invitations to go on the show - according to AB.

Bill Shorten has never accepted.

Andrew has never been invited on to the ABC - he states that with a smirk.

He also states openly that he used to work for the ABC.

I also listen to ABC radio every day at work. Not because I am left, but I despise ads, play lists and mindless commercial radio frivolous waffle (signs of my age no doubt).

John Feine is noticeably - noticeably - hostile towards anyone from the Liberal party...he interrupts their sentences, his tone is rude - he is rude to them etc.

But I still listen and try to be objective and tolerant of him and others on it.

ABC - paid for by taxpayers and meant to be impartial and balanced.....
 
Hey BV, my son and I quite enjoy watching Q and A together as long as it isn't all the time. Recently they've had plain interesting panels where the politics was kept to a minimum. These shows are more about a certain topic rather than mere Lib Bashing. The ABC news is still better than the majority of commercial stations for an old, I mean middle-aged, conservative to view. Is SBS a part of ABC or is it a different entity?
 
I don't mind Q&A depending on the panel and when its not just political point scoring, the tweets at the bottom of the screen give me the s____s though. The audience is supposedly fairly balanced but it often seems hijacked by Getup members.
 
Back
Top