Join Australia's most dynamic and respected property investment community

LNP to cap negative gearing claims.

Discussion in 'General Property Chat' started by aushousingcrash, 17th Jan, 2016.

  1. aushousingcrash

    aushousingcrash Active Member

    Joined:
    17th Jan, 2016
    Posts:
    30
    Location:
    RenterOfMelbourne
    As reported in The Australian ($) over the weekend, Treasurer Scott Morrison is working hard on some tax reforms and a key preferred policy change (relevant to this forum) is to cap annual negative gearing claims per individual. Its said the average claim is $14k, and introducing a cap of double this average to say $28k will only effect the cash flows of 1 in 5 negative gearers and raise $3B in the budget.

    Times are a changing
     
  2. Gockie

    Gockie I'm an ISTP-A female, so I might be a bit quirky! Premium Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,955
    Location:
    Sydney
    I think there's a fairly limited number of negative gearers in this current low interest environment... I think i'm not against that proposal.
     
  3. Leo2413

    Leo2413 Well-Known Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    5,842
    Location:
    Sydney
    In my opinion, the whole discussion about reducing/abolishing NG is really overated. Its not gonna make much differnece in the whole scheme of things. Limiting finance drastically will. Massive taxes on property will. But not NG. Its very minor imo.
     
    Cactus likes this.
  4. D.T.

    D.T. Adelaide Property Manager Business Member

    Joined:
    13th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    5,600
    Location:
    Adelaide, SA
    Sounds ok. There's lots of people who deliberately buy loss making stuff because they're addicted to the large tax refunds. Its better for everyone if only genuine investors are in the market.
     
  5. pommy

    pommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Nov, 2015
    Posts:
    56
    Location:
    Sydney
    I agree. The UK is far more strict you can only negative gear against other assets in the same class. I.e. not your salary. And look at crazy London property prices.

    In fact they are going even more extreme with anti-landlord tax measures of which this is one:

    NOW
    Your buy-to-let earns £20,000 a year and the interest-only mortgage costs £13,000 a year. Tax is due on the difference or profit. So you pay tax on £7,000, meaning £2,800 for HMRC and £4,200 for you.

    2020
    Tax is now due on your full rental income of £20,000, less a tax credit equivalent to basic-rate tax on the interest. So you pay 40pc tax on £20,000 (ie £8,000), less the 20pc credit (20pc of £13,000 = £2,600), meaning £5,400 for HMRC and £1,600 for you. Your tax bill has therefore gone up by 93pc.

    Source: Death of buy-to-let: landlords wake up to Osborne's 150pc tax

    So keep an eye on the UK to see what harsh landlord taxation does for the property market. I think it probably puts more stress in the short term but wont affect the capital gains on the property.
     
  6. wategos

    wategos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    336
    Location:
    NSW
    It's a good start. Number seems a bit high though, would prefer they initially limit ng to something lower, around the average, or allow deductions only to be applied to the lowest taxable income band, so same deduction regardless of income.
     
  7. THX

    THX Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    24th Jul, 2015
    Posts:
    869
    Location:
    Sydney
    So they'll start treating one investment class different to other investment classes. Utter morons.
     
    albanga, Hanison, Rugrat and 3 others like this.
  8. MTR

    MTR Well-Known Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    7,497
    Location:
    Perth, Melbourne, USA
    won't be an issue if you buy in a trust
     
  9. MTR

    MTR Well-Known Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    7,497
    Location:
    Perth, Melbourne, USA

    I am not convinced, also IR are on the rise
     
  10. Gockie

    Gockie I'm an ISTP-A female, so I might be a bit quirky! Premium Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,955
    Location:
    Sydney
    I suppose after depreciation many properties become negative geared...
     
  11. Leo2413

    Leo2413 Well-Known Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    5,842
    Location:
    Sydney
    There is no doubt NG helps, wont make or break you but it helps a little. It makes no sense to me from an investor standpoint to say "i am ok with ng going or being cut back etc'. Why would we as investors want to give back any help that is at our disposal, and lets not forget other asset classes have help.

    For me, i am not happy/willing to give back an inch of help. Why should i be? I'm an investor, not a saint.
     
    Last edited: 18th Jan, 2016
    Hanison, Rugrat and Angel like this.
  12. HUGH72

    HUGH72 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    2,124
    Location:
    FNQ
    Fairly high threshold so limited impact on many investors, it would affect sales of newer properties and the apartment market the most IMO.

    Interesting first post, thread and profile picture....
     
    Hanison and Leo2413 like this.
  13. aushousingcrash

    aushousingcrash Active Member

    Joined:
    17th Jan, 2016
    Posts:
    30
    Location:
    RenterOfMelbourne
    Yes, welcome to me. I have been a lurking observer since SS days. It was a little quiet on twitter regarding this news, for what is such a significant 'signal' to the market, hence the post!
     
  14. aushousingcrash

    aushousingcrash Active Member

    Joined:
    17th Jan, 2016
    Posts:
    30
    Location:
    RenterOfMelbourne
    FWIW, capping negative gearing claim to $20k has been my recommended starting point for a cap. Why $20k? For someone on the top tax bracket, the max net tax refund of $10k in this scenario earns the same tax benefit to the $30k cap for concessional super contributions for anyone under 50.
     
  15. D.T.

    D.T. Adelaide Property Manager Business Member

    Joined:
    13th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    5,600
    Location:
    Adelaide, SA
    What's your motivation for the change?
     
  16. HUGH72

    HUGH72 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    2,124
    Location:
    FNQ
    Lets not start this again:p
     
  17. dabbler

    dabbler Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    2,722
    Location:
    Sid en e - olympic city
    LOL and you are ? and you have what clout to recommend or get anything done ?
     
    teetotal likes this.
  18. wogitalia

    wogitalia Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    28th Oct, 2015
    Posts:
    871
    Location:
    Perth
    They already treat all asset classes very differently so I don't really get this point. Active assets are different to capital which are different to trading assets. Business have non-commercial loss rules, capital losses can only be offset against other losses.

    The Australian tax system is a hot mess of inconsistencies, as long as they keep changing things on the fly in reactionary fashion it will continue to just get messier and more unwieldy.

    As for this change, I personally like the idea of treating rental losses similarly to capital losses and only allowing them to be offset against other rental income.

    The proposed change really just hits the biggest speculators the hardest really which I guess is a good start.

    As for why it should be changed... I don't really care from the property side of things, the impact will be minimal, imo, but from a budget perspective it's a massive blackhole that doesn't do anything positive for the economy. I can understand losing billions on small business concessions, I can understand losing billions on healthcare or education but to lose money so you can fuel property speculation makes no sense to me, you hurt many of the vulnerable in society with it and provide nothing positive. From that perspective it's a change that makes too much sense.
     
    radson, sanj, aushousingcrash and 4 others like this.
  19. Leo2413

    Leo2413 Well-Known Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    5,842
    Location:
    Sydney
    NG is not always the outcome of speculation (not that i personally have any issue with speculating) but it is also often the outcome in the interm period between starting/completing renos on sites, structural reno deals, property developments holding costs etc. NG then enables you to offset some of those interm costs.

    It makes no sense to me from an investor's perspective to be happy to have less money back in my pocket as opposed to have more. Absolutely no business sense to me.

    Our politicians waste an amazing amount of our money, i am sure with the money they save the economy from altering NG, they will have wasted it on their business class flights in 6 months. Ah no thanks. I'd rather my family keep it.
     
    Last edited: 18th Jan, 2016
    House and Cactus like this.
  20. Francesco

    Francesco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    309
    Location:
    Canberra
    The market is cooling, China is cooling, ASX is falling - and SM goes after NG to hit the investors!? Bad move IMO. Whimpy approach to economics - hit the boosters to the economy. But, I expect better from SM and that pulling back the NG is just rumours. On the other hand, it may have come from MT and his new appeasement agenda to the welfare brigade. Interesting how it may pan out in the future - cut back on investment properties is getting more attractive.
     
    Cactus and Bran like this.