+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,582
    Thanks
    1,648
    Thanked
    2,720
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week

    Default Change to Negative Gearing tax breaks

    What do you think about the current talk in parliament about changes to Negative Gearing?

    Would that impact you? Would you support the measure or not?

    I'm very happy that this is being discussed by our MPs. I also hope they engage with experts free from biases...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    10,748
    Thanks
    3,336
    Thanked
    6,671
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    I think there definitely should be a income limit on claiming capital gains and it should be reformed but most of our landlords are mum and dad investors with 1 property so I fear it will stop them buying investment properties which will obviously reduce the already small rental market in our area ( suburban sydney) which will then cause a rental boom and make it harder for anyone to afford the rent ! ( this happened in the 80,s when they changed it briefly)

    Plus if they put a date on it ( I think I read from July 2017) it will cause another housing boom as people rush to buy just like it did a few years ago ( when they stopped the first home buyers grant )pushing the first home buyers out of the market again

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    2,718
    Thanks
    3,659
    Thanked
    1,498
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    I think a number of changes need to be made with respect to the concessions and tax breaks that are predominately used by the 1-10% of Australians.

    It won't impact us as we no longer have any investment properties. However it may affect both my parents. Although I believe any changes won't impact existing investment properties which are subject to negative gearing. Changes to CGT obviously would in the event of a sale - but they both tend to hold on rather than sell.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Sydney NSW
    Posts
    1,919
    Thanks
    629
    Thanked
    652
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Subbing. Will it spply to investment properties held prior to the 2017 changes?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    7,345
    Thanks
    4,978
    Thanked
    4,457
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    from what I've read, I understand grandfathering provisions will apply which means all investment properties held prior to the changes will have the old rules apply.

    tbh I've not bothered getting too caught up in this as they've talked about scrapping negative gearing/cgt discounting for a while and it never happens. I just think it would affect too many people and therefore cost too many votes. nobody wants to be the party that does it for fear of getting voted out.

    I personally think negative gearing should apply to a maximum of 1 investment property per taxpayer. after that, the property is positively geared or expenses may reduce the net rental profit to zero. I think that is a fair compromise.

    tbh there are a lot of investment property holders whose properties are not negatively geared, and they're paying tax on those profits. just because someone invests in property doesn't mean the properties are necessarily negatively geared.

    cgt discounting is a very very grey area. would be unfair to remove the 50% discounting for all assets I think. and removing it for real estate only seems a bit harsh towards property investors.

    I think capping the ability to negatively gear an investment property at 1 property per taxpayer would be a fair and reasonable start. they could then look at how that is working then phase in additional changes if needed. I don't believe negative gearing and cgt discounting will be scrapped overnight.

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

    babyno1onboard  (17-02-2016),witherwings  (17-02-2016)

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,253
    Thanks
    1,395
    Thanked
    1,297
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ExcuseMyFrench View Post
    What do you think about the current talk in parliament about changes to Negative Gearing?

    Would that impact you? Would you support the measure or not?

    I'm very happy that this is being discussed by our MPs. I also hope they engage with experts free from biases...
    I wouldn't support abolishing negative gearing but i certainly think a lot of high wealth individuals abuse the tax legislation (negative gearing is just one example) to avoid paying tax. So some change is probably necessary (eg capping the amount of losses people can offset against their other income) but that could be said for a lot of areas of tax, not just investment income. There are so many loop holes in the law and ways to minimise tax which is utilised almost entirely by high income earners. So targeting investment property earners just seems like an unfair cash grab by the government when in fact there should be a more comprehensive tax reform.

    As for capital gains, the 50% discount makes absolutely no sense aside from being a populist political move when it was introduced years ago in conjunction with abolishing the indexation method of discounting capital gains (which incidentally makes perfect sense and should be brought back). So I support abolishing the 50% discount if it is replaced by the indexation method or something like it (which would take into account inflation / present value when calculating capital gains)

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    7,345
    Thanks
    4,978
    Thanked
    4,457
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    I don't think it's fair to say high net wealth individuals are "abusing" the tax legislation and exploiting loopholes. if it's current tax law, it's perfectly legal and not an "abuse" of the system.

    there are other tax breaks that have been amended too which affect all tax payers, not just the high wealth ones. the phasing out of the medical offset for starters, which I think is a good move. why should anyone pay less tax because they have high medical expenses?

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,037
    Thanks
    1,773
    Thanked
    2,339
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    I think it's great that it's finally being discussed. It's a tricky one for politicians to address, as so many people don't want to see their own interests touched.

    I think it should go, except on new properties. Our housing prices are ridiculous, and I think we're in a pretty ****ty situation when buying an investment property is seen as a 'safe' everyday investment. In my view, housing ought to be about people having a safe an accessible place to base their lives...not about people with money making more. Whilst we certainly need landlords, there are an increasing number of people who simply cannot afford housing that allows them to participate in society. When your only option is an unofficial sharehouse on the fringes of the city with no public transport...we've got a problem.
    (apologies for the disjointed writing...doing about 4 things at once here).

  10. #9
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    4,802
    Thanks
    1,043
    Thanked
    2,264
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    I agree it's legal not "abuse". It they abolish it, we will raise rent. Not everyone with investment properties is a millionaire rolling in money. Many families that have investment properties have it for retirement. I don't want to rely on the government, I'm funding my own retirement. I pay so much tax it makes my head roll. We get nothing for the government except CCR. All we want to do is have a safety net for our future and our kids futures. We work our back sides off so we can invest. Leave mum and dad investors alone and target multi billion dollar companies avoiding tax.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Janesmum123 For This Useful Post:

    babyno1onboard  (17-02-2016)

  12. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    86
    Thanks
    71
    Thanked
    65
    Reviews
    0
    I want to preface what I'm going to say with I don't know a lot about this topic except for what was said on this week's q and a.
    I feel like this is a loaded topic on this forum because most investors here are going to be mum and dad investors just by the nature of this forum. On q and a the labor rep who is/are proposing changes to negative gearing said that the majority of people using negative gearing are not mum and dad investors and are higher income earners.
    Their proposal is to grandfather the current scheme and introduce the ability to negatively gear only with new house/property sales to encourage development and building.
    I'll be interested to see whether they stick by these proposed changes or have to drop them given its an election year


 

Similar Threads

  1. Breastfeeding 'breaks' at work
    By Bond Girl in forum Working Hubbers - Employed
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 25-05-2015, 17:04
  2. Breaks my heart every time!
    By alexis243 in forum Toddlers (1 year olds)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 29-04-2015, 06:25

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
FEATURED SUPPORTER
Sarah Tooke Childbirth & Parenting EducationProviding private, personalised antenatal childbirth & parenting education to expectant parents in the comfort of their ...
FORUMS - chatting now ...
❤Joyous June/July TTC!❤Conception & Fertility General Chat
IVF Babies due Sep/Oct/Nov 2017 #2pregnancy and babies through IVF
Come chat, Ladies who are 40+ TTC or ExpectingConception & Fertility General Chat
IuiNon-IVF fertility assistance
IVF/FET April & May chatConception & Fertility General Chat
hospital based care versus shared carePregnancy & Birth General Chat
Floppy newbornDevelopment Stages
Join my pity partyGeneral Chat
REVIEWS
"Made bed time less anxious"
by Meld85
My Little Heart Whisbear - the Humming Bear reviews ›
"Wonderful natural Aussie made product!"
by Mrstwr
Baby U Goat Milk Moisturiser reviews ›
"Replaced good quality with cheap tight nappies"
by Kris
Coles Comfy Bots Nappies reviews ›