[QLD] First Home Owner Grant $30,000 (20/11/2023 - 30/6/2025) @ QLD Government

3214
[QLD] First Home Owner Grant $30,000 (20/11/2023 - 30/6/2025) @ QLD Government
Go to Deal
tempting on 26/06/2024 - 13:37 qro.qld.gov.au (312 clicks)
Last edited 26/06/2024 - 16:18 by 1 other user

Cost of Living for Queensland first home buyers statement

From Queensland Government FB page:

Good news for Queensland’s first home buyers - to ease cost of living pressures, the First Home Owner Grant has been doubled, now offering $30,000! Check your eligibility at https://qro.qld.gov.au/property-concessions-grants/first-hom….

In the last three years, more than $365 million in grants has supported 24,000 households in achieving their dream of home ownership, and an estimated 12,000 buyers will be further supported to unlock their first home by 30 June 2025.

Eligibility criteria

For buying or building a new home, the grant amount is:

  • $30,000 for contracts signed between 20 November 2023 and 30 June 2025 (both dates inclusive)
  • $15,000 for contracts signed before 20 November 2023.

For owner-builders, the grant amount is:

  • $30,000 where foundations are laid between 20 November 2023 and 30 June 2025 (both dates inclusive)
  • $15,000 where foundations were laid before 20 November 2023.
Financial First Home Buyer

Related Stores

Queensland Revenue Office
Queensland Revenue Office
Queensland Government
Queensland Government

Comments

  • lufee on 26/06/2024 - 13:38
    +21

    Why not just bring the house price down.

    • jv on 26/06/2024 - 13:40
      +9

      Governments are hooked on land taxes which depends on the price…

      Especially in Victoria…

    • PainToad on 26/06/2024 - 13:44
      +67

      Because most politicians are too deep into the property investment ponzi scheme themselves and don’t actually want affordable housing as it’s against their personal interests.

      That’s why we see bullshit stuff like this. You’re not getting a house built in SEQ for $750,000. Remote areas where you are getting one, there won’t be any jobs to cover the mortgage. It’s not about actually doing anything to solve the problem. It’s all about creating the illusion of taking action so boomers can say “oh good Labor is helping those younger people. They’ll get a good house for $750,00 if they’re not too dam fussy. I’ll vote for them at the next election”.

      This isn’t a solution. This isn’t a deal. It’s smoke and mirrors.

      • NickFritz on 26/06/2024 - 14:32

        Ah, so wise!

      • tabboy on 26/06/2024 - 14:58

        100% accurate.

      • macrocephalic on 26/06/2024 - 15:12
        -1

        You absolutely can build a house in SEQ for that. If you want a decently large house then it's going to have to be in the outskirts - but that's because there's not much greenfield development close the city now. The problem with this policy is that it's ineffective and just further inflating prices.

        • PainToad on 26/06/2024 - 15:43

          2020 called, they want their pricing back.

          You could maybe get a tiny shitbox out at Yarrabilba. Maybe. But then the commute to the CBD for a decent salary job would be a killer. That and the road in and out is a dangerous goat track.

        • M00Cow on 26/06/2024 - 16:55

          this is the problem. they should limit into new builds. There should be no tax incentives (stamp duty, negative gearing, etc) on existing dwellings. They're not producing anything..At least new builds ate good for the economy.

      • TangoCharlieAlpha on 26/06/2024 - 16:47
        +3

        Exactly! These schemes are cue to the builders, developers and property investors to increase prices to match the grant.

        Worse use of the tax payer's money. These state Govts are making RBA's job harder and harder to tame inflation. Conventional wisdom would suggest tightening of belt, but is seems vote buying schemes trump conventional wisdom.

        Today's inflation numbers from ABS show surprise rise in inflation again and probably another rate hike in coming months.Stage 3 tax cuts are coming too to make matters worse.

    • macrocephalic on 26/06/2024 - 15:09

      Or, we could take state funds and give them to investment property owners by proxy. It's simple, which one makes more sense to you when you're an upper middle class investment property owner who is also an elected representative?

    • tessel on 26/06/2024 - 16:21
      -2

      I know a troll when I see one.

  • jv on 26/06/2024 - 13:39
    +14

    This is an announcement, not a bargain…

    Belongs in the forums…

    • payless69 on 26/06/2024 - 14:22
      -6

      living in QLD is a PRIVILEGE for bogans.

    • M00Cow on 26/06/2024 - 16:57

      it's an election announcement. 50c fares kick in soon too. $1000. electricity rebate.

      Should have followed Dan's way.. give the people a new Public Holidays!

      • jv on 26/06/2024 - 18:25

        Should have followed Dan's way.. give the people a new Public Holidays!

        https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/14180/113735/vb.png

        • M00Cow on 26/06/2024 - 20:45

          got him & his mates in power for 10yrs.

          Although Dan got his AO for service to the community by quitting

          • Mad Max on 26/06/2024 - 21:27

            @M00Cow: Yeah. Here is an AO for leaving Victoria broke (will need federal government bailout) and for sending the cops to shoot rubber bullets and beat up innocent protesters.
            AO is worth nothing now. Actually embarassing to get one.

  • SS625 on 26/06/2024 - 13:40
    +48

    yay seller can increase the price a bit more now

    • jv on 26/06/2024 - 13:41
      +13

      Exactly what this does…

      • SS625 on 26/06/2024 - 13:43
        +2

        i felt honoured to receive a positive comment from @jv

      • mattman on 26/06/2024 - 13:45

        Yes and no. $750k price cap on this, tell me how much in suburbia is substantially less than that in the first place.

        If the sellers want to game the system then there's only so much they can do it by. This is also the same cap as stamp duty exception which would have already been targeted by sellers most likely.

        • payless69 on 26/06/2024 - 14:24

          More rates, stamp duty, more land tax more control.

    • Wombat cave on 26/06/2024 - 14:40
      +3

      Exactly ! Prices have just gone up. The dumb nuts will never learn. Howard started this bullshit and is responsible for the shit that we are in now. Don't believe me ? Check the OECD website. Just search for worst economic leader.

      • tessel on 26/06/2024 - 16:22

        Aren't we responsible for this?

      • bnengone on 26/06/2024 - 17:50

        No, found this when I searched…Ian Macfarlane described the Howard/Costello fiscal policy as "virtually the best in the OECD area.
        https://www.ias.uwa.edu.au/new-critic/seven/howarddecade

        • Wombat cave on 26/06/2024 - 22:32

          Liberals commenting on Liberals. Dig deeper. Google worst economic leaders. It will come up John Howard. It's all to do with tax cuts for the rich and we are still paying the cost.

    • hankbiggums on 26/06/2024 - 14:56

      What sellers? This is only for building new homes, not buying existing.

      • macrocephalic on 26/06/2024 - 15:13

        Because it inflates the value of all real estate. Also, you don't think that developers are going to increase land prices because of this?

        • hankbiggums on 26/06/2024 - 15:27
          +1

          It should disinflate the price of existing real estate. If a $750k new build becomes $720k that puts downward pressure on the price of existing real estate as an alternative. A new build is already 10-20% cheaper than existing for a like for like property.

          It's not developers that will see this money, its builders. Theoretically there is enough competition in the new home build industry that the flow through to price increases should be limited, but there will be some. What this does is create an arbitrary price shelf at $750k where ideally you would see house and land packages from different builders compete to offer the highest value.

      • Wombat cave on 26/06/2024 - 22:33

        Spec homes that are in progress or finished just before the announcement.

    • Jimothy Wongingtons on 26/06/2024 - 15:07
      +2

      Scumbag real estate agents on the blower right now going : you know what, make that 3 bags full for this Friday night.

  • 4frodo on 26/06/2024 - 13:41
    +24

    Congratulations the house you were going to buy just went up by 45K.. Work harder peasant..
    House ownership is a joke and unrestricted immigration needs to stop and this is coming from a immigrant who came here in 2019..

    • SS625 on 26/06/2024 - 13:44
      -1

      why 45k ?

      • Serpeant on 26/06/2024 - 13:57
        +7

        multiplier affect. the more you can put down, the larger the loan available.

        essentially, this is making house prices higher in the long term.

      • PainToad on 26/06/2024 - 13:57
        +8

        why 45k ?

        Builders & property developers: “you’re right, let’s make it 150k”

        • hankbiggums on 26/06/2024 - 14:58
          -1

          This has nothing to do with the Federal Government, this is a QLD only grant.

  • doobey1231 on 26/06/2024 - 13:42
    +7

    The requirements and restrictions associated with these grants just seem so out of touch to the reality of buying a property in Australia these days.. They are also not doing anything to actually help the situation either. We need a complete overhaul of the government policies that surround property purchasing.

  • Wiadro on 26/06/2024 - 13:42

    Ohh woohoo a post on ozbargain about increasing inflation

  • mr_asstight on 26/06/2024 - 13:43
    +5

    Fighting inflation by spending money! Woohoo!

  • gamemaster on 26/06/2024 - 13:49
    +9

    Get rid of negative gearing or at least limit it to one existing property or only allow NG for building new properties to increase housing supply.

    Home owners especially first home owners are competing in an unequal playing field when they are up against investors who can offset interest and costs.

    I guess these first home owners grant at least gives a bit of a boost to people who want to buy a home to live in vs investors.

    • mattman on 26/06/2024 - 13:51
      +6

      Ask Bill Shorten how that went.

      I do agree with you btw.

      • gamemaster on 26/06/2024 - 13:56
        -1

        I think NG increasing property supply is an illusion, all it doesn’t is make current property into a speculative market IMO. The issue is inadequate supply for current demand (immigration driven in the most part) but none of these existing policies address this.

        It’s a shame a few influential people and lobbies dictate policies which affects everyone. At the same time people won’t complain if their property values does up even though it will wreck the next generation looking for a house. Short term gain for long term pain.

        • greatlamp on 26/06/2024 - 14:39
          +1

          The issue is inadequate supply for current demand (immigration driven in the most part) but none of these existing policies address this.

          That's the issue with the rental market.

          House price inflation is only loosely related to the rental market and immigration

          The vast majority of immigrants are temporary migrants (students) who are competing in the rental market.

          We have 30 years of data showing house prices rising above the rate of wage growth and rental growth. In other words up until recently, rents have not been growing faster than CPI (around 3% p.a.).

          It's a classic speculative price bubble and talk of immigration is a great way to ignore the real causes.

          • gamemaster on 26/06/2024 - 15:05

            @greatlamp: I agree there are many causes and pointing the finger at one cause is playing politics. But the facts are we have a shortage of new homes constructed during the years of COVID restrictions. We have had large amounts of immigration in the last couple of years. We also have builders going out of business and shaking the confidence in building a new home.

            • greatlamp on 26/06/2024 - 15:29
              +1

              @gamemaster: Yes increasing interest rates rapidly after COVID put the final nail in.

              In a simplistic view of economics, increasing interest rates should make house prices fall. However real estate isn't a commodity market.

              When interest rates increased, builders respond by withdrawing supply, their business relys on borrowed money. We can see supply has fallen faster than demand has fallen, so prices aren't moving.

              The shortage has allowed rents to inflate which makes the people most likely to sell - investors - a strong reason to refuse to sell, or refuse to discount.

              There are two possible solutions for the current situation.

              • Make investing in the housing market unpalatable, remove the tax incentives, or

              • rapidly increase supply by encouraging the construction of massive volumes of apartments. The second is what Japan did and is why most people in cities live in tiny apartments.

              Looking at what state and federal governments are doing, they are opting for the second option. It makes developers wealthy, it makes anyone who owns a property with land a millionaire, and it accelerates the current situation where people will never be able to afford a free standing home.

              When people say they want governments to do something about high house prices, I don't think they are dreaming of a 45sqm apartment being affordable, they want to own a house. However the conversation focuses on solutions that ensure that will never happen.

        • rodericb on 26/06/2024 - 15:58

          Negative gearing is a thing for what are pretty much sole traders in the renting-out-property game (I.e. mums n dads). It's to entice them into the market as the returns are way too small for corporations even with them having the ability to carry forward losses to subsequent years and defer cgt through like-for-like replacement.

    • SS625 on 26/06/2024 - 13:53
      +1

      people talk about negative gear is the biggest issue that drive prices up. but in reality usually an investment house will only negative gear 5-10k which is like 3k back in tax. and most people even if they try they will have like 2-3 investment max. So thats a good 10k back in tax.

      • gamemaster on 26/06/2024 - 13:59
        +4

        It becomes about borrowing power. A person who will buy for rental income with the option to offset costs clearly has an advantage vs someone borrowing for a place to live in with no rental income and no tax offsetting of costs.

        • SS625 on 26/06/2024 - 14:00
          +1

          negative gear should lower your borrowing power. (less cashflow)

          borrowing power comes from if whatever you are buying generates an income. which an investment property does. thats another story.

        • LoftyAu on 26/06/2024 - 14:12

          Negative gearing literally means you are taking on additional borrowing without sufficient extra income to cover it. That coupled with typically higher interest rates mean borrowing to buy an IP is harder than a PPOR.

          • gamemaster on 26/06/2024 - 14:15

            @LoftyAu: Regardless borrowing capacity or higher with the andditonal of rental income vs a home owner/occupier which is my point.

          • greatlamp on 26/06/2024 - 15:34
            +1

            @LoftyAu: You are talking about negative gearing, not the tax refund for negative gearing.

            The conversation is about if negative gearing should be allowed as an option to reduce you taxable income and increase your effective salary. Obviously removing the tax incentive will mean investors have less borrowing power than they do now.

            • macrocephalic on 27/06/2024 - 10:51
              +2

              @greatlamp: There is no other aspect to negative gearing. Negative gearing IS the tax reduction from the loss on your investment. It's simple, investment losses should only be able to be counted against income from that investment. Being able to claim "loss" on an investment property against the income you earn in your day job makes no sense.

              • greatlamp on 27/06/2024 - 16:19
                +1

                @macrocephalic: One change I have seen suggested is to allow negative gearing, but it is claimed against the capital gain when the property is sold.

                This way the intent of the tax deduction is maintained but it doesn't have the effect of reducing your effective tax rate as it does now.

      • DingoBilly on 26/06/2024 - 15:54
        +1

        I bought multiple investment properties thanks to negative gearing and wouldn't be able to without it. It makes a significant difference to minimising tax and if you hold for a long time on paper you'll be losing money (negative gearing) but in reality the property is positively geared (thanks to depreciation - i.e., my property has decreased in value $10,000 on paper for a net $5,000 loss even though I never lost that $10,000 today).

        The taxation system is also really well set up for you to buy investment properties. There's lots of hidden benefits to negative gearing as well that aren't well known. For example - you claimed depreciation against your place at 100% the value, but then only pay 50% of the capital gain on it later.

        There's just so many ways it's tax efficient it's ridiculous and it heavily encourages people to do it.

        • PainToad on 26/06/2024 - 15:57
          +4

          wouldn't be able to without it

          Here’s the thing. You’re not entitled to investment properties. If you can’t afford the expenses and pay your full tax rate, you are essentially expecting other tax payers to subsidise your investment.

    • SS625 on 26/06/2024 - 13:55
      +1

      I think you better off limiting number of houses you can buy if you dont live in the same state. ie 1 per interstate or overseas. so at least you not completing with higher incomes

    • OrangeBJ on 26/06/2024 - 15:04

      at least limit it to one existing property

      … person or household or trust.
      if per trust, should we also limit the number of trust one person can open?

      only allow NG for building new

      This sounds great in theory but may not be a game changer. Investor 1 knows that they couldn't easily sell it to investor 2 due to losing gear, so they might not want to buy in the first place. This reduces capital for new build hence reducing supply.

      What's about reducing immigration? but only allowing skilled tradies in.
      Current target of reducing in half (of a already larger number) is still too much.

      • greatlamp on 26/06/2024 - 17:46

        Investor 1 knows that they couldn't easily sell it to investor 2 due to losing gear, so they might not want to buy in the first place. This reduces capital for new build hence reducing supply.

        This reasoning is very common, I see it repeated often. I still cannot understand if it originates from a misunderstanding or if people are spreading it maliciously.

        If you make something less desirable for an investor to buy it reduces demand, which reduces prices. If an investor does not want to buy, a home owner will be able to instead. Demand for property is fundamentally based on population. Price of property is based on how many people are bidding on the same home. You can have a housing market that builds more homes without having a market where prices increase rapidly every year. Remove the extra money from the investor bidding up the price.

        Homes will still built because homeowners will demand them. Builders make the same profit whether the land value is $200k or $2 million, in fact if land prices were lower builders would make more profit, their cost of capital (debt) would be lower. There won't be less homes built.

        "But some people prefer renting!"

        Yes, some people, not 30% of the population, not 50% of people under 35. There is massive demand for homes, people cannot afford them because investors are maintaining the high prices.

        That statement really means we need NG to encourage investors to build homes for renters instead of those renters buying their own home

    • dogboy on 26/06/2024 - 15:16

      Also, how about countries where we cannot buy property in have the same restrictions in Australia as well. Goodbye Chinese investors…

  • Pulseless on 26/06/2024 - 13:53
    +8

    Good luck getting a new house in SE QLD for <700k now days lel. Waste of time & money - this wont change anything if anything make things worse.

  • Homerlovesbeer on 26/06/2024 - 13:53

    Another WASTE of my taxes FFS!

  • 191919 on 26/06/2024 - 13:55
    +1

    good news if you own a house, bad news if you don't

  • easternculture on 26/06/2024 - 13:57
    +2

    Real estate agents immediately increase fixed prices and auction reserves by $30k

  • Serpeant on 26/06/2024 - 13:59
    +3

    This only goes to inflate house prices in the medium and long term.

    If you have $30,000 more, you can now borrow more too. House prices will go up by much more than $30k with this grant.

    • gamemaster on 26/06/2024 - 14:14

      But if the first home buyer is being outbid by the investor, then won’t this give them a boost so they can compete?

      • Ham Dragon on 26/06/2024 - 14:15
        +1

        I thought this was for new builds only?

  • Ham Dragon on 26/06/2024 - 14:05
    -4

    Another day, another increasingly desperate attempt by Qld Labor to deflect attention from their conveyor belt of scandals & cockups. Funny how this announcement came the day after the Callide Power Station report broke in the media.

    LMAO @ downvoting Labor shills.

    • ThithLord on 26/06/2024 - 16:45

      Funny how this announcement came the day after the Callide Power Station report broke in the media

      This was announced last year. Your desperation is laughable.

      https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-19/qld-queensland-double…

      • Ham Dragon on 26/06/2024 - 23:30

        So the media scrum over the last few days amid calls to sack De Brenni are what, coincidence?

        Your delusion is hilarious. I'm always astounded by those who defend the indefensible. You probably think Joe Biden is sound of mind too…

  • pineapple12 on 26/06/2024 - 14:13
    +2

    As someone from VIC looking to buy my first home in QLD - it’s near impossible finding a brand new home, house + land package, or land and building your own home all under 750k. (Unless you want to live 2+ hours out of the CBD). It’s ridiculous. It’s forcing companies and home owners to push up the prices over 750k in suburban areas for just a 3bd home.
    Also this is ending in June 30 next year.

    • beltdrive on 26/06/2024 - 16:07

      Why would you specifically want to move into a brand new home when there's perfectly good existing ones?

      • pineapple12 on 26/06/2024 - 18:03

        Because the FHOG rebate isn’t available on existing homes. It has to be brand new or substantially renovated. No one can be previously living in it

        • Ham Dragon on 27/06/2024 - 07:41
          +1

          It's all a mirage anyway, with every scheme/handout the developers simply increase the price by a factor of 2-3x the grant, so you are probably worse off.

          The only house & land future slum type areas are the far south / southwest or far north / northwest, nowhere close to Brisbane proper (unless paying 600-800k for 430sqm (land only) to overlook a massive Bunnings suits you).

          What are your target areas?

          • pineapple12 on 27/06/2024 - 09:03

            @Ham Dragon: Areas I am looking at are Coomera, Upper Coomera, Pimpama, maybe even Ormeau etc.

            Would like to try avoid the Logan/beenleigh area. closer to GC and near the M1 to get into work in Brissy. as my family lives in GC and really don’t want to be too far away. Unfortunately new estates are charging upwards of 600k for a small block of land like you were saying. It’s hard .

            It’s probably better just getting a pre-established home in Coomera area im thinking, and better off going without the FHOG.

            • Ham Dragon on 27/06/2024 - 10:16
              +1

              @pineapple12: Just so you know, the M1 is a murderous commute both ways. Logan is really coming of age, it's transitioning out of low socioeconomic & working class to firm middle class with some really nice pockets, so I wouldn't rule it out.

              Obviously the GC is nicer in terms of environment and proximity to the beach but the prices match it. North of the Coomera River is a mix of nice & nasty, ie most of Pimpama and Upper Coomera = shit. Check out Ormeau / Ormeau Hills, Kingsholme, Jacobs Well, tend to be bigger blocks and not just nasty 300-400sqm blocks and tiny narrow streets. Usually, east of the highway is nicer. GC has it's attractions but the traffic is just awful on weekends & holidays.

              Hope you can find a winner.

        • beltdrive on 27/06/2024 - 10:53

          Ahh I missed that part. Awful policy

  • vinnycol on 26/06/2024 - 14:13
    +2

    And up goes realestate prices accordingly….

  • Maglia Nera on 26/06/2024 - 14:19
    +1

    So easy to spend other people's money

  • Scrooge McDeal on 26/06/2024 - 14:25
    +8

    I will most likely get downvoted badly, considering a big majority of Ozbargainers will have multiple investment properties.
    • Abolish negative gearing and restrict investment properties to maximum 1. (1 home residence + 1 investment)
    • It's the federal government's responsibility to build affordable rentals for all the immigration that have let in. (Everyone it's welcome, as long as we have a plan in place)
    • You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that federal government's and Local government does not want the house prices to go down. a) They them selfs have several investment properties. b) They collect a big chunk of taxes by increased prices.

    There are so many solutions to the housing problem, but government's choose to use these "illusion of helping tactics".

    • Ham Dragon on 26/06/2024 - 14:29

      I own an IP and I agree with your sentiments, though maybe allow NG for the first IP, for subsequent properties either reduce significantly or abolish it. Some very salient points.

    • SS625 on 26/06/2024 - 14:40
      -4

      you want capitalism but applying communism rules lol

      can we also limit how many cars you can have so 4wd prices go down?

      • Scrooge McDeal on 26/06/2024 - 14:44
        +4

        What part of what I said it's communism? The part that the government needs to build affordable rentals for the immigration that they have let in?
        The Governments it self have created the problem of housing in the first place. Who else would need to fix it?

        • SS625 on 26/06/2024 - 15:00
          -3

          you are introducing the 1 child policy from china to here for investment houses. the 2nd child have no gov benefit of being alive, you better be rich or else you can not have a 2nd child.

          • Scrooge McDeal on 26/06/2024 - 15:04
            +6

            @SS625: Not the same. We are not talking about human lifes here. We are talking about Investment properties. Why should someone have 5-10 investment properties; and someone else to be stuck renting all their life's, just because they can't catch up with the continuing increased prices.
            It doesn't make any sense. In my mind, I prefer for everyone to get a chance of a house, instead of making rich people richer.

            • SS625 on 26/06/2024 - 15:13

              @Scrooge McDeal: that mindset is exactly communism lol

              rich get richer in capitalism

              • Alistair79 on 26/06/2024 - 15:41
                +1

                @SS625: Thats not a good way to look at capitalism. Everyone should get richer under a decent capitalist system. Yes, the rich get exponentially richer, however the poor and middle classes should also improve dramatically.

                • SS625 on 26/06/2024 - 15:45

                  @Alistair79: thats the reality of capitalism around the world. In a perfect world, communism is the best, everyone the same, everyone works hard… but you know humans

            • SS625 on 26/06/2024 - 15:14

              @Scrooge McDeal: i believe even removing NG wont change a thing. i touched this topic here https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/15429955/redir

              • Scrooge McDeal on 26/06/2024 - 15:17
                +2

                @SS625: What happened at VIC housing prices, now that VIC Government has introduced taxes on investment properties? Prices have certainly haven't increased. So I truly believe that removing negative gearing and putting restrictions on investment properties, would definitely help first home buyers.

                • SS625 on 26/06/2024 - 15:24

                  @Scrooge McDeal: renter will cop most of it * extra $20 a week to cover my land tax

                  • Scrooge McDeal on 26/06/2024 - 15:28
                    +1

                    @SS625: False. A lot of investors are selling and moving away from VIC. The majority of sales now it's first home buyers. (Atleast that's what they say)

                    • SS625 on 26/06/2024 - 15:47

                      @Scrooge McDeal: i honestly dont think increasing tax like $1000-2000 per property per year is scaring any investors. Also that adds to the negative gearing.

                  • Skatez on 26/06/2024 - 16:19

                    @SS625: 🤮

      • PainToad on 26/06/2024 - 15:21
        +3

        Just pointing out that negative gearing is the complete opposite of an open and free capitalist market. Giving tax breaks for poor investment choices is not capitalism. It’s Protectionism.

        • SS625 on 26/06/2024 - 15:25
          -2

          housing is poor investment?

          • PainToad on 26/06/2024 - 15:29
            +3

            @SS625:

            It is a commonly used term used to describe a situation where expenses associated with an asset (including interest expenses) are greater than the income earned from the asset.

            If a hand out from fellow tax payers is required to keep an investment property, yes it’s a poor investment.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join