Anthony Albanese - How long? -2-

[JackOutback]

There's 1.1 million Australians with negatively geared properties. There's a lot of votes in that

And the majority, like myself, probably have just the one. Easy to bring in a policy that balances interests of the nation with the needs of small investors while catching those absolutely having a laugh. Prosecuting the case is a different argument and Labor have shown they aren’t good at that.

 

[JackOutback]

But there is 8 million who would benefit from house price declines if we got rid of negative gearing.

Removing negative gearing hits people immediately, house price declines take years, hence the difficulty in making the case.

 

[Rob R]

Shorten did and we ended up with Morrison.

What Albo should do is do it straight after thr election

Shorten ran a terrible campaign, too many messages and didn't bother trying to explain them just assumed he was going to win. Could have achieved a lot if he was actually a decent leader.

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Rob R]

Make any changes to the 2nd and beyond investment property. That drops the number to a few hundred thousand people.

Or just change it to 10 years for the CGT concessions on property and 5 years for all other forms of investment. Because 1 year is just simply a joke. And has always been a joke.

Politicians will hate it because they all have investment properties and share portfolios and family trusts and every other way of minimising tax.

Well said and immediately ban foreign ownership of residential property.

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Gralin]

And the majority, like myself, probably have just the one. Easy to bring in a policy that balances interests of the nation with the needs of small investors while catching those absolutely having a laugh. Prosecuting the case is a different argument and Labor have shown they aren’t good at that.

Of all the landlords who negatively gear 9% of them own more than 3 properties but they make up 23% of all the properties that are negatively geared

while the media always focus on the mum and dad investor with a single property over half the rental properties on the market are from landlords that do not fit that description

if you are renting you are more likely to be renting from a landlord with a multiple property portfolio

limiting negative gearing to single properties would impact a much smaller number than you'd think but they have a lot of money and will make a lot of noise

and in this case all they were talking about was stopping people negative gearing new properties, all existing properties were going to be grand fathered in

a terrible choice as it entrenches wealth inequality but from the way it was reported on you'd think they were going to immediately remove it for everyone

there's almost nothing honest about how the media frame and report on residential investment properties

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

We should.

We should also have a media that is objective and reports honestly, without partisan framing.

So parties can be completely upfront before elections, without deceptive scaremongering campaigns.

And politicians can change position based on new information and circumstances, without media and commentators going for sensationalism.

Until the latter happens, we've got bipartisan backflipping, where the outcome is the key thing to evaluate.

I’d hope you apply these standards to both ends of the media.

 

[nut]

How come building materials increase at the same rate as established house prices?

Just open up more land for building … especially in rural towns.

 

[peetoo]

Shorten ran a terrible campaign, too many messages and didn't bother trying to explain them just assumed he was going to win. Could have achieved a lot if he was actually a decent leader.

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app

But he ran like a girl apparently. No remorse from Murdoch for supporting Morrison to the hilt, and no w worse than useless Dutton?

The NG plan from Sroten was NG could continue but on new builds only. Existing NG properties grandfathered.

It’s EXACTLY what we need now, and would have been in place for 4-5 years. Our media is almost criminal for not pointing that out

 

[peetoo]

How come building materials increase at the same rate as established house prices?

Just open up more land for building … especially in rural towns.

‘Thee are literally thousands of approved projects being held over by developers…while the same developers as]re campaigning so they can lower standards and we’d be left with-th substandard buildings for decades

 

[peetoo]

Of all the landlords who negatively gear 9% of them own more than 3 properties but they make up 23% of all the properties that are negatively geared

while the media always focus on the mum and dad investor with a single property over half the rental properties on the market are from landlords that do not fit that description

if you are renting you are more likely to be renting from a landlord with a multiple property portfolio

limiting negative gearing to single properties would impact a much smaller number than you'd think but they have a lot of money and will make a lot of noise

and in this case all they were talking about was stopping people negative gearing new properties, all existing properties were going to be grand fathered in

a terrible choice as it entrenches wealth inequality but from the way it was reported on you'd think they were going to immediately remove it for everyone

there's almost nothing honest about how the media frame and report on residential investment properties

NG depends on your personal tax rate, usually a PAYE person. Can someone tell me how these multiple properties NG potion can all fit in some ones PAYE? At $100k pa there’s not much more than $20k in the top tax bracket? Surely something limits ho much NG can be going on.

Has the reduction of tax in this bracket had an effect on the amount of NG going on

Let’s also remember a lot of rentals are positively geared.

 

[Gralin]

NG depends on your personal tax rate, usually a PAYE person. Can someone tell me how these multiple properties NG potion can all fit in some ones PAYE? At $100k pa there’s not much more than $20k in the top tax bracket? Surely something limits ho much NG can be going on.

Has the reduction of tax in this bracket had an effect on the amount of NG going on

Let’s also remember a lot of rentals are positively geared.

Negative gearing is most heavily taken advantage of by the most wealthy landlords

Same as super concessions, all of these tax shelters most of the money is going to the richest people

 

[peetoo]

View attachment 2123180

Negative gearing is most heavily taken advantage of by the most wealthy landlords

Same as super concessions, all of these tax shelters most of the money is going to the richest people

And we all know they’d find somewhere else for their rorts, but if it’s not in residential property, the housing problem is not supercharged.
We just need to find the political will to do it

But how can someone with 19k income negatively gear? There’s no income tax component? Media is just rubbish
Surely that’s retirees who are positively geared and the ‘income’ is just the rent?

Shortens changes would have no effect on this group

 

[Ghost Patrol]

And we all know they’d find somewhere else for their rorts, but if it’s not in residential property, the housing problem is not supercharged.
We just need to find the political will to do it

But how can someone with 19k income negatively gear? There’s no income tax component? Media is just rubbish
Surely that’s retirees who are positively geared and the ‘income’ is just the rent?

Shortens changes would have no effect on this group

19k is the taxable income after the negative gearing calculation. ie. they have used negative gearing to reduce their taxable income to 19k.

So they basically aren’t paying tax…… the other taxpayers are paying it for them.

 

[Kram]

Tax concessions like NG and CGT should be massively changed because they are simply a rort for rich people.

What's the official definition of "rich" around these parts?

 

[peetoo]

19k is the taxable income after the negative gearing calculation. ie. they have used negative gearing to reduce their taxable income to 19k.

So they basically aren’t paying tax…… the other taxpayers are paying it for them.

‘Taxable income’ is before tax? Let’s not argue the quoted media is basically bulldust

 

[Ghost Patrol]

‘Taxable income’ is before tax? Let’s not argue the quoted media is basically bulldust

It’s not the medias fault that you are financially illiterate.

But I do agree, the media is bulldust.

 

[Kram]

People generally are just against anything they aren't willing or able to take advantage of themselves.

Like negative gearing I'm never gonna be a landlord so go for your life but altering cgt yeah no thanks.

Same with those that continualy want interest rates as low as possible even if it's not good for the economy just because they only care about their own mortgage payments.

 

[peetoo]

I looked at investment properties over the years, but always thought there was too many balls to be kept in the air or it would go wrong.

I’m happy I didn’t now. It’s basically a sector of the economy which is propped up by tax rorts, which causes our housing costs to be far too high which means we need high wages therefore are uncompetitive as a nation for global ‘knowledge economy’ work

 

[Chief]

As for the greed point. If one person offers $800 per week and another offers 700 dollars a week are you proposing landlords should not take the higher offer?

The government is: rent auctions are illegal.

 

[Puddy]

We absolutely need to stop giving tax breaks to land lords. People getting rich off being landlords is terrible for society. Plus its better if more people can own there own home rather than rent.

But the housing problem overall is still a supply issue. Those landlords rent their homes out (most of them). They arent taking away supply from people who want to live in homes. They are only taking away supply from those who want to own their own home. If there were enough homes for people to live in then rents wouldnt be going up.

As for the greed point. If one person offers $800 per week and another offers 700 dollars a week are you proposing landlords should not take the higher offer? And if not who do they offer the $700 per week rent to? The one who offered 800 or the one who offered 700? Trying to maximise your revenue is fine (as long as its done legally and without providing a shonky product). The problem is that these high revenues shouldnt be available to them in the first place if housing supply was higher and housing comstruction costs were brought down.

Removing Negative gearing wont make a major difference in fixing the overall housing supply problem. Its contribution here will be in lowering the vacancy rate, which is helpful in the right direction but a small help. The main benefit of removing negative gearing is it lowers housing prices enabling more renters to buy their own homes and to stop living by the rules of landlords. Home owners are more economically secure in old age then renters and the mental health benefits of being in control of your own home is huge.

Another added benefit of removing megative gearing is it also may stop landlords from retiring early and living off the rent of others and instead force them to go work again and make a decent contribution to society for a change.

Everyone's goal should be to retire early.
No point working till the day you die

 

[Seeds]

Everyone's goal should be to retire early.
No point working till the day you die

Yes they should. And the housing boom which has enriched a small group of landlords has delayed the ability of millions of under 40s to retire by a decade or more.

We should not have a society where a small group of people live off property rents that come at the expense of everyone else. Thats they way the world used to be. We should not go back to it.

 

[JackOutback]

People generally are just against anything they aren't willing or able to take advantage of themselves.

Like negative gearing I'm never gonna be a landlord so go for your life but altering cgt yeah no thanks.

Same with those that continualy want interest rates as low as possible even if it's not good for the economy just because they only care about their own mortgage payments.

The only reason we are landlords is because we split our block and built behind. That said, I voted against negative gearing in 2019 and would do so again. Would I prefer it be grandfathered? Sure. But I'd still back complete elimination if that was the only option because I also have two kids that will need a home at some point and the market here is absurd.

 

[sdfc]

So you are thinking if we returned to this model we would have more apprentices coming through?

I don't see that happening. I don't have any numbers on it so It's just an observation.

 

[sdfc]

In the current market abolishing NG may just increase rents. In the short term at least.

 

[Gralin]

In the current market abolishing NG may just increase rents. In the short term at least.

Which is why they need to cap rent and remove bo fault evictions