+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 28 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 272
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    10,495
    Thanks
    1,430
    Thanked
    9,003
    Reviews
    3
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 17/10/14100 Posts in a week
    I think it's inevitable it will be modified or go altogether. I don't think there's much sympathy for people who benefit from it within the community at these times.

    And as for the mining tax I think that ship has sailed. The companies are laying people off over here. Any tax would be extremely unpopular now as it will result in even more sackings and redundancies.

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

    binnielici  (22-02-2016),Marshy68  (22-02-2016)

  3. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    81
    Thanks
    70
    Thanked
    61
    Reviews
    0
    My understanding is that labor have put negative gearing and capital gains tax on the table to demonstrate where they would make savings if they get in. This is forcing the coalition's hand at making a policy to tackle these things as well.
    The long and the short of it is government is looking to make savings and it's going to hurt no matter where the savings end up coming from

  4. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,427
    Thanks
    497
    Thanked
    1,588
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts

    Default Negative Gearing - Politics talk

    I don't understand the complaint really. Investors will still claim depreciation, their interest rates, property management costs, repairs, insurance....the list goes on.

    It's just saying the tax payer won't prop up the gap between your mortgage payments and rent returned, and nor should they. It's up to investors to invest in property that is neutrally or positively geared if they can't afford the investment without the additional tax breaks.

    No one is saying you can't buy investment property, you will just wear the costs for it.
    Last edited by NoteToSelf; 22-02-2016 at 13:23.

  5. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to NoteToSelf For This Useful Post:

    atomicmama  (22-02-2016),delirium  (22-02-2016),Marshy68  (22-02-2016),Papillon  (08-03-2016)

  6. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    3,937
    Thanks
    690
    Thanked
    2,292
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonja View Post
    I think it's inevitable it will be modified or go altogether. I don't think there's much sympathy for people who benefit from it within the community at these times.

    And as for the mining tax I think that ship has sailed. The companies are laying people off over here. Any tax would be extremely unpopular now as it will result in even more sackings and redundancies.
    Quote Originally Posted by NoteToSelf View Post
    I don't understand the complaint really. Investors will still claim depreciation, their interest rates, property management costs, repairs, insurance....the list goes on.

    It's just saying the tax payer won't prop up the gap between your mortgage payments and rent returned, and nor should they. It's up to investors to invest in property that is neutrally or positively geared if they can't afford the investment without the additional tax breaks.

    No one is saying you can't but investment property, you will just wear the costs for it.
    Thats kinda what I wanted to say.

    If we tax mining/banks then that hurts investors and employees.

    Lowering of house prices can help investors afford to buy a home. The mortgages are smaller. The repayments and rent can be smaller.

    Maybe I am just naive but I seriously do not believe it is sustainable long term anymore.

  7. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    572
    Thanks
    164
    Thanked
    582
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by NoteToSelf View Post
    I don't understand the complaint really. Investors will still claim depreciation, their interest rates, property management costs, repairs, insurance....the list goes on.

    It's just saying the tax payer won't prop up the gap between your mortgage payments and rent returned, and nor should they. It's up to investors to invest in property that is neutrally or positively geared if they can't afford the investment without the additional tax breaks.

    No one is saying you can't but investment property, you will just wear the costs for it.
    We all pay taxes though?

  8. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,427
    Thanks
    497
    Thanked
    1,588
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by hopeful1986 View Post
    We all pay taxes though?
    Sure, but the cost to the tax system of negative gearing is 4 billion dollars per year, that in reality only benefits investors. Unlike say, schools, which benefit the whole community in the form of education.

    I pay tax too, but that doesn't mean I expect the other 19 million Australians who don't have property investments to subsidise mine.

  9. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to NoteToSelf For This Useful Post:

    atomicmama  (22-02-2016),delirium  (22-02-2016),Marshy68  (22-02-2016),Nemmi1987  (22-02-2016),Sonja  (22-02-2016)

  10. #67
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    7,823
    Thanks
    5,037
    Thanked
    4,426
    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 NoteToSelf View Post
    I don't understand the complaint really. Investors will still claim depreciation, their interest rates, property management costs, repairs, insurance....the list goes on.

    It's just saying the tax payer won't prop up the gap between your mortgage payments and rent returned, and nor should they. It's up to investors to invest in property that is neutrally or positively geared if they can't afford the investment without the additional tax breaks.

    No one is saying you can't buy investment property, you will just wear the costs for it.
    Investors won't be able to claim any of those things in your first paragraph if there's no negative gearing. Negative gearing takes into account the total 'loss' not just the difference between rent and mortgage repayments.

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

    hopeful1986  (22-02-2016),NoteToSelf  (22-02-2016)

  12. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,427
    Thanks
    497
    Thanked
    1,588
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by A-Squared View Post
    Investors won't be able to claim any of those things in your first paragraph if there's no negative gearing. Negative gearing takes into account the total 'loss' not just the difference between rent and mortgage repayments.
    I stand corrected 😊.

    I still support the abolition of negative gearing.

  13. #69
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    7,823
    Thanks
    5,037
    Thanked
    4,426
    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 NoteToSelf View Post
    I stand corrected 😊.

    I still support the abolition of negative gearing.
    Haha, cool.

    I can't remember the exact figures but my first investment property, once I sold it (8 years ago) I worked out how much stamp duty and capital gains tax I paid and how much I got back each tax year from negative gearing and it worked out that I paid more in CGT and stamp duty than I ever claimed from the government.

    You'll also find foreign investment is largely responsible for property booms, not your average Joe mum and dad investor who is preparing for their retirement and their kids' futures.

    As I said in a previous post governments need to do more to make housing more affordable / accessible absolutely, but if you look at the long term implications for the abolishment of NG and reduction in the CGT discount, you're supposedly solving one problem (housing availability and affordability) but creating another.

    I also don't like the attitude that only the super wealthy benefit from these tax rules. Yes the percentages of $80k a year individuals are overstated in the media and by some property investment experts, however there is still a lot of typical Aussies who are trying to provide a bright future for their kids and shouldn't be penalised when there are other ways to solve the problem NG apparently creates.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to A-Squared For This Useful Post:

    hopeful1986  (22-02-2016)

  15. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    572
    Thanks
    164
    Thanked
    582
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    @A-Squared - wish I was as eloquent as you are explaining all this!
    Last edited by hopeful1986; 22-02-2016 at 13:56.


 

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
Ro&Co
Share magical moments this Christmas with this gorgeous gingerbread house. Exclusively available in Brisbane, with FREE delivery in Brisbane Metro areas. Each Christmas Centrepiece is unique and made to order, from $240.
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
Billington Street
For stationery as unique as you are! ♥ Handmade, custom designed stationery for all of life's celebrations
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!