Data Breakdown of Who Uses Negative Gearing

Of course negative gearing benefits the rich the most, I'm amazed anyone tried to argue against this fact with distorted stats and anecdotes (but the PM does...)

 

I did because the old copy and paste failed miserably and I know pictures are preferred by the PC folk

Yes my bad, the list was too long to snapshot and upload them all. But I did say at the bottom that the full list was at the link so can't blame me!

For serious?

 

@House I think MBowen is being facetious..

 

Was hoping so but hard to tell because some people actually do think like that (been reading too many Facebook RE comments!).

 

It's not her fault, she married an aneasthetist.

 

That facebook bunch discussing property are comical beyond belief.

 

I think its generally best to not talk about property on facebook.

 

This is probably the best and most informative online Property Forum in the world with so many successful investors willing to share their advice/tips/strategies etc, mostly for FREE.

It still amazes me.. how some would rather discuss absolute nonsense such as the evils of NG, greed etc when they have so many resources here at their fingers tips to engage with/learn from etc to help build wealth and move closer to financial freedom for themselves and their families.

Its totally beyond my understanding.

 

If you consider the median (median is a better indicator than mean) Australian wage about $53k, and you order the dataset by losses, it's obvious that people with higher wages get more of a benefit. But I'm really uncomfortable saying that because the dataset is incomplete.

I have no problem with people using something that is avaiable. That goes for people on the dole, personal investors, companies, etc. If something is there to be used to your advantage and is legal, use it. Take every government benefit you can. I use NG a lot, probably more so because of my NRAS properties. But I want changes so that the system is fairer, and more importantly redirects investment to more productive areas. This might hurt me in the long term but so be it. I will find ways to make money no matter what. Bring on NRAS 2!!

 

The movement against negative gearing is often not for oneself, it is concern for others battling against subsidized investors to get into the property market (particularly the younger generation).

Myself, I am strongly against negative gearing, but I have used it for most of the last 21 years. Last year I saved maybe $1500 because of NG. But I still want it gone.

 

I think it's NRAS 5 we'd be up to... But yes I have also wondered if this will need to come in if NG goes. Gov needs to provide some public housing, and NRAS was a cheaper way of doing it. If NG is providing a form of public housing as it arguably has held rental back making it more affordable, then it's departure might reignite a NRAS.

 

Removing NG will not suddenly make it easier for anyone to be able to afford a home. What will make all the difference is:

1. Living within one's financial means
2. Budgeting
3. Strong saving
4. Tweaking of expectations of what and where a first home should be when starting out.

Those are the only things will make any difference in my opinion. To tell young people or anyone else any different is doing them a massive, massive disservice that will lead them no closer to owning any type of dwelling ever.

Just my opinion.

 

I like pictures. Interesting info. But how would it look if the graph was means tested?

What is the% of loss to income?
Is the retail work on 50k losing 200/mth while the gingerbeer on 100k losing 400/mth?

Can some one draw that graph please, I'm tired

 

In what city can I be a gingerbeer on 100k? Happy to move interstate

 

Do your time and get out of Sydney! To much competition

 

You mean like the cleaners whipping a vacuum around our offices at 9pm at night or cleaning out the toilets for minimum wage?

 

This is absolutely spot on @Leo2413 !