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?
Negative gearing is just claiming net losses from a property and deducting it against other taxable income.
Removing negative gearing would likely see that net losses are noted and instead used to offset future net profits. This is a normal feature of our tax system.
Is this really the silver lining that the media and political parties are making it out to be?
I think its appropriate and makes property similar to any other growth investment (i.e. shares) you can make a tax deduction on your operating costs, but when you dispose of the asset you must pay the CGT burden (unless your crooked). I think getting rid of it would be going backwards.
The problem this country has is the huge gap between rich and poor and also the labour shortages. Builders can't be bothered getting paid peanuts to be spec homes in estates in the outer suburbs when they can do renos in the city urban areas for cream money. Also theres so much work out there in civil projects an nation building (looking at you QLD casino and olympic games infrastructure projects) there a serious labour shortage. Basically there's not enough construction workers in a position where they have to build the new budget homes for low pay.
Sure change negative gearing, but the governments need to look at the whole taxation picture of an investment property. Here in Vic we are cash cows for poor state financial management. The only reason my one IP in Melbourne made a loss last FY is because of the increase to state land tax. So ironically I then claim that loss against my income at a federal level. Also in Vic they are looking at increasing minimum rental standards again which will cost money to meet. You need to give investors a reason to invest if you want rentals, and currently NG is the only thing making it palatable in many cases.
Negative Gearing is like doing a line of cocaine. Feels good but terrible for you.
Yes
The problem isn't negative gearing. You can claim expenses of any investment (like buying shares etc) against the earnings of that investment.
The problem is negative gearing for property has been set up very unfairly. You can claim the expenses attached to housing investment against your entire income. This is the only investment where you can do this. It opens a whopping can of worms, including the fact that you don't need to earn income from that investment to claim deductions for your expenses (including loan interest).
Are you sure that property investment is treated differently in terms of the NG? I have always thought that the same rule also applies to other type of investments.
And what about income and deduction from side job as a sole trader who is also on payg from the main job. Can it be negatively geared against the main income as well?
The Government could fix the housing “crisis” overnight by cancelling all visas. It won’t and they doesn’t care are poorer Australians. Short of a scorched earth on the way out they won’t bother touching NG. Dutton is pretty unelectable but tbh so is Albanese, so it will always be a coin flip.
Once upto a time we had couples running corner grocery shops. Then government came with rules/regulations for the "benifit" of customer. Now these mum & dad business couldn't keep up with the costs of abiding by those rules at the same time same government made it easy for big businesses to open huge shops again to "benefit" customers. The results we see today is primary producers are being exploited and at the same time price gouging the customers.
What are the chances same thing repeating in real estate. Basically government is pushing for PE & super investments into real estate at the same time making it difficult for individual investors to own investment properties. Do you think it is coincidence when state governments around Australia are making slew of changes for IPs and at the same time federal government is pushing build to rent scheme geared towards big business. Our next generation is going to be perpetual renters.
You think these proposed changes are good for Australians, think again.
Yes but the poor and middle class will still defend it.
It's not negative gearing. There is nothing special about negative gearing that drives prices up.
Negative gearing purely just lets you deduct the losses sooner than you otherwise would. It stops landlords from flipping houses every two years.
Half capital gains tax is the problem because it creates a tax loophole and does encourage you to sell the property every few years.
Anyone who blames negative gearing has no idea what they are talking about and basically is parroting whatever the media told them to.
Put it this way, without it no one will run an investment property at a loss. Sounds great! Renters will cover the losses because why would you run anything at a loss? Aww :(
Making babies ain't stocks but it's part of how capitalism and economics work, and that's a big problem cause it's not sustainable or good policy.
Problems tied to negative gearing are banks run free on how loans are given and so people can amass property portfolios without actually having to pay off loans and just interest.
I also believe for people making 250k+ they should have to pay a fixed non claimable tax percentage on a tier structure so 500k+, 1m+, etc it goes up. So we could start at 10% or lower tax and go up 15% for 500k, 20% for 1m+, etc and this money could be used to provide stimulus in the economy, innovative purposes, etc. For a millionaire paying 0$ tax with creative accounting is dead wrong anyway you justify it, and this obviously is tied to negative gearing. People who are earning for eg. 60k$/yr as an employee pay a fixed tax amount they can't claim, most goes to the coffers. Yes tax percentages are far too high for lower income earners - tax free threshold should be 30k$ and the tax brackets should drop to a starting percentage of 12% 45k-75k,17% 75k-105k, 22% 105k-130k, etc
Introduce a tax for a 3rd,4th,etc home thats vacant for more than 4x months and a land banking tax if you own land and do nothing with for 5 years you pay 50% tax equivalent to the value of the land - this will discourage people using land and house as a means like the stock market.
yes should tax those richer much higher
So here's a hypothetical for you: I'm a sole trader and I buy and sell valuable antiques. In a year my sales total $3m but the costs of acquiring the antiques, travel, storage, restoration have cost me $2.85m.
Whilst I've only got $185k in my pocket at the end of the year, in your definition, I've made $3m but the tax you want me to pay would send me bankrupt. All because I wasn't allowed to make deductions.
I'm talking about tax on your personal income only, not the business income/revenue/expenses component - thats something else altogether and yes I know sole traders may operate differently to a company and that would be factored in so taxes work appropriately.
For eg. In this case your 185k/yr you'd pay a small-er tax bracket percentage than now but there be a fixed amount so you can't pay 0$ with any creative accounting etc. And if a business is have losses consecutive years that's a bad thing for economy, that would mean it's time to shut shop.
Well pretend I'm a business. Same situation. Business goes under?
@freekay: No.
Sole Trader income works like this I believe. Money comes in, you have business expenses/deductions/claims/whatever and at eofy the remaining amount is treated as personal income.
For a company, you have everything the same except whatever remaining amount there is after is in the company bank and is taxed at x rate.
I'm talking about people's income tax not company tax - that's something that's more challenging but they should still pay a fixed rate where possible instead of putting larger amounts or should I say hiding larger amounts in assets, r&d, etc
@cobknob: I get your heart and motivation behind this, but there's complexities and loopholes that will see this falling over the second it's designed in any real detail. And that's the thing—designing a solution that can be administered across the entire or population, with all the various use-cares and permutations, all the while ensuring it is easy enough to enforce without slowing things down
@freekay: It's actually as simple as reducing current tax bracket rates and introducing fixed tax payable brackets - the only people who would be opposed are ones that wanna keep every cent they make and NOT contribute a fair share of tax.
The biggest question here is, do you think it's fair someone making 50k/60k/70k$ /yr etc paying thousands in tax and someone making double/triple/quad/etc that amount and paying 0$ tax.
@cobknob: But brackets isn't the issue. Deductions is. You can shift brackets all you like, but if people can deduct their way into a lower bracket, what's stopping them? I'm talking from both a legitimate deduction case, to what you've referred to as "creative" accounting. The difficulty is in wording legislation that can tell them apart.
@freekay: The ATO will look at you and your business if year to year your income is fluctuating significantly UP to DOWN to UP again - businesses in captialism work on the growth model - and obviously what assets your claiming for depreciation, and write offs. If it's legit that's fine. Some purchases are absolutely IMHO unnecessary and I'd remove them from claims. Remem if you squeeze yourself from a 185k/yr bracket to 80k/yr you get paid a lot less income, most people wouldn't do that. And cause this system is gonna generate significant revenue, I'd be hiring extra staff at the ATO to be having oversight in some form of auditing.
I'm not trying be an ass, just fixing a system that is broke and working way wrong. A good eg. If someone for eg. In your case your making 185k/yr and your using creative accounting and not pay the fixed tax rate I'd be investigating why you can't.. If a 60k/yr employee pays their share I'd have an expectation you pay too. And that's what I'm referring to. Millionaires get away with paying 0$ tax in OZ and that's just wrong however you wanna justify their avoidance.
Otherwise ban these people from using any services or infrastructure that tax dollars pay.
Negative gearing barely affects the house prices; 5-10% tops - it's the lack of supply that's mainly affecting the prices. Also consider the fact that you pay taxes on capital gains, so if anything, negative gearing is just another way to claim capital losses. A reminder that we pay way too much taxes for what the govt gives us in return.
NG do not drive up prices, supply and demand do. People keep wanting to live in areas with limited supply hence pushing up the price and rent.
It's fair enough people want the lifestyle or convenience, some people are happy to pay $100,000 more to be closer to transport, others may not. Then they make up excuses that investors bought it, and they can afford to pay more because of NG. But investors don't pay more for nothing, they know there are people willing to pay $100 more per week for that location (the demand). While there are some exceptions, most investors don't leave the place vacant (the supply). So investors do not influence supply and demand, also who owns the property (home owner or investor) does not change the supply-demand equation.
Some non-investors maybe misinformed on how NG works, they think NG is a tax offset, which is very wrong. Investors in this scheme are likely in higher tax bracket, so they already pay more tax, NG allows them to lower their taxable income by deducting money they lost from the investment.
Say an investor is earning $150,000, rent - fees - interest - rates - levies - insurance - maintenance - depreciation = -$5,000
The investor actually lost $5,000, so the assessable incoming becomes $145,000. In other words, $5,000 is not taxed, which is equivalent to $5,000 x (37% + 2%) = $1,950. The investor still lost $3,050.
"Negative Gearing" might be a catch phase in the past to brat about smart financial planning, it is sending a bad message and people needs to stop using the term. It is just tax deduction.
There was an actual study on this in 2021 (Cho, Li, and Uren); removing negative gearing would increase home ownership by 4.3% and reduce house prices by 1.5%, but it would also increase rents by 3.6%. The government would still make a profit on it, but would have to spend a decent chunk of it on increased welfare to offset higher rent.
Investors in this scheme are likely in higher tax bracket, so they already pay more tax, NG allows them to lower their taxable income by deducting money they lost from the investment.
This is completely wrong, two thirds of property investors who benefit from negative gearing earn a taxable income of less than $80,000 a year
I like how your calculations conveniently left out the equity that the investor has built over this time.. which is arguably the main reason people use NG.
neggear will never gone because soooo many politicians own 4-7 properties they will vote no every single time
Lest we forget Bill Shorten losing the unlosable election lmao
Another election run and won by Murdoch.
and then if there is no benefit for landlords they will not buy and rent properties out.
so bigger issue here:… those renters.. they will sleep where ? they cant afford to buy. they prefer to get unnecessary but cheap stuffs from ozb and rent forever.
That's the thing, while some renter are also investors (good on them), majority have never owned a home before and cannot comprehend the true cost of buying a property. If not for investors making rental properties available, where do they go? Guess they will start blaming other renters wanting to rent the same place.
yep its down to each country here we are well known to be a bunch of relax people, make lots of babies no problem, no need to save money spend all today while we can, and there is centrelink to help when we in trouble. thats why we need investors.
Guess they will start blaming other renters wanting to rent the same place.
nah, they will blame government as always
NG - no. CGT discount - yes.
The removal of the CGT discount alone will prompt a mass exodus of investors to offload before legislation is passed. It will also make home investment less favourable compared to other asset classes. Getting rid of NG will be a logistical nightmare for banks, investors, borrowers, ATO to both implement and manage ongoing. It will undoubtedly kill off any sort of investment in property as an asset class (unless it's limited only to residential). You'll probably sink construction as well. It might be the reset that causes house prices to finally crash, but you're looking at widespread economic catastrophe in that scenario.
It will also make home investment less favourable compared to other asset classes.
Is this a negative thing in your view?
It will have the intended effect of lowering house prices, as well as reducing demand from people who don't need another home. Whether it's negative or positive depends on your situation.
25% of investment property own by 1% population. If we abolish the NG or reduce it to 1 property, it will mostly affect the wealthy, not the average people.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/04/a-qua…
It’s not a singular evil. It’s the combination of Negative gearing AND the 50% CGT concessions on property.
They both need to go in some aspect to try and undo 30years of artificially inflated house prices.
It is not artificially inflated house prices if there are buy-sell transactions. Inflation is always there in this world.
It’s artificial in the fact that a significant portion of the housing market price increases were due to the cash influx from these policies. Yes, inflation is a thing but a 10x increase in house prices in 30 years (I’m using examples where I grew up), is not just ‘normal inflation’.
If these policies were never introduced, the exponential growth would not be at the level it is today.
What has been lost in this thread is the $165b that tax payers are subsidising NG property owners annualy.
Is that where we as a society want our tax dollars allocated? Not me. I'd rather the government use that money for a thousand other things, then subsidise tens of thousands of people who don't deserve it. In fact, with that kind of moolah, the government could even directly build housing stock. There's a thought.
Absolute nonsense. Tell me you don't understand taxation without telling me.
Yep its the other way around landlords taking loss so the not so fortunate people can have a roof
It's an investment not a charity, they're not taking a loss in the slightest
165B in a decade, not annually.
Shouldn't be able offset tax owing from other sources (e.g. PAYG income) against losses on investment property. The investment property should be treated as it's own entity with debt, expenses. Tax on investment properties should only relate to income and expenses on the investment property and not be cross applied. It should be treated like any other business losses on investment property could be carried forward and offset future profits for tax purposes.
Exactly right. I'm not allowed to book a capital loss on the ASX against my income tax - why should I be allowed to do so for a tenant's shelter?
because the original idea of NG was to create more rentals… which it did…. but….. foreign investors got involved and starting registering their business office in Australia for tax purposes… They buy a heap of cheap houses and offset their tax against the "losses". NG was never designed to allow billionaires to buy 100 properties and reap a reward, it was an incentive for every day investors….
But you can??? What kind of structure are you holding if you're not claiming capital losses against shares? Unless what you're saying is that you still hold the shares and they've just dipped in value—in which case, I don't think shares is for you. Maybe stick to crayons…
Get rid of negative gearing please. House is for living, not an investment option.
Low/no income earners with shiny new latest model iPhones still won't have anywhere to live.
Not everyone is this caricature of a financially illiterate, low income renter..some of us are just continuously priced out of areas where we want to live despite having well paying jobs, simply because we dont have generational wealth to bankroll us.
And please dont say that people should simply move further out. That's not a solution for keeping essential workers around in your area nor a solution for making sure Australia doesn't have massive brain drain. Believe it or not, there are other options and people can just leave lol
Do you mind providing a general area of where your job is located (where you will need to travel to each day) and what your maximum budget for a house is?
@Talsek: You said you are continuously priced out of areas, I'm not familiar with your real estate landscape only my own so I'm interested to investigate your claim a little further.
Are there any reasons why you could not provide such general information?
@shutuptakemymoney101: Yes because I find it hard to believe that you are actually unfamiliar with the circumstances I described, so can only conclude this might be an attempt to discredit the situation somehow by nick picking commute times etc :)
In the rare case that you’re genuinely curious then I work in inner western Sydney and have a budget of 450k in total, based on an income/preapproval that is a smidge above the ABS average/reasonably above the average salary per pay scale for Sydney,. For family, safety and cultural reasons I would prefer to live close to work but there are not really any two bedders for that price range close by. I’ve looked into buying a place in parramatta, which would be already far away from friends/family, but have slowly seen prices creep past my budget in the past few years. Very happy to see units currently being dumped in the area :)
@Talsek: My advice to you and others who will listen is to remember that your first step onto the property ladder does not need to be your 'forever' dream home.
Your first property might be away from friends/family, in an undesirable location with an unenvious commute time to your place of employment, your first property might be a unit when you really want a house - you will need to make sacrifices because you can't have it all.
Australia was founded by immigrants, our forefathers sailed across the world with very little in their back pockets in order to try and make their situation better, your situation is nothing new.
Here's a 2 bedroom unit 25km from Brisbane CBD that is $50K under your budget, not an unreasonable commute to a CBD where you are likely to find work. Your commute on the train will cost you the grand total of $1 per day.
https://www.realestate.com.au/property-townhouse-qld-woodrid…
Just an example, you could also ignore this advice and instead of looking for a solution keep going the way you are blaming landlords, the government etc etc etc for your predicament.
Here's a 2 bedroom unit 25km from Brisbane CBD that is $50K under your budget, not an unreasonable commute to a CBD where you are likely to find work. Your commute on the train will cost you the grand total of $1 per day.
But I live in Sydney. Not only that, I probably won’t have the same job/income in Brisbane.
Just an example, you could also ignore this advice and instead of looking for a solution keep going the way you are blaming landlords, the government etc etc etc for your predicament.
Uhh
That's not a solution for keeping essential workers around in your area nor a solution for making sure Australia doesn't have massive brain drain. Believe it or not, there are other options and people can just leave lol
Just out of interest..have you looked at the % of young people looking to leave Australia recently? :)
Make things too hard (aka, imply that you need to move to a different city to own property) and people just leave lol. Personally I’m doing well enough that I’m expecting to snap something during this currently wave property investors dumping their units.
@Talsek: Fine, stay where you are an enjoy your lot ;-)
I have no doubts that the next government in will wave their magic wand and make things better for you.
@Talsek: You're not willing to help yourself mate, you're full of excuses.
Best of luck, hope things work out for you.
@shutuptakemymoney101: You realise that I said I was expecting to buy right?
I see now that my initial assessment was correct :) You already had your mind made up. Don’t know why I bother. All the best to you, hope that you learn to see things a bit further for the sake of your kids and grandkids.
@Talsek: I'm expecting to win the Lotto :-)
My initial assessment of you was correct also, make excuses and blame the government instead of actually trying to make your own lot better.
Sincerely wish you the best, getting into the property market is tough for most people regardless of the era. Don't be afraid to make some sacrifices now to get ahead as you'll likely look back in the future and be glad you did.
@shutuptakemymoney101: I’m not expecting to win the lotto but am expecting a promotion to come into effect soon :) Fortunately I can see the shortcomings of policy positions and better my lot at the same time. I understand that ‘bettering your lot’ isn’t the only thing to focus on if you want to live in this country long term.
Thanks for your best wishes! I’ll write back when we settle
@Talsek: Best wishes in the future for you and your family (I mean that, that's not a piss take) :-)
@shutuptakemymoney101: What about someone who works in Brighton (VIC) and earns $80000 before tax with a $50k deposit?
You can't even buy a knock-down job anywhere near it for under $700k, just tiny apartments.
@Jolakot: And Melbourne is arguably a better market too lol
I’ve never even dared consider anything but a tiny apartment. There is quite literally nothing within 100k of my budget that is a townhouse/villa this side of Sydney.
@shutuptakemymoney101: Funnily enough, my fiancé's grandparents had a lovely house in Brighton when they moved to Melbourne, on the salary of a postie and a part-time cashier at Safeway. That same house sold for $1.45 million not long ago, in pretty bad shape from the photos as well.
It's still possible to buy something, but I think we have every right to be pissed off at the constant shrink-flation of property.
@Jolakot: A block of chocolate costs more than it used to for a smaller size.
Things are the way they are, time to suck it up and look for a solution that doesn't require the government to magically fix everything for us.
look for a solution that doesn't require the government to magically fix everything for us.
Like negative gearing..? I agree
Don’t take handouts from the government! File taxes the way they’re supposed to be done :)
@Talsek: Yep, good luck with that.
Wish you the best mate, please post back when you own a mansion somewhere in the inner ring.
Things are the way they are
Do you approach everything in your life with the same apathetic view? It's good to be realistic, but if you can't imagine a better future for you or your kids then that just sounds like a miserable existence
time to suck it up and look for a solution that doesn't require the government to magically fix everything for us
Why not? The government could solve the issue if it had enough will to do so, in the end it's just a matter of money.
For example, the government owns 127.8 hectares of unused land just at the old Maribyrnong defense site, that could be decontaminated and converted to new high-density social housing for something like $6 billion dollars, which would more than double the current stock of social housing.
Extreme example and frankly a terrible idea without spending an equal amount on upgrading infrastructure etc, but it absolutely can be done if it was a priority.
@Jolakot: Let's be honest a change of political party usually just means a different set of snouts in the public money trough to the average Joe civilian.
I play the cards that are dealt instead of hoping things will magically get better, I've worked long tiring hours far away from home in jobs I'd prefer not to be working in order to get ahead in life.
I have (what I think) is a nice house now and rental properties ticking away to ensure mine and my families security in our old age, I didn't and couldn't rely on generational wealth. I've taken a financial risk for the future and have had to forgo the latest iPhone models each year as they have been released.
I keep hearing that property prices are about to crash, in fact I've been hearing that for years. If I were to have to waited until that 'crash' I would have been priced out of the market a long time ago and wouldn't have got to where I am today.
Now is the time to get on the property ladder, don't wait. Buy within your means even if it means further out and not to the standard that you would really like - a bit of sacrifice now will pay off in spades in the future.
@shutuptakemymoney101: The issue with that is, the farther you move the less you’ll make. Add the rise of office mandates by office lovers it makes the ‘move further out’ argument a bit ridiculous.
There’s also the fact that the further out you move, the less facilities such a doctors there are.
Encourage investors to build new properties, so have negative gearing only for new properties.
The biggest change should be to HOW MUCH tax you can reduce.
Everyone should be expected to pay a minimum percentage of their income in tax, regardless of deductions.
Say 10%?
Why should the government allow tax deductions so that investors can continue to hold assets that are costing them each year, instead of leaving them to relinquish the bad investment and being likely to instead sell it? Would be a great way to attempt to quell the unprecedented demand in the market.
Nail on head, and why a noticeable % of greedy real estate investors keep going back to the same endless NG trough.
If it was so bad or break even, would they?
Because that is literally the aim of the tax system. If you can't claim deductions against losses and costs for an income generating activity, then you're effectively being double taxed. Business do this. Investors who hold assets other than property do this. PAYG workers who hold no income generating assets do this.
What you really want to say is "let's exclude residential housing as an eligible asset class" but even then you're going to have downstream impacts across the entire economy.
Here's the thing. If left alone, the free market will do whatever it can to screw the most vulnerable and line the pockets of the already rich. When governments intervene, it will solve one problem at the cost of causing 10 more (probably an exaggeration). However, when equilibrium returns, it's still the little guy getting screwed, albeit in a different position.
I honestly think they should impose heavy fines to landlords who do leave the tenancy empty for more than 3 months of the year. The amount of homes that are in any given suburb that have just been bought for potential land value increase, then left empty to rot away and devalue neighbouring properties is insane.
Hmm why landlord want to leave the properties emty instead rented out?
Did you read beyond the first sentence?
have just been bought for potential land value increase
Your comment shows how misinformed people can be. What you are referring to is land-banking, got nothing to do with NG. Rich people or oversea investors do not land bank through NG, they use cash or swap other assets to lands and properties for future growth. This type of properties are usually not habitable, because they are either empty lands or run down shops.
Some houses and apartments are owned by investors who don't pay tax anyway (mostly from overseas, possibly local with off the book incomes), they don't NG.
Am i the one thar misinformed?
Because i understands that empty property thing is nothing to do with this NG topic
That was a response to jjno41.
If it was a response to CyberMurning, the comment would have been indented under CyberMurning :p
@browser: Oh yeah haha too excited
Non landlord will not understand the landlord pain, even with tenant we are still bleeding.
The bad guys here is bank. Charging high interest to make billions profit
The poster complaining about 1000 dollar a day tilers will tell you that the supply and demand problem is because tradies are too expensive and no one can afford to build :)
I met this 'Catholic'. He has 4 investment properties and his view on public policy is that 5 is too much.
I decent amount of politicians and their friends are property investors…..never going to happen.
This is the only response this whole thread needs.
I said that first :)
I saw on abc tv where a party member defending NG then one bloke respond was according to the report you own 6 properties is that correct? Debate ends.
I'm a 40YO.
Bought my first property at 25, a 3Bed 2 Bath unit in Seaford Vic in 2009 350m2.
Bought a second property we currently live in with my now family in 2012 in Cranbourne Vic 3977 750m2.
This shits me, for 10 years real estates have told me to raise the rent, I have not given the same tenant whom has been in a rent rise thru the last 12 years.
I'm negative geared about 10k a year. If they abolish it, you can bet that her and her kids will be out when I either double the rent to market value, or move back on and then sell to avoid CGT.
Go after the negative gearing on a case by case basis. I'm by no means rich, especially by OzBargain wage standards. I was smart with my money and made sacrifices. Only been overseas twice in my life, worked hard for money, went without the latest car and phone.
move back on and then sell to avoid CGT
You can't move back into an investment property to avoid CGT, you still have to pay CGT for the period of time where it was not your PPOR.
He (assuming he) can sell the place he currently resides in (PPoR) and move into the place that he's currently leasing out.
can sell the place he currently resides in (PPoR)
But he will pay cgt on that, right?
@freekay: Oh yes of course. But after he movew to the 2nd property (was investment now become ppor) if he sell there is some gst payable right? From the time it stays as investment
@CyberMurning: This is correct. He would have to apportion the time it was investment vs time it was PPoR.
How come its still negative after 10 years? Some would be positive geared after a while, especially during covid when interest was low
No. You are rich.
You should explain what NG is before putting up a poll.
Most people have absolutely no understanding other than "it's something that rich people do to screw over renters" or similar.