K.Rudd was good from 07-09 but then the internal shenanigans was the beginning of the end.
It's very true that the stats are definitely skewed, but I believe that any changes are still reflective of the fact that there are still many 'mum and dad investors' and that changes need to impact on those with many investment properties, not those of us who are setting ourselves and our families up for a future of hopefully never having to rely on the government to live our lives.
Another interesting article!
Which occupations have the most negative gearers?
Last edited by BigRedV; 26-04-2016 at 22:42.
They're basically saying the government should throw the baby out with the bath water - ooooh the rich benefit, it's an evil tax concession, let's just ruin itstillfor the12% of police officers and 10% of teachers and nurses too because those horrid rich, intelligent, hard working surgeons are taking all of the governments money!
That tends to be the attitude many in the media seem to want the government to do.
Point is the more people who can live off their own super and / or investment property income and not need the pension into the future is still much more important than a government winning points with voters as a short term solution to a debt 'problem'
What it tells us is that whilst the government is correct when it says that teachers, nurses, police officers etc. do negatively gear properties but it is very misleading statement when you look at percentages.
The top 10% of earners claim half the tax benefits from negative gearing.
I don't actually have a problem with negative gearing but I think the number of properties people can claim negative gearing on should be 2 or 3 at most.
ETA - and when you include capital gains tax, the benefits of the top increase to 66%
Last edited by BigRedV; 27-04-2016 at 19:52.
And these are the largest 10 net rental loss per electorate.
No surprises here...all very wealthy electorates. In comparison to a nurse or teacher's rental loss of about $2k
ImageUploadedByThe Bub Hub1461751250.134304.jpg
About the CGT discount I agree that it should change, but if it's reduced to 25% then taxpayers should have the option of using the indexation method. If you've held a property for 20 years, it wouldn't be fair to have to pay tax on 75% of the gain without taking into account inflation. The indexation method just makes sense, and I don't understand why they scrapped it in the first place.
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!