I was wondering what people's views are of how both the liberal party and Labour party are promoting their views on negative gearing.
What are your feelings towards what should happen with it?
I'm uncertain what their plans exactly are but looks like they won't be getting rid of it. I agree they shouldn't get rid of it, however the way he's talking to the media about it is scaremongering.
I don't like how they talk about property investors all being created equal and harping on about those with 5 and 6 investment properties. Their plans to reduce to also reduce the discount from capital gains also gets my back up.
Yes I have an investment property so no I don't agree with eliminating it all together. Why? Not just my own selfish reasons, yes it benefits me greatly, so does the capital gains discount but also, while I don't agree it will cause the market to crash and sellers will lose money, I think investors will continue to buy properties but they will just charge higher rents which doesn't help long term renters or those renting while they save for a house deposit which is another reason.
My solution, keep negative gearing for those with 1-2 investment properties, then slowly reduce the benefit of negative getting the more properties you have. That way the government can save money by refunding less come tax time to investors, but it won't be reduced by enough that small time investors don't need to raise their rents too much to cover their reduced financial benefit.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 272
21-02-2016 10:05 #1
Negative Gearing - Politics talk
The Following User Says Thank You to A-Squared For This Useful Post:
21-02-2016 10:20 #2
My view is you should only get it for one properly and it should stop after say 5 years.
I don't think it encourages investment at all. The negative impacts of it outweigh the positive. It shouldn't be canned but drastically remeasured.
And yes I have an investment property but it's positively geared.
21-02-2016 10:29 #3Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2015
I am currently paying more in rent then it would cost to buy a property for my properties current sell price (if the bank calculator did it right),
I don't qualify for a home loan though so instead of paying my own mortgage I get to pay someone else's + some.
I'm unsure how I feel about removing negative gearing, its hard enough to find affordable, decent rentals (looking at 300-370 a week out where I am) won't this mean less rentals?
Last edited by Nemmi1987; 21-02-2016 at 10:31.
21-02-2016 10:51 #4
Negative Gearing - Politics talk
So nemmi, I do see rents rising. Either less people will invest = less properties = higher rent, or they will continue to invest but raise the rent to make up for the reduction in the income they get from negative gearing. I don't see it being good for renters at all.
If be interested in seeing the stats on the number of investments property investors have. How many only have 1 how many have 2-5 and how many have more.
Last edited by A-Squared; 21-02-2016 at 11:01.
21-02-2016 10:56 #5
I'm not sure what to make of all of it.... Housing needs to be more affordable but at the same time it needs to maintain value or there will be many many people in deep financial trouble with the potential of loans being foreclosed, etc like what happened in the US.
I don't know what the magic answer is. Maybe an increase in the first home buyers grant.
I don't think there should be any major changes to negative gearing as it could destabilise rents and house prices.
I have two investment properties that are neutrally geared. I didn't buy them as investment properties, we just upgraded our family home and rented the old ones instead of selling them. Will sell one of them soon though as we can't afford to keep them.
The Following User Says Thank You to babyno1onboard For This Useful Post:
21-02-2016 11:10 #6
I'm completely against them scrapping negative gearing. I have an investment property and we are now looking to buy a second. We use our tax return to pay our mortgage. It'll be like we're being penalised for being responsible
Make changes to negative gearing for the rich (1% specifically) not those using property for their bloody retirement plan.
21-02-2016 11:32 #7
21-02-2016 11:55 #8
21-02-2016 11:58 #9
The Following User Says Thank You to hopeful1986 For This Useful Post:
21-02-2016 12:00 #10
By ExcuseMyFrench in forum News & Current AffairsReplies: 13Last Post: 17-02-2016, 10:56
By ICanDream in forum Discipline & behaviourReplies: 10Last Post: 10-07-2015, 21:31
By Lex23 in forum Conception & Fertility General ChatReplies: 3Last Post: 23-06-2015, 20:18
Transition into Parenthood / Calmbirth SydneyJulie's Transition into Parenthood and Calmbirth courses for pregnant couples will get you ready, prepared and ...
LATESTWhy it is OK for your child to be differentWhat is a blessing way? How is it different to a baby shower?7 ways to break the ‘mumnotony’ at home
POPULARWhen can I start giving chores to my children?New baby nursery checklist – a guide to newborn essentialsWhat to pack for labour and hospital – a checklist
FORUMS - chatting now ...
Pregnancy test recall!!!Conception & Fertility General Chat
IVF babies due June/July/August 2017pregnancy and babies through IVF
Lite & Easy ???Second Trimester Chat
A - Z of baby girl namesGames & fun stuff
Happiness thread.General Chat
A - Z of Baby Boy NamesGames & fun stuff
The Not So Serious Vent Thread #7General Chat
What do you think is the best resource for new Mums?General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat