In light of recent media reports regarding potential policy changes to Negative Gearing and Capital Gains Tax (CGT), what is the practical perspective within the OzB community?
Should government reassess property investment and the claims associated with it?
@Protractor: But smart, capable people and stupid, lazy people seem to both have found the opportunity. Could you be more precise?
I can accept some people, like those born paralysed or who get brain cancer, don't have the opportunity. What stops average people?
@justworld: The irony is, negative hearing and capital gains tax discount have nothing to do with work ethic. You don’t have to work to get a capital gains tax discount. This is free money for wealthy people. In fact, the wealth gained from investment properties is an alternative to having to work to achieve wealth. These people have been given a free ride for long enough. Things have to change.
@ForkSnorter: You had to work to get the money to buy the properties in the first place. Unless you're talking about inherited property, which I agree, should be taxed in the form of inheritance tax.
Negative gearing is only popular because it allows you to save 47% on tax paid on your wage earnings. It's not fair that from $190,000 wage earners are paying 1/2 of every dollar to the tax man.
The 'change' you're looking after should be that we reduce income taxes and introduce an inheritance tax.
@justworld: Opportunity is not equal among all lol. What reality do u live in?
Getting work today, is..
1. Family business hires family first
2. If you know someone within a business you are more likely to get that job even if you don't fit the role well
3. Visa! VISA! VIVA Las Vegas! Business hires cheapest worker, for various lame arse reasons.
@cobknob: Ah yes, I passed the Bar exam and my partner got into surgery training because they were both family businesses.
Not.
Dumb post.
@justworld: Won't be hiring you as a lawyer lol. It seems you don't read with scope in mind. You have to see past your narrow minded view. Your parents maybe wealthy, your house you lived in as a kid accommodating. Sometimes people are spoiled and they think its normal or entitled. Not everyone has your upbringing so get off your high horse.
I maybe wrong about you but judging by your comment it doesn't look that way.
The people wanting it gone will never accept that the system is substantially fair; otherwise, to do so would be to accept that the people getting shafted deserve their fate, and that's a bridge too far for some people to accept.
You sound like a tosser, and I guarantee you there's no chance you'd be talking so tough in real life where there are consequences to what you say and where being a jackass means you could cop a right hook to the jaw.
FWIW, everything you say is literally just marrying some irrelevant premise and conclusion, where the logic in between does not make sense. If I were to break down what you are saying, then it is that - if the system is substantially fair, then it follows that the people getting shafted deserve their fate. This is obviously a ridiculous thing to say, least of which is that most of life is determined by factors beyond our control. It is plainly obvious that even if we were to have a perfectly fair system, there would still be people who get "shafted" through pure bad luck.
Your whole "look at me, I'm self made with 3 properties all paid off" shtick is pretty ridiculous. I mean, who are you trying to impress? The reality is that you have benefited immensely from your own endowment - you happened to live in a country where there are opportunities, born to parents who put you in school, lucky enough to have been blessed with good health, and (presumably) good intelligence, fortunate enough to not have suffered from major illness or disability, not have had any career or life altering life events, lucky enough that certain decisions you have made turned out the way they did…etc., and the list will go on.
The whole idea that it's just about "hard work" is BS - most of life's outcomes are determined by factors well outside of an individual's control. "Hard work" is some small factor, but hardly the only one.
I just think it's sad that you espouse such drivel online. I'm not unfamiliar with people who have such views. I was previously an investment banker, briefly worked as a consultant to private equity firms, I've come across colleagues and work friends who say the silly things you do. I've also been around long enough to see that everyone eventually grows up. When you're a hotshot, you want to believe that it's all "you", but at some point, when life throws you some curveballs - serious illness or injury, close family passing away or requiring care, black swan events…etc., you gain a lot of clarity and perspective.
It's not about politics (or about whether you support changes to negative gearing or not), it's just about taking your head out of your arse. I'm glad you're "successful", don't let it get to your head.
I say exactly what I say here in real life. No one blinks an eyelid. "Right hook to the jaw"? What is this, Rocky? This isn't some shitty boxing ring.
" you happened to live in a country where there are opportunities, born to parents who put you in school, lucky enough to have been blessed with good health, and (presumably) good intelligence, fortunate enough to not have suffered from major illness or disability, not have had any career or life altering life events, "
You don't know any of this. I wasn't born here. I wasn't born in an English speaking country. I had to learn English for myself. (This is why I don't give much credit to all the idiots out there who are barely literate. Others came here and learned your language. Whereas these people were born here and still can't speak proper English? Jesus…read a book. Read "Spot goes to school.")
You don't know that I have good health. You don't know that I haven't suffered through major illness. Indeed, I have. Not that I use it as an excuse. But you don't know any of these things. That's your problem: you assume anyone doing well must have had a charmed life. Not so.
"I was previously an investment banker, briefly worked as a consultant to private equity firms"
We probably know the same people then.
He sounds like a tosser?
Imagine attacking the person, because your own moral compass and level of intellect is so broken, you are unable to attack the idea.
Imagine weaving a straw man in 2024, when you actually know nothing about the individual on the other side OR the hardships that they may have had in their life.
The reality is, once negative gearing is abolished, people will find another scapegoat
It is what the government wants. Make some additional tax revenue.
Yes, and especially the capital gains discount.
There is no rational argument against abolishing these that does not come from a wealthier than average person who has made plenty by simply owning properties.
If you're already wealthy in Australia, all you have to do is sign a bunch of papers to buy more and more properties, and watch your wealth magically grow, year by year, decade by decade.
The % of Australian properties owned by investors has grown higher and higher over the past few decades.
The % of Australians who own their own home has fallen significantly over the same period.
Meanwhile, the purchasing power of people on typical (median) wages has continued to fall further and further.
It should be abolished, but with conditions.
Taxes in this country are far too high, so if you're going to remove what is a needed tax break that people can use to also build their wealth it must be matched with an equivalent tax cut in another area.
To those who say we can't because the government needs the revenue…. government spending is out of control and needs to come down.
Housing being treated as investment items truly was a horrible thing that was done to this country, other places have figured this out. I'd suggest bans on foreign ownership and heavy taxes on anything over 2 properties. Just my 2 cents.
Taxes in this country are far too high, so if you're going to remove what is a needed tax break that people can use to also build their wealth it must be matched with an equivalent tax cut in another area.
PayG taxes are too high Yes
The tax free threshold should be 50k and the high tax bracket should be 250k
the brackets should also be indexed 100k in modern Australia is like 60k 15 years ago BANG average
I'd prefer flat taxes across the board, but agree with the tax free threshold and higher tax rate is preferrable to the current state.
Along with indexation, its unbelievable they've gotten away with that for so long. Thats why I'm a fan of a flat rate, solves that problem.
@Trying2SaveABuck i must say i initially used to disagree with you on a lot of things but you're talking a lot of sense now.
Our tax system is regressive, allowing those with assets a free run while those trying to get on the ladder get smashed every year.
i must say i initially used to disagree with you on a lot of things but you're talking a lot of sense now.
Our tax system is regressive, allowing those with assets a free run while those trying to get on the ladder get smashed every year.
im not 'entretched' in my views my POV changes with research and data i can be convinced to someones point of view if you have a 'solid' arguement - the issue is soon as people get 'emotional' i stop listening and a lot of people seem to be 'emotional' about politics for some reason.
As for the current system it is a bit too generous to money made via investments (property not equities) and way to punishing on working people - the system is 'backwards' it should encourage working people to be more productive but it actually punishes you.
Factually speaking you could be in the top tax bracket and still be struggling to buy a home, raise a family in our 3 major cities this cannot be 'acceptable' nor is it fair - you would know im am not 'left' at all but the system needs to reward those making ago of it and not just those born into wealth
I am usually one to 'defend' boomers but how can someone get a full pension live in a 25m house whilst someone pays a 3rd or more of their income in tax and be struggling to pay rent - it just seems a bit broken
Money has to come from somewhere else then. We could tax our enormous mineral wealth but there is only one party that is capable of bringing that in, and the media has the population convinced they are communists who don't know what they are talking about.
like smart nations do ie UAE, Singapore etc you tax non-essential consumption high but income low or next to nothing
also got to stop government spending to much money is wasted on rubbish that has not benefit for the bulk of Australians - we liget had a fail referrendum that cost half a billion that would of ONLY benefited 3 percent of the population this kind of waste needs to end asap
Albo only agreed to index the top bracket from $180k to $190k after 17 years.
The prevailing opinion in Australia is that…'if you earn over $200k, you can afford to pay 47% marginal.'
So good luck convincing the government to institute tax cuts. They will be happy to give average earners on $100k a tax cut. But basic upper middle class professionals on $200k or $300k will never get tax relief.
Yep pretty ridiculous. And people seeking relief from those ridiculous rates are pushed down paths such as negative gearing.
Taxes in this country are far too high, so if you're going to remove what is a needed tax break that people can use to also build their wealth it must be matched with an equivalent tax cut in another area.
Fat chance. Taxes are just going up and up. Government regardless of political party never have enough money. Notice how ALP handed LNP $300bn, then LNP gave current ALP total close to $1tn. Current ALP might have a small surplus but refuse to make any dent in the national debt.
Only a matter of time until the government comes cap in hand for more money.
We live in a country with no manufacturing, attempting to compete in the 'service' economy in a globalised world where every educated person speaks english.
The nature of primary industries means the wealth is exported or in the hands of a few, and they pay little tax.
Our population is aging rapidly, the age pension and healthcare budgets are unlimited - every eligible person is paid.
Income taxes have to increase.
Income taxes have to increase
That is easy to say. Bracket creep already guarantees a few percent extra tax revenue every year. Don't forget all the government related charges goes up by inflation so they are actually DOUBLE dipping.
It is all dress up.
The bottom 47% of income tax payers pay 5% of income tax revenue, 80% of income tax payers pay a total 33% of income tax revenue
(https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/new-data-shows-how-th…)
You wonder why money isn't invested to helping the bottom 47% to lift their weight? Serves a political purpose?
Serves a political purpose?
Effectively, yes.
It's expensive, the payoff is longer than 3 years, and a budget deficit results in the media spinning stories about socialists destroying the economy.
Instead we get the opposite, healthcare and education is slowly defunded. The media doesn't attack politicians for doing nothing while the average student now has a 50k HECS debt and seeing a GP went from free to $50. It's the same with our loss of manufacturing
Media paints a biased image of property investing. Negative gearing does not avoid tax, it just defers it. You get a monstrous tax bill from the capital gain when you sell. No allowance is made for inflation. You also get hit for tax concessions granted in preceding years. You get problems with bad tenants. Tenants who make spurious demands. For example, one wanted me to seal weep holes in aluminium windows! From that, I got a bill from the handyman to inspect the "holes in the windows that let mosquitoes in".
You need to forego your own repairs while fixing things quickly for tenants (we were forced to live with rotting timber windows for years). You need to pay mortgage, real estate agent, property manager, solicitors, tax agents, repair people and government (all levels). Possibly an investment advisor, as well. Overall, the result is more outgoings than income. In the context, CGT is a small concession.
Property investors provide rental property for those not yet in a position to buy. The rental charged is governed by the laws of supply and demand, not the owner jacking up the price when in the mood to do it. The entire problem now is not tax concession, it is a shortage of property. That shortage is exacerbated by government allowing migration at a rate now housing is not keeping up with. Housing shortage leads to higher prices and rental increases. If there was a glut of property, prices would fall and rental would be more competitive.
There is a 4br house 4 doors down from use that has been sitting empty for the almost five years we lived in the area. The property is crumbling from lack of maintenance. The pool is full of leaf litter and is a breeding ground for mosquitoes and a snake attractor. The owners are overseas passport holders and live permanently overseas. If anything, make the property market less attractive or illegal for overseas speculators.
if you're going to discount the gain by 50% then discount the negative gearing by 50% too.
doesnt make sense to fully write off all negative gearing and then not fully pay tax on the gain.
You lose big on no allowance being made for inflation.
there is never an allowance made for inflation in any calculation why should this be any different lol
sorry bud, you're going to have to come up with a better excuse.
@nicolemcmilllon: Its a reality, not an excuse. You pay X for your shopping basket of goods today. In 10 years, you pay 2X for the identical goods. Effectively, the buying power of your dollar is halved. Never making an allowance for inflation is another way government grabs people's cash. The point being that if you turn $100k into $200k over the same mythical 10 years, you haven't gained a thing. The tax is about capital GAIN.
FWIW I no longer care. I sold up and would not do it again or recommend anyone else do it. There is a lot of heartache, for little real return.
@RogerLoger: thats fine, then account for inflation on all gains etc. but this doesnt interfere with abolishing capital gains discounts and negative gearing
@nicolemcmilllon: True.
All businesses offset expenses against gains. To remove claims for expenses to gain income would be singling property investors for additional tax on losses/low gain.
50% CGT is a small benefit that keeps Mums and Dads in the market and properties available for rent. The gain keeps many Mums & Dads off the pension, and Australia needs more people living independent of the government purse.
Exactly, it should be one or the other to be fair. Negative gearing wasn't an issue at all until John Howard combined it with the 50% discount in 2000. After that, every man and his dog tried to buy as many properties as they could. Imagine if there were only a fixed amount of jobs in the world and someone claimed 20 jobs so that they could sell them to 19 other people on the condition that they got a cut of their income. Housing should be a human right, not a scam because someone bought 10 houses they didn't need so that they could profit off it and never work another day of their life.
The rental charged is governed by the laws of supply and demand, not the owner jacking up the price when in the mood to do it.
You do realise, don't you, that they are not actually laws and that owners make a conscious decision to up the prices.
Most times, I've found, the trigger for putting up the price is the property manager inundating the owner with 'suggestions' to meet the market and the owner blindly trusting the so-called advice.
If the income is adequate prior to the 'advice' then it's just opportunism/greed to increase it for no other reason than 'the rest of the market has done it'.
(Disclosure - I do own an investment property and have increased the rent charged once in the past 8-10 years. I have also reduced it in that same time).
The reason agents give advice is they know the current state of the market. They will let you know when the market will 'bear' an increase. When the agent says "don't raise the rent", you'd be silly not to heed the advice. I've never been in a position to consider reducing rent, but would not rule it out. If the vacant property rate is high, average rentals will fall as owners compete trying to get someone in. Oh, I only passed on full market rate once - to a tenant who made spurious complaints/demands.
When you sell, you may not get the value reduction you expect. I was unaware of something that ended up adding $40k to my tax bill (had to take money from superannuation to cover the unexpected additional payment). So, don't rely on your own calculations. Chat with your tax agent before you decide to sell.
The reason agents give advice is they know the current state of the market. They will let you know when the market will 'bear' an increase
They create the state of the market by appealing to some owner's inherent greed - they are trying to increase their income which is a percentage of the rental income (no extra work or effort on their part, just more money for them).
You do realise 'the market' in this case is people, in may cases struggling, who do not deserve to have their rent increased just because an agent has decided 'the market will bear it'.
Again, if the owner is happy with the income immediately before receiving this advice why would they suddenly be unhappy with it just because 'the market will bear it'?
A number of times I've seen that advice taken with the result that a reasonable tenant moved out - with the attendant costs/loss of rental income to the owner that have taken well over a year to break even after increasing the rent. But the agent can report that they've increased the business' income of course.
I've never been in a position to consider reducing rent, but would not rule it out.
So, with all of those interest rate reductions there was never the opportunity to reduce the rent? Many are quite happy to use a rate increase to put the rent up but rarely does the opposite occur to them .
"If the income is adequate prior to the 'advice' then it's just opportunism/greed to increase it for no other reason than 'the rest of the market has done it'."
Hmm, do you ever ask for a raise at work even though your income is adequate to sustain life?
It's the market at work. It's also the whole point of an investment. I'm sure you wouldn't begrudge the value of your shares or dividends going up.
No it's different because housing is a human right. Shares don't have negative gearing in addition to the half price capital gains discount, it only applies to houses. Someone buying 10 houses is similar to someone grabbing 10 jobs then lording it over people who can't get jobs saying that they will rent out the job to them on the condition that they get 10% of their pay. After that, the government then offers them a yearly discount on the tax paid because it's an "investment" and another 50% discount when they've had enough and sell the job at a rip off price to someone else. It's completely immoral and wrong. I only agree with this practise for new houses to expand our stock as that is a fair investment. Buying existing houses is a rort and it takes advantage of the poor.
i'd reduce it to 2 IP outside of ones PPOR and ensure that people cant buy like 10 properties via trust under their kids, dogs, cats etc
but i wouldnt scrap it all together - if anything it should be capped and their probably should be incentive for 'new builds' to push investors to help build more houses as that will ultimately help the supply issue with housing
I would however get rid of CTG discount on property - it is WAY to generous but if they where too do something like this income tax would need to reduce or the brackets would at least need to be indexed they would also need a 'long hold' CTG discount on equities ie if you hold a stock for 10 years you get a 100% tax free on profits this would encourage investment into the ASX and Australian businesses
It's one of the many variables, but its not solely responsible.
Negative gearing
The CGT discount
Ability for international buyers to buy/wash their money through our real estate
And lack of supply (releasing new land, re-zoning for higher density housing).
Funny you should say lack of supply.
I worked for an urban development engineering company and a major land developer literally owned an entire suburbs worth of land. (1000ha) within 25mins of the city.
We'd be releasing around 60 lots a month, but could easily do 100+. Eventually they just shut it down because the demand wasnt there and rather than supply cheap affordable lots they happily just constrained supply. They still made ~$100k profit a lot so it was still a decent money making scheme.
7 years later and theyre still sitting on the rest of the development, artificially constraining supply.
Government really should be stepping in.
The only simple and fair way to stop this is by taxing land with logarithmic progressive rules based on total land size/value owned/controlled by the same person, no matter how many companies or trusts they can create.
No, without NG we wouldn't have the housing stock that there is.
So from that negative gearing is responsible for the lack of housing stock and the supply crisis then?
It plays a role in supply and demand.
I'm a landlord and NG is (profanity). It completely incentivises buying as much property as possible and propping up the market.
When I realized I should keep claiming paper depreciation on my property, and that I can then sell that property and claim a 50% cgt deduction on the difference I was honestly shocked. It really sets up a situation where most people should aim to have a property for themselves and at least one investment property as it works out so well.
For many years I've been claiming paper losses from negative gearing that I don't actually have (I was making money each year but from a tax perspective losing money so therefore making more money) and then when I sold the property I made a crap load of money on top and then I only paid tax on half of it.
It's disgusting.
Don't have to completely remove it, happy to keep it at 1 IP or so but tbh (profanity) the whole system. It shouldn't be a case that buying houses is risk free and money always goes up.
Good to see the serial liars at Murdoch reporting this is now a policy and can almost produce a list of all ppl (investors) personally impacted.In any case Albo needs to grow balls and do this. Govts are weak & have been spooked by the richest w*nkers in the country. NG could be phased out incrementally, and those who are spitting the dummy about it can offload their tax havens.
Gradually make all but the 1st or second property the only ones NG applies to, and phase it out entirely in 10 years. The govt had no problem putting the pension age up. This should be a no brainer tax reform.
Not just news corp…..fairfax is doing it as well
https://www.smh.com.au/national/property-investors-fear-forc…
Albo needs to grow balls and do this.
Then he needs to totally turn our tax system on it's head because you should not have to pay tax on expenses….
How about just remove income tax all together and increase the GST ?? That would be much fairer…
One 'not gunna happen' miracle at a time JV
GST is not fair because it is not progressive.
It would be much fairer to progressively tax the means of production. This includes resources, licences and rights and basically any type of properties including intellectual properties. So the tax becomes expense.
Limit NG to 1 property I believe is a fair compromise
Why limit it?
get it over the line, then remove it all together later on
baby steps
then remove it all together
Why should someone pay tax or expenses ?
@jv: I know I'm going to regret this, but this is the second time you've said "why should someone pay tax on expenses".. what do you mean by this? What expenses are people currently/going to pay taxes on?
What expenses are people currently/going to pay taxes on?
Anything they spend on their investment that is a legitimate business cost to derive an income.
If you are not allowed to deduct them from revenue, they you will pay tax on them at your top tax bracket.
@jv: I was worried was going to be some nonsense.
I spent my day in an office earning taxable income via a salary.
At lunch I ate a sandwich, and I am not permitted a deduction for that sandwich.
At no stage in the future will I be "taxed" on my sandwich. It doesn't go in my tax return, it doesn't increase my salary, I am not "taxed on my expense".
If they had allowed me a sandwich deduction last year and they removed it this year, everything in that prior paragraph would still be true. "Taxing someone's expenses" is illiterate nonsense.
At lunch I ate a sandwich, and I am not permitted a deduction for that sandwich.
That is not an expense related to your work.
I can't claim lunches for investment properties either.
You can however claim work related calls/phones, computers, travel etc… Would you like Albo to ban those too ?
@jv: You should reread my last paragraph, which specifically addresses what happens when previously deducted items are no longer permitted.
Again: the point is you don't "pay tax on your expenses" that aren't in your tax return.
If Albo disallowed NG tomorrow and you couldn't enter NG into your tax return, you aren't being taxed on your NG amount. Your tax doesn't change whether your NG expense is $1 or $100,000 if it's not in your tax return.
Saying you're being taxed on your expenses is nonsense.
The point is you don't "pay tax on your expenses" that aren't in your tax return.
You actually pay tax on you profits.
Profits are revenue minus expenses.
If you don't allow claiming expenses, you are therefore taxing them because you end up taxing revenue and not profit.
@jv: Yeah, but all sorts of expenses are nondeductible.
If NG expenses are disallowed, they're the same as my $10 sandwiches..neither of them are being taxed.
Anything that you're not allowed to put on your tax return is an expense you're "being taxed on" under your logic. Which is why it's nonsense.
Anything that you're not allowed to put on your tax return is an expense
If you read my earlier comment, I said legitimate business expenses used to generate revenue…
@jv: Alright JV, you and your twin (JV2) each own a property that earns $1,000,000 revenue.
Evil Albo waves a wand and ALL property expenses are disallowed and non deductible on the spot.
Your property expenses previously were $100,000, and JV2s were $200,000.
Neither of these expenses are allowed in either of your returns, so you both lodge a tax return declaring exactly $1,000,000 of income.
Which one of you pays more tax? Keep in mind JV2 has twice as many property expenses as you.
@jv: No, now.
This question works on the assumption we don't have access to time travel.
Now that Albo has waved the wand and the deductions aren't allowed, and you are both going to be lodging a tax return after this event has happened, which of you pays more income tax?
@Protractor: JV was broken a long time before I started responding. You don't get a legacy of 100,000+ posts by thinking carefully about what you're going to say and only then making helpful contributions.
It's shitposts and slop most of the time (such as today's "tHeYRe MaKiNg Me Pay tAxES On My EXpEnseS")… unless they need to meet their quota, in which case they'll have to cut corners and do even worse.
I did however get her to stop posting slop in here today so I guess it's a small win.
Presumably to dissuade excessive property investing/speculation.
You can't expect people to pay tax on their expenses…
Why would you abolish it?
That is ridiculous…
Expenses reduce profits and profits get taxed…
If they eliminate negative gearing then they need to also changing the tax system against positively geared properties
Why?
I don't need a share portfolio or Forex account to live, but I do need a house.
All moves to discourage investment in housing should be tried, penalizing capital gains, limiting excessive rents. The lot.
The response to this is always "omagerd, there will be no rental properties". I don't see it. If the price of existing housing is lower, current renters can buy.
If there is no appetite for new build rentals, potential landlords can consider charging higher rents if they demand a higher return.
If there emerges a huge lack of new housing, the government can add additional housing stock, like they do with defence housing.
People pretend that there was no rental market before negative gearing and cgt discounts. But of course it was fine, we just had lower house prices and rents provided a reasonable return.
The real argument is whether investors deserve a tax break. I don't think they do, and won't lose any sleep if it is removed.
Fixing negative gearing works, don't listen to the shills.
You can see it in real time in Melbourne right now, the new tax is making investors sell up and prices are reasonable now.
Yes there is now lower rental stock but don't be gas-lit i to thinking that's a problem. For the same weekly rent you can easily afford the weekly mortgage on the contrary to the doomsayers.
It's the same scare campaign to when CGT was introduced 40 years ago. Except house prices and investments have all 10x from that time.
Fixing negative gearing works, don't listen to the shills.
There is nothing to fix. As long as people are only claiming legitimate expenses.
It's the same scare campaign to when CGT was introduced 40 years ago.
That's when they allowed to claim expenses used to derive they revenue, which is only fair if you are going to tax profits from investments.
prices are reasonable now. [Melb]
Are you seriously saying melbourne house prices are reasonable? you lost me there…
I never had a problem with it until I started reading about the horrible leeches that had over 100 properties and were professional landlords. Like billionaires, these people should not be allowed to exist in our society and we need to take whatever steps necessary to stamp it out.
and they also have long tentacles into and mates in the Canberra trough. Bring it on. Fix the rort
Real investors should want to positively gear, so they can qualify for more credit.
According to Dutto real investors are up to their guts in uranium shares. I know most of his Lib mates will be.And a few of Barnies besties as well.
I'm sure his friends do tell him that.
All 3 of them
Considering I only have positively geared property they should remove it cause I'm missing out and it's not fair.
Another revenue raising idea!
The same one as letting in 1m people a year as a "catch up" I didn't know there was some kind of performance attached migration especially during 2020-2022 when construction grounded to a halt.
If equality was at stake then indexation of HECs would mean indexation of the tax brackets but you know politicians always wins
Breeding less humans would be simpler, but capitalism doesn't like any logical limitation. Nature, however, cannot accommodate capitalism's petulance. So keep plenty of popcorn and deckchairs on hand.
The equal & opposite reaction of 'us' won't be pretty.
"Capitalism doesn't like any logical limitation?"
Your alternative of Socialism (in it's steroid form of attempting to achieve it's nirvana of Communism) got rid of over 100 million of those pesky humans last century.
Capitalism, and the state of the free market at the moment is actually restricting the birth rate in the Western Hemisphere.
Developed countries are struggling to keep pace with replacing their declining population.
Hence the unfettered open immigration policies to bring in migrants from the third world.
The government policies of mass immigration is what is distorting the property market.
Tinkering with negative gearing and CGT etc, is urinating into the wind and probably would cause even more shortage of housing and push up the cost of housing, rent etc.
LOL, ladies & gentlemen we hacv a fervent cappo without the logic mentioned above. Investor?
The global situation (including this micro issue) has got FA to do with political models, and everything to do with greed. That's the capitalist model.I'd argue it's killed a thousand times more than your example, made million suffer as well , all in the name of chasing that buck. The point is thr planets resources are finite. We've used a shit load, abused the rest and placed us and all life forms on a downward spiral/ It's pure physics.You can't expect finite resources to fulfill perpetual growth, which is what your hero requires.
Socialism? Meh. Too late for that. Breeding more ppl than we can feed,support,tolerate is being sold by capitalsim for capitalism.
"Oh no, who will wipe our bums when we're old & grey if we don't breed more bum wipers now?"
"LOL" Pure physics? You mean pure fantasy.
If you want to talk about advancements, Capitalism has made all the advancements that has advanced health technology and SAVED lives, increased the average life span by decades and saved countless people from freezing to death exposure to the elements via things like, oh maybe electricity and other utilities like water and plumbing and transport etc etc etc.
Capitalism is driving the change of renewables, because now that the corporations and banks can make a buck from the climate change, they are driving the change to renewables, not the morons who glue themselves to roads.
CAPITALISM has automated much of the back breaking labour that socialist countries excelled at historically.
Try looking at actual demographics and population statistics, rather than squeal about over population numbers.
Even China is on the population decline.
India and Africa are slowing just like the West is.
The world population is less than 8 billion and estimated to top out at 9 or 10 billion and then decline as India and Africa develop via CAPITALISM, negating the need for large families as support structures.
There is and will be no shortage of food, unless caused by socialist/communist ideologies just like Mao's Cultural Revolution, Great Leap Forward and Stalin's Holodomor starvation that killed millions.
'Bum wipers?' You mean bidets and robots created by capitalism?
"Investor?" Yes, just like you, that is, if you have a job and pay taxes and superannuation, those things go into investing in property etc.
This "perpetual growth" meme you expound, comes down to the entire population of the world right now could fit into an area the size of the state of Texas, at a population density of Hong Kong.
Give it up, bud, Marxism has been tried many times and has failed and killed off millions every time.
Capitalism has not been created on some white board by the Rothchilds.
Human nature of wanting to improve the personal circumstances of the the daily lives of the great unwashed is what the default system is, and that system is Capitalism.
Like it or not.
China's one child policy was a Marxist idea. It killed off 400 million, mainly females and created gender unbalance that they will probably be unable to fix, now that they have a middle class who are not interested in having children.
Go check it all out, instead of panicking and sprouting the end of the world undergraduate garbage.
@hueylewis: Where did you get those rose coloured glassed Professor Denial?
How's the planets potable water,oceans,wildlife,forests,climate,peace,disease, homelessness,cohesion,etc.
Capitalism has fuelled as many wars as religion. Or any other driver. It thrives on it. It also thrives in bums on seats. And those bums making more bums, so ASME seat company can expand. The number of us has passed a sustainable limit, and the systems that sustain us are reaching exhaustion. Thanks capitalism,xxx
There's a massive chasm between breeding less and a Marxist catastrophe and ONE child policy , so spare me the lecture about extremist views.
There's too many humans. Driving all the problems we face today, and there's only one class of ppl that benefits. And that's a very short window.
How many times can you squeeze your infinite fantasy into finite reality?
@Protractor: Ha Ha 'My' extremist views?
What, exactly, is this 'sustainable limit' number?
Or is it just another Globalist talking point you saw on an internationalist leaflet?
You're babbling the same garbage that you have been programmed since kindergarten.
Try some facts and stats.
The global population is calculated to top out in about 2080 and then decline.
The over population scam has been debunked years ago.
Memo to you and the rest of the eugenics fanboys.
Your over population meme has turned out to be a turkey.
The numbers don't lie.
The global Total Fertility Rate has more than halved over the past 70 years, from around five children for each female in 1950 to 2.2 children in 2021—with over half of all countries and territories (110 of 204) below the population replacement level of 2.1 births per female as of 2021.
REPEAT - POPULATION REPLACEMENT LEVELS ARE 2.1 READ REPLACEMENT, NOT INCREASE.
Very low levels of fertility, below 1.5 births per woman, were found in 25 countries. Seventeen of these were in Europe, 7 in Asia and 1 in Africa. The most populous countries with below-replacement fertility were China, the United States of America, Brazil, the Russian Federation and Japan.
Current estimates expect the world's total fertility rate to fall below replacement levels by 2050.
The world population will decline and many countries are at or below replacement RIGHT NOW.
So much for your over population rubbish.
Try some statistics instead of B.S. rhetoric.
You must be chuffed about the concentration camps in CCP China are full of Uighurs, RIGHT NOW, and they are being mass sterilized, don't hear you complaining about that….
Forget your historical hysterical analogies.
Tell to it to the Uighurs suffering under socialism, right now.
You never say jack squat about the tens of thousands in concentration camps
THIS VERY MINUTE, being subjected to forced slave labour and mass sterilization of Uigher religions in the name of the Glorious CCP. FORCED SLAVE LABOUR UNDER CCP SOCIALISM, NOT CAPITALISM. NOW, NOT 18TH CENTURY LONDON.
But I never hear you bleeding hearts complaining about that.
How many humans are ok with you, Dr. Mengele
When do the mass executions begin?
All fine with you, because you say that religion is the problem, not political persecution.
You are fine with the political persecution as long as it aligns with your death cult ideology.
You whine about religions. ha ha.
The eco cult is all that and more.
Prophecies of doom,
the end of the world,
extorting cash under pain of death.
guilt,
dogma.
Re organizing society at the cost of the poorest being denied the cheap energy that gave you your iphone.
Just so you can pretend that you saved the world from destruction of by slowing the warming by 1 degree. (Which would actually increase the food supply you are so terrified of losing)
You are too frightened to criticize the CCP over their concentration camps and building of new coal power stations every week, because that would be waaaaayyysist.
The new coal power stations in the third world have negated all of your green fantasy pipe dreams, but it's not about reality and the destruction of economies with you,
With you, it is all about the 'vibe'
@hueylewis: Where do you think the world's natural capital balance is compared to 50 or 100 years ago? We might have had growth but it hasn't been sustainable growth. It's the tragedy of the commons on a global scale.
So it was capitalism this whole time! And capitalism would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling teenagers!
They tried to get rid of it but apparently it's now really hard to do… i'll try find the video on the nitty gritty of it… but from what I remember the hole is way too deep…
The real problem is the amount of immigration destroying the property market.
Tinkering with negative gearing is a distraction.
The issue is not enough housing being built for the hundreds of thousands of immigrants arriving every year.
Getting rid of negative gearing will actually reduce the amount of housing being constructed, and make the problem even worse.
It happened when Hawke got rid of it and crashed the property market.
He quietly re instigated the negative gearing shortly after.
Most people complaining about negative gearing were not even born last time they got rid of negative gearing and are not aware of how it failed and damaged the property market.
Should get rid of negative gearing as I know a person with 100 properties causing housing shortage and benefit rich only. Austr is only country with NG! Which is not beneficial to Australian. Banks keep making record profits from mortgagees.
@Protractor: In that case, if both smart people and stupid lazy people can succeed, what's anyone's excuse for not doing so?