@@DwainDwight and invest is social housing. To the solve the policial issue, dont make the changes retrospective - given 20% of Aussies own more than one property.
Your thinking is wrong. Houses do not exist at all without investment. Investments provide more housing just as investments provide more goods and services. If people are dissuaded from investing there will be fewer houses for people to buy or rent. Tell me where or when less investment creates more goods and services.
Makes it less affordable to own investment properties, forces people to sell and adds to the supply in the market bringing down home prices - 1m vacant homes in AUS according to last census, lets get them back into supply
More housing requires more investment in housing. Housing is not a business that does Not require maintenance as everyone who has owned house will agree with. There are council rates, insurance, water rates, building maintenance and updates because of wear on furnishings and fittings. Removing negative gearing or restricting it does not create more houses but reduces the incentive of the present and future investors to pay for more houses that people buy or rent out. Restricting it to new builds will just reduce the investment in existing properties which renters seek to rent. If you want to put up rents then reduce negative gearing which will be something that is every renter's disadvantage.
@@Rob-fx2dw do doubt there will be impacts on rent. But I do not support tax payer subsidies for people who make poor investment decisions that have negative cashflow. Making housing less attractive as an investment for people to hoard will release supply into the market and reduce prices. Lower prices will increase demand for people to buy rather than rent.
@@timbd87 Why do you think it is taxpayer subsidy? It is Not. Subsidies are where the government pays money out to people or a business. That is not so with negative gearing. Negative gearing is a loss on an investment that is running at cash flow loss but a longer term cash flow positive and it in that time subsidises the rental market by charging the renter less than it otherwise would if there was no negative gearing. Do you understand that things you buy are often from a loss making business that will in the future be a profit making business. Do you understand that all businesses have costs that they can deduct before making a profit some years or a loss other years. Things like costs of products they consume, wages they pay and costs of finance they need to pay for their trading during the year which all have to be taken into consideration before any profit they make or loss they make. That is all negative gearing actually is- a cost of doing business which is an allowable deduction before making a loss or profit.
@@Rob-fx2dw I understand all of that Rob. It doesn’t mean I have to agree with it. I don’t agree with a lot of deductions businesses or investors are able to write off. I don’t agree with providing these tax breaks at the expense of other services. This is one of the areas in doing agree with and I think of the government stopped interfering in the market we’d see better outcomes over the long term. Like before these incentives came in.
@@timbd87 Yes - the government should stop interfering to the extent they do because usually it is done for purely short term short sighted political purposes that are detrimental to the economic output of the country and detrimental to general wealth creation and just makes things worse The negative gearing is just cost deduction but lives in framework between production of needed products (housing) which are not considered a business (owner occupied house) and assets that are considered a business when they are a rental. One solution is either to allow tax deduction on owner occupied housing like it is done in some countries along with other tax requirements. If other businesses are allowed to run at loss with allowable tax deductions for costs including the cost of borrowing then why shouldn't any business be allowed the same costs to be deducted?
We are so obsessed with property in Australia we continually overlook the real tax Rorts in Australia engaged in by both Big Business and Governments, particularly Mining and Fossil Fuel, handouts, lack of Tax Payments.
About f**king time.. Thank you Greens for piling on the pressure and thank you to the voters who genuinely want this reform. The problem with the housing market is that for a capitalist society... this makes us incredibly uncompetitive on the world stage when it comes to innovation and manufacturing. This is because our wages are too high due to our higher cost of living. Where housing is the major contributing factor. People want to own their home. People want Australia to be successful. This can't happen with our out of control housing market. If really needed. We should move to tax breaks to investment in Australian business.
New properties sell at a premium. From an investment point of view there are a lot of deductions available. These deductions are not available to another investor (exception is capital works write off). Confine negative gearing to new properties would from a tax perspective make the property less desirable to an investor buying the property.
If negative gearing or the CGT discount rules are changed, it will affect all asset classes, not just rental properties. Super funds and some individuals do gear into shares and other asset classes. They do benefit from low CGT rates when they sell assets like shares. Why no discussion about the impact on the stock market and hence almost everyone's superannuation? It would be ludicrous to only make changes for investment properties.
It's too late,Howard halved 3 decades ago, the conversation is redundant. I'm so happy for those that own multiple dwellings. I messed up The Japanse have a great solution for this. Thanks to both sides of politics.
Fancy asking Greg Jericho about whether negative gearing is a good idea or needed ? He has previously been against negative gearing. The reality is all housing requires investment be it new or old either for purchase of new houses or maintenance of older and newer ones to be able to rent out. He is too financially ignorant to work out that any housing requires investment be it new or older housing. Removing it is going to reduce the investment into housing which will result in fewer new houses being built and higher costs for rents as result of existing and new prospective investors having to charge more for rents. The need to charge higher rents will make it harder for longer term renters and those who are renting and trying to save for deposit to pay for a purchase of new or existing house. Why would you reduce the incentive to invest in housing ? Answer:- - Stupid thinking from the financially ignorant.
Antybody who watched Joe Hockey's address to the National Press Club will understand why fiddling with Negative gearing is not wise ........ Hockey "If you're going to tinker with negative gearing, don't look first at the housing stock, look at the impact on rents because landlords who are struggling to pay the interest on a loan against a property will increase the rents,"
Elephant in the room when it comes to any meaningful changes that will no doubt drop the housing market prices.. if you can’t see why they avoid that at all cost.. 🤦🏻♂️. Not just because they have plenty of investments, what do people think would happen to those with even mildly leveraged mortgages.. if you think crime is bad you wait to see what happens when a large percentage of mortgagees can’t service their debts.. just imagine the carnage! They need to rein in the housing but it needs to be done with extreme care. The blue and red 🤡 just aren’t up to the task. So on we go kicking cans..
Greg Jericho even admits that there were increased prices in the 1980's at the time the Keating negative gearing reductions/abolition and attributes a supply shortage that caused it. Yet despite stating that fact that he fails to admit that there will be a supply shortage if investment in housing decreases as result of abolition or reduction of the present negative gearing. I wonder if he can put 2 and 2 together in his head to get 4. ? Maybe not. Unbelievable that some people fail to learn from history and therefore keep repeating the same mistakes !!
Wrong, the reduced profit in holding onto the house will have the landlord simply sell it back into the market, which on mass will increase the housing supply and put downward pressure on house prices, which in turn reduces the pool of people looking to rent and puts pressure on landlords to drop rent prices or end up losing their tenant to another landlord that has lower rental fees
so just remove the Howard 50%. and/or cap properties you can negative gear to 1.
@@DwainDwight and invest is social housing. To the solve the policial issue, dont make the changes retrospective - given 20% of Aussies own more than one property.
agree, why is it so difficult for our two main political parties to understand.. mindboggling..
Negative gearing should apply to ONE property ONLY! The change should apply to current investment properties.
Your thinking is wrong.
Houses do not exist at all without investment. Investments provide more housing just as investments provide more goods and services.
If people are dissuaded from investing there will be fewer houses for people to buy or rent.
Tell me where or when less investment creates more goods and services.
Removing NG for individuals and not for corporations makes individuals 2nd class citizens. Corporations should not have more rights than individuals.
Corporations have 30% tax rate so it doesn't really work as a strategy
Finally some talk around GCT discount!!! All the num nums
Makes it less affordable to own investment properties, forces people to sell and adds to the supply in the market bringing down home prices - 1m vacant homes in AUS according to last census, lets get them back into supply
More housing requires more investment in housing. Housing is not a business that does Not require maintenance as everyone who has owned house will agree with. There are council rates, insurance, water rates, building maintenance and updates because of wear on furnishings and fittings.
Removing negative gearing or restricting it does not create more houses but reduces the incentive of the present and future investors to pay for more houses that people buy or rent out. Restricting it to new builds will just reduce the investment in existing properties which renters seek to rent.
If you want to put up rents then reduce negative gearing which will be something that is every renter's disadvantage.
@@Rob-fx2dw do doubt there will be impacts on rent.
But I do not support tax payer subsidies for people who make poor investment decisions that have negative cashflow.
Making housing less attractive as an investment for people to hoard will release supply into the market and reduce prices. Lower prices will increase demand for people to buy rather than rent.
@@timbd87 Why do you think it is taxpayer subsidy? It is Not. Subsidies are where the government pays money out to people or a business. That is not so with negative gearing.
Negative gearing is a loss on an investment that is running at cash flow loss but a longer term cash flow positive and it in that time subsidises the rental market by charging the renter less than it otherwise would if there was no negative gearing.
Do you understand that things you buy are often from a loss making business that will in the future be a profit making business.
Do you understand that all businesses have costs that they can deduct before making a profit some years or a loss other years. Things like costs of products they consume, wages they pay and costs of finance they need to pay for their trading during the year which all have to be taken into consideration before any profit they make or loss they make. That is all negative gearing actually is- a cost of doing business which is an allowable deduction before making a loss or profit.
@@Rob-fx2dw I understand all of that Rob. It doesn’t mean I have to agree with it.
I don’t agree with a lot of deductions businesses or investors are able to write off. I don’t agree with providing these tax breaks at the expense of other services. This is one of the areas in doing agree with and I think of the government stopped interfering in the market we’d see better outcomes over the long term. Like before these incentives came in.
@@timbd87 Yes - the government should stop interfering to the extent they do because usually it is done for purely short term short sighted political purposes that are detrimental to the economic output of the country and detrimental to general wealth creation and just makes things worse
The negative gearing is just cost deduction but lives in framework between production of needed products (housing) which are not considered a business (owner occupied house) and assets that are considered a business when they are a rental. One solution is either to allow tax deduction on owner occupied housing like it is done in some countries along with other tax requirements.
If other businesses are allowed to run at loss with allowable tax deductions for costs including the cost of borrowing then why shouldn't any business be allowed the same costs to be deducted?
We are so obsessed with property in Australia we continually overlook the real tax Rorts in Australia engaged in by both Big Business and Governments, particularly Mining and Fossil Fuel, handouts, lack of Tax Payments.
About f**king time..
Thank you Greens for piling on the pressure and thank you to the voters who genuinely want this reform.
The problem with the housing market is that for a capitalist society... this makes us incredibly uncompetitive on the world stage when it comes to innovation and manufacturing. This is because our wages are too high due to our higher cost of living. Where housing is the major contributing factor.
People want to own their home. People want Australia to be successful. This can't happen with our out of control housing market.
If really needed. We should move to tax breaks to investment in Australian business.
100%
Make it for new builds only = property building BOOM!
Or BY, BY Labor & hello Greens & Independents
Independent's Yes
Greens No
Not a good idea. You would sell at a discount as new investors could not negative gear the property as its now "second hand".
@@SandyMcKinnon-q4q What??? second hand ... its property not a diaper
New properties sell at a premium. From an investment point of view there are a lot of deductions available. These deductions are not available to another investor (exception is capital works write off). Confine negative gearing to new properties would from a tax perspective make the property less desirable to an investor buying the property.
@@SandyMcKinnon-q4q Your greed shows through.
Always bet on greed
Which greed are you talking about? - Politicians greed or other greed such as your own ?
Honestly the only way they will end megitve gearing is if it will not change anything.... End stage capitalism,, it only gets harder
Has to happen.
If negative gearing or the CGT discount rules are changed, it will affect all asset classes, not just rental properties. Super funds and some individuals do gear into shares and other asset classes. They do benefit from low CGT rates when they sell assets like shares. Why no discussion about the impact on the stock market and hence almost everyone's superannuation? It would be ludicrous to only make changes for investment properties.
if we stop voting for the Liberals and Labour parties that promote negative gearing then they will change, I bet my vote on it!
lmao bro called Greg Jerico an economist
I would never watch chanal ten if you had not show this
.. i see ppl say the project so left wing.. but c'mon its on ten,,, well i wrong
Albanese says he wants a public service to come up with “new ideas.” FFS! Worst PM ever. Clueless & gutless.
What a clueless and gutless comment
It's too late,Howard halved 3 decades ago, the conversation is redundant.
I'm so happy for those that own multiple dwellings.
I messed up
The Japanse have a great solution for this.
Thanks to both sides of politics.
Fancy asking Greg Jericho about whether negative gearing is a good idea or needed ? He has previously been against negative gearing.
The reality is all housing requires investment be it new or old either for purchase of new houses or maintenance of older and newer ones to be able to rent out.
He is too financially ignorant to work out that any housing requires investment be it new or older housing. Removing it is going to reduce the investment into housing which will result in fewer new houses being built and higher costs for rents as result of existing and new prospective investors having to charge more for rents. The need to charge higher rents will make it harder for longer term renters and those who are renting and trying to save for deposit to pay for a purchase of new or existing house.
Why would you reduce the incentive to invest in housing ? Answer:- - Stupid thinking from the financially ignorant.
Antybody who watched Joe Hockey's address to the National Press Club will understand why fiddling with Negative gearing is not wise ........
Hockey
"If you're going to tinker with negative gearing, don't look first at the housing stock, look at the impact on rents because landlords who are struggling to pay the interest on a loan against a property will increase the rents,"
I wouldn't take any advice from the worst treasurer we've ever had.
Hockey was a close second to Fraudenberg 😉
This from the Lifters & Leaners Budget!!
@@rustyjc71 oh yes, the biggest wastful spender and the biggest cutter... it's a tough choice lol.
Not of they also impose a rent freeze.....
Elephant in the room when it comes to any meaningful changes that will no doubt drop the housing market prices.. if you can’t see why they avoid that at all cost.. 🤦🏻♂️. Not just because they have plenty of investments, what do people think would happen to those with even mildly leveraged mortgages..
if you think crime is bad you wait to see what happens when a large percentage of mortgagees can’t service their debts.. just imagine the carnage! They need to rein in the housing but it needs to be done with extreme care.
The blue and red 🤡 just aren’t up to the task. So on we go kicking cans..
Greg Jericho even admits that there were increased prices in the 1980's at the time the Keating negative gearing reductions/abolition and attributes a supply shortage that caused it.
Yet despite stating that fact that he fails to admit that there will be a supply shortage if investment in housing decreases as result of abolition or reduction of the present negative gearing.
I wonder if he can put 2 and 2 together in his head to get 4. ? Maybe not.
Unbelievable that some people fail to learn from history and therefore keep repeating the same mistakes !!
Negative gearing is a rent subsidy if you get rid of it up go rents considerably
Wrong, the reduced profit in holding onto the house will have the landlord simply sell it back into the market, which on mass will increase the housing supply and put downward pressure on house prices, which in turn reduces the pool of people looking to rent and puts pressure on landlords to drop rent prices or end up losing their tenant to another landlord that has lower rental fees
if thats the case why not subsidise renters directly instead?
Why are we subsidising someone to make a loss?
@@MonkeyJaguar because developers build renters rent we need homes
@@aussieselect we already give rent subsidies to millions already