The negative gearing election

[Footyfan61]

Not all markets are falling - its an ongoing thing - i can understand one house - when people have 5 or 7 or whatever its bs - its locking people out of the market and artificially inflating prices.

Inflated prices are due to a supply and means issues
Labor’s refuge & immigration program had to house the people somewhere!

Government and builders couldn’t keep up with housing and infrastructure

 

[Hawk Dork]

Not in favour of self funded retirees, pulling their own weight?

Self funded retirees leaned on the tax payer way harder than the regular pensioner

 

[Footyfan61]

Self funded retirees leaned on the tax payer way harder than the regular pensioner

Like not being entitled to the pension & paying tax
Being excuded from many government services as well!


lol

 

[Hawk Dork]

Like not being entitled to the pension & paying tax
Being excuded from many government services as well!


lol

'''The age pension currently costs $39 billion and superannuation tax concessions will cost the budget around $35 billion in 2013-14,'' the study found.

It notes that the Commonwealth bill for these concessions is projected to rise at a staggering 12 per cent annually to be $50.7 billion in 2016-17.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...at-are-killing-the-budget-20140421-zqx7p.html

 

[Frank Grimes]

Inflated prices are due to a supply and means issues
Labor’s refuge & immigration program had to house the people somewhere!

Government and builders couldn’t keep up with housing and infrastructure

Supply and demand ( increased population) definitely has an influence on house prices, but you have to also look at people's capacity to pay/buy a house. For example, if every immigrant coming can only afford to pay $400,000 for a house, it wouldn't make much difference to house prices if there were 200,000 new immigrants per year or 300,000.

That is where banks and easy credit/loans comes in and having an influence. Very few people have the capacity to buy a house outright and need to go to the bank for a loan. The amount people can borrow puts a cap on how much a person pays for a house.

 

[Footyfan61]

'''The age pension currently costs $39 billion and superannuation tax concessions will cost the budget around $35 billion in 2013-14,'' the study found.

It notes that the Commonwealth bill for these concessions is projected to rise at a staggering 12 per cent annually to be $50.7 billion in 2016-17.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...at-are-killing-the-budget-20140421-zqx7p.html

You’ll find there has been a large amount of changers have been made to superannuation over the past 4 or 5 years that the article leaves out.

 

[Hawk Dork]

You’ll find there has been a large amount of changers have been made to superannuation over the past 4 or 5 years that the article leaves out.

but the guys retired now got them all

Good to see your on board with winding back billions of dollars of tax refunds to millionaires who pay no tax though

 

[AM]

Ya gotta feel sorry for 'em, don't ya? Boo-hoo!

 

[Lebbo73]

Ya gotta feel sorry for 'em, don't ya? Boo-hoo!

Keating experienced first hand what a bad idea it was to get rid of negative gearing. So will Shorten. I’ll agree it wasn’t a great idea to bring in negative gearing in the first place though.

 

[AM]

Keating experienced first hand what a bad idea it was to get rid of negative gearing. So will Shorten. I’ll agree it wasn’t a great idea to bring in negative gearing in the first place though.

Those presently 'using' it are protected and those planning to 'use' it for new homes are not affected.

 

[Power Raid]

Ya gotta feel sorry for 'em, don't ya? Boo-hoo!

it's interesting the debate about negative gearing is limited to property when in fact this new policy impacts all long term asset classes such as innovation, R&D, medicine, renewables, start up businesses.

it's also interesting that negative gearing and CGT wasn't the cause of the property bubble



A thinking person may consider better mechanisms to address the issue, such as a proper property tax. but sadly that would take a little effort and co-operation with the states.........just like a proper mining tax would have.

Dumb and lazy

 

[Power Raid]

Supply and demand ( increased population) definitely has an influence on house prices, but you have to also look at people's capacity to pay/buy a house. For example, if every immigrant coming can only afford to pay $400,000 for a house, it wouldn't make much difference to house prices if there were 200,000 new immigrants per year or 300,000.

That is where banks and easy credit/loans comes in and having an influence. Very few people have the capacity to buy a house outright and need to go to the bank for a loan. The amount people can borrow puts a cap on how much a person pays for a house.

you also have to look at rezoning where greater density means greater yields per metre

essentially we re-zoned in a very dumb way where property owners recieved a massive benefit rather than the state. Meanwhile new entrants simply paid more for an inferior product.

again..........just dumb

 

[Pommie Docker]

it's interesting the debate about negative gearing is limited to property when in fact this new policy impacts all long term asset classes such as innovation, R&D, medicine, renewables, start up businesses.

it's also interesting that negative gearing and CGT wasn't the cause of the property bubble



A thinking person may consider better mechanisms to address the issue, such as a proper property tax. but sadly that would take a little effort and co-operation with the states.........just like a proper mining tax would have.

Dumb and lazy

It won't effect investment in those long-term assets, that's a separate CGT tax law to offset losses in long-term investments. Negative gearing is specific to offsetting losses in CGT against other taxable income.

 

[Power Raid]

It won't effect investment in those long-term assets, that's a separate CGT tax law to offset losses in long-term investments. Negative gearing is specific to offsetting losses in CGT against other taxable income.

It is without doubt the weighted average cost of capital rises for these asset classes, thus they will be impacted. Further ordinary investors will be penalised for holding these asset classes AND adding insult to injury, ordinary people will have to seel their ideas to the big end of town for less than they otherwise would for the privilege of accessing capital.

please feel free to discuss this "other" CGT law and how changes to negative gearing won't have an impact as you claim



of and you claim "Negative gearing is specific to offsetting losses in CGT against other taxable income. " doesn't make sense what so ever. Negative gearing has no correlation to CGT rather it has a correlation to offsetting losses against income (currently investment or wages) on the provision the losses relate to a revenue generating asset. YOU CAN NOT OFFSET CGT LOSSES AGAINST WAGES OR OTHER INCOME OTHER THAN OTHER CAPITAL GAINS.

 

[QuietB]

it's interesting the debate about negative gearing is limited to property when in fact this new policy impacts all long term asset classes such as innovation, R&D, medicine, renewables, start up businesses.

it's also interesting that negative gearing and CGT wasn't the cause of the property bubble



A thinking person may consider better mechanisms to address the issue, such as a proper property tax. but sadly that would take a little effort and co-operation with the states.........just like a proper mining tax would have.

Dumb and lazy

It is not the cause of the property bubble. It is the cause of lost tax revenue for **** all benefit to the country

 

[Power Raid]

It is not the cause of the property bubble. It is the cause of lost tax revenue for **** all benefit to the country

if we are just after tax revenue from property, then have a property tax

if an entity incurs an expense whilst generating revenue, why shouldn't they have a deduction? we do it for a person buying an selling inventory, we do it for hotels and airports generating income............we will continue to allow the wealthy.........so why penalise the ordinary?

please explain the logic

 

[checkraiseulite]

never change

 

[QuietB]

if we are just after tax revenue from property, then have a property tax

if an entity incurs an expense whilst generating revenue, why shouldn't they have a deduction? we do it for a person buying an selling inventory, we do it for hotels and airports generating income............we will continue to allow the wealthy.........so why penalise the ordinary?

please explain the logic

Fine. I want a deduction for my gambling losses. And fashion purchases. And alcohol investments.

 

[Power Raid]

Fine. I want a deduction for my gambling losses. And fashion purchases. And alcohol investments.

You can get deductions for gambling losses if you are carrying out the activity as a business or enterprise rather than a hobby. Do you think ladbrokes are tax free or can’t deduct losses?

Same said with fashion

Same said with alcohol

 

[Pommie Docker]

It is without doubt the weighted average cost of capital rises for these asset classes, thus they will be impacted. Further ordinary investors will be penalised for holding these asset classes AND adding insult to injury, ordinary people will have to seel their ideas to the big end of town for less than they otherwise would for the privilege of accessing capital.

please feel free to discuss this "other" CGT law and how changes to negative gearing won't have an impact as you claim



of and you claim "Negative gearing is specific to offsetting losses in CGT against other taxable income. " doesn't make sense what so ever. Negative gearing has no correlation to CGT rather it has a correlation to offsetting losses against income (currently investment or wages) on the provision the losses relate to a revenue generating asset. YOU CAN NOT OFFSET CGT LOSSES AGAINST WAGES OR OTHER INCOME OTHER THAN OTHER CAPITAL GAINS.

If you

It is without doubt the weighted average cost of capital rises for these asset classes, thus they will be impacted. Further ordinary investors will be penalised for holding these asset classes AND adding insult to injury, ordinary people will have to seel their ideas to the big end of town for less than they otherwise would for the privilege of accessing capital.

please feel free to discuss this "other" CGT law and how changes to negative gearing won't have an impact as you claim



of and you claim "Negative gearing is specific to offsetting losses in CGT against other taxable income. " doesn't make sense what so ever. Negative gearing has no correlation to CGT rather it has a correlation to offsetting losses against income (currently investment or wages) on the provision the losses relate to a revenue generating asset. YOU CAN NOT OFFSET CGT LOSSES AGAINST WAGES OR OTHER INCOME OTHER THAN OTHER CAPITAL GAINS.

The major tax incentive for R&D, mining and tech etc is the ability for the company to offset it's investment and therefore loss that year over a number of years company tax returns. This is why Qantas hasn't paid tax for a number of years, it is without doubt the biggest incentive for heavy investment for a company.

Unless you are talking about margin loans, I've no idea why you think negative gearing would affect these classes of investment.

Negative gearing we are talking about is the only CGT loss you can currently offset against other types of income. This is from the ATOs website:

"The overall tax result of a negatively geared property is a net rental loss. In this case, you may be able to claim a deduction for the full amount of rental expenses against your rental and other income – such as salary, wages or business income – when you complete your tax return for the relevant income year. Where the other income is not sufficient to absorb the loss it's carried forward to the next income year."

 

[The Edukator]

Ya gotta feel sorry for 'em, don't ya? Boo-hoo!

Hang on a sec. Pretty sure the podcast I listened to said they're wete only appx 600 people with 5 properties NG.

Maybe it was 6 but your numbers seem hard to believe.

 

[QuietB]

You can get deductions for gambling losses if you are carrying out the activity as a business or enterprise rather than a hobby. Do you think ladbrokes are tax free or can’t deduct losses?

Same said with fashion

Same said with alcohol

PAYG negative gearing is not being carried out as a business. That is the whole point you simply refuse to acknowledge

 

[The Edukator]

Why has noone brought up that the numbers, only 4%, of negative gearing s going to new property? That's a monumental **** up when it's closer to 50%.

 

[Power Raid]

If you


The major tax incentive for R&D, mining and tech etc is the ability for the company to offset it's investment and therefore loss that year over a number of years company tax returns. This is why Qantas hasn't paid tax for a number of years, it is without doubt the biggest incentive for heavy investment for a company.

Totally irrelevant perspective

This change in policy doesn't effect the big end of town directly. It effects ordinary investors.

Your reference to depreciation also has very little relevance to the issue and is in fact a principle that favours the ATO vs an immediate deduction.

Unless you are talking about margin loans, I've no idea why you think negative gearing would affect these classes of investment.

No I'm not talking about margin loans. I grant you it is often a negatively geared investment has debt and the name "geared" implies debt but a negatively geared investment only needs for the holding costs to exceed the revenue which is often the case on assets with a long maturity like R&D, innovation, medicine, technology and start up businesses.

Negative gearing we are talking about is the only CGT loss you can currently offset against other types of income.

Your terminology is wrong or your understanding is wrong. I think you mean "you can currently offset investment losses against other types of income". CGT losses CAN NOT be offset against other income, rather they can only be offset against capital gains.

This is from the ATOs website:

"The overall tax result of a negatively geared property is a net rental loss. In this case, you may be able to claim a deduction for the full amount of rental expenses against your rental and other income – such as salary, wages or business income – when you complete your tax return for the relevant income year. Where the other income is not sufficient to absorb the loss it's carried forward to the next income year."

Correct

Further under Labor only the wealthy will continue to be able to negative gear where the ordinary can not. oh and add to those that can being those with a rich daddy with a trust fund, business owners who can convert wages into dividends.

Typical Labor only supporting the big end of town and keeping the little guy down

 

[Power Raid]

Why has noone brought up that the numbers, only 4%, of negative gearing s going to new property? That's a monumental **** up when it's closer to 50%.

probably because market requires both the primary market and secondary market to be efficient. What we will see is new home buyers paying more with the property developers raping the ordinary on the way in and the wealthy raping the ordinary on the way out, as the material loss of value due to tax policies.