Simple answer is You can have only one property to negative gear. That will help the small investor as well as the renters as well as new home buyers.

@Rob-fx2dw

3 ай бұрын

So someone who help out only one renter is somehow better from someone who helps out two renters or more ? Where did you get that idea from? Does someone who feeds at their own cost a neighbour somehow OK and better than someone who feeds at their cost two neighbours ? That seems to be your argument.

@ManCatCheese

3 ай бұрын

@@Rob-fx2dw unless they built the rental property all they are doing is preventing someone else from owning a home

@Rob-fx2dw

3 ай бұрын

@@ManCatCheese You have not thought that out very well. You have been too simplistic in your thoughts. Things do not just exist without investment. The reality is all houses either new or not have to be built and maintained over their life. The fact that someone builds them from new is immaterial because it is all investment in property which someone must build and maintain. All newly built houses become those built last year or earlier and purchasing is only one part of creating accommodation for an owner or occupier just as putting an investment into a business creating building products provides new building products that would not otherwise have been created and available for people to buy or rent.

@Vgallo

3 ай бұрын

@@ManCatCheesethat’s not how economics works, why do people just repeat bullshit without checking if it’s true, I mean you must be 16 to believe this.

@ManCatCheese

3 ай бұрын

@@Rob-fx2dw There's nothing that needs to be "thought out". When you have first home buyers competing with investors the price of homes goes up. That's simply supply and demand. Investors have a competitive advantage against first home buyers as they can leverage their equity in other properties. If an investor wins the bid to buy a home, then all that is created is one more renter. If the first home owner won the bid, there would be one less renter, and a family that now has secure housing without the control of a landlord. The problem is that you are viewing housing purely as a commodity, as a wealth builder, when it should be something everyone can access. Property investing into existing assets is not a productive industry. You aren't making anything, simply withholding the ability for someone else to own their own home, and charging rent for the privilege. If you are building houses and then selling them to first home buyers, you are adding value to society and that is a good thing, even if it is a build to rent.

The project sucks, as if those bastards dont have multiple properties they negative gear.

@hjf3022

3 ай бұрын

If they are advocating against their own interest for the national interest, then good for them.

@gregdean8441

3 ай бұрын

There not ! Just need to mention it just like prime minister he has 3 property's .

@advanceddetail

3 ай бұрын

Interesting how you target your criticism towards those (allegedly) operating within a law that you don’t support rather than criticise the government for actually having the law in place.

@windwaker0rules

3 ай бұрын

Because every time Labor or the Greens try to push reform these gits will immediately say "but mum and pa investors" and its really annoying that after years of screaming about how reform will destroy australia they go "oh but what is it" @@advanceddetail

@galahad6001

Ай бұрын

Self-righteous all of them .. privately educated .. Chardy lefty's ..

Good explanation of negative gearing. In the interest of fairness, Dutton has 6 investment properties. As if Project viewers need to have their prejudices against Labor re-enforced.

@thedudescar674

3 ай бұрын

And he got his first one from Mum and Dad

@AK-np4rp

3 ай бұрын

He's not the PM.

@rmtsapphire0

3 ай бұрын

As with everything, yes, the Libs are worse. But they're also not in government currently. So criticism will (rightly) be coming for Labor

@hjf3022

3 ай бұрын

​@@AK-np4rpand hopefully never will be

@AK-np4rp

3 ай бұрын

@@hjf3022 Most people here agree with you but that doesn't change the fact the party in power are responsible for their action or inaction. If they fail to fix the system when they have the power to, it's on them, not the LNP.

Fun fact: negative gearing as originally conceived was to encourage private investors to build new houses to help offset the Federal government's impending reduction in funding new housing stock. Today, only 3% of negatively geared properties are greenfield investments, the other 97% are tax write offs on existing housing. It's rare to be able to calculate a policy failure so accurately but there you have it: negative gearing as a policy has only been 3% successful. There is no rational measure to justify its existence in its present form. It only distorts the housing market and exacerbates the divide between the rich and the rest of us.

the average income of negative gearers is $60k because that's what's left of their taxable salary after they've negative geared! That's the whole point, to make your $100k salary look like $60k by deducting $40k in interest payments. Business owners can't offset their salary with the interest on business loans, they can only offset it against the profits of the business. Only property investors can say "well the business lost money so I'm claiming that against my salary". If you can't run your business at a profit, you shouldn't be in business.

@Huey972

3 ай бұрын

Best put rents up. Why are renters getting bargains then?

@jameselix8811

3 ай бұрын

@@Huey972if you’re relying on rental income and tax concessions to pay a mortgage, you have no right to own that investment property

@Nikkska

3 ай бұрын

Bingo, sick of greedy landlords screaming bloody murder when they find out their INVESTMENT has RISK.

@peterfarrell4731

3 ай бұрын

@@Huey972 What bargins? rents are up like 30% over the last 3 years... keeping renting costs down is one of the many claimed (but never proven) positives of the whole negative gearing policy

I’m voting for whatever party vows to scrap this. The end.

How many invest properties does Waleed have?

@HappyLarry.

3 ай бұрын

More than the PM, that's for sure

@joshwells3247

3 ай бұрын

He does seem very keen to defend the practice 🤔

@Kajpaje

3 ай бұрын

@@joshwells3247 Those hands, all of them have never done a day's work in their lives. Just the guffawing over the Menindi lakes fish kill. Their Job is to look for laughs, nothing else.

@Kajpaje

3 ай бұрын

@@These-times-are-awesome Not jealousy friend, it's a policy that makes a fundamental right, one open to speculation. Worse still, you have an incentive for loss in your business model, one in which those squeezed on the bottom rung do your lifting. If it's such a fair system, then you don't need subsidies.

@joshwells3247

3 ай бұрын

@@These-times-are-awesome bet you're loving the interest rates atm

Keating got rid of negative gearing in 1987. Result - rents went through the roof due to investors fleeing the market. Labor had to later reinstall it later to restore balance to the rental market. Get rid of it and the same thing will happen again. Doesn't bother me, rental property is a terrible investment. I get a much better return on shares.

@maxchandler7140

12 күн бұрын

Genuine question, I'm not too knowledge in this field. Wouldn't investors fleeing the market be a positive thing for the country? Would it not then free up more houses for potential buyers? Could the government not purchase houses and rent them at more affordable rates? Or are property investors likely to hang onto the houses and therefore they won't be on the buy or rent market?

As your rents increase with time and your equity increases, the gap between negative gearing and positive gearing decreases and usually after around 10 years you begin to have to pay tax. Then if you sell your positively geared property you have to pay tax on the deamed value. You cannot use the scenario of the beginning of negative gearing and not take into account that firstly you are reducing your income to live, ie, having a lower standard of living by forgoing a large proportion of your wages to pay the interest on your loan. I have been saying for years, while you are young and living at home, if you save a deposit and buy a very cheap property and rent it out. Then when it becomes time to move out of home into your investment property you with have good equity in the home. If you sell the property to buy a better house you will have to pay capital gains

Property is one of Australia’s financial pillars

If the next generation gets it's head straight and crushes the Coalition then the field opens up for much needed change👍

@AK-np4rp

3 ай бұрын

The coalition aren't in power.

@HappyLarry.

3 ай бұрын

The next generation has removed the Coalition in every state bar one, they've been battling the Coalition supporters for years.

@brenden1477

3 ай бұрын

The voting power still mostly lies in the hands of the older generations (Boomers & GenX) till there is either a shift in control, the ratio of 5 to 1 drops or power is handed over, no change will happen…..In order for change to happen a lot of people need to step down from positions of power and strong regulations need to be put in place with ceilings and minimum standards set, until then the rusted on voters will continue to threaten the future with poor policy from a party only committed to increasing their wealth and not the quality of the future for the next generations to inherit.

@rolandnelson6722

3 ай бұрын

Even if the coalition was eviscerated: Labor will never approach negative gearing again, because it has proven fatal to them in the past.

@Nikkska

3 ай бұрын

@@rolandnelson6722Whilst I think this will likely be the case, voter demographics and sentiments are shifting. It may be an opportunistic time to go back to the drawing board.

You left out that most neg gearing turns positive gearing in a few years...

@shaunh4108

3 ай бұрын

Mate, everyone I know who negative gears has been losing money for years and then taking a hand out to stay afloat.

Robert Kiyosaki once described negative gearing as "the government subsidising a loss making business"

@stewatparkpark2933

3 ай бұрын

Business pays tax on profit after expenses . Pretty simple .

@Tasmantor

3 ай бұрын

@@stewatparkpark2933 if you couldn't write to profits of your property losses off against your income from other streams then you'd be close to correct but that's not how capital gains works since Howard changed it.

@weirdo1083

3 ай бұрын

Socialism for the rich and rugged capitalism for the average person.

@Nikkska

3 ай бұрын

@@weirdo1083Capitalise the profits, socialise the losses. Good old big business!

Greg Jericho is a dead set legend. He brings receipts and explains the point so succinctly.

@attilajuhasz2526

3 ай бұрын

...in the very short (attention span) period afforded him by the programme.

@jimdavid7710

3 ай бұрын

No he is not

@alank1220

3 ай бұрын

@@jimdavid7710 you must be excellent at debates

As a nurse I am sick to death of hearing about "nurses" negative gearing. I have been a nurse for 15 years and don't know a single nurse with a rental property. We've had a 1% pay rise over the last 2 years, we can barely afford to live so stop using use as your "aussie battler" excuse for keeping negative gearing.

People forget the 50% CGT was introduced to simplify CGT calculation. Previously, you had to to calculate the inflated value of the asset to work out your capital gain.

@stewatparkpark2933

3 ай бұрын

Inflation was deducted from the price increase so that tax was only paid on the real profit not the inflation .

@Tasmantor

3 ай бұрын

a worth while change as all tax is calculated by hand because the computer hasn't been invented yet and your phone doesn't have magnitudes of order more processing power than is needed to calculate something as complex a tax sum.

@mattr8750

3 ай бұрын

@@stewatparkpark2933 That makes sense to me, but its telling you don't get such treatment on bank savings, where every cent of interest is taxed even though its very likely that interest would not even be keeping your cash from diminishing in real terms. Likely this is because the government wants to encourage more productive uses of cash (like investments), but there is *definitely* a public/economic good to people having an adequate savings buffer for emergencies, in fact its the most important first step in giving people the confidence *to* start investing. We should have a level of interest you can earn tax free. Like they have in the UK.

@Millez

2 ай бұрын

We've got the internet now. The idea that people can't calculate inflation on an asset because it's "too hard" while being able to get their heads around the tax dodging of NG'ing is silly.

The Project, such a cringeworthy show.

@gregdean8441

3 ай бұрын

And gutless never open comments section for the public to have their say They are afraid! living in a bubble !

Here's the important point: interest on a loan is tax-deductible when the loan is used to acquire or maintain an income-producing investment. That's the only reason why you are able to negative gear, because you "gear it" so that the tax deductable interest payments are greater than the income from the investemnt, in other words, you actually want the interest payments to be higher. The profit comes from the capital gain (when and if you sell it), not from the annual income. But then they dont sell it, they use the capital gain on paper, to purchase more investment properties. The simple solution is to remove the tax deduction on interest payments for residential housing, if it is not your primary place of residence. This would be more equitable, because giving the tax deduction on interest payments to the ordinary home owner helps him or her buy a home to live in.

@stewatparkpark2933

3 ай бұрын

Would result in a huge shortage of rental properties and hundreds of thousands of homeless people .

@jumboegg5845

3 ай бұрын

@@stewatparkpark2933 lol. The present system resulted in a huge shortage of rental properties, hundreds of thousands of homeless people, AND huge inflation in house prices. Negative gearing was introduced to encourage business investment in rental property, and it didnt work. My suggestion of course would take years to take effect, and house prices would crash, which is a good thing in the long run.

Negative gearing is the No 1 reason our children have no chance of buying a home in the so called lucky country they call Australia!

Get rid of it. Stop foreigners buying Australian real estate. If they want to live here they can rent from an Australian . They can also put caps on rent.

Please do not say "nego gear" ever again lol.

If it was a vote winner why didn’t the LNP do it……I thought so

When will the homeless have had enough?

It's not just getting a 50% discount on CGT when selling their investment property, but they a also get a 100% discount if they sell their principal place of residence.

@mattr8750

3 ай бұрын

You can't charge CGT on the principle place of residence otherwise people who've owned their current place for ages wouldn't be able to move to even an identical house next door! Imagine a retiree who bought their home 40 years ago for 50k, and then they decide they want to *downsize* to a unit - something we definitely want to encourage - Lets say their house is worth a million dollars now, and they want to buy a unit worth 600k. Sounds reasonable? Well if you charged them CGT, they'd have to pay nearly 50% tax on the rise of value on their home (something that happened through no fault of their own and isn't really benefiting them because they are only to sell in order to buy in the same, much more inflated market), so instead of getting a million dollars from their sale, they'd get 525k and wouldn't even be able to afford the unit they were trying to *downsize* to! In general it is kind of crap that we are taxed on the *nominal* gains of our investments.. this is especially true with savings, where you are taxed on every cent of interest 'earned' even though that interest probably doesn't even cover inflation. So you are in fact losing money in real terms yet they are taxing you like you're 'gaining' something...

@joannatillynabbee9686

3 ай бұрын

Find out about the 6 year rule. Someone has to declare a place as their principal place of residence & many use that to not pay anything.

@joebloggs6131

3 ай бұрын

@@mattr8750 If you see a Tax Agent regarding the minimisation of CGT once you had a house sale event, they can deduct more than just the cost base (let's say $50,000) - I think they can also claim years and years worth of land tax etc if charged, to find their actual capital gain. It won't be anywhere near $950K, and therefore nowhere near $475K in tax

By definition, if the property is making a loss, the rent is not high enough. Therefore renters are paying less than full price , that’s good, isn’t it?

@ML6103

3 ай бұрын

No. 'By definition', the rent is set due to multiple other factors. For example, speculating on property has driven up the overall price of proper exponentially over the last 25 odd years. These are people expecting a tax cut and a capital gains windfall. You can see these changes hit on a graph of the prices of the Australian property market. So you get a falsely inflated property market. People take on enormous amounts of debt to buy property, and then when their interest rates and insurance get jacked up, they seek to make the most they possibly can out of rent so they can actually afford to make the payments, regardless of an expected tax deduction. It's fairly easy to work out. Overinflated house prices = overinflated rents.

i see waleed still hasnt changed his tune since 2019 he must be hating this 🤣

@alank1220

3 ай бұрын

I really can't stand him. He comes across so arrogant while being all for policies that hurt so many people.

@stewatparkpark2933

3 ай бұрын

He understands business and business expenses .

New construction only. We need to incentivize investments toward building new housing, not buying up existing housing.

Surgeons do not buy up heaps of houses to reduce their income. They have various trusts set up to minimise tax. Taking away negative gearing will reduce the number of housing available which will increase rents. Here is a better idea, increase the GST (rich people consume more than poor people) put it across all items (research shows that rich people spend more on things like fresh food) so we then ensure the rich pay their share. Much simpler to do and no reduction in housing stock.

@annecrestani9218

3 ай бұрын

Sorry that's incorrect. People on lower incomes consume more therefore the GST impacts them disproportionally.

Crazy that people spend $1.00 to save 30 cents.......

@jaimechapeau267

3 ай бұрын

That is why I got out of investing in property. No one mentions the hassle of dealing with bad tenants. A tenant left $15k worth of damages. Negative gearing did not help to pay for the damages to get the house ready. They don't know what they are talking about.

To level the playing-field for home owners, why not allow home owners to deduct their property expenses from their income? Thats how Maggie Thatcher drove UK home ownership through the roof.

@stewatparkpark2933

3 ай бұрын

Accounting has 2 sides . If the family home became just another investment asset with deductible expenses then it would also have to be assessed for capital gains tax when it was sold .

@Tasmantor

3 ай бұрын

the UK a place where housing is fine and good now thanks to Maggies changes.

The banks make the most from this

Most investors, if there are any buy new. Because the ratio of purchase price vs income is higher. Also there’s less maintenance.

Housing as a business will inevitably lead to corrupt politics and a more economically enslaved working class.

@davidbrayshaw3529

3 ай бұрын

Housing as a business has led to corrupt politics and has more economically enslaved the working class. The problems that young people face today have their roots back in the Keating and Howard days.

@leonie563

3 ай бұрын

​@@davidbrayshaw3529yep and croupier taking it back....to pay for defence

@jaidanielparker

3 ай бұрын

The fact housing has become a business is disgraceful economic and social practice. My local cafe is a business, the store I bought my new flooring from is a business as is my daughter's dance school. They produce something of value and employ people as well as paying tax. Housing has become a loss making "business" that drains the Federal budget, employs almost nobody and inflates the cost of one of life's necessities. Shame Australia, shame!

I am 54 and I still can't get into housing market coz of this damn negative gearing. abolish it please and let average or low-income people have a chance to buy their first homes!

@user-sm9pr2be5u

2 ай бұрын

What have you been doing for the last 36 years?

Immigration and low supply is the problem but neg gearing is legal theft from the taxpayer

Well the explanation correct and the effect on price is probably on par but will a 5 to 12% price fall really make that big of a difference to prospective buyers when prices have gone up between 30 and 50% in the last few years with wages barely rising at all? Population growth is by far a bigger contributor to home prices than negative gearing yet nobody wants to address that since the vast majority of population growth is immigration and then you are automatically called a racist. But population growth is the number cause of house price inflation with interest rates just causing temporary boom cycles bar none.

@Tasmantor

3 ай бұрын

Have any data to back that up at all? Immigrants my be adding to the competition for housing but ultimately they are stuck in the same market as native born citizens, they don't benefit from the top of town being rewarded for owning more than they need.

@paulgraham5790

3 ай бұрын

@@Tasmantor I have never suggested that immigrants somehow benefit at all. As for top end of town owning too much I own more than one property and my day job pay is below the average wage. What you will find is most landlords are average people who made sacrifices to get ahead. They work more hours and live tight. I could not have bought my first home without negative gearing on the minimum wage as I did. I lived in that home five years later for the next 18 years. Negative gearing can work for anyone willing to think outside the box.

@paulgraham5790

3 ай бұрын

@@Tasmantor and do I really need data? NZ is in the process of abolishing negative gearing and while there has been a bit of a dip in prices (which was more to do with rising interest rates) it has hardly become affordable.

@stewatparkpark2933

3 ай бұрын

@@paulgraham5790 NZ are reinstating interest being a tax deduction .

Remember many years ago Government built social housing, they off loaded this cost to the private sector by providing the tax incentive. The problem is the cost of housing has increased far beyond wages. Investors are providing homes that should not be demonised.

@peterfarrell4731

3 ай бұрын

Investors are buying houses for profit, they should be demonized and we should not be subsidizing them with state money. They are buying houses that in other circumstances would have been bought by young families. We should tax things we want less of, we want more people to own their own homes - well then we need to tax investors more

while negative gearing is a rort, the CGT discount and allowing interest only loans are the problem. get rid of those 2 and nobody will bother investing except the super rich who arent exactly finding the current tax system a barrier to entry ie they do it already

@bobcat718

3 ай бұрын

If no-one invests, how will people rent?

@SS_LFC

3 ай бұрын

@@bobcat718 people will buy if the market crashes with oversupply

Well if I cant negative gear an investment property I will negative gear a share portfolio. That has many advantages, don't need to deal with tenants, the interest on the line of credit is a tax deduction, Accounting fees a deduction, broking fees and advisors fees a deduction. Plus with the right shares you get franking credits with your dividend. And I can sell part of my portfolio for a holiday, unlike a house you cant sell off a bedroom for a holiday. Dont need landlords insurance or have to deal with dodgy tenants. And I have never had to buy a new hot water system for a share portfolio. And yes interest on a line of credit is higher than a mortgage, oh dear that means a bigger deduction?? Selling shares the capital gains is the same.

"If its a business, shouldn't you be able to claim tax deductions for losses? (sigh) It's a business that increases inequality and makes it harder for everyday Aussies to have a roof over their heads.

@davidbrayshaw3529

3 ай бұрын

The problem is, without that business, we would have a serious shortfall of rental accommodation. The combination of un bridled immigration and next to no investment in public housing over the past three decades is a crime, in my opinion.

@GivusADurryGronk

3 ай бұрын

⁠@@davidbrayshaw3529oh they say that but it’s rubbish. If the market weren’t so inaccessible, more people would buy than rent anyway. At a rough guesstimate, I would think it’s a zero sum problem. We literally have a serious shortfall of rentals in the current condition anyway (in fact, quite a number of regions have NO rental availabilities).

@JamesFFiT

3 ай бұрын

Very few are rental businesses you have to hold many like a darn Meriton building to do that! Most are just passive investors ie just collect the rent! They aren’t businesses for tax purposes, Waleed made the wrong analogy there!

@AK-np4rp

3 ай бұрын

@@davidbrayshaw3529 False dilemma fallacy. We don't need businesses geared to make a loss in order to have houses for people. We don't need individuals who own squillions of houses.

@AK-np4rp

3 ай бұрын

@@GivusADurryGronk True. And also we have many vacant houses that could be made available.

i do not wish to meddle in british affairs or anything... but send geologists. you guys make pretty good geologists (actual fact, because british geology students study the earth science not the shortcut to where the cash is) ... its a compliment :)

The benefit of negative gearing to a relatively low income earner is marginal at best, becasue they have to pay rent to live in another house. Negative gearing simply allows them to purchase a house, any house, anywhere they can afford, but no doubt its not close enough to work, otherwise they would be living in it instead of renting it out. They of course lose the negative gearing tax deduction if they ever decide to move into their "investment property".

@stewatparkpark2933

3 ай бұрын

They don't buy a rental for the negative gearing . They buy it for the long term capital gain .

@jumboegg5845

3 ай бұрын

@@stewatparkpark2933 They who? I was talking about the relatively low (median) income earners mentioned in the video. For these people, any capital gain they might make, is negated by the amount of rent they've paid over the same period.

doesn't matter how much it helps the higher income earners, it helps people who negatively gear. 60000$ is the median!

Negative gearing is how medical professionals and property developers accumulate wealth.

The core problem is housing supply, keep hurting rental property owners with all kinds of tax will not solve the problem.

Negative gearing on flats and apartments is very important to get these structures built. Without negative gearing no one in their right mind would touch the building these black holes

@Coastal-Sasquatch

3 ай бұрын

Exactly I think people are opening a can of worms here, ruin it for investors, investors pull out, reduction in supply and increasing demand will only increase prices

No investors = no rentals.. The truth is with out NG there is no incentive to invest in a rental .. at sub 4% returns.. which would leave all the heavy lifting to government or big institution like super... Then we will be really screwed...

Should be focused on government being nire efficient, rather then always changing and adding taxes

Cutting negative gearing will not work. Investors will just hike up rents to offset any lost income through legislation

An other way around it is to increas rents so the property in not at a loss

NG seems like a band-aid policy to increase rental supply for a short term but mistakenly being deemed as a long term solution. Now it’s down side shown as houses become a financial game. However simply getting rid of it without other policies might increase rental. The real solution is that gov should tax more on owning 3rd and above investment properties and build more rent -to-own (as what Singapore is doing). Primary housing is a human right. Secondary house a nice to have. After that they are financial tools. We shall separate the two markets : house as an essential living conditions and houses as financial assets. Mixing the two would only make it a money game where the richer taking advantage and increasing the gap in a long run.

@geoffmcguiness9871

3 ай бұрын

I think.u mean decrease rental stock..every time they meddle people leave the market

Of course the median income of negative gearers is low. That's because negative gearing is one of many ways rich people reduce their income and avoid tax. A person earning $60k will struggle to afford to buy a property, let alone afford to lose money renting it out!

When a taxable capital gain is made on an asset held for more than 12 months, half the gain is added to the individual's income in the fiscal year of sale. For investment property this means that most of the gain is taxed at the highest tax bracket. But that gain has often be made over a decade or two. When the law was changed to halve the taxable component of the gain, it was to offset the removal of inflation indexation over the ownership period, which used to reduce the taxable gain. If CGT concessions are removed, the ATO will be obliged to restore that inflation adjustment, to ensure only real gains are taxed, not imaginary ones. If inflation remains high for just 8 years at 5% inflation or 10 years at 4% inflation sellers after that 8 or 10 years of ownership would pay less tax than they currently do with the 50% CGT discount, due to indexation. Be careful what you ask for. Any fiddling with NG or CGT concessions will deter investors. That would kill the apartment construction industry that is critically dependent on investor presales to secure construction finance. Notable exception: Harry Triguboff who self finances. Then what will renters do?

@johnoneill1011

3 ай бұрын

As a practical example, I am sitting on capital gains on US shares I have owned for between 15 and 30 years. If I sell under the current regime, I will pay about 24% tax (half the top rate) on gross gains.IF this discount was removed but indexed for inflation over those decades (like it used to be), I will pay way less CGT. So go on Albo, bring it on, I dare you. You will lose office over it, so I would get to win twice.

Imagine I own an investment property that returns $500 a week in rent, but costs me an average of, say, $700 a week to finance and maintain. If my other taxable income is, lets say, $2,000 a week, how many such properties can I afford to own, given that I’m loosing two hundred bucks a week on each and every one of them? Don’t forget, you BUY tax deductions (they do not come for nothing) and you can’t go on forever loosing money. My late father died in 2018 and owned a block of 5 flats, in Adelaide, that were freehold. In his last financial year the flats grossed around $1350 a week, but netted $709 per week. More than the age pension, but he had to run and maintain the damn things, which kept him on his toes.

❤❤❤❤❤ WELL THATS. THE. BALL BOUNCES THAT. OUR. GOVT. NOW. IT. COMES. OUT. THE. TRUE. COLORS ❤❤❤❤❤❤

They will reduce only one property negative only.. investors will start selling especially cashed up indians from overseas buying adelaide realestate.. big win for first home buyers

The amount of commenters who clearly dont understand how negative gearing works is remarkable!

Capping is the only sensible answer, capitalism itself changes into monopolism without a cap on earnings from all sources, not just negative gearing. Capping earnings at the source with a progressive tax is a single lever that is easily adjusted, the alternative is to let it flood and then try to legislate and legislate to save those who are drowning.

1 % of the people have 25% of the houses what a Joke!!

High income earners should just work less, or take a voluntary pay cut. Either that or move to a country where hard work is appreciated and rewarded

None is discussing the most critical problem that is making unprecedented amount of families homeless. Endless mass immigration. Albonese must immediately come clean to Australians on two recent changes: 1. Increase in immigration while we have 0% rental capital city vacancy 2. Why are foreign buyers now not need to pay foreign buyer tax

It's only a rort if you have no part in it.

All losses are tax-deductible... from property investments, shares, businesses, crypto, etc. All gains are taxable from ANY asset class. The government does not and can not afford to build all homes for renters. Without investors, the current rental crisis will be much WORSE! The current system is very fair. If it was too generous, all of you readers would own more than 10 investment properties.

Politicians are in it for themselves. It is almost inconceivable that they's support policies that would disadvantage themselves. Pay cuts, shorter terms, individual unilateral voting.

Take away nego and rents will go up. Why would someone rent out a proprty at a loss unless there is a benefit? Who will pay in the end?

@Tasmantor

3 ай бұрын

oh no what if all the petty landlords had to sell their loss making homes for people to live in them! Then all the extra houses on the market would drive the prices down and the greedy c*nts who tried to make bank off others backs might loose money, oh the HUMANITY.

Interesting negative gearing was introduced in 1985 by Hawke government. It was introduced to encourage investors into property market to help provide sufficient properties for people to rent.!!!!

@regfries8279

3 ай бұрын

....aaaaaaaaaaaaaand it's failed completely. it hasn't encouraged the building of NEW dwellings, it just allows people to buy and sell existing ones for tax advantages. Why would any country in their right mind stick with such an obviously failed policy? Because boomers benefit.

@peterfarrell4731

3 ай бұрын

What did we do before that? subsidizing business and private investors instead of just continuing a public housing policy of worth was one of the worst decisions we ever made

When all think alike, then no one is thinking. There is more to negative gearing than the simplistic view presented in this show. The so called experts on the show are either naive or simply out to mislead their audience. People should realise that, apart from a raft of unintended consequences (e.g govt losing capacity to collect any CGT when an investment property is sold), if you get rid of negative gearing, it is only a matter of time before profit from the sale on your PPOR becomes taxable. Be careful what you wish or advocate for.

Should start calling that Murray What bloke captain BS.

Or they could fu$k of stamp duty! The most rediculous nonsensical cost on buying a home.

People buy investment houses to make capital gains over the long term , not to reduce the tax they pay .

@Tasmantor

3 ай бұрын

then remove the tax deductions and they'll continue to buy. Your argument in every other thread here is that without NG there wont be homes but here your stand alone point negates that.

@stewatparkpark2933

3 ай бұрын

@Tasmantor NGing makes the purchase easier obviously but CG is the main game .

@stewatparkpark2933

3 ай бұрын

@@Tasmantor Without NGing the numbers won't stack up for many potential investors which will result in a reduction in the amount of rentals available .

Who in their right mind is going out to buy a property just to lose money on to reduce their taxes? Come on what a stupid remark. Every other investment is eligible for tax losses why should properties be any different? Let's be honest, negative gearing is not the reason for housing shortages. Its been around since the 1930s why is it suddenly now an issue? The issue is that the Australian government does not have a forward-looking plan for housing. Australia is always very reactive. Only when there is a problem, then they begin to try to fix it but by that time it's already too late, and the problem will be compounded.

I think we need real data to support these accusations….

The tale of loose colonization

Absolute prejudiced blackmail..against their own people .how familiar

Stop it and watch the homeless people grow why should taxpayers subsidies low cost housing don’t get it up the rents is another option

Politicians and the media need a lesson in basic economics. Remove negative gearing landlords that are negative will sell up. Given current demand housing prices won't fall, but rents will explode. There was a reason why it was reinstated after its removal in the 80s.

@Tasmantor

3 ай бұрын

Weird how in places around the world with economies comparable to our own that don't have NG have cheaper rent then isn't it?

i can explain it in 3 words, rich get richer!

@stewatparkpark2933

3 ай бұрын

75% of rental property owners only own 1 rental property . Just average people trying to improve their position .

@Tasmantor

3 ай бұрын

@@stewatparkpark2933 If you own more than 1 then you are rich because way more than 75% DON'T have a "passive income" stream, passive being the code for someone else working to pay off your house.

@jeremysheather4149

3 ай бұрын

​@@stewatparkpark2933 lol only one

@jeremysheather4149

3 ай бұрын

@@stewatparkpark2933 average people are struggling to feed their family's and even find a overpriced rental, to rent! at more than the price of a Morgage! you are rich and your ignorance screams entitlement.

@stewatparkpark2933

3 ай бұрын

@@jeremysheather4149 You sound like a low achiever .

Which means rents are cheaper

Greg Jericho is so judgmental and incorrect with he's statements. He said, "the only reason they are doing that (meaning purchasing a rental property) is so they can reduce their taxable income" . He makes out like everyone with a property is stupid. Who would purchase an investment with the intent to loose money so you can reduce your tax bill? It is one asset class to invest in where you can leverage to manage a larger asset. You can do it with shares, borrow money to buy more share and you can offset the interest expense against the income the shares generate. This is only getting airplay, because govt has done a crap job of providing enough public housing, then invited so many immigrants in without anywhere to house them. It will have a negative effect on the current housing supply and rents will only increase ...... because there is just not enough supply. I'm thankful the tax system is where it is, otherwise I wouldn't have a place to rent or would be competing for even fewer options to rent.

Get rid of negative gearing & watch the rents go through the roof!

As a member of a family of investors I think it's the only way Australians can make money

If albo is earning passive income off his property then he isnt negative gearing anything. He would be paying tax on the 115k 😂😂 silly ppl believing media and dont know anything about property 😅😅😅😅

A lot of mum a dad investor's use negative gearing,take it away and people will look for another investment and less properties will be built,the greens have got this wrong no surprise here.

alot of people work hard to get rich. Australia is one of the only place where being hardworking is wrong. And being lazy and always complaining about things get you somewhere. People should start to take responsibility and not always hope the government give them money give them free stuff. Is this a aussie culture or some bad habit that many years of labor government have inculcated? :(

Clickbait

We are aspirational????

I hate the greens so much

If you have a negatively geared investment [in a property], you still lose money after your tax deduction. If I was earning 250k a year salary and the difference between the rent I collected on a property and all expenses was -70k, I pay 30.5k less tax and earn 39.5k less. Increase the supply of dwellings and suddenly fictional me won’t be satisfied with losing 39.5k each year. Also factor in: inflation; renovations; interest rates. Another simplified argument from the Australia institute. Capping the rebate complicates matters. Keep it or allow on new dwellings only. Treat all investments the same.

It’s a moot point. Negative gearing is the third rail of Australian politics. Look elsewhere to improve Australia. Pointless waste of timing hoping it’ll go away.

Anyone can minimise tax. Just earn less by not investing in anything which would satisfy Greg Jericho who can only see tax government collects as a desirable outcome from investing. Greg Jericho needs to get his head together and try thinking critically instead of ignoring facts and come out with such badly thought out ideas. Things do not just exist without investment which Jericho ignores and one that provides housing for renters at a subsidy to what they would otherwise have if there was no negative gearing which results in less investment in housing and higher rents. His attitude is stuff the renters because government wants the tax. The reality is all houses either new or not have to be built and maintained over their life. The fact that someone builds them from new is immaterial because it is all investment in property which someone must build and maintain. All newly built houses become those built last year or earlier and purchasing is only one part of creating accommodation for an owner or occupier just as putting an investment into a business creating building products provides new building products that would not otherwise have been created and available for people to buy or rent.

Dumb logic. Neg gearing was brought in to increase rental housing....it lasts only a few years as houses become positive geared. Supply is the problem.

@Tasmantor

3 ай бұрын

Odd how supply is the problem when we are building record numbers of new dwellings. I'm sure you, regurgitating tired talking points from the landlord lobby, are just as informed as a guy who's job is looking into the housing market and reporting on it.

I’ve never heard of “nego-gearo”, & I’m an Aussie & older than that goose called Nick who didn’t explain it well at all. If you want to listen to the Greens (aka “watermelons”), we’re totally stuffed as a nation & the economy will shrink along with opportunities. Investment properties are an independent income stream & a self-funded superannuation method. If this government wants to change this along with the other “super” changes, & the Stage 3, then we live in a country that you can make plans based on taxation stability. Typically this show refers-to or talks to lefty shit-canners. “Greg” most investors are not rich, if you didn’t have negative gearing you would have broad-based investment in property. Enough of these SJW’s I bet each of them on the panel has an investment property. An investment property is one of the few ways, excepting hard work, where normal working people can get ahead, take that away, what’s left ? The share market? Heaven knows removing the stage 3 tax changes means there’s less incentive to work harder, bracket creep will remain especially in a high inflationary market, then say add IR changes will strain employee/employer relations to the detriment of productivity - to make it a potential criminal offense to receive a call after work hours (bridling businesses say calling staff for change of shift or overtime etc) - it’s all crimping the potential to get ahead. What’s next death taxes?

This is why there is a rental crieses? Negative gearing only works on newer properties and its still cheaper to rent then pay the mortage on it plus rates and maintinance

Changing negative gearing will have zero impact on property prices. The supply issue is under pressure due to organic growth and immigration. Every negative geared home is rented out and the rental pool is also under considerable pressure. Investors are largely responsible for growing the rental pool and largely responsible for the sustained growth of the building industry. No investor purposely buys a bad investment with NG as a band-aid.

@RizzaHaan

3 ай бұрын

You only grow the rental pool if you purchase a new build. Buying a property and renting it out does nothing to improve the economy and therefore should not be incentivised by tax concessions. With NG, investors DO buy a short-run bad investment on the assumption that house prices skyrocket in the long run. NG helps investors whether the loss before being able to offload the property for a large, half tax-free profit.

Negative gearing is shit. Having a property portfolio is a small business. Who in the right mind would purposely go into business at a a loss? Terrible Plan

negative gearing increases the housing supply. The Gov could never build enough houses as individual investors. They dropped in in 1989 and created a huge price increase and shortage, they dropped it immediately. The Greg guy is lying. people invest in houses to make money, not to avoid tax. The negative gearing is not huge, but the profit from capital growth is.

Lol they are going after australians making something of them selves but still allow foreign investment smd

Scrapping negative gearing will not affect the property market other than skyrocket rent…. Mass majority of property boom cycles are done for PPOR. Investors come towards end of the boom cycle.

Why shouldn't people working hard get some benefits? It's not easy to buy investment properties you have big loans so it's still a struggle to try to get rich. Just because you have investment property doesn't mean your rich. Maybe 20 years later of struggling you may be

@attilajuhasz2526

3 ай бұрын

This is not what is being brought to question. It is negative gearing on multiple house loans.

@benAustralian

3 ай бұрын

@attilajuhasz2526 more houses loans the harder it is to survive. Less money in pocket for 25 years while you pay off. Not get rich until your old. People buying multiple homes give more places for people to rent

@attilajuhasz2526

3 ай бұрын

@benAustralian or... or... rather than a few people owning multiple houses (according to you), more first-time buyers actually buying a first house - instead of struggling with the rent!

@Tasmantor

3 ай бұрын

You aren't working hard when you take on a loan to use the money to "try and get rich". You are taking a calculated risk to have someone else pay off your loan. In order have a second property you have to be doing well enough to be able to take that risk, and if you're that well off you are rich. Sure not fortune 500 rich but you're trying an argument along the lines of "Sure I took the guys wallet and kept the cash and cards but that other guy murdered him so I should be let off.", disgusting.

@Tasmantor

3 ай бұрын

@@benAustralian If you bought the home then you didn't provide them a place to live because they could have brought the home and then in 25 years you don't have their money and 2 houses you just have what you earned.

They change this game or Australia will be a sub developed country