+ Reply to Thread
Page 15 of 28 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 272
  1. #141
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    17,868
    Thanks
    1,413
    Thanked
    7,478
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts

  2. #142
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,109
    Thanks
    1,295
    Thanked
    1,201
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BigRedV View Post
    The article makes some interesting points but it seems largely biased toward the labor party's tax reform policies.

  3. #143
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,109
    Thanks
    1,295
    Thanked
    1,201
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    One of the comments in response to that article:

    "
    Negative gearing is a vehicle for me to save money for my retirement. Because I'll be a 'rich investor', I won't be able to collect a pension when I retire and so the taxpayer wins. When I eventually sell the property the government will tax me on the profits, the government wins again. I'm currently supplying a rental property to the market, renters win.

    So there's another side to the story, it's not all black and white.

    The journalistic quality of the ABC is in slow decline, Britney Spears tells me so.
    "

    He makes a good point!

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to witherwings For This Useful Post:

    hopeful1986  (24-02-2016)

  5. #144
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    8,179
    Thanks
    5,621
    Thanked
    4,728
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 17/4/15100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by witherwings View Post
    The article makes some interesting points but it seems largely biased toward the labor party's tax reform policies.
    Oh yeah, just a tad!

    Quote Originally Posted by witherwings View Post
    One of the comments in response to that article:

    "
    Negative gearing is a vehicle for me to save money for my retirement. Because I'll be a 'rich investor', I won't be able to collect a pension when I retire and so the taxpayer wins. When I eventually sell the property the government will tax me on the profits, the government wins again. I'm currently supplying a rental property to the market, renters win.

    So there's another side to the story, it's not all black and white.

    The journalistic quality of the ABC is in slow decline, Britney Spears tells me so.
    "

    He makes a good point!
    This has been my point the whole time. I'm all for making clean, well maintained properties affordable for everyone, but in my opinion it would be irresponsible of me to think that that should take 100% precedence over having other every day Australians being self sufficient and not relying on the government as they get older and into retirement.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to A-Squared For This Useful Post:

    hopeful1986  (24-02-2016),witherwings  (24-02-2016)

  7. #145
    BH-KatiesMum's Avatar
    BH-KatiesMum is offline Community Manager
    Winner 2008 - The most optimistic poster
    Winner 2014 - Most Helpful Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Perth WA
    Posts
    22,463
    Thanks
    5,403
    Thanked
    5,853
    Reviews
    3
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Past Moderator
    200 Posts in a week100 Posts in a week
    I actually dont agree with negative gearing.

    I do think expenses relating to a property should be able to be deducted against income from property - and losses carried forward to be used against future property income, or capital gains from the sale of property - but I dont think you should be able to offset property losses against other types of income.

    It is just basically unfair and unjust.

    I dont think that phasing out negative gearing would have a long term major effect on our housing market. Yes there would be a transition period, but overall the percentage of investors who would NOT invest because they could not negative gear is relatively small.

    The issue being solved by phasing out negative gearing is not rental supply - changing the tax is not going to fix that. The issue being addressed is tax. Its revenue for the government - and correcting the rules on negative gearing would close a loophole that allows people to reduce their tax.

    I do think the CGT discount is a problem. It costs the government a lot of money - but reducing it or phasing it out WOULD cause a lot more problems. People would rush to sell assets before it changed, and therefore it would have a huge impact on the share market, the housing market, managed investment trusts, super funds and all kinds of other funds. I dont see that being addressed by any government any time soon.

    (for the record - I do have investment properties)

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to BH-KatiesMum For This Useful Post:

    AdornedWithCats  (26-02-2016),Gentoo  (24-02-2016),SSecret Squirrel  (25-02-2016)

  9. #146
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,109
    Thanks
    1,295
    Thanked
    1,201
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts

    Default Negative Gearing - Politics talk

    Quote Originally Posted by BH-KatiesMum View Post
    I actually dont agree with negative gearing.

    I do think expenses relating to a property should be able to be deducted against income from property - and losses carried forward to be used against future property income, or capital gains from the sale of property - but I dont think you should be able to offset property losses against other types of income.

    It is just basically unfair and unjust.

    I dont think that phasing out negative gearing would have a long term major effect on our housing market. Yes there would be a transition period, but overall the percentage of investors who would NOT invest because they could not negative gear is relatively small.

    The issue being solved by phasing out negative gearing is not rental supply - changing the tax is not going to fix that. The issue being addressed is tax. Its revenue for the government - and correcting the rules on negative gearing would close a loophole that allows people to reduce their tax.

    I do think the CGT discount is a problem. It costs the government a lot of money - but reducing it or phasing it out WOULD cause a lot more problems. People would rush to sell assets before it changed, and therefore it would have a huge impact on the share market, the housing market, managed investment trusts, super funds and all kinds of other funds. I dont see that being addressed by any government any time soon.

    (for the record - I do have investment properties)
    I agree that the only motivation the government & opposition have for discussing changes to negative gearing is to increase revenue. It is not an attempt to make properties or renting more affordable. The truth is no one knows how exactly it will impact either one of those issues. There are too many factors at play and people are unpredictable.

    As far as capital gains are concerned, I don't think it's fair to not allow any discount whatsoever. Imagine you deposit $100 in your account in 1980. And let's say for example that for that $100 you could have bought groceries for an entire household for a fortnight. If you withdraw it today you could maybe buy groceries for an entire household for 2 days. This is why you can't expect taxpayers to pay tax on 100% of their capital gains. It's actually unfair, extremely unfair. The indexation method made sense because of increased the cost value of the property in line with inflation. So you bought a property for $200,000 in 2006 and sold it today for $400,000 - but in 10 years let's say inflation was around 4% per year. So the present value is therefore $296049 and the profit is actually $103951. Assuming no other costs, this would be the taxable capital gain. It's not as good as it would be under a 50% discount method but certainly fairer.

    I don't agree with getting rid of negative gearing but I am also not opposed to changes to make it "fairer".

    And I have investment properties too but they are all positively geared.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to witherwings For This Useful Post:

    A-Squared  (25-02-2016)

  11. #147
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,022
    Thanks
    792
    Thanked
    780
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by witherwings View Post
    I agree that the only motivation the government & opposition have for discussing changes to negative gearing is to increase revenue. It is not an attempt to make properties or renting more affordable. The truth is no one knows how exactly it will impact either one of those issues. There are too many factors at play and people are unpredictable.

    As far as capital gains are concerned, I don't think it's fair to not allow any discount whatsoever. Imagine you deposit $100 in your account in 1980. And let's say for example that for that $100 you could have bought groceries for an entire household for a fortnight. If you withdraw it today you could maybe buy groceries for an entire household for 2 days. This is why you can't expect taxpayers to pay tax on 100% of their capital gains. It's actually unfair, extremely unfair. The indexation method made sense because of increased the cost value of the property in line with inflation. So you bought a property for $200,000 in 2006 and sold it today for $400,000 - but in 10 years let's say inflation was around 4% per year. So the present value is therefore $296049 and the profit is actually $103951. Assuming no other costs, this would be the taxable capital gain. It's not as good as it would be under a 50% discount method but certainly fairer.

    I don't agree with getting rid of negative gearing but I am also not opposed to changes to make it "fairer".

    And I have investment properties too but they are all positively geared.
    I think the indexation method is a more equitable method.

  12. #148
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,109
    Thanks
    1,295
    Thanked
    1,201
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SSecret Squirrel View Post
    I think the indexation method is a more equitable method.
    Especially when you consider that investors who held an asset for 12 months get the same discount as those who held their assets for 10 years! Totally unfair.
    But there is so much unfair stuff when it comes to CGT... Don't even get me started!

  13. #149
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    17,868
    Thanks
    1,413
    Thanked
    7,478
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts

    Default Negative Gearing - Politics talk

    http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/opin...9dc-1456461687

    Negative gearing pushes first home buyers out of the market, or they pay a premium for it.

    So arguing that investment properties are providing rental property are probably the reason tenants are renting in the first place.

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BigRedV For This Useful Post:

    AdornedWithCats  (26-02-2016),Gentoo  (26-02-2016)

  15. #150
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Kimberley WA
    Posts
    4,647
    Thanks
    919
    Thanked
    1,188
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by A-Squared View Post
    Investors also pay stamp duty and land tax each year, so negative gearing isn't just money for nothing. As I said before most investors either sell by the 5 year mark or their properties end up positively geared which = investors paying more tax. No matter what a persons income today, everyone will retire one day and the more people who have investment properties, the fewer retirees will need to rely on the government once they've retired
    Exactly!


 

Similar Threads

  1. Change to Negative Gearing tax breaks
    By ExcuseMyFrench in forum News & Current Affairs
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 17-02-2016, 10:56
  2. 8yo quite negative & whingy
    By ICanDream in forum Discipline & behaviour
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-07-2015, 22:31
  3. 8DPT negative HPT
    By Lex23 in forum Conception & Fertility General Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 23-06-2015, 21:18

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
sales & new stuffsee all
Bub Hub Sales Listing
HAVING A SALE? Let parents know about it with a Bub Hub Sales listing. Listings are featured on our well trafficked Sales Page + selected randomly to appear on EVERY page
featured supporter
Philips AVENT Australia
Pregnancy and early parenthood is an exciting and challenging time, but it’s good to know there is expert advice on hand to ensure that your baby gets the best start in life.
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!