Your Investment Property forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Likelihood of negative gearing, CGT changes increases

Notify me of new replies via email
Your Investment Property | 15 Feb 2016, 08:31 AM Agree 0
Changes to negative gearing and the current capital gains tax discount seem likely, with both the Federal Government and the Opposition revealing plans to overhaul the current system
  • Chris | 15 Feb 2016, 03:42 PM Agree 0
    Changes to the negative gearing arrangements will negatively affect everyone. Tenants, owner occupier, Overseas investment, Mums & Dads with one or two investment properties who have planned for this as retirement income. Is the government trying to force investment into the share market, with property off the menu it is the only other option. Surely putting everyones eggs into that basket it unwise! Who will buy these properties that investors own that are now month balled when they unable to produce income? The loss will be felt by all, unfortunately mostly by the people who have worked hard to setup for retirement. Super is good, but surely it should not be the only option. Or are we simply trying to sell our country quicker than we already do?
    • Rakish | 15 Feb 2016, 06:48 PM Agree 0

      You cant be serious Chris, “Changes to the negative gearing arrangements will negatively affect everyone.” that is a most spurious claim.

      Tenants – How? As has been repeatably shown negative gearing or more correctly the removal of DOES NOT increase rents.

      Owner Occupiers – Are you claiming that negative gearing causes properties to be overvalued?

      Mums & Dads – Your kidding right 80% of investment property debt is held by the top 40% of income earners, not to mention the distortion of stats by people using super to speculate on property. While yes they may be 'Mum & Dads' they are not the quintessential 'Aussie Battler'

      “Is the government trying to force investment into the share market, with property off the menu it is the only other option.”

      Are you trying to claim that you can't “invest” in property unless it is negatively geared?

      "Who will buy these properties that investors own that are now month balled when they unable to produce income?" ....simple other investors who don't need to negatively gear or owner occupiers.

      Seriously with over 90% of negatively geared properties being pre-exisiting housing, changing it to new builds only may potentially see a increasing in housing supply. Hopefully a generation of Australians will not get saddled with a ridiculous amount of housing debt.

      I'm sorry if my repose to you has come of strong but its the opinions from people like you that I just can't understand. Clearly you seem to be someone that doesn't want to sponge of others and you wish to provide for your own retirement, but can't you see how something like negative gearing is a massive tax distortion that is detrimental to the economy as a whole?. I will admit I myself hold a few investment properties (Well one was for capital gain so 'speculation'), but negative gearing simply creates an intensive for people to pour money into an unproductive asset.
  • Mott Scorrison | 15 Feb 2016, 03:56 PM Agree 0
    Why should a firsthome owner be treated any different to an investor owner who can write off his interest as an expense against his tax. If the investor can minimise his tax so should the (first) houseowner for a limited period of time say 5-10 years. The investor can write off his expense forever as long as he owes money. Not reasonable or fair
    • Mark | 15 Feb 2016, 08:00 PM Agree 0
      Because a fisthome owner won't pay capital gains, while the investor will.
      That's why...
    • Ray | 02 May 2016, 08:29 AM Agree 0
  • Aussie Investor | 15 Feb 2016, 07:53 PM Agree 0
    Mott, never in the history of Australian housing has a tax deduction been given to a home owner, first or not. If you see tax deductions for housing as applicable, then why not cars, lounges and furniture. Businesses get to write these off all the time without issue. Sure they don't cost as much as a house but an investment property is just another investment vehicle. Why not scrap deduct-ability for borrowing against share portfolios ? They are just as big and people make huge money from them too. Perhaps investors aren't trying to minimise tax but simply ensuring they are not a massive burden on the Australian welfare system by ensuring that they adequately provide for their old age without asking the Government for handouts. Superannuation is another vehicle but guess what, a lot of them invest in residential property and you got it, they claim tax deductions. If you feel so strong perhaps you would like to chip in 5-10% extra tax every year to ensure our future livelihood, and I won't claim the interest on our investment properties that provide a roof over the heads of many families.
  • Mark | 15 Feb 2016, 08:01 PM Agree 0
    Labor lost my vote. I hope the Liberals keep their mind cool and don't listen to the biased left losers.
  • Steve | 15 Feb 2016, 11:15 PM Agree 0
    Hi Mott, the difference is the usage, one is for personal and one is for business/investment. The same applies for motor vehicle usage. With your suggestion and in keeping it fair, should we also exempt investors of capital gains tax so they can enjoy the same benefits of a home owner?
  • Mortis | 16 Feb 2016, 08:25 PM Agree 0
    Can't wait to increase my rents by 33%
  • Dan | 17 Feb 2016, 09:55 AM Agree 0
    If negative gearing is scrapped, then paying tax on positive gearing should also be taxed. Similar to gambling, you cannot deduct gambling costs from your taxable income, but likewise, do not get taxed on winnings either.
  • Ray | 02 May 2016, 08:19 AM Agree 0
    I am an investor and at the current moment don't have anything negative geared. I am paying the government a substantial amount of TAX. They would not be getting this TAX if not for negative gearing as i would not have invested in Realestate. If I buy another property now or in the future I will be charging a substantial amount more rent to cover my losses, who then suffers. If you deter investors from buying the rental market will drop and the government will have to supply more public housing, which is a lot more than what they will raising in TAX who loose then, yes the average tax payer who pays more in income tax. Who stopped us going into a recession, not labour. It was Howard and all his good policies he half negative negative gearing tax and the economy took off and the rental market was stable. I am retired now and living off my investments and still paying the government a lot of TAX. My equilivant in the future will be not paying tax and sponging off the government/Tax payer wake up Labour.
Post a reply