+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 28 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 272
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    6,864
    Thanks
    4,773
    Thanked
    4,210
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by maternidade View Post
    I agree, there's a lot of hard working families who have struggled to pull a deposit together and get a family home. They potentially could lose everything
    I don't think the fall in house prices would be that dramatic. there'd be a period of the market adjusting itself but I don't think anyone would end up in negative equity or losing their house. at least you'd hope not.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to turquoisecoast For This Useful Post:

    TheGooch  (21-02-2016)

  3. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    6,019
    Thanks
    5,460
    Thanked
    4,397
    Reviews
    20
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Would it just mean that people would hang on to their family home longer, riding it out until the market naturally increases? And it would be counteracted by their next purchase also being cheaper?

    Sorry, I don't know if that makes sense. I'm thinking out loud and I'll blame it on my lack of sleep 😁

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    6,864
    Thanks
    4,773
    Thanked
    4,210
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    I think there'd definitely be incentive to hang onto what you've got and ride it out so to speak.

  5. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,839
    Thanks
    6,199
    Thanked
    16,883
    Reviews
    10
    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:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    I support it's removal after maybe one property. A lot of research shows that while the first home buyers falsely elevated housing pricing that the bulk of the insane inflation on prices is investors. Many of who are mum and dad investors who are in completely in over their heads who don't maintain the rental properties.

    The average joe is struggling to even access the buyers market now bc investment properties are so attractive to investors. And to add more complexity, the fact so many of us can't afford to buy means we rent, which means rental demand is very high. Which means the same landlords who have forced up prices and won't fix my house are also further profiteering by charging ridiculous rental prices bc demand *is* so high. This means not only the principle amount too high, many can't save for a deposit bc we are being fleeced in rent.

    I'm well aware there will always been a demand for rentals. But negative gearing among other things is making it too difficult and very unfair to first time home buyers.

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to delirium For This Useful Post:

    AdornedWithCats  (21-02-2016),atomicmama  (21-02-2016),Nemmi1987  (21-02-2016),SpecialPatrolGroup  (21-02-2016)

  7. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    81
    Thanks
    70
    Thanked
    61
    Reviews
    0
    I liked the proposal that was in last week's episode of q and a. Basically if you already had properties negatively geared you could keep them like that, but any new purchases could only be negatively geared if they were new homes.
    The idea being demand would decrease for existing properties, prices would correct and enable first home buyers to get in to the market. This would also encourage development, as more investors would be purchasing new properties.
    Theoretically this would be win win

  8. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    10,291
    Thanks
    3,115
    Thanked
    6,303
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by A-Squared View Post
    I see what you're saying, but how are renters going to save for a deposit if they will have to start paying higher rents?
    This happened in the 80,s when Keating did stop negative gearing - in Sydney I think the rents went up by something like 25% which is why the government quickly brought it back

    I'm with other pp,s who think it should be capped at 1 or 2 investment properties

    We manage approx 250 rental properties , most are mum and dad investors and only 5 of our landlords have 2 rentals , 1 has 4, this is in suburban sydney - we don't have a lot of new investors coming into our market as the returns are just not there - our average sale price for a house is $1,325,000 and our average rental price is $700 , the rents just can't keep up with the capital growth

    I do believe there will be a surge in buying if the proposal goes through ( it was mayhem when they stopped the first home buyers grant) but I don't really think sale prices in our areas will be effected long term but the rentals are in big demand now so yes Id guarantee they would go up as there would be no new investors ( suburbs with lots of units however I think will see a big price drop as investors seem to favour them so first home buyers would win with units but not houses)

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Elijahs Mum For This Useful Post:

    A-Squared  (21-02-2016)

  10. #27
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    7,829
    Thanks
    5,045
    Thanked
    4,430
    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 atomicmama View Post
    Whoops, I meant to quote, not thank

    Your question was answered in the article that you posted

    "Eslake also dismissed claims by the property industry that rents will rise if negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount are changed. If landlords were to respond to changes in negative gearing by withdrawing from the housing market that would push down the prices of properties, making them more affordable to would-be home buyers, allowing more of them to become home-owners. In turn that would reduce demand for rental properties."
    It also explained how it's all a double edged sword in many respects.

  11. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    17,695
    Thanks
    1,391
    Thanked
    7,284
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by A-Squared View Post
    Interesting stat in this video about who are investors.

    http://m.smh.com.au/business/the-eco...19-gmy9wp.html
    I struggle to believe that the bulk of negatively geared properties are owned by people earning $80k.

    Maybe in other areas but it would be impossible in Sydney.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to BigRedV For This Useful Post:

    SSecret Squirrel  (21-02-2016)

  13. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    10,291
    Thanks
    3,115
    Thanked
    6,303
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshy68 View Post
    I liked the proposal that was in last week's episode of q and a. Basically if you already had properties negatively geared you could keep them like that, but any new purchases could only be negatively geared if they were new homes.
    The idea being demand would decrease for existing properties, prices would correct and enable first home buyers to get in to the market. This would also encourage development, as more investors would be purchasing new properties.
    Theoretically this would be win win
    Except in established suburbs where there are no new developments ( like where we are in South sydney ) we would see rents definitely increase as rental homes are in big demand here now - we are not a first home buyer area but if they came back into the market ( like they did when the first home buyers grant was in) they then fuel the lower end of the market in the outer suburbs which then pushes our end up more which will keep our prices up

  14. #30
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    7,829
    Thanks
    5,045
    Thanked
    4,430
    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 twinklify View Post
    Ok. I do not have an investment property and we have no plans to have one in the near future. I do think changes need to be made to negative gearing though - as to what I do not know. But is negative gearing really sustainable long term? Both in regards to the government and also to investors?

    Should there be more of a focus on how to have an investment property/ies with positive/neutral gearing?
    Thing with negative gearing is that you can make a 'loss' using depreciation. Many investors have positive cash flow but can still utilise negative gearing based on depreciation.

    Someone mentioned keeping new houses as eligible for negative gearing but not established houses. Thing is you get higher rates of depreciation with new builds as you can depreciate more of it.

    I'm not sure what the solution is, but there has to be a balance. I also think that labours plans to reduce the discount on capital gains is just punishing investors because we aren't struggling Australians. If I make a profit on my investments, why should I have to pay more of my profit in tax? I understand that negative gearing means the tax system will keep more money by offering less refunds, but I don't believe investors should have to pay higher taxes.


 

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
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Boody Organic Bamboo Baby Wear
Softer than your bub's bum Boody Organic Bamboo Baby Wear
Australia's favourite eco brand has delivered a gorgeous baby collection. Made from organic bamboo, Boody's extraordinarily soft and stretchy, skin-friendly tops, bottoms, onesies, bibs and wraps don't 'cost the earth'. Get 20% OFF! Code BUBHUB16.
sales & new stuffsee all
Pea Pods
Buy 2 Award Winning Pea Pods Reusable One Size Nappies for only $38 (in your choice of colours) and receive a FREE roll of Bamboo Liners. Don't miss out, we don't usually have discounts on the nappies, so grab this special offer!
Special Offer! Save $12
featured supporter
GymbaROO
GymbaROO offers activities for babies & toddlers in a fun learning centre, focussing on developmental education. Classes are available Australia-wide. Enrol today & help your child to reach their full potential. Visit the website to find out more.
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!