Join Australia's most dynamic and respected property investment community

Bill shorten poised to take negative gearing.

Discussion in 'Property Market Economics' started by Barny, 12th Feb, 2016.

  1. Barny

    Barny Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16th Oct, 2015
    Posts:
    1,186
    Location:
    Melbourne
  2. Esel

    Esel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4th Aug, 2015
    Posts:
    405
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Link doesnt work for me
     
  3. Esel

    Esel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4th Aug, 2015
    Posts:
    405
    Location:
    Melbourne
    But i have been wondering about this. ScoMo is definitely considering something, he said as much yesterday.
     
  4. Barny

    Barny Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16th Oct, 2015
    Posts:
    1,186
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Not sure if the video or link will work for you. But cut and past below.

    Bill Shorten is about to take his biggest risk as Opposition Leader, as he prepares to announce a policy aimed at tackling negative gearing.

    Mr Shorten is expected to announce the policy at tomorrow's NSW ALP conference, after Shadow Cabinet approved it yesterday, 9NEWS Political Editor Laurie Oakes reported.

    "It will put him right in the middle of the tax reform debate," Oakes said.


    "If Labor wins the election later this year, negative gearing will only be allowed on new housing properties, not existing ones, after July 1, 2017.

    "Also, the generous capital gains tax discounts on investment properties introduced when Peter Costello was Treasurer will be chopped from 50 percent to 25 percent."

    More than 1.2 million investors use negative gearing to minimise their tax on rental housing properties.

    The policy is expected to upset many people with vested interests, Oakes said.

    "But the reasoning is that the Labor leader needs to show he's got guts and is serious about economic policy and the need to repair the Budget," he said.

    "Mr Shorten will argue that 93 percent of negative gearing cases involve investment in existing properties, so it does little to boost the building industry or create jobs.

    "It also distorts the housing market by allowing investors subsidised by the taxpayer to compete against first-home buyers and families wanting to upgrade their homes."

    The move comes as Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull faces political backlash after his retreat on a GST increase, Oakes said.

    © ninemsn 2016


    Read more at Bill Shorten poised to tackle negative gearing with new policy
     
  5. Biz

    Biz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,482
    Location:
    Sydney
    Lol who cares, he'll never be pm as long as I have a hole in my arse.
     
    drg86, Hanison, D.K and 12 others like this.
  6. Rolf Latham

    Rolf Latham Inciteful (sic) Staff Member Business Plus Member

    Joined:
    14th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,176
    Location:
    Gold Coast
    Going for the short

    Ta

    Rolf
     
  7. Perthguy

    Perthguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,801
    Location:
    Perth
    Think about it from the investor's perspective. Negative gearing means the investor is losing money. Should the government (effectively) pay an investor to lose money? It doesn't make a lot of sense.

    My example is a development site I bought but never got around to developing. I would have to check but from memory, it cost up to about $20,000 a year to hold. That is $20,000 loss in just one year! (lucky it wasn't all mine ;) ). Still, I sold it because you can't just go around losing $20k year after year on one "investment".

    Maybe I would do this again if I was serious about developing. If I did, I would not expect teh government to pick up the tab. Abolishing negative gearing can only be a good thing for proeprty investors. We should welcome it.
     
    Tyler Durden likes this.
  8. Perthguy

    Perthguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,801
    Location:
    Perth
    @Barny I wonder if negative gearing will be abolished for shares as well? So the government will pay me to lose money on shares but not on property. That will be good for me because I am good at losing money on shares. ;)
     
    Scott No Mates and BigKahuna like this.
  9. neK

    neK Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,280
    Location:
    Sydney
    Why cut negative gearing on existing but allow it on new? Just cut it on everything.
     
  10. Santaslayer

    Santaslayer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    74
    Location:
    Sydney
    Dude won't ever be PM anyway so this is a non topic lol
     
    Hanison and Propertunity like this.
  11. Barny

    Barny Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16th Oct, 2015
    Posts:
    1,186
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I'm interested to see what will happen, and it affects the market in general.
     
  12. Barny

    Barny Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16th Oct, 2015
    Posts:
    1,186
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I'm not sure about that. If they play this right(spin it right), It might work.
     
  13. Perthguy

    Perthguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,801
    Location:
    Perth
    If they leave negative gearing alone for shares, shares go up and the price of houses falls further?

    It's academic though. I doubt shorty will win the election and the LibNats are unlikely to touch NG. It's a pity. I would like to see it gone.
     
  14. Chrispy

    Chrispy Well-Known Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    21st Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    300
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Negative gearing at 50%???? Isn't this getting confused with CGT?
     
  15. Barny

    Barny Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16th Oct, 2015
    Posts:
    1,186
    Location:
    Melbourne
    This is an additional, so not only is he going to remove negative gearing to current stock, he wants to reduce CGT to 25%.
    Wonder how investing in property will stack up if it happens.

     
    Chrispy likes this.
  16. gman65

    gman65 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    268
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Yeah, the removal of CGT discount for investment properties would be the kicker..

    Maybe it's one of those **** sandwiches, so he can say he is "compromising and listening to feedback" to remove that when the outcry gets too much, but keep the other...
     
    Barny likes this.
  17. Random Username

    Random Username Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    239
    Location:
    NSW
    I can't see it changing much if you're not negative geared and don't want to sell.
     
  18. ellejay

    ellejay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,136
    Location:
    Kimberley and NZ
    These are the political changes that can stop your property investing plan in its tracks. Similar changes in the UK are making property investing look a whole lot less lucrative right now, with the potential to impact the general property market as property investors sell up and move to other options. I'm not expecting it to eventuate, and hope it doesn't but even though I "don't know what I don't know" I try not to build my future on negative gearing. To me thats not a foundation that I want a multi million dollar portfolio sitting on.
     
    Barny likes this.
  19. Barny

    Barny Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16th Oct, 2015
    Posts:
    1,186
    Location:
    Melbourne
    As I have no evidence of how many people have negative geared property. Hypothetically, if heaps of property investors are holding highly negative property(in Sydney), would it be fair to assume they may need to sell? If they need to sell, wouldn't it perhaps drop sale prices?

    Obviously it's a hypothetical question only.
     
  20. Tony3008

    Tony3008 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    20th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    89
    Location:
    Docklands, Victoria
    Having come from UK, I'd copy the UK system where losses on investment properties can be rolled forward against future profits, but not set against other income. But if the government wants to keep NG in some form, allowing it for new-builds only makes some sense in that it then encourages an increase in the housing stock. Much as we allow foreigners to buy new build only (in theory, anyway).
     
    Tim & Chrissy likes this.