Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
General Discussion >> Federal Politics >> Negative Gearing Never Examined
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1454445234

Message started by Sir Crook on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 6:33am

Title: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Sir Crook on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 6:33am
What negative gearing? Value of controversial policy never examined by Treasury under Abbott

Date
    February 1, 2016
    Canberra Times



The Abbott government never asked Treasury to do any serious analysis of options to limit negative gearing during its time in power, despite increasing calls from economists and public policy institutes to do so.   :(

And as debate rages over whether the Turnbull government will increase the GST, or instead curb top-end superannuation concessions and property tax breaks, Treasurer Scott Morrison will not say whether he has asked for any such analysis from Treasury either.   :(

Public policy groups including the Grattan Institute, McKell Institute, and the Australian Council of Social Service, and prominent economists such as Saul Eslake, have called on the Abbott government to change the negative gearing and capital gains tax regime.


They have argued the regime arbitrarily inflates the price of homes, distorts the housing market in favour of older and wealthier Australians, and should be changed to reduce the pace of house price growth and make housing more affordable.   :(

The McKell Institute has said if the regime was quarantined to new housing it would save the Commonwealth budget roughly $4 billion a year, and lead to a budget improvement of $41.7 billion cumulatively over 10 years.

But the Abbott government rejected calls for the negative gearing and capital gains tax regime to be changed, dismissing concerns about its impact on the budget and saying analysis showed it was encouraging new investment and boosting housing supply.

Former Treasurer Joe Hockey dismissed concerns about the tax regime by saying young people who wanted to buy their first home should "get a good job that pays good money".

But Treasury's head of revenue, Rob Heferen, has confirmed to Senate estimates that the Abbott government never asked Treasury to do any "substantive analysis" of options to limit negative gearing to specifically encourage new housing supply, including its impact on the budget.

"In the last two years, Treasury has not done any substantive analysis of options to direct or limit negative gearing to new residential housing," Mr Heferen said in an answer to a question on notice last week.

Labor senator Chris Ketter, who asked Mr Heferen the question in Senate estimates last October, says he is amazed by the lack of analysis.

"That to me is extraordinary when we've had a process under way of a significant review of the taxation system," Mr Ketter said.

"It would be extraordinary if that option were to emerge now without Treasury having done any substantive modelling in relation to it."

It is understood the Turnbull government is considering negative gearing seriously as an option for tax reform, but the Treasurer's office will not say if they have asked Treasury to investigate the policy option.

A spokesman for Mr Morrison says the government is "engaged in an open discussion on how our tax system can better back Australians to work, save and invest".

"This process continues. The government has not ruled anything in or out and to claim otherwise would be false," the spokesman said.

The Property Council has said negative gearing is a commonplace investment strategy "used by everyday Australians looking to get ahead."

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by philperth2010 on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:32am
Another lie from the Abbott Government....All tax options where apparently not on the table as many suspected....No doubt the rusted on will defend another lie from this Government!!!

>:( >:( >:(

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Leftwinger on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:49am
All options that do maximum damage to the lower socio economic were on the table , as if this should come as any surprise, it is a Liberal government after all.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by 21st Century Dialup Network on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:57am
It needs to be curtailed, limited to 1 property and only for a maximum of 10 years per tax payer.

If you can't afford a property without it then you shouldn't buy one.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:59am

Its time wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:49am:
All options that do maximum damage to the lower socio economic were on the table , as if this should come as any surprise, it is a Liberal government after all.


Oh sigh. Listen here YOU!

1. Both LIBERAL AND LABOR politicians have lots to lose personally if any changes to negative gearing take place.

2. Did you not read the article? The process is STILL ONGOING. Ok?

The fact that it's progressing at 5 km/hr is another matter.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Bam on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:03am
It is ridiculous that people get more government assistance to buy investment properties than they get to buy homes to live in.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06am

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:03am:
It is ridiculous that people get more government assistance to buy investment properties than they get to buy homes to live in.


Is that what you think?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Leftwinger on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:13am

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06am:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:03am:
It is ridiculous that people get more government assistance to buy investment properties than they get to buy homes to live in.


Is that what you think?


See if you can debunk it

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Leftwinger on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:14am

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:59am:

Its time wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:49am:
All options that do maximum damage to the lower socio economic were on the table , as if this should come as any surprise, it is a Liberal government after all.


Oh sigh. Listen here YOU!

1. Both LIBERAL AND LABOR politicians have lots to lose personally if any changes to negative gearing take place.

2. Did you not read the article? The process is STILL ONGOING. Ok?

The fact that it's progressing at 5 km/hr is another matter.


It seems it is stagnant and won't be moving anywhere fast or slow .

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:19am
libs aren't interested in alternatives, they are only interested in raising the GST. everything else is just words they speak to pretend to be fair.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by crocodile on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:31am

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06am:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:03am:
It is ridiculous that people get more government assistance to buy investment properties than they get to buy homes to live in.


Is that what you think?


Without the allowable deductions via negative gearing the costs incurred would simply be subtracted from the capital gain when the property is eventually sold. Net change to government revenue is precisely zero. The only thing that alters is the date which it is paid. Policy makers understand something that the Neanderthals around here apparently don't.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:40am

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06am:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:03am:
It is ridiculous that people get more government assistance to buy investment properties than they get to buy homes to live in.


Is that what you think?



Apparently, or why would he say so:  it sounds correct as well ?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:42am

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:40am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06am:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:03am:
It is ridiculous that people get more government assistance to buy investment properties than they get to buy homes to live in.


Is that what you think?



Apparently, or why would he say so:  it sounds correct as well ?


Well, the fact is, we get NO GOVT assistance to BUY negatively geared properties.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:44am

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:42am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:40am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06am:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:03am:
It is ridiculous that people get more government assistance to buy investment properties than they get to buy homes to live in.


Is that what you think?



Apparently, or why would he say so:  it sounds correct as well ?


Well, the fact is, we get NO GOVT assistance to BUY negatively geared properties.


you do understand how negative gearing works right?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:47am

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:44am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:42am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:40am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06am:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:03am:
It is ridiculous that people get more government assistance to buy investment properties than they get to buy homes to live in.


Is that what you think?



Apparently, or why would he say so:  it sounds correct as well ?


Well, the fact is, we get NO GOVT assistance to BUY negatively geared properties.


you do understand how negative gearing works right?


Unlike you I do.

And unlike you, I have a few properties which are negatively geared.

Now could you tell us again how auctioneers are not allowed to know the reserve price in an auction?

We could do with another laugh around here. :o


Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:51am

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:47am:
Unlike you I do.

And unlike you, I have a few properties which are negatively geared.



doesn't sound like it.

You know those interest repayments you claim as  tax deductions, that's the 'government assistance' Bam is referring to.

Now tell me again how many properties you have negatively geared  :D :D :D

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:51am

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:47am:
Now could you tell us again how auctioneers are not allowed to know the reserve price in an auction?



what do you mean again? I didn't say that the first time you id iot!

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:56am

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:51am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:47am:
Now could you tell us again how auctioneers are not allowed to know the reserve price in an auction?



what do you mean again? I didn't say that the first time you id iot!


Yes you did.

And it was hilarious watching you run for cover, then log off.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:57am

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:51am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:47am:
Unlike you I do.

And unlike you, I have a few properties which are negatively geared.



doesn't sound like it.

You know those interest repayments you claim as  tax deductions, that's the 'government assistance' Bam is referring to.

Now tell me again how many properties you have negatively geared  :D :D :D


You really do know nothing about real estate.

Nor can you read and comprehend basic English.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:59am

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:47am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:44am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:42am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:40am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06am:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:03am:
It is ridiculous that people get more government assistance to buy investment properties than they get to buy homes to live in.


Is that what you think?



Apparently, or why would he say so:  it sounds correct as well ?


Well, the fact is, we get NO GOVT assistance to BUY negatively geared properties.


you do understand how negative gearing works right?


Unlike you I do.

And unlike you, I have a few properties which are negatively geared.

Now could you tell us again how auctioneers are not allowed to know the reserve price in an auction?

We could do with another laugh around here. :o


Up for the wannabe!

I've even highlighted my post.

Just for you.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Leftwinger on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:06am

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:31am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06am:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:03am:
It is ridiculous that people get more government assistance to buy investment properties than they get to buy homes to live in.


Is that what you think?


Without the allowable deductions via negative gearing the costs incurred would simply be subtracted from the capital gain when the property is eventually sold. Net change to government revenue is precisely zero. The only thing that alters is the date which it is paid. Policy makers understand something that the Neanderthals around here apparently don't.


Haha swift and brutal as always croc  :)

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by mariacostel on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:06am
If negative gearing is so evil why has Labor done nothing at all about it ever?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:07am

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:06am:
If negative gearing is so evil why has Labor done nothing at all about it ever?


;D

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:07am

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:06am:
If negative gearing is so evil why has Labor done nothing at all about it ever?


You don't remember Labor removing negative gearing ? Fella named Keating it was.

It was a disaster he had to put it back.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:10am

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:07am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:06am:
If negative gearing is so evil why has Labor done nothing at all about it ever?


;D



Are you smiling because Maria is always wrong or did you get suckered by her again ?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:13am

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:07am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:06am:
If negative gearing is so evil why has Labor done nothing at all about it ever?


You don't remember Labor removing negative gearing ?


How can anyone forget that short lived messy mistake lol?

Not one of Labor's fine moments in political history unfortunately.

Thank you for reminding us about the blundering buffoonery that can only define Labor.


Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:13am

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:59am:
Up for the wannabe!

I've even highlighted my post.

Just for you.



what part are you struggling with?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:19am

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:13am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:07am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:06am:
If negative gearing is so evil why has Labor done nothing at all about it ever?


You don't remember Labor removing negative gearing ?


How can anyone forget that short lived messy mistake lol?

Not one of Labor's fine moments in political history unfortunately.

Thank you for reminding us about the blundering buffoonery that can only define Labor.


Anyone who is making significant reform will occasionally get one wrong, this type of problem Turnbull will never have, if you do nothing you get nothing wrong.

Only one of the reasons that the current government is a waste of space.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:20am

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:13am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:59am:
Up for the wannabe!

I've even highlighted my post.

Just for you.



what part are you struggling with?


Well, to be brutally honest, I'm struggling with how clueless you are when it comes to real estate.

You've never owned property at all. Ever.

Fact!

Would you kindly tell us all again how auctioneers are not allowed to know the reserve price at an auction?

Please do.

In the mean time, hopefully you might be abe to find out why my post which I highlighted just for you...is actually correct. Ask someone here. They might be able to teach you something new today lol.



Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:21am

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:13am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:07am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:06am:
If negative gearing is so evil why has Labor done nothing at all about it ever?


You don't remember Labor removing negative gearing ?


How can anyone forget that short lived messy mistake lol?

Not one of Labor's fine moments in political history unfortunately.

Thank you for reminding us about the blundering buffoonery that can only define Labor.



You know that the way history has been re-written would indicate that Keating was right all along and that he should have stuck to his guns.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Leftwinger on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:22am

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:20am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:13am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:59am:
Up for the wannabe!

I've even highlighted my post.

Just for you.



what part are you struggling with?


Well, to be brutally honest, I'm struggling with how clueless you are when it comes to real estate.

You've never owned property at all. Ever.

Fact!

Would you kindly tell us all again how auctioneers are not allowed to know the reserve price at an auction?

Please do.

In the mean time, hopefully you might be abe to find out why my post which I highlighted just for you...is actually correct. Ask someone here. They might be able to teach you something new today lol.


Naughty little troll , go sit in the corner and repent , your jesus is very unhappy with you

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:22am

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:19am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:13am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:07am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:06am:
If negative gearing is so evil why has Labor done nothing at all about it ever?


You don't remember Labor removing negative gearing ?


How can anyone forget that short lived messy mistake lol?

Not one of Labor's fine moments in political history unfortunately.

Thank you for reminding us about the blundering buffoonery that can only define Labor.


Anyone who is making significant reform will occasionally get one wrong, this type of problem Turnbull will never have, if you do nothing you get nothing wrong.


1. HEY, YOU BROUGHT THEIR MESS UP.

2. DIDDUMS THAT YOUR ARGUMENT BACKFIRED.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Jovial Monk on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:25am

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:42am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:40am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06am:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:03am:
It is ridiculous that people get more government assistance to buy investment properties than they get to buy homes to live in.


Is that what you think?



Apparently, or why would he say so:  it sounds correct as well ?


Well, the fact is, we get NO GOVT assistance to BUY negatively geared properties.

Do you understand what negative gearing is, at all?

You obviously own no properties.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:26am

Its time wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:22am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:20am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:13am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:59am:
Up for the wannabe!

I've even highlighted my post.

Just for you.



what part are you struggling with?


Well, to be brutally honest, I'm struggling with how clueless you are when it comes to real estate.

You've never owned property at all. Ever.

Fact!

Would you kindly tell us all again how auctioneers are not allowed to know the reserve price at an auction?

Please do.

In the mean time, hopefully you might be abe to find out why my post which I highlighted just for you...is actually correct. Ask someone here. They might be able to teach you something new today lol.


Naughty little troll , go sit in the corner and repent , your jesus is very unhappy with you


No He's not!

And how about you read my post...the one I've highlighted just for Johhny who clearly knows S F A about real estate.

Then come back and tell me if I'm wrong.

NB I know I'm right. Unlike clueless Johnny, I've been through the process a few times.

I never once got any govt assistance to BUY a negatively geared property.  Fact!

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Jovial Monk on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:27am

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:22am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:19am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:13am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:07am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:06am:
If negative gearing is so evil why has Labor done nothing at all about it ever?


You don't remember Labor removing negative gearing ?


How can anyone forget that short lived messy mistake lol?

Not one of Labor's fine moments in political history unfortunately.

Thank you for reminding us about the blundering buffoonery that can only define Labor.


Anyone who is making significant reform will occasionally get one wrong, this type of problem Turnbull will never have, if you do nothing you get nothing wrong.


1. HEY, YOU BROUGHT THEIR MESS UP.

2. DIDDUMS THAT YOUR ARGUMENT BACKFIRED.


Still showed Longy as a know nothing who makes stuff up all the time.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:29am

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:22am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:19am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:13am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:07am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:06am:
If negative gearing is so evil why has Labor done nothing at all about it ever?


You don't remember Labor removing negative gearing ?


How can anyone forget that short lived messy mistake lol?

Not one of Labor's fine moments in political history unfortunately.

Thank you for reminding us about the blundering buffoonery that can only define Labor.


Anyone who is making significant reform will occasionally get one wrong, this type of problem Turnbull will never have, if you do nothing you get nothing wrong.


1. HEY, YOU BROUGHT THEIR MESS UP.

2. DIDDUMS THAT YOUR ARGUMENT BACKFIRED.


I can accept that he got 1 wrong, no big deal.

If the current used numbers  are correct it wasn't really a mess at all - he actually got it right and it was another politically created media driven dishonest election stunt.

People now say that the housing marked didn't really fail and rental property really wasn't increasing in price and demand wasn't failing to be supplied.

At the time the Australian community through the Liberal party and media were being bombarded with media reports of a pending disaster in housing.

Economist now say that it was all untrue, just like the budget emergency panic.

At the time I believed it, I thought that Labor had stuffed up now I am not so sure.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:30am

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:26am:

Its time wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:22am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:20am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:13am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:59am:
Up for the wannabe!

I've even highlighted my post.

Just for you.



what part are you struggling with?


Well, to be brutally honest, I'm struggling with how clueless you are when it comes to real estate.

You've never owned property at all. Ever.

Fact!

Would you kindly tell us all again how auctioneers are not allowed to know the reserve price at an auction?

Please do.

In the mean time, hopefully you might be abe to find out why my post which I highlighted just for you...is actually correct. Ask someone here. They might be able to teach you something new today lol.


Naughty little troll , go sit in the corner and repent , your jesus is very unhappy with you


No He's not!

And how about you read my post...the one I've highlighted just for Johhny who clearly knows S F A about real estate.

Then come back and tell me if I'm wrong.

NB I know I'm right. Unlike clueless Johnny, I've been through the process a few times.

I never once got any govt assistance to BUY a negatively geared property.  Fact!


No comeback?

Thought so.

I accept your surrender.

Let's move on.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:31am

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:29am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:22am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:19am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:13am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:07am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:06am:
If negative gearing is so evil why has Labor done nothing at all about it ever?


You don't remember Labor removing negative gearing ?


How can anyone forget that short lived messy mistake lol?

Not one of Labor's fine moments in political history unfortunately.

Thank you for reminding us about the blundering buffoonery that can only define Labor.


Anyone who is making significant reform will occasionally get one wrong, this type of problem Turnbull will never have, if you do nothing you get nothing wrong.


1. HEY, YOU BROUGHT THEIR MESS UP.

2. DIDDUMS THAT YOUR ARGUMENT BACKFIRED.


I can accept that he got 1 wrong, no big deal.

If the current used numbers  are correct it wasn't really a mess at all - he actually got it right and it was another politically created media driven dishonest election stunt.

People now say that the housing marked didn't really fail and rental property really wasn't increasing in price and demand wasn't failing to be supplied.

At the time the Australian community through the Liberal party and media were being bombarded with media reports of a pending disaster in housing.

Economist now say that it was all untrue, just like the budget emergency panic.


Stop back pedalling. It shows no self respect.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Jovial Monk on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:33am
Lisa, darling when you buy an (imaginary) investment property do you claim for interest in your tax return?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:35am

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:30am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:26am:
No He's not!

And how about you read my post...the one I've highlighted just for Johhny who clearly knows S F A about real estate.

Then come back and tell me if I'm wrong.

NB I know I'm right. Unlike clueless Johnny, I've been through the process a few times.

I never once got any govt assistance to BUY a negatively geared property.  Fact!


No comeback?

Thought so.

I accept your surrender.

Let's move on.


Lisa the fact that it is negative geared means that you are getting government assistance on you tax.

The government are effectively helping you to pay your loan.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Leftwinger on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:37am

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:30am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:26am:

Its time wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:22am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:20am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:13am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:59am:
Up for the wannabe!

I've even highlighted my post.

Just for you.



what part are you struggling with?


Well, to be brutally honest, I'm struggling with how clueless you are when it comes to real estate.

You've never owned property at all. Ever.

Fact!

Would you kindly tell us all again how auctioneers are not allowed to know the reserve price at an auction?

Please do.

In the mean time, hopefully you might be abe to find out why my post which I highlighted just for you...is actually correct. Ask someone here. They might be able to teach you something new today lol.


Naughty little troll , go sit in the corner and repent , your jesus is very unhappy with you


No He's not!

And how about you read my post...the one I've highlighted just for Johhny who clearly knows S F A about real estate.

Then come back and tell me if I'm wrong.

NB I know I'm right. Unlike clueless Johnny, I've been through the process a few times.

I never once got any govt assistance to BUY a negatively geared property.  Fact!


No comeback?

Thought so.

I accept your surrender.

Let's move on.


I would like to credit you with enough intellect to say that you knew that Bams post had nothing to do with the purchase but the ongoing deductions of a rental, naughty little troll  ;)

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Jovial Monk on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:38am
Just how dense is Lisa?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:40am

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:31am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:29am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:22am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:19am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:13am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:07am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:06am:
If negative gearing is so evil why has Labor done nothing at all about it ever?


You don't remember Labor removing negative gearing ?


How can anyone forget that short lived messy mistake lol?

Not one of Labor's fine moments in political history unfortunately.

Thank you for reminding us about the blundering buffoonery that can only define Labor.


Anyone who is making significant reform will occasionally get one wrong, this type of problem Turnbull will never have, if you do nothing you get nothing wrong.


1. HEY, YOU BROUGHT THEIR MESS UP.

2. DIDDUMS THAT YOUR ARGUMENT BACKFIRED.


I can accept that he got 1 wrong, no big deal.

If the current used numbers  are correct it wasn't really a mess at all - he actually got it right and it was another politically created media driven dishonest election stunt.

People now say that the housing marked didn't really fail and rental property really wasn't increasing in price and demand wasn't failing to be supplied.

At the time the Australian community through the Liberal party and media were being bombarded with media reports of a pending disaster in housing.

Economist now say that it was all untrue, just like the budget emergency panic.


Stop back pedalling. It shows no self respect.


Explaining what happened in greater detail does not infer back peddling in any way.

I am not supporting the removal of negative gearing but I don't mind having it looked at and maybe updated a bit. I am still concerned about the Keating experience as it did seem real at the time.

I brought up Keating only to demonstrate that as usual Maria held an unreliable grasp on the facts.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:46am

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:35am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:30am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:26am:
No He's not!

And how about you read my post...the one I've highlighted just for Johhny who clearly knows S F A about real estate.

Then come back and tell me if I'm wrong.

NB I know I'm right. Unlike clueless Johnny, I've been through the process a few times.


I never once got any govt assistance to BUY a negatively geared property.  Fact!


No comeback?

Thought so.

I accept your surrender.

Let's move on.


Lisa the fact that it is negative geared means that you are getting government assistance on you tax.

The government are effectively helping you to pay your loan.


Oh My God Father lol...that's a different matter altogether.

In BUYING the home for the purposes of negatively gearing it, no govt assistance is given.

That is what I have been saying.

Read back. It's all there.

In order to BUY a home, you must meet certain criteria in order to take out the loan to cover its purchase.

In meeting these criteria, your financial institution will take into consideration what money/assets you have upfront. They also include 1st home owner grants etc. No grants exist for negatively geared properties.

That's what I've been essentially posting.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:49am

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:38am:
Just how dense is Lisa?


I know you can't help yourself...but can you troll somewhere else?

Try Fermentations. The mod there will tolerate you. Don't go anywhere else. Just there. And stay there. Thanks.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:52am

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:29am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:22am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:19am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:13am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:07am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:06am:
If negative gearing is so evil why has Labor done nothing at all about it ever?


You don't remember Labor removing negative gearing ?


How can anyone forget that short lived messy mistake lol?

Not one of Labor's fine moments in political history unfortunately.

Thank you for reminding us about the blundering buffoonery that can only define Labor.


Anyone who is making significant reform will occasionally get one wrong, this type of problem Turnbull will never have, if you do nothing you get nothing wrong.


1. HEY, YOU BROUGHT THEIR MESS UP.

2. DIDDUMS THAT YOUR ARGUMENT BACKFIRED.


I can accept that he got 1 wrong, no big deal.

If the current used numbers  are correct it wasn't really a mess at all - he actually got it right and it was another politically created media driven dishonest election stunt.

People now say that the housing marked didn't really fail and rental property really wasn't increasing in price and demand wasn't failing to be supplied.

At the time the Australian community through the Liberal party and media were being bombarded with media reports of a pending disaster in housing.

Economist now say that it was all untrue, just like the budget emergency panic.

At the time I believed it, I thought that Labor had stuffed up now I am not so sure.


Translation?  I'm a backpedaller in denial.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 11:41am

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:52am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:29am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:22am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:19am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:13am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:07am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:06am:
If negative gearing is so evil why has Labor done nothing at all about it ever?


You don't remember Labor removing negative gearing ?


How can anyone forget that short lived messy mistake lol?

Not one of Labor's fine moments in political history unfortunately.

Thank you for reminding us about the blundering buffoonery that can only define Labor.


Anyone who is making significant reform will occasionally get one wrong, this type of problem Turnbull will never have, if you do nothing you get nothing wrong.


1. HEY, YOU BROUGHT THEIR MESS UP.

2. DIDDUMS THAT YOUR ARGUMENT BACKFIRED.


I can accept that he got 1 wrong, no big deal.

If the current used numbers  are correct it wasn't really a mess at all - he actually got it right and it was another politically created media driven dishonest election stunt.

People now say that the housing marked didn't really fail and rental property really wasn't increasing in price and demand wasn't failing to be supplied.

At the time the Australian community through the Liberal party and media were being bombarded with media reports of a pending disaster in housing.

Economist now say that it was all untrue, just like the budget emergency panic.

At the time I believed it, I thought that Labor had stuffed up now I am not so sure.


Translation?  I'm a backpedaller in denial.


You only delude yourself.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by mariacostel on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:35pm

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:07am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:06am:
If negative gearing is so evil why has Labor done nothing at all about it ever?


You don't remember Labor removing negative gearing ? Fella named Keating it was.

It was a disaster he had to put it back.


And you lot are STILL carrying on about it. And there has been 6 years of labor since Keating.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:38pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:20am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:13am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:59am:
Up for the wannabe!

I've even highlighted my post.

Just for you.



what part are you struggling with?


Well, to be brutally honest, I'm struggling with how clueless you are when it comes to real estate.

You've never owned property at all. Ever.

Fact!

Would you kindly tell us all again how auctioneers are not allowed to know the reserve price at an auction?

Please do.

In the mean time, hopefully you might be abe to find out why my post which I highlighted just for you...is actually correct. Ask someone here. They might be able to teach you something new today lol.


;D ;D ;D

really? why don't you explain it to me you genius.


Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by double plus good on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:40pm
I betcha John Smith is crapping himself on this issue.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:42pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:38am:
Just how dense is Lisa?


she makes bricks look  liquid :D

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:45pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:46am:
In BUYING the home for the purposes of negatively gearing it, no govt assistance is given.



you're an id iot ... 'buying' stops once payment has been completed in full. Until then you are still 'buying'. Don't tell me you think that because you've got the keys it's yours? ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:46pm

double plus good wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:40pm:
I betcha John Smith is crapping himself on this issue.


I really couldn't give a sh1t ... I sold my negatively geared properties a long time ago.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by mariacostel on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:47pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:52am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:29am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:22am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:19am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:13am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:07am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:06am:
If negative gearing is so evil why has Labor done nothing at all about it ever?


You don't remember Labor removing negative gearing ?


How can anyone forget that short lived messy mistake lol?

Not one of Labor's fine moments in political history unfortunately.

Thank you for reminding us about the blundering buffoonery that can only define Labor.


Anyone who is making significant reform will occasionally get one wrong, this type of problem Turnbull will never have, if you do nothing you get nothing wrong.


1. HEY, YOU BROUGHT THEIR MESS UP.

2. DIDDUMS THAT YOUR ARGUMENT BACKFIRED.


I can accept that he got 1 wrong, no big deal.

If the current used numbers  are correct it wasn't really a mess at all - he actually got it right and it was another politically created media driven dishonest election stunt.

People now say that the housing marked didn't really fail and rental property really wasn't increasing in price and demand wasn't failing to be supplied.

At the time the Australian community through the Liberal party and media were being bombarded with media reports of a pending disaster in housing.

Economist now say that it was all untrue, just like the budget emergency panic.

At the time I believed it, I thought that Labor had stuffed up now I am not so sure.


Translation?  I'm a backpedaller in denial.


It is amazing how time can cause history to be rewritten. THe ending of negative gearing was an abject failure and a disaster and the only evidence you need to prove that is the reversal. Keating hated negative gearing so bringing it back would have been a bitter pill that must have had a lot of good reasons.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by double plus good on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:48pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:46pm:

double plus good wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:40pm:
I betcha John Smith is crapping himself on this issue.


I really couldn't give a sh1t ... I sold my negatively geared properties a long time ago.
For an ultra do-gooder you sure are a greedy little capitalist. The dual personality of a do-gooder.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:56pm

double plus good wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:46pm:

double plus good wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:40pm:
I betcha John Smith is crapping himself on this issue.


I really couldn't give a sh1t ... I sold my negatively geared properties a long time ago.
For an ultra do-gooder you sure are a greedy little capitalist. The dual personality of a do-gooder.


do gooder? didn't you decide yesterday that do gooder meant liberal party supporter?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by lee on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 1:24pm
The Henry Tax Review did look into negative gearing as part of KRudd's "root and branch" assessment of Australian tax treatment.

'The Henry Review recommended reducing the benefit of negative gearing by allowing only a 40% capital gains discount, but this was rejected by then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.'

http://theconversation.com/six-simple-tax-reforms-plagued-by-politics-44906

Another not so fine moment?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by crocodile on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 1:24pm

Its time wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:06am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:31am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06am:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:03am:
It is ridiculous that people get more government assistance to buy investment properties than they get to buy homes to live in.


Is that what you think?


Without the allowable deductions via negative gearing the costs incurred would simply be subtracted from the capital gain when the property is eventually sold. Net change to government revenue is precisely zero. The only thing that alters is the date which it is paid. Policy makers understand something that the Neanderthals around here apparently don't.


Haha swift and brutal as always croc  :)


Maybe so but it is the truth. The willingness to understand the long term outcomes are being eroded by the short term fix. The fact that gross profit equals income minus expenses is axiomatic and so over the long term the tax obligation doesn't change much. All swings and roundabouts. Take the money now and miss out later.

Sir Nail bleats about it every day. Crooky every second day. Reminds me of the little Dutch boy who stuck his finger in the dyke. By all means, stick a finger in and cover the hole. What will you do when eventually the expected capital gains revenue dries up or the tax payable once the asset becomes positively geared wanes. Look for another inventive scheme to fleece the populace and find another little boy to poke his finger in another hole. Soon the landscape will be littered with little boys and there fingers stuck in holes all for the want of a bit of long term policy.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by crocodile on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 1:27pm

lee wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 1:24pm:
The Henry Tax Review did look into negative gearing as part of KRudd's "root and branch" assessment of Australian tax treatment.

'The Henry Review recommended reducing the benefit of negative gearing by allowing only a 40% capital gains discount, but this was rejected by then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.'

http://theconversation.com/six-simple-tax-reforms-plagued-by-politics-44906

Another not so fine moment?


The Henry review also had a long list of other reforms that were meant to work in harmony with each other. Can't really take one in isolation. Rudd tried that when he just cherry picked the bits he liked with unpleasant consequences.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by stunspore on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 2:07pm

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:47pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:52am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:29am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:22am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:19am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:13am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:07am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:06am:
If negative gearing is so evil why has Labor done nothing at all about it ever?


You don't remember Labor removing negative gearing ?


How can anyone forget that short lived messy mistake lol?

Not one of Labor's fine moments in political history unfortunately.

Thank you for reminding us about the blundering buffoonery that can only define Labor.


Anyone who is making significant reform will occasionally get one wrong, this type of problem Turnbull will never have, if you do nothing you get nothing wrong.


1. HEY, YOU BROUGHT THEIR MESS UP.

2. DIDDUMS THAT YOUR ARGUMENT BACKFIRED.


I can accept that he got 1 wrong, no big deal.

If the current used numbers  are correct it wasn't really a mess at all - he actually got it right and it was another politically created media driven dishonest election stunt.

People now say that the housing marked didn't really fail and rental property really wasn't increasing in price and demand wasn't failing to be supplied.

At the time the Australian community through the Liberal party and media were being bombarded with media reports of a pending disaster in housing.

Economist now say that it was all untrue, just like the budget emergency panic.

At the time I believed it, I thought that Labor had stuffed up now I am not so sure.


Translation?  I'm a backpedaller in denial.


It is amazing how time can cause history to be rewritten. THe ending of negative gearing was an abject failure and a disaster and the only evidence you need to prove that is the reversal. Keating hated negative gearing so bringing it back would have been a bitter pill that must have had a lot of good reasons.


Untrue about it being a disaster.  Analysis of it did not conclude that is the case.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Bam on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 2:53pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:42am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:40am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06am:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:03am:
It is ridiculous that people get more government assistance to buy investment properties than they get to buy homes to live in.


Is that what you think?



Apparently, or why would he say so:  it sounds correct as well ?


Well, the fact is, we get NO GOVT assistance to BUY negatively geared properties.

So what? There are plenty of tax breaks for investment properties that are not available to the owner occupier. If you add them all up the investor is way ahead.


Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 2:55pm

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:35pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:07am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:06am:
If negative gearing is so evil why has Labor done nothing at all about it ever?


You don't remember Labor removing negative gearing ? Fella named Keating it was.

It was a disaster he had to put it back.


And you lot are STILL carrying on about it. And there has been 6 years of labor since Keating.


According to you it never happened, you have already made you contribution and got it wrong ?


Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Bam on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 2:58pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:33am:
Lisa, darling when you buy an (imaginary) investment property do you claim for interest in your tax return?

And insurance, maintenance, management fees, letting fees, depreciation ...

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:04pm

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:47pm:
It is amazing how time can cause history to be rewritten. THe ending of negative gearing was an abject failure and a disaster and the only evidence you need to prove that is the reversal. Keating hated negative gearing so bringing it back would have been a bitter pill that must have had a lot of good reasons.


Keating had the brains and sense to be able to recognise the error and correct it. Today we still have a shabby government pushing FTTN pulled the pin on climate action and can not seem to correct any of its myriad of mistakes.

Current economists claim that Keating got it wrong in reversing the policy. I am with you on this one I vividly remember the turmoil in housing at the time that they now say never really happened. I don't really know who to believe on this topic anymore.

Was it all right wing media driven crap for the election at the time or are they now rewriting history, I just don't know.



Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by mariacostel on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:14pm

stunspore wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 2:07pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:47pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:52am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:29am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:22am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:19am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:13am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:07am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:06am:
If negative gearing is so evil why has Labor done nothing at all about it ever?


You don't remember Labor removing negative gearing ?


How can anyone forget that short lived messy mistake lol?

Not one of Labor's fine moments in political history unfortunately.

Thank you for reminding us about the blundering buffoonery that can only define Labor.


Anyone who is making significant reform will occasionally get one wrong, this type of problem Turnbull will never have, if you do nothing you get nothing wrong.


1. HEY, YOU BROUGHT THEIR MESS UP.

2. DIDDUMS THAT YOUR ARGUMENT BACKFIRED.


I can accept that he got 1 wrong, no big deal.

If the current used numbers  are correct it wasn't really a mess at all - he actually got it right and it was another politically created media driven dishonest election stunt.

People now say that the housing marked didn't really fail and rental property really wasn't increasing in price and demand wasn't failing to be supplied.

At the time the Australian community through the Liberal party and media were being bombarded with media reports of a pending disaster in housing.

Economist now say that it was all untrue, just like the budget emergency panic.

At the time I believed it, I thought that Labor had stuffed up now I am not so sure.


Translation?  I'm a backpedaller in denial.


It is amazing how time can cause history to be rewritten. THe ending of negative gearing was an abject failure and a disaster and the only evidence you need to prove that is the reversal. Keating hated negative gearing so bringing it back would have been a bitter pill that must have had a lot of good reasons.


Untrue about it being a disaster.  Analysis of it did not conclude that is the case.


And that is why Keating - a long-term hater of negative gearing - rushed to put it back in place?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by crocodile on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:22pm

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 2:53pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:42am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:40am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06am:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:03am:
It is ridiculous that people get more government assistance to buy investment properties than they get to buy homes to live in.


Is that what you think?



Apparently, or why would he say so:  it sounds correct as well ?


Well, the fact is, we get NO GOVT assistance to BUY negatively geared properties.

So what? There are plenty of tax breaks for investment properties that are not available to the owner occupier. If you add them all up the investor is way ahead.


There's a big tax breaks for the owner occupier too. Like capital gains tax exemption. Asset test exemptions too.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dsmithy70 on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:32pm


When Neg Gear is brought up it's defenders site Mum & Dad investors as being the bulk of recipients &  removing it will only hurt them, the middle class not the rich as those opposed to neg gear site as being the main benefactors to the detriment of the young 1st home buyers & those who have to rent.

Simple solution:

Neg Gear can be claimed on maximum 2 properties. Will end the ACA stories of portfolios in the 20 & 30's

Still allows those small investors which those on the right apparently care so much about to claim.

OR

If limiting the amount of properties able to claim is some form of discrimination then allow Neg on NEW builds only.

Both solutions free up housing markets whilst continuing to allow mums & dads to buy a property as a retirement investment.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by mariacostel on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:36pm

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:22pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 2:53pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:42am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:40am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06am:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:03am:
It is ridiculous that people get more government assistance to buy investment properties than they get to buy homes to live in.


Is that what you think?



Apparently, or why would he say so:  it sounds correct as well ?


Well, the fact is, we get NO GOVT assistance to BUY negatively geared properties.

So what? There are plenty of tax breaks for investment properties that are not available to the owner occupier. If you add them all up the investor is way ahead.


There's a big tax breaks for the owner occupier too. Like capital gains tax exemption. Asset test exemptions too.


I find the notion of capital gains tax abhorrent right from the get-go. The mere notion of placing it on the family home is evil. But even on investment properties I find it pretty much an unfair impost. It would be different if it were calculated  - as it once was - as the increase in capital value over the CPI instead of the entire amount.


Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:50pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:32pm:
When Neg Gear is brought up it's defenders site Mum & Dad investors as being the bulk of recipients &  removing it will only hurt them, the middle class not the rich as those opposed to neg gear site as being the main benefactors to the detriment of the young 1st home buyers & those who have to rent.

Simple solution:

Neg Gear can be claimed on maximum 2 properties. Will end the ACA stories of portfolios in the 20 & 30's

Still allows those small investors which those on the right apparently care so much about to claim.

OR

If limiting the amount of properties able to claim is some form of discrimination then allow Neg on NEW builds only.

Both solutions free up housing markets whilst continuing to allow mums & dads to buy a property as a retirement investment.



While both proposals have merit, I'd be cautious about the one limiting NG to only new buildings.

It would unintentionally will push the rental market into the outer suburbs as that is where most of the new building is going on, rather than in the city centers. You would end up punishing renters.

NG is supposed to increase the rental pool, not shift it away from the centers.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dsmithy70 on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:55pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:50pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:32pm:
When Neg Gear is brought up it's defenders site Mum & Dad investors as being the bulk of recipients &  removing it will only hurt them, the middle class not the rich as those opposed to neg gear site as being the main benefactors to the detriment of the young 1st home buyers & those who have to rent.

Simple solution:

Neg Gear can be claimed on maximum 2 properties. Will end the ACA stories of portfolios in the 20 & 30's

Still allows those small investors which those on the right apparently care so much about to claim.

OR

If limiting the amount of properties able to claim is some form of discrimination then allow Neg on NEW builds only.

Both solutions free up housing markets whilst continuing to allow mums & dads to buy a property as a retirement investment.



While both proposals have merit, I'd be cautious about the one limiting NG to only new buildings.

It would unintentionally will push the rental market into the outer suburbs as that is where most of the new building is going on, rather than in the city centers. You would end up punishing renters.

NG is supposed to increase the rental pool, not shift it away from the centers.


But John, that's the argument on housing anyway.

You buy in the new outer suburbs & make your way in as you move "UP" the real estate ladder.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:57pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:55pm:
But John, that's the argument on housing anyway.

You buy in the new outer suburbs & make your way in as you move "UP" the real estate ladder.


that doesn't make it a good argument.

Like I said, I don't disagree with it entirely, I'd just be cautious about the fine print.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:08pm

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:14pm:
And that is why Keating - a long-term hater of negative gearing - rushed to put it back in place?


It could have just been because of how effective the Liberal and right wing media scare campaign were exploiting it in the lead up to the election.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:11pm

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:22pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 2:53pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:42am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:40am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06am:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:03am:
It is ridiculous that people get more government assistance to buy investment properties than they get to buy homes to live in.


Is that what you think?



Apparently, or why would he say so:  it sounds correct as well ?


Well, the fact is, we get NO GOVT assistance to BUY negatively geared properties.

So what? There are plenty of tax breaks for investment properties that are not available to the owner occupier. If you add them all up the investor is way ahead.


There's a big tax breaks for the owner occupier too. Like capital gains tax exemption. Asset test exemptions too.


There is typically no capital gain on the family home, it is typically sold to buy a new home that has had its price increased by a similar amount.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by lee on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:12pm

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:08pm:
It could have just been because of how effective the Liberal and right wing media scare campaign were exploiting it in the lead up to the election.


So you're saying he was more interested in retaining government rather than good government?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:13pm

lee wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:12pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:08pm:
It could have just been because of how effective the Liberal and right wing media scare campaign were exploiting it in the lead up to the election.


So you're saying he was more interested in retaining government rather than good government?


I think he's saying he listened to the people that voted for him despite it going against his own personal beliefs. MP's are there to represent us after all. :D :D

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by lee on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:15pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:13pm:
MP's are there to represent us after all.



When was the last time that happened? Merely timeservers.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:17pm

lee wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:15pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:13pm:
MP's are there to represent us after all.



When was the last time that happened? Merely timeservers.


Agree, it doesn't happen as often as it should

Nevertheless, they are elected is to represent their constituents.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by crocodile on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:34pm

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:11pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:22pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 2:53pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:42am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:40am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06am:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:03am:
It is ridiculous that people get more government assistance to buy investment properties than they get to buy homes to live in.


Is that what you think?



Apparently, or why would he say so:  it sounds correct as well ?


Well, the fact is, we get NO GOVT assistance to BUY negatively geared properties.

So what? There are plenty of tax breaks for investment properties that are not available to the owner occupier. If you add them all up the investor is way ahead.


There's a big tax breaks for the owner occupier too. Like capital gains tax exemption. Asset test exemptions too.


There is typically no capital gain on the family home, it is typically sold to buy a new home that has had its price increased by a similar amount.


Horseshit. People upsize all the time. Some downsize and pocket the dosh. If I buy a property for 500K and sell it for 800K that's a 300K minus expenses capital gain. The fact that I might purchase another 800K property is irrelevant.


Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:38pm

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:34pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:11pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:22pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 2:53pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:42am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:40am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06am:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:03am:
It is ridiculous that people get more government assistance to buy investment properties than they get to buy homes to live in.


Is that what you think?



Apparently, or why would he say so:  it sounds correct as well ?


Well, the fact is, we get NO GOVT assistance to BUY negatively geared properties.

So what? There are plenty of tax breaks for investment properties that are not available to the owner occupier. If you add them all up the investor is way ahead.


There's a big tax breaks for the owner occupier too. Like capital gains tax exemption. Asset test exemptions too.


There is typically no capital gain on the family home, it is typically sold to buy a new home that has had its price increased by a similar amount.


Horseshit. People upsize all the time. Some downsize and pocket the dosh. If I buy a property for 500K and sell it for 800K that's a 300K minus expenses capital gain. The fact that I might purchase another 800K property is irrelevant.


People do not purchase a family home as an investment and any incidental capital gain is typically an anomaly.



Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:41pm

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:34pm:
Horseshit. People upsize all the time. Some downsize and pocket the dosh. If I buy a property for 500K and sell it for 800K that's a 300K minus expenses capital gain. The fact that I might purchase another 800K property is irrelevant.


People who upsize would be making a capital loss on the transaction, do you propose making that claimable ?

In my view is you want to start treating the family home like an investment it should be tax deductable as well, it should go both ways.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by crocodile on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:50pm

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:41pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:34pm:
Horseshit. People upsize all the time. Some downsize and pocket the dosh. If I buy a property for 500K and sell it for 800K that's a 300K minus expenses capital gain. The fact that I might purchase another 800K property is irrelevant.


People who upsize would be making a capital loss on the transaction, do you propose making that claimable ?

In my view is you want to start treating the family home like an investment it should be tax deductable as well, it should go both ways.


Exactly. That's why expenses are not deductable on the family home.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Neferti on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:52pm

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:41pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:34pm:
Horseshit. People upsize all the time. Some downsize and pocket the dosh. If I buy a property for 500K and sell it for 800K that's a 300K minus expenses capital gain. The fact that I might purchase another 800K property is irrelevant.


People who upsize would be making a capital loss on the transaction, do you propose making that claimable ?

In my view is you want to start treating the family home like an investment it should be tax deductable as well, it should go both ways.


The BANK OWNS your property unless you have paid it off, in full. You are a MORTGAGEE, not a "home owner". 

Upgrading means you want The Bank to take more of your hard-earned.

Down sizing could mean that you are sick of paying a Mortgage and want to take advantage of the "equity" and live a very comfortable life ... MINUS a Mortgage.

Whatever. Big houses and posh cars usually indicate that the family is over-extended and trying to appear UP Market. WHY?  Nobody really cares what everyone else does, unless they are so hell bent on APPEARANCES. ;)

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:31pm

double plus good wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:40pm:
I betcha John Smith is crapping himself on this issue.


He is. Let me tell you why.

The fool thinks he knows real estate....but he has never owned property in his life.

As a matter of fact last time we were discussing the price/cost of real estate,  the ignorant fool pointed out to all of us who apparently know nothing that the reserve price of a property is never revealed to the auctioneer.

Funny stuff lol  ;D

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:36pm

Neferti wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:52pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:41pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:34pm:
Horseshit. People upsize all the time. Some downsize and pocket the dosh. If I buy a property for 500K and sell it for 800K that's a 300K minus expenses capital gain. The fact that I might purchase another 800K property is irrelevant.


People who upsize would be making a capital loss on the transaction, do you propose making that claimable ?

In my view is you want to start treating the family home like an investment it should be tax deductable as well, it should go both ways.


The BANK OWNS your property unless you have paid it off, in full. You are a MORTGAGEE, not a "home owner". 

Upgrading means you want The Bank to take more of your hard-earned.

Down sizing could mean that you are sick of paying a Mortgage and want to take advantage of the "equity" and live a very comfortable life ... MINUS a Mortgage.

Whatever. Big houses and posh cars usually indicate that the family is over-extended and trying to appear UP Market. WHY?  Nobody really cares what everyone else does, unless they are so hell bent on APPEARANCES. ;)


No!

THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION IS THE MORTGAGEE.

(Hence the term "mortgagee sale").

THE PERSON BORROWING THE MONEY FOR THE HOME IS THE MORTGAGOR.


Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:40pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:46pm:

double plus good wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:40pm:
I betcha John Smith is crapping himself on this issue.


I really couldn't give a sh1t ... I sold my negatively geared plastic lego houses a long time ago.


Fixed.

On ebay for around $5 ?

;D


Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:46pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:31pm:

double plus good wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:40pm:
I betcha John Smith is crapping himself on this issue.


He is. Let me tell you why.

The fool thinks he knows real estate....but he has never owned property in his life.

As a matter of fact last time we were discussing the price/cost of real estate,  the ignorant fool pointed out to all of us who apparently know nothing that the reserve price of a property is never revealed to the auctioneer.

Funny stuff lol  ;D



you are too stupid for your own good. I asked you for a link earlier in the hope you might realise your mistake. Unfortunately for you, you are too stupid for your own good.

I said the reserve is not revealed to the AGENT ... of course, you probably think an auctioneer and an agent are the same thing :D :D :D

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:51pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:46pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:31pm:

double plus good wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:40pm:
I betcha John Smith is crapping himself on this issue.


He is. Let me tell you why.

The fool thinks he knows real estate....but he has never owned property in his life.

As a matter of fact last time we were discussing the price/cost of real estate,  the ignorant fool pointed out to all of us who apparently know nothing that the reserve price of a property is never revealed to the auctioneer.

Funny stuff lol  ;D



you are too stupid for your own good. I asked you for a link earlier in the hope you might realise your mistake. Unfortunately for you, you are too stupid for your own good.

I said the reserve is not revealed to the AGENT ... of course, you probably think an auctioneer and an agent are the same thing :D :D :D


Oh F F S, the auctioneer IS ALSO YOUR FREAKING AGENT.

HE WORKS FOR YOU.

And thanks for admitting yet again how you know S F A about buying/selling property.

;D


Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:57pm
You want a link eh?

I'll give you a cut and paste of some of your continuous embarrassing real estate moments on OzPol.

Here's one for everyone to read up on  ;D



Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 6:46pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 6:35pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 6:30pm:
Real Estate 101  Roll Eyes



can't blame Herb for not knowing that .... most members of the public think agents know what the reserve is


Oh sigh.

Here we go again.

John, the selling agent DOES KNOW the reserve price. In fact the reserve price has to be in writing.

The selling agent needs to communicate the reserve price to the Auctioneer who will use it to guide the auction.

Once the reserve price has been reached, the Auctioneer will know that the house is being sold that day. 

Thus the Auctioneer will then make the announcement to all bidders THIS PROPERTY IS ON THE MARKET. That announcement lets every bidder know that the auction is close to the end. As such, they need to get their final bids in.

::)


Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:06pm

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:34pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:11pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:22pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 2:53pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:42am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:40am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06am:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:03am:
It is ridiculous that people get more government assistance to buy investment properties than they get to buy homes to live in.


Is that what you think?



Apparently, or why would he say so:  it sounds correct as well ?


Well, the fact is, we get NO GOVT assistance to BUY negatively geared properties.

So what? There are plenty of tax breaks for investment properties that are not available to the owner occupier. If you add them all up the investor is way ahead.


There's a big tax breaks for the owner occupier too. Like capital gains tax exemption. Asset test exemptions too.


There is typically no capital gain on the family home, it is typically sold to buy a new home that has had its price increased by a similar amount.


Horseshit. People upsize all the time. Some downsize and pocket the dosh. If I buy a property for 500K and sell it for 800K that's a 300K minus expenses capital gain. The fact that I might purchase another 800K property is irrelevant.


Horseshit.

I can put up with a lot but now you are treading on Scoots ground and that is just not on.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:13pm
Oh look....John Smith has once again been exposed as an ignorant fool who lies ....and he's run away in fear and dread.

Predictable...and boring  :o

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:17pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:51pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:46pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:31pm:

double plus good wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:40pm:
I betcha John Smith is crapping himself on this issue.


He is. Let me tell you why.

The fool thinks he knows real estate....but he has never owned property in his life.

As a matter of fact last time we were discussing the price/cost of real estate,  the ignorant fool pointed out to all of us who apparently know nothing that the reserve price of a property is never revealed to the auctioneer.

Funny stuff lol  ;D



you are too stupid for your own good. I asked you for a link earlier in the hope you might realise your mistake. Unfortunately for you, you are too stupid for your own good.

I said the reserve is not revealed to the AGENT ... of course, you probably think an auctioneer and an agent are the same thing :D :D :D


Oh F F S, the auctioneer IS ALSO YOUR FREAKING AGENT.

HE WORKS FOR YOU.

And thanks for admitting yet again how you know S F A about buying/selling property.

;D


The auctioneer is not your agent you farkin id iot. Sure some agent can be an auctioneer as well, but most agents outsource their auctions.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:20pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:31pm:
the ignorant fool pointed out to all of us who apparently know nothing that the reserve price of a property is never revealed to the auctioneer.



from YOUR link

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:57pm:
John, the selling agent DOES KNOW the reserve price. In fact the reserve price has to be in writing.



make up your mind, did I say agent? or did I say auctioneer? so far you've tried to claim I said them both :D :D :D

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:21pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:17pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:51pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:46pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:31pm:

double plus good wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:40pm:
I betcha John Smith is crapping himself on this issue.


He is. Let me tell you why.

The fool thinks he knows real estate....but he has never owned property in his life.

As a matter of fact last time we were discussing the price/cost of real estate,  the ignorant fool pointed out to all of us who apparently know nothing that the reserve price of a property is never revealed to the auctioneer.

Funny stuff lol  ;D



you are too stupid for your own good. I asked you for a link earlier in the hope you might realise your mistake. Unfortunately for you, you are too stupid for your own good.

I said the reserve is not revealed to the AGENT ... of course, you probably think an auctioneer and an agent are the same thing :D :D :D


Oh F F S, the auctioneer IS ALSO YOUR FREAKING AGENT.

HE WORKS FOR YOU.

And thanks for admitting yet again how you know S F A about buying/selling property.

;D


The auctioneer is not your agent you farkin id iot. Sure some agent can be an auctioneer as well, but most agents outsource their auctions.


Translation : 

1. He can't read AND comprehend English

2. HE STILL KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT REAL ESTATE.

:D :o ;D


Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:23pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:57pm:
You want a link eh?

I'll give you a cut and paste of some of your continuous embarrassing real estate moments on OzPol.

Here's one for everyone to read up on  ;D



Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 6:46pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 6:35pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 6:30pm:
Real Estate 101  Roll Eyes



can't blame Herb for not knowing that .... most members of the public think agents know what the reserve is


Oh sigh.

Here we go again.

John, the selling agent DOES KNOW the reserve price. In fact the reserve price has to be in writing.

The selling agent needs to communicate the reserve price to the Auctioneer who will use it to guide the auction.

Once the reserve price has been reached, the Auctioneer will know that the house is being sold that day. 

Thus the Auctioneer will then make the announcement to all bidders THIS PROPERTY IS ON THE MARKET. That announcement lets every bidder know that the auction is close to the end. As such, they need to get their final bids in.

::)


Up for a good laugh!

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:25pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:57pm:
You want a link eh?

I'll give you a cut and paste of some of your continuous embarrassing real estate moments on OzPol.

Here's one for everyone to read up on  Grin



oh, and a cut and paste of your own comments doesn't prove anything except what a fruit loop you are

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:27pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:20pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:31pm:
the ignorant fool pointed out to all of us who apparently know nothing that the reserve price of a property is never revealed to the auctioneer.



from YOUR link

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:57pm:
John, the selling agent DOES KNOW the reserve price. In fact the reserve price has to be in writing.



make up your mind, did I say agent? or did I say auctioneer? so far you've tried to claim I said them both :D :D :D



still waiting malaca

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:27pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:23pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:57pm:
You want a link eh?

I'll give you a cut and paste of some of your continuous embarrassing real estate moments on OzPol.

Here's one for everyone to read up on  ;D



Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 6:46pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 6:35pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 6:30pm:
Real Estate 101  Roll Eyes



can't blame Herb for not knowing that .... most members of the public think agents know what the reserve is


Oh sigh.

Here we go again.

John, the selling agent DOES KNOW the reserve price. In fact the reserve price has to be in writing.

The selling agent needs to communicate the reserve price to the Auctioneer who will use it to guide the auction.

Once the reserve price has been reached, the Auctioneer will know that the house is being sold that day. 

Thus the Auctioneer will then make the announcement to all bidders THIS PROPERTY IS ON THE MARKET. That announcement lets every bidder know that the auction is close to the end. As such, they need to get their final bids in.

::)


Up for a good laugh!


But wait, there's more lmao.


John Smith wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 7:07pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 6:46pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 6:35pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 6:30pm:
Real Estate 101  Roll Eyes



can't blame Herb for not knowing that .... most members of the public think agents know what the reserve is


Oh sigh.

Here we go again.

John, the selling agent DOES KNOW the reserve price. In fact the reserve price has to be in writing.

The selling agent needs to communicate the reserve price to the Auctioneer who will use it to guide the auction.

Once the reserve price has been reached, the Auctioneer will know that the house is being sold that day. 

Thus the Auctioneer will then make the announcement to all bidders THIS PROPERTY IS ON THE MARKET. That announcement lets every bidder know that the auction is close to the end. As such, they need to get their final bids in.

::)


Must work differently in NSW Lisa because in Qld, only the auctioneer knows the reserve.


;D :o  :D

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:28pm
is that your concession speach Lisa?  :D :D

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:30pm
And Aussie then entered the same real estate topic (laughing too no doubt) ....to show you up for being an imposter with absolutely no clue about real estate or Qld.

Ho hum lol  ;D


Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:32pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:30pm:
And Aussie then entered the same real estate topic (laughing too no doubt) ....to show you up for being an imposter.

Ho hum lol  ;D


is this your attempt to divert attention from the fact that you haven't a clue how negative gearing works?

and I'm not sure what I was supposed to be an imposter off, but whatever rocks your boat  :D :D :D

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:33pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:28pm:
is that your concession speach Lisa?  :D :D


Speech or speach?

Speak English properly. After all it's the only language you "know". :o

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:37pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:32pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:30pm:
And Aussie then entered the same real estate topic (laughing too no doubt) ....to show you up for being an imposter.

Ho hum lol  ;D


is this your attempt to divert attention from the fact that you haven't a clue how negative gearing works?

and I'm not sure what I was supposed to be an imposter off, but whatever rocks your boat  :D :D :D


I made a gross profit of a million dollars last financial year, thanks to negative gearing.

And that did rock my world.

Meantime, you're still sitting there, trying hard to post over your exposed ignorant and embarrassing real estate moments on Oz Pol...all from the comfort of that little flat you rent, and you've earned nothing.

Thanks for playing. It's been fun.  ;D


Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Agnes on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:40pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:33pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:28pm:
is that your concession speach Lisa?  :D :D


Speech or speach?

Speak English properly. After all it's the only language you "know". :o


Ms Multi always attacks spelling and punctuation every time she is losing which is at least twice today  :D ;D :D ;D

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:41pm
Now...somewhere here amongst all John Smith's online and exposed nonsense, is a topic.


Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:46am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:35am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:30am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:26am:
No He's not!

And how about you read my post...the one I've highlighted just for Johhny who clearly knows S F A about real estate.

Then come back and tell me if I'm wrong.

NB I know I'm right. Unlike clueless Johnny, I've been through the process a few times.


I never once got any govt assistance to BUY a negatively geared property.  Fact!


No comeback?

Thought so.

I accept your surrender.

Let's move on.


Lisa the fact that it is negative geared means that you are getting government assistance on you tax.

The government are effectively helping you to pay your loan.


Oh My God Father lol...that's a different matter altogether.

In BUYING the home for the purposes of negatively gearing it, no govt assistance is given.

That is what I have been saying.

Read back. It's all there.

In order to BUY a home, you must meet certain criteria in order to take out the loan to cover its purchase.

In meeting these criteria, your financial institution will take into consideration what money/assets you have upfront. They also include 1st home owner grants etc. No grants exist for negatively geared properties.

That's what I've been essentially posting.


Up!

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:43pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:37pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:32pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:30pm:
And Aussie then entered the same real estate topic (laughing too no doubt) ....to show you up for being an imposter.

Ho hum lol  ;D


is this your attempt to divert attention from the fact that you haven't a clue how negative gearing works?

and I'm not sure what I was supposed to be an imposter off, but whatever rocks your boat  :D :D :D


I made a gross profit of a million dollars last financial year, thanks to negative gearing.

And that did rock my world.

Meantime, you're still sitting there, trying hard to post over your exposed ignorant and embarrassing real estate moments on Oz Pol...all from the comfort of that little flat you rent, and you've earned nothing.

Thanks for playing. It's been fun.  ;D

you made $1m from negative gearing? You don't even know what negative gearing is. Lucky for you profit in real estate is determined by  demand of others

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:44pm

lee wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 1:24pm:
The Henry Tax Review did look into negative gearing as part of KRudd's "root and branch" assessment of Australian tax treatment.

'The Henry Review recommended reducing the benefit of negative gearing by allowing only a 40% capital gains discount, but this was rejected by then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.'

http://theconversation.com/six-simple-tax-reforms-plagued-by-politics-44906

Another not so fine moment?


Up!

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:45pm



Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:46am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:35am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:30am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:26am:
No He's not!

And how about you read my post...the one I've highlighted just for Johhny who clearly knows S F A about real estate.

Then come back and tell me if I'm wrong.

NB I know I'm right. Unlike clueless Johnny, I've been through the process a few times.


I never once got any govt assistance to BUY a negatively geared property.  Fact!


No comeback?

Thought so.

I accept your surrender.

Let's move on.


Lisa the fact that it is negative geared means that you are getting government assistance on you tax.

The government are effectively helping you to pay your loan.


Oh My God Father lol...that's a different matter altogether.

In BUYING the home for the purposes of negatively gearing it, no govt assistance is given.

That is what I have been saying.

Read back. It's all there.

In order to BUY a home, you must meet certain criteria in order to take out the loan to cover its purchase.

In meeting these criteria, your financial institution will take into consideration what money/assets you have upfront. They also include 1st home owner grants etc. No grants exist for negatively geared properties.

That's what I've been essentially posting.


Up!

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:46pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:36pm:

Neferti wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:52pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:41pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:34pm:
Horseshit. People upsize all the time. Some downsize and pocket the dosh. If I buy a property for 500K and sell it for 800K that's a 300K minus expenses capital gain. The fact that I might purchase another 800K property is irrelevant.


People who upsize would be making a capital loss on the transaction, do you propose making that claimable ?

In my view is you want to start treating the family home like an investment it should be tax deductable as well, it should go both ways.


The BANK OWNS your property unless you have paid it off, in full. You are a MORTGAGEE, not a "home owner". 

Upgrading means you want The Bank to take more of your hard-earned.

Down sizing could mean that you are sick of paying a Mortgage and want to take advantage of the "equity" and live a very comfortable life ... MINUS a Mortgage.

Whatever. Big houses and posh cars usually indicate that the family is over-extended and trying to appear UP Market. WHY?  Nobody really cares what everyone else does, unless they are so hell bent on APPEARANCES. ;)


No!

THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION IS THE MORTGAGEE.

(Hence the term "mortgagee sale").

THE PERSON BORROWING THE MONEY FOR THE HOME IS THE MORTGAGOR.


Up!

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:49pm

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:38pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:34pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:11pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:22pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 2:53pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:42am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:40am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06am:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:03am:
It is ridiculous that people get more government assistance to buy investment properties than they get to buy homes to live in.


Is that what you think?



Apparently, or why would he say so:  it sounds correct as well ?


Well, the fact is, we get NO GOVT assistance to BUY negatively geared properties.

So what? There are plenty of tax breaks for investment properties that are not available to the owner occupier. If you add them all up the investor is way ahead.


There's a big tax breaks for the owner occupier too. Like capital gains tax exemption. Asset test exemptions too.


There is typically no capital gain on the family home, it is typically sold to buy a new home that has had its price increased by a similar amount.


Horseshit. People upsize all the time. Some downsize and pocket the dosh. If I buy a property for 500K and sell it for 800K that's a 300K minus expenses capital gain. The fact that I might purchase another 800K property is irrelevant.


People do not purchase a family home as an investment and any incidental capital gain is typically an anomaly.


Wrong!

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:59pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:49pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:38pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:34pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:11pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:22pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 2:53pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:42am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:40am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06am:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:03am:
It is ridiculous that people get more government assistance to buy investment properties than they get to buy homes to live in.


Is that what you think?



Apparently, or why would he say so:  it sounds correct as well ?


Well, the fact is, we get NO GOVT assistance to BUY negatively geared properties.

So what? There are plenty of tax breaks for investment properties that are not available to the owner occupier. If you add them all up the investor is way ahead.


There's a big tax breaks for the owner occupier too. Like capital gains tax exemption. Asset test exemptions too.


There is typically no capital gain on the family home, it is typically sold to buy a new home that has had its price increased by a similar amount.


Horseshit. People upsize all the time. Some downsize and pocket the dosh. If I buy a property for 500K and sell it for 800K that's a 300K minus expenses capital gain. The fact that I might purchase another 800K property is irrelevant.


People do not purchase a family home as an investment and any incidental capital gain is typically an anomaly.


Wrong!


Well your family home is an investment. none of mine ever have been.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06pm

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:59pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:49pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:38pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:34pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:11pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:22pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 2:53pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:42am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:40am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06am:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:03am:
It is ridiculous that people get more government assistance to buy investment properties than they get to buy homes to live in.


Is that what you think?



Apparently, or why would he say so:  it sounds correct as well ?


Well, the fact is, we get NO GOVT assistance to BUY negatively geared properties.

So what? There are plenty of tax breaks for investment properties that are not available to the owner occupier. If you add them all up the investor is way ahead.


There's a big tax breaks for the owner occupier too. Like capital gains tax exemption. Asset test exemptions too.


There is typically no capital gain on the family home, it is typically sold to buy a new home that has had its price increased by a similar amount.


Horseshit. People upsize all the time. Some downsize and pocket the dosh. If I buy a property for 500K and sell it for 800K that's a 300K minus expenses capital gain. The fact that I might purchase another 800K property is irrelevant.


People do not purchase a family home as an investment and any incidental capital gain is typically an anomaly.


Wrong!


Well your family home is an investment. none of mine ever have been.


And that my dear friend is the difference btwn a winner and loser in real estate. NB Not trying to be derogatory here either ok lol?

YOUR FAMILY HOME IS IN FACT THE BASIS FOR THE BIGGEST INVESTMENT YOU WILL EVER MAKE...BOTH FOR YOU AND YOUR KIDS.







Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Leftwinger on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:20pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:59pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:49pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:38pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:34pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:11pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:22pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 2:53pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:42am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:40am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06am:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:03am:
It is ridiculous that people get more government assistance to buy investment properties than they get to buy homes to live in.


Is that what you think?



Apparently, or why would he say so:  it sounds correct as well ?


Well, the fact is, we get NO GOVT assistance to BUY negatively geared properties.

So what? There are plenty of tax breaks for investment properties that are not available to the owner occupier. If you add them all up the investor is way ahead.


There's a big tax breaks for the owner occupier too. Like capital gains tax exemption. Asset test exemptions too.


There is typically no capital gain on the family home, it is typically sold to buy a new home that has had its price increased by a similar amount.


Horseshit. People upsize all the time. Some downsize and pocket the dosh. If I buy a property for 500K and sell it for 800K that's a 300K minus expenses capital gain. The fact that I might purchase another 800K property is irrelevant.


People do not purchase a family home as an investment and any incidental capital gain is typically an anomaly.


Wrong!


Well your family home is an investment. none of mine ever have been.


And that my dear friend is the difference btwn a winner and loser in real estate. NB Not trying to be derogatory here either ok lol?

YOUR FAMILY HOME IS IN FACT THE BASIS FOR THE BIGGEST INVESTMENT YOU WILL EVER MAKE...BOTH FOR YOU AND YOUR KIDS.


How profound , thankyou for your insights Captain Obvious

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:30pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06pm:
And that my dear friend is the difference btwn a winner and loser in real estate. NB Not trying to be derogatory here either ok lol?

YOUR FAMILY HOME IS IN FACT THE BASIS FOR THE BIGGEST INVESTMENT YOU WILL EVER MAKE...BOTH FOR YOU AND YOUR KIDS.


I have done ok in real estate and none of the three homes I have purchased have ever been for investment.

In fact when my Daughter wants to buy a home I will probably sell an investment property to pay for the one she wants.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Leftwinger on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:36pm

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:30pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06pm:
And that my dear friend is the difference btwn a winner and loser in real estate. NB Not trying to be derogatory here either ok lol?

YOUR FAMILY HOME IS IN FACT THE BASIS FOR THE BIGGEST INVESTMENT YOU WILL EVER MAKE...BOTH FOR YOU AND YOUR KIDS.


I have done ok in real estate and none of the three homes I have purchased have ever been for investment.

In fact when my Daughter wants to buy a home I will probably sell an investment property to pay for the one she wants.


Shes not that dumb  ;)

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:10pm

Its time wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:36pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:30pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06pm:
And that my dear friend is the difference btwn a winner and loser in real estate. NB Not trying to be derogatory here either ok lol?

YOUR FAMILY HOME IS IN FACT THE BASIS FOR THE BIGGEST INVESTMENT YOU WILL EVER MAKE...BOTH FOR YOU AND YOUR KIDS.


I have done ok in real estate and none of the three homes I have purchased have ever been for investment.

In fact when my Daughter wants to buy a home I will probably sell an investment property to pay for the one she wants.


Shes not that dumb  ;)


Actually she is.

She should have been able to buy her own property.

And to think....the 3 homes he's purchased have never been for investment, yet he will sell one investment property to buy his daughter a home.

Come back to me after you've both sobered up a tad.

I'm tired of reading inconsistent rubbish  :o





Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:29pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:10pm:

Its time wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:36pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:30pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06pm:
And that my dear friend is the difference btwn a winner and loser in real estate. NB Not trying to be derogatory here either ok lol?

YOUR FAMILY HOME IS IN FACT THE BASIS FOR THE BIGGEST INVESTMENT YOU WILL EVER MAKE...BOTH FOR YOU AND YOUR KIDS.


I have done ok in real estate and none of the three homes I have purchased have ever been for investment.

In fact when my Daughter wants to buy a home I will probably sell an investment property to pay for the one she wants.


Shes not that dumb  ;)


Actually she is.

She should have been able to buy her own property.

And to think....the 3 homes he's purchased have never been for investment, yet he will sell one investment property to buy his daughter a home.

Come back to me after you've both sobered up a tad.

I'm tired of reading inconsistent rubbish  :o


You don't understand that you buy a home to live in and an investment property for investment ? It isn't difficult to understand that they are different.

There is no inconsistency.

She should have been able to buy her own property.

Maybe she will but it does not look promising at the moment but then she is only 20.  If I can help her out with a good start I likely will.


Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:53pm

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:29pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:10pm:

Its time wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:36pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:30pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06pm:
And that my dear friend is the difference btwn a winner and loser in real estate. NB Not trying to be derogatory here either ok lol?

YOUR FAMILY HOME IS IN FACT THE BASIS FOR THE BIGGEST INVESTMENT YOU WILL EVER MAKE...BOTH FOR YOU AND YOUR KIDS.


I have done ok in real estate and none of the three homes I have purchased have never been for investment.

In fact when my Daughter wants to buy a home I will probably sell an investment property to pay for the one she wants.


Shes not that dumb  ;)


Actually she is.

She should have been able to buy her own property.

And to think....the 3 homes he's purchased have never been for investment, yet he will sell one investment property to buy his daughter a home.

Come back to me after you've both sobered up a tad.

I'm tired of reading inconsistent rubbish  :o


You don't understand that you buy a home to live in and an investment property for investment ? It isn't difficult to understand that they are different.

There is no inconsistency.

She should have been able to buy her own property.

Maybe she will but it does not look promising at the moment but then she is only 20.  If I can help her out with a good start I likely will.


You're the one making inconsistent claims about what type of real estate you have.

I'm merely highlighting these for you. In yellow.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:10am

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:53pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:29pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:10pm:

Its time wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:36pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:30pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06pm:
And that my dear friend is the difference btwn a winner and loser in real estate. NB Not trying to be derogatory here either ok lol?

YOUR FAMILY HOME IS IN FACT THE BASIS FOR THE BIGGEST INVESTMENT YOU WILL EVER MAKE...BOTH FOR YOU AND YOUR KIDS.


I have done ok in real estate and none of the three homes I have purchased have never been for investment.

In fact when my Daughter wants to buy a home I will probably sell an investment property to pay for the one she wants.


Shes not that dumb  ;)


Actually she is.

She should have been able to buy her own property.

And to think....the 3 homes he's purchased have never been for investment, yet he will sell one investment property to buy his daughter a home.

Come back to me after you've both sobered up a tad.

I'm tired of reading inconsistent rubbish  :o


You don't understand that you buy a home to live in and an investment property for investment ? It isn't difficult to understand that they are different.

There is no inconsistency.

She should have been able to buy her own property.

Maybe she will but it does not look promising at the moment but then she is only 20.  If I can help her out with a good start I likely will.


You're the one making inconsistent claims about what type of real estate you have.

I'm merely highlighting these for you. In yellow.


I will type slowly for you, the homes I bought to live in were one at a time. You know sell the home and buy another one. The investment property I have had over the years were purchased separately and held concurrently. When I talk about owning a home I am not referring to investment property and if I refer to investment property I am not talking about my home. I am sure that it isn't difficult to understand.

Every time you sell your home to buy another one it costs you a lot of money, there is no profit in this process for the majority of people.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:15am

Dnarever wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:10am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:53pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:29pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 10:10pm:

Its time wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:36pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:30pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06pm:
And that my dear friend is the difference btwn a winner and loser in real estate. NB Not trying to be derogatory here either ok lol?

YOUR FAMILY HOME IS IN FACT THE BASIS FOR THE BIGGEST INVESTMENT YOU WILL EVER MAKE...BOTH FOR YOU AND YOUR KIDS.


I have done ok in real estate and none of the three homes I have purchased have never been for investment.

In fact when my Daughter wants to buy a home I will probably sell an investment property to pay for the one she wants.


Shes not that dumb  ;)


Actually she is.

She should have been able to buy her own property.

And to think....the 3 homes he's purchased have never been for investment, yet he will sell one investment property to buy his daughter a home.

Come back to me after you've both sobered up a tad.

I'm tired of reading inconsistent rubbish  :o


You don't understand that you buy a home to live in and an investment property for investment ? It isn't difficult to understand that they are different.

There is no inconsistency.

She should have been able to buy her own property.

Maybe she will but it does not look promising at the moment but then she is only 20.  If I can help her out with a good start I likely will.


You're the one making inconsistent claims about what type of real estate you have.

I'm merely highlighting these for you. In yellow.


I will type slowly for you, the homes I bought to live in were one at a time. You know sell the home and buy another one. The investment property I have had over the years were purchased separately and held concurrently. When I talk about owning a home I am not referring to investment property and if I refer to investment property I am not talking about my home. I am sure that it isn't difficult to understand.

Every time you sell your home to buy another one it costs you a lot of money, there is no profit in this process for the majority of people.


2 points

1. It's hardly my problem if your posts are unclear and I'm forced to highlight your lack in clarity.

2. If you know real estate, you MAKE money when selling your family home. A lot of money.


Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:25am

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:15am:
2 points

1. It's hardly my problem if your posts are unclear and I'm forced to highlight your lack in clarity.

2. If you know real estate, you MAKE money when selling your family home. A lot of money.


1. Most people understand that a home and an investment are different things it isn't unclear IMO.

2. Any money you make on selling a home is offset by the costs involved and the new home you purchase has increased by proportionally the same amount meaning that any increased valus is required to cover the cost of the new home and usually more.

On the overall deal of changing homes the outcome in the majority of cases is a loss and not a profit.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by mariacostel on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:25am

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:08pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:14pm:
And that is why Keating - a long-term hater of negative gearing - rushed to put it back in place?


It could have just been because of how effective the Liberal and right wing media scare campaign were exploiting it in the lead up to the election.


Your hero Keating was somewhat unlikely to be easily budged by media, especially back then when he was in his ascendency.  Just accept that Keating found it was a bad decision and repealed it.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Bam on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:26am

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:50pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:32pm:
When Neg Gear is brought up it's defenders site Mum & Dad investors as being the bulk of recipients &  removing it will only hurt them, the middle class not the rich as those opposed to neg gear site as being the main benefactors to the detriment of the young 1st home buyers & those who have to rent.

Simple solution:

Neg Gear can be claimed on maximum 2 properties. Will end the ACA stories of portfolios in the 20 & 30's

Still allows those small investors which those on the right apparently care so much about to claim.

OR

If limiting the amount of properties able to claim is some form of discrimination then allow Neg on NEW builds only.

Both solutions free up housing markets whilst continuing to allow mums & dads to buy a property as a retirement investment.



While both proposals have merit, I'd be cautious about the one limiting NG to only new buildings.

It would unintentionally will push the rental market into the outer suburbs as that is where most of the new building is going on, rather than in the city centers. You would end up punishing renters.

NG is supposed to increase the rental pool, not shift it away from the centers.

You seem to be assuming that there won't be any tax breaks at all. This is not a safe assumption.

It's far safer to assume that an abolished NG will be replaced by another form of tax break, such as allowing expenses to be offset against future profits. All that would happen then is that the tax breaks are deferred rather than taken immediately. It would also discourage the practice of leaving investment properties empty to make a profit purely from the capital gain.

I don't think anyone here is advocating replacing NG with nothing at all.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:40am

mariacostel wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:25am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:08pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:14pm:
And that is why Keating - a long-term hater of negative gearing - rushed to put it back in place?


It could have just been because of how effective the Liberal and right wing media scare campaign were exploiting it in the lead up to the election.


Your hero Keating was somewhat unlikely to be easily budged by media, especially back then when he was in his ascendency.  Just accept that Keating found it was a bad decision and repealed it.


You think that Keating never made a politically expedient decision ? The truth is that I don't know any more than you do.

We do have current day economists re-writhing the history of that process and it is unclear to me who is correct and how much of it Keating would have been aware of.

Mine and I suspect your knowledge of events at that time was coming from the media.

We were told that housing market was crashing the cost of rental property was going through the roof new rental property was not going to be built current property was left empty and the homeless numbers had become a crisis. It was a full scale media panic on housing. With an election on the door step.

Today we have economists telling us that it never happened.

Did Keating pull the policy because he believed the stories or was it because he understood the politics ? I don't know the answer it could have very reasonable been either.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by mariacostel on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:51am

Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:26am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:50pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:32pm:
When Neg Gear is brought up it's defenders site Mum & Dad investors as being the bulk of recipients &  removing it will only hurt them, the middle class not the rich as those opposed to neg gear site as being the main benefactors to the detriment of the young 1st home buyers & those who have to rent.

Simple solution:

Neg Gear can be claimed on maximum 2 properties. Will end the ACA stories of portfolios in the 20 & 30's

Still allows those small investors which those on the right apparently care so much about to claim.

OR

If limiting the amount of properties able to claim is some form of discrimination then allow Neg on NEW builds only.

Both solutions free up housing markets whilst continuing to allow mums & dads to buy a property as a retirement investment.



While both proposals have merit, I'd be cautious about the one limiting NG to only new buildings.

It would unintentionally will push the rental market into the outer suburbs as that is where most of the new building is going on, rather than in the city centers. You would end up punishing renters.

NG is supposed to increase the rental pool, not shift it away from the centers.

You seem to be assuming that there won't be any tax breaks at all. This is not a safe assumption.

It's far safer to assume that an abolished NG will be replaced by another form of tax break, such as allowing expenses to be offset against future profits. All that would happen then is that the tax breaks are deferred rather than taken immediately. It would also discourage the practice of leaving investment properties empty to make a profit purely from the capital gain.

I don't think anyone here is advocating replacing NG with nothing at all.


In fact you are the ONLY person to have suggested that. The NG haters have only ever referred to complete removal.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by mariacostel on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:53am

Dnarever wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:40am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:25am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:08pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:14pm:
And that is why Keating - a long-term hater of negative gearing - rushed to put it back in place?


It could have just been because of how effective the Liberal and right wing media scare campaign were exploiting it in the lead up to the election.


Your hero Keating was somewhat unlikely to be easily budged by media, especially back then when he was in his ascendency.  Just accept that Keating found it was a bad decision and repealed it.


You think that Keating never made a politically expedient decision ? The truth is that I don't know any more than you do.

We do have current day economists re-writhing the history of that process and it is unclear to me who is correct and how much of it Keating would have been aware of.

Mine and I suspect your knowledge of events at that time was coming from the media.

We were told that housing market was crashing the cost of rental property was going through the roof new rental property was not going to be built current property was left empty and the homeless numbers had become a crisis. It was a full scale media panic on housing. With an election on the door step.

Today we have economists telling us that it never happened.

Did Keating pull the policy because he believed the stories or was it because he understood the politics ? I don't know the answer it could have very reasonable been either.



Rewriting of history is always entertaining for those that were there. That's how you get the Structural Deficit, conveniently discovered many years after Howard. it is also how you get the embarrassment of people here today denying that the Faceless Men incident in 1963 didnt in fact happen. (ignore the photos and statements by all those invovled!)

It is like pre-school around here sometimes.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 4th, 2016 at 9:36am

mariacostel wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:53am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:40am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:25am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:08pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:14pm:
And that is why Keating - a long-term hater of negative gearing - rushed to put it back in place?


It could have just been because of how effective the Liberal and right wing media scare campaign were exploiting it in the lead up to the election.


Your hero Keating was somewhat unlikely to be easily budged by media, especially back then when he was in his ascendency.  Just accept that Keating found it was a bad decision and repealed it.


You think that Keating never made a politically expedient decision ? The truth is that I don't know any more than you do.

We do have current day economists re-writhing the history of that process and it is unclear to me who is correct and how much of it Keating would have been aware of.

Mine and I suspect your knowledge of events at that time was coming from the media.

We were told that housing market was crashing the cost of rental property was going through the roof new rental property was not going to be built current property was left empty and the homeless numbers had become a crisis. It was a full scale media panic on housing. With an election on the door step.

Today we have economists telling us that it never happened.

Did Keating pull the policy because he believed the stories or was it because he understood the politics ? I don't know the answer it could have very reasonable been either.



Rewriting of history is always entertaining for those that were there. That's how you get the Structural Deficit, conveniently discovered many years after Howard. it is also how you get the embarrassment of people here today denying that the Faceless Men incident in 1963 didnt in fact happen. (ignore the photos and statements by all those invovled!)

It is like pre-school around here sometimes.


You know that the latest liberal budget documents structural deficit going back to 2007 ?

Structural budget balance
2004 to 2015
1.3
1.2
0.5
-0.2 2007
-3.6
-4.8
-4.4
-4.3
-2.1
-3.6
-2.3
-1.7 2015


Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 4th, 2016 at 9:48am

mariacostel wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:53am:
for those that were there. That's how you get the Structural Deficit, conveniently discovered many years after Howard. it is also how you get the embarrassment of people here today denying that the Faceless Men incident in 1963 didnt in fact happen. (ignore the photos and statements by all those invovled!)

It is like pre-school around here sometimes.


I don't believe it is credible to suggest that the 1963 incident never happened but unlike the removal of NG I have no direct memory of this incident only a vague recollection. However the exact detail is more than a little incomplete and not well understood by most of us, including me.

I doubt that this incident from 1963 has any relevance today.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Bam on Feb 4th, 2016 at 11:31am

mariacostel wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:51am:

Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:26am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:50pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:32pm:
When Neg Gear is brought up it's defenders site Mum & Dad investors as being the bulk of recipients &  removing it will only hurt them, the middle class not the rich as those opposed to neg gear site as being the main benefactors to the detriment of the young 1st home buyers & those who have to rent.

Simple solution:

Neg Gear can be claimed on maximum 2 properties. Will end the ACA stories of portfolios in the 20 & 30's

Still allows those small investors which those on the right apparently care so much about to claim.

OR

If limiting the amount of properties able to claim is some form of discrimination then allow Neg on NEW builds only.

Both solutions free up housing markets whilst continuing to allow mums & dads to buy a property as a retirement investment.



While both proposals have merit, I'd be cautious about the one limiting NG to only new buildings.

It would unintentionally will push the rental market into the outer suburbs as that is where most of the new building is going on, rather than in the city centers. You would end up punishing renters.

NG is supposed to increase the rental pool, not shift it away from the centers.

You seem to be assuming that there won't be any tax breaks at all. This is not a safe assumption.

It's far safer to assume that an abolished NG will be replaced by another form of tax break, such as allowing expenses to be offset against future profits. All that would happen then is that the tax breaks are deferred rather than taken immediately. It would also discourage the practice of leaving investment properties empty to make a profit purely from the capital gain.

I don't think anyone here is advocating replacing NG with nothing at all.


In fact you are the ONLY person to have suggested that. The NG haters have only ever referred to complete removal.

Advocating the removal of NG is not the same thing as advocating the removal of NG and specifically stating that it is not to be replaced with anything. Unless someone has specifically stated that NG is not to be replaced with anything, it's not accurate to claim that they have actually said this.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Bam on Feb 4th, 2016 at 11:41am
Poll added.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 4th, 2016 at 4:27pm

Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 11:41am:
Poll added.


why didn't you put in your poll Phils suggestion of limiting it to the first two properties only?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Bam on Feb 4th, 2016 at 5:09pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 4:27pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 11:41am:
Poll added.

why didn't you put in your poll Phils suggestion of limiting it to the first two properties only?

I didn't remember it at the time. I have now added it.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 4th, 2016 at 5:10pm

Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 5:09pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 4:27pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 11:41am:
Poll added.

why didn't you put in your poll Phils suggestion of limiting it to the first two properties only?

I didn't remember it at the time. I have now added it.


thanks ... I like that option. Doesn't punish those working to get ahead but can't be taken advantage off by the filthy rich (although  I"m sure they'll find another way)

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by mariacostel on Feb 4th, 2016 at 5:17pm

Dnarever wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 9:48am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:53am:
for those that were there. That's how you get the Structural Deficit, conveniently discovered many years after Howard. it is also how you get the embarrassment of people here today denying that the Faceless Men incident in 1963 didnt in fact happen. (ignore the photos and statements by all those invovled!)

It is like pre-school around here sometimes.


I don't believe it is credible to suggest that the 1963 incident never happened but unlike the removal of NG I have no direct memory of this incident only a vague recollection. However the exact detail is more than a little incomplete and not well understood by most of us, including me.

I doubt that this incident from 1963 has any relevance today.


The point is that some of the lunatics eg Bam and JS have stated that it didnt happen. I was 2yo at the time. But unlike some here, I dont have to have been there and remember it happening to believe that it did in  fact, happen.

The Faceless Men incident is a well-documented peice of political history and even discussing in Political SCience classes today. Stating that it didn't occur is the act of a truly desperate and deeply stupid person.

PS I wasn't around at Federation either. I don't therefore doubt it took place.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 4th, 2016 at 5:54pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 5:10pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 5:09pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 4:27pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 11:41am:
Poll added.

why didn't you put in your poll Phils suggestion of limiting it to the first two properties only?

I didn't remember it at the time. I have now added it.


thanks ... I like that option. Doesn't punish those working to get ahead but can't be taken advantage off by the filthy rich (although  I"m sure they'll find another way)


I just voted for that option.


Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:00pm
Ummm, I just found a way around it.

In my family alone ie my husband, me, 4 kids that restriction would allow us to currently negative gear EIGHT houses.

That would increase to TWELVE houses down the track (ie when the youngest 2 kids turn 18).


Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:02pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 4:27pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 11:41am:
Poll added.


why didn't you put in your poll Phils suggestion of limiting it to the first two properties only?


Is that 2 properties at a time can be NG'd or 2 properties in total across your life span ?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:07pm

Dnarever wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:02pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 4:27pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 11:41am:
Poll added.


why didn't you put in your poll Phils suggestion of limiting it to the first two properties only?


Is that 2 properties at a time can be NG'd or 2 properties in total across your life span ?


up for discussion .... I'd say for  life.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:08pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:00pm:
Ummm, I just found a way around it.

In my family alone ie my husband, me, 4 kids that restriction would allow us to currently negative gear EIGHT houses.

That would increase to TWELVE houses down the track (ie when the youngest 2 kids turn 18).


then your kids would never be able to claim it again, for the rest of THEIR lives

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:23pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:08pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:00pm:
Ummm, I just found a way around it.

In my family alone ie my husband, me, 4 kids that restriction would allow us to currently negative gear EIGHT houses.

That would increase to TWELVE houses down the track (ie when the youngest 2 kids turn 18).


then your kids would never be able to claim it again, for the rest of THEIR lives


12 properties negatively geared in 1 family alone?

That's more than enough IMO.



Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:29pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:19am:
libs aren't interested in alternatives, they are only interested in raising the GST. everything else is just words they speak to pretend to be fair.


I disagree.

Totally.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:33pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:29pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:19am:
libs aren't interested in alternatives, they are only interested in raising the GST. everything else is just words they speak to pretend to be fair.


I disagree.

Totally.


how many alternatives to the GST have they seriously considered?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by LEUT Bigvicfella (RTD) on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:34pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:08pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:00pm:
Ummm, I just found a way around it.

In my family alone ie my husband, me, 4 kids that restriction would allow us to currently negative gear EIGHT houses.

That would increase to TWELVE houses down the track (ie when the youngest 2 kids turn 18).


then your kids would never be able to claim it again, for the rest of THEIR lives



Don't you actually have to pay tax, own a home that you live in, to negative gear an investment property.?   IE, you claim the expenses incurred in the outgoings of the property, declare as income the rent received, then incure a profit/loss?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:36pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:08pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:00pm:
Ummm, I just found a way around it.

In my family alone ie my husband, me, 4 kids that restriction would allow us to currently negative gear EIGHT houses.

That would increase to TWELVE houses down the track (ie when the youngest 2 kids turn 18).


then your kids would never be able to claim it again, for the rest of THEIR lives


12 properties negatively geared in 1 family alone?

That's more than enough IMO.


I wouldn't claim in my kids name ... I'd leave that option for them to use later. I think it's pretty selfish to take their option from them to satisfy your own greed. Once you have two, if you want a third the rent from the 3 will more than cover any repayments anyway.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:37pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:33pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:29pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:19am:
libs aren't interested in alternatives, they are only interested in raising the GST. everything else is just words they speak to pretend to be fair.


I disagree.

Totally.


how many alternatives to the GST have they seriously considered?


I thought you were referring to lib supporters.






Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:39pm

Vic wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:34pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:08pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:00pm:
Ummm, I just found a way around it.

In my family alone ie my husband, me, 4 kids that restriction would allow us to currently negative gear EIGHT houses.

That would increase to TWELVE houses down the track (ie when the youngest 2 kids turn 18).


then your kids would never be able to claim it again, for the rest of THEIR lives



Don't you actually have to pay tax, own a home that you live in, to negative gear an investment property.?   IE, you claim the expenses incurred in the outgoings of the property, declare as income the rent received, then incure a profit/loss?


you have to pay tax, but you don't have to own a home.

I once managed a property where the owners were originally living in it but then decided to rent it out while they would rent an alternative property. They made $400 in rent, they paid $400 to rent something else but they saved approx. $40 000 in taxes between them. Not a bad result for them.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:39pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:37pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:33pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:29pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:19am:
libs aren't interested in alternatives, they are only interested in raising the GST. everything else is just words they speak to pretend to be fair.


I disagree.

Totally.


how many alternatives to the GST have they seriously considered?


I thought you were referring to lib supporters.


how many alternatives to the GST have the libs seriously considered?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:45pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:36pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:08pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:00pm:
Ummm, I just found a way around it.

In my family alone ie my husband, me, 4 kids that restriction would allow us to currently negative gear EIGHT houses.

That would increase to TWELVE houses down the track (ie when the youngest 2 kids turn 18).


then your kids would never be able to claim it again, for the rest of THEIR lives


12 properties negatively geared in 1 family alone?

That's more than enough IMO.


I wouldn't claim in my kids name ... I'd leave that option for them to use later. I think it's pretty selfish to take their option from them to satisfy your own greed. Once you have two, if you want a third the rent from the 3 will more than cover any repayments anyway.


When your children turn 18 years old, they're suddenly ADULTS. And they let you know it too.

Helping to build a property wealth portfolio for each child is a very typical European thing.

So in helping them, I have difficulty in understanding your notion of selfish greed.

As far as we Europeans are concerned, it's just part and parcel of how we make/manage family money for the next generation....and the one after that.

And here endeth the lesson.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:54pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:39pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:37pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:33pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:29pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:19am:
libs aren't interested in alternatives, they are only interested in raising the GST. everything else is just words they speak to pretend to be fair.


I disagree.

Totally.


how many alternatives to the GST have they seriously considered?


I thought you were referring to lib supporters.


how many alternatives to the GST have the libs seriously considered?


Good question.

The current suggested GST increase is conditional. That's great...but it also complicates things.

Personally I think the entire exercise is a load of bovine faecal matter and that they need to look elsewhere for revenue raising opportunities.

Oh and just so you all know, IMO, Labor govts are just as bland/boring when it comes to tax "reform".




Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by LEUT Bigvicfella (RTD) on Feb 4th, 2016 at 7:02pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:39pm:

Vic wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:34pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:08pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:00pm:
Ummm, I just found a way around it.

In my family alone ie my husband, me, 4 kids that restriction would allow us to currently negative gear EIGHT houses.

That would increase to TWELVE houses down the track (ie when the youngest 2 kids turn 18).


then your kids would never be able to claim it again, for the rest of THEIR lives



Don't you actually have to pay tax, own a home that you live in, to negative gear an investment property.?   IE, you claim the expenses incurred in the outgoings of the property, declare as income the rent received, then incure a profit/loss?


you have to pay tax, but you don't have to own a home.

I once managed a property where the owners were originally living in it but then decided to rent it out while they would rent an alternative property. They made $400 in rent, they paid $400 to rent something else but they saved approx. $40 000 in taxes between them. Not a bad result for them.



Interesting, I thought you actually had to reside (even on paper) in your own home to negative gear against an investment property.   Then, if you decided to live in it for a year, on sale there would be no Cgt to pay

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 4th, 2016 at 7:04pm
Anyway back to the topic...will negative gearing be examined this time?

Yes...but it will be a slow process which will end with no real changes.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Aussie on Feb 4th, 2016 at 7:49pm
Oh, someone with greater inside knowledge than the Treasurer of Australia.  At last, we get some insight, vague as it is:


Quote:
The current suggested GST increase is conditional.


Jones, can you tell us what (exactly) is the 'current suggested GST increase' and where did that come from?  What exactly are the conditions?  Can you make that snappy, as I'll need to pass it onto ALP HQ so they can prepare questions for Turnbull/Morrison next week.  Thanks in advance.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Bam on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:09pm

mariacostel wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 5:17pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 9:48am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:53am:
for those that were there. That's how you get the Structural Deficit, conveniently discovered many years after Howard. it is also how you get the embarrassment of people here today denying that the Faceless Men incident in 1963 didnt in fact happen. (ignore the photos and statements by all those invovled!)

It is like pre-school around here sometimes.


I don't believe it is credible to suggest that the 1963 incident never happened but unlike the removal of NG I have no direct memory of this incident only a vague recollection. However the exact detail is more than a little incomplete and not well understood by most of us, including me.

I doubt that this incident from 1963 has any relevance today.


The point is that some of the lunatics eg Bam and JS have stated that it didnt happen.

Liar. I simply asserted that it was unproven - a VERY clear reference to your total inability to provide links.

I asked you to provide evidence. I also asked you to discuss - several times - the real links the Liberals had with the Calabrian Mafia.

Tell us, why won't you discuss the Liberals' taking of tainted money from the Calabrian Mafia in exchange for favours?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Bam on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:10pm
And I'll post it again for everyone's benefit:

The Liberals took donations from the Calabrian Mafia.

THE LIBERALS ARE CORRUPT!!

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:12pm

Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:10pm:
And I'll post it again for everyone's benefit:

The Liberals took donations from the Calabrian Mafia.

THE LIBERALS ARE CORRUPT!!


Huh?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Leftwinger on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:18pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:12pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:10pm:
And I'll post it again for everyone's benefit:

The Liberals took donations from the Calabrian Mafia.

THE LIBERALS ARE CORRUPT!!


Huh?


;)

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:29pm

mariacostel wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 5:17pm:
The point is that some of the lunatics eg Bam and JS have stated that it didnt happen..


I see Marialovestoflaphergums is making crap up again. Can you show me where I said it didn't happen?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:30pm

Vic wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 7:02pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:39pm:

Vic wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:34pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:08pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:00pm:
Ummm, I just found a way around it.

In my family alone ie my husband, me, 4 kids that restriction would allow us to currently negative gear EIGHT houses.

That would increase to TWELVE houses down the track (ie when the youngest 2 kids turn 18).


then your kids would never be able to claim it again, for the rest of THEIR lives



Don't you actually have to pay tax, own a home that you live in, to negative gear an investment property.?   IE, you claim the expenses incurred in the outgoings of the property, declare as income the rent received, then incure a profit/loss?


you have to pay tax, but you don't have to own a home.

I once managed a property where the owners were originally living in it but then decided to rent it out while they would rent an alternative property. They made $400 in rent, they paid $400 to rent something else but they saved approx. $40 000 in taxes between them. Not a bad result for them.



Interesting, I thought you actually had to reside (even on paper) in your own home to negative gear against an investment property.   Then, if you decided to live in it for a year, on sale there would be no Cgt to pay


no, the only pre-requisite is that you are making some income from it (Note - I said INCOME and not PROFIT)

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:31pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:54pm:
The current suggested GST increase is conditional. That's great...but it also complicates things.


Conditional on what?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:48pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:31pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:54pm:
The current suggested GST increase is conditional. That's great...but it also complicates things.


Conditional on what?


Raising the GST from 10% to 15% is part of a package which contains these (general) conditions :

1. Tax cuts for all income earners

2. Compensation for low-income earners and welfare recipients.


Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:49pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:54pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:39pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:37pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:33pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:29pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:19am:
libs aren't interested in alternatives, they are only interested in raising the GST. everything else is just words they speak to pretend to be fair.


I disagree.

Totally.


how many alternatives to the GST have they seriously considered?


I thought you were referring to lib supporters.


how many alternatives to the GST have the libs seriously considered?


Good question.

The current suggested GST increase is conditional. That's great...but it also complicates things.

Personally I think the entire exercise is a load of bovine faecal matter and that they need to look elsewhere for revenue raising opportunities.

Oh and just so you all know, IMO, Labor govts are just as bland/boring when it comes to tax "reform".


Hence why I posted ^^^^^^

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:51pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:48pm:
Raising the GST from 10% to 15% is part of a package which contains these (general) conditions :

1. Tax cuts for all income earners

2. Compensation for low-income earners and welfare recipients



they're not 'conditions', they're options being discussed. They haven't announced anything definite yet.

And you forgot corporate tax cuts.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Leftwinger on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:53pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:31pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:54pm:
The current suggested GST increase is conditional. That's great...but it also complicates things.


Conditional on what?


Raising the GST from 10% to 15% is part of a package which contains these (general) conditions :

1. Tax cuts for all income earners

2. Compensation for low-income earners and welfare recipients.


Sounds fantastic , can you post up the paticulars encompassing how a GST will cost the lower socio economic the same or less to live ?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 4th, 2016 at 9:04pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:51pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:48pm:
Raising the GST from 10% to 15% is part of a package which contains these (general) conditions :

1. Tax cuts for all income earners

2. Compensation for low-income earners and welfare recipients



they're not 'conditions', they're options being discussed. They haven't announced anything definite yet.

And you forgot corporate tax cuts.


They're referring to them as conditions/conditional GST reform package...and the conditions are effectively there to make us feel ok about it all.

We saw it last night on a doco.

Typical political hard sell BS marketing strategies we've seen before.

Corporate tax cuts weren't mentioned.

I'm very cynical about it all (this apparently happens when you hit 45 lol).

Why? Those b@stards are using the GST as a key to barge in through the door and change all taxes.

I don't like that.

I'd much prefer to see them get their finger out and rework the numbers using other alternatives.

Will that happen? Probably not.

Why?

Vested interests always seem to get in the way.





Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Lisa Jones on Feb 4th, 2016 at 9:06pm

Its time wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:53pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:31pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 6:54pm:
The current suggested GST increase is conditional. That's great...but it also complicates things.


Conditional on what?


Raising the GST from 10% to 15% is part of a package which contains these (general) conditions :

1. Tax cuts for all income earners

2. Compensation for low-income earners and welfare recipients.


Sounds fantastic , can you post up the paticulars encompassing how a GST will cost the lower socio economic the same or less to live ?


No.

Why?

I don't feel like it. ::)

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Jovial Monk on Feb 4th, 2016 at 9:15pm
It seems the problems with compensation for a GST hike might put the kybosh on it. then whst will Morriscum do?

Looks like the increase in the GST is off the menu. Now what will Morriscum do?

Just listened to Tony Delroy interview Peter Martin, economics editor for the Age. A couple of points he made, relating to the difficulty of paying compensation:

1. Self funded retirees don’t pay tax—didn’t exist in 2000

2. The tax free threshold is three times what it was in 2000

Lib back benchers are solidly against increasing the GST, fearing the Labor scare campaign.

Looks like more money will be removed from the over generous and rapidly increasing super tax exemptions. Make wealthy retirees pay income tax is also overdue!

Guess Turnbull is lacking a backbone.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Bam on Feb 5th, 2016 at 7:05am

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:12pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:10pm:
And I'll post it again for everyone's benefit:

The Liberals took donations from the Calabrian Mafia.

THE LIBERALS ARE CORRUPT!!


Huh?

Four Corners reveals how Calabrian mafia aligned itself with Australian MPs

Quote:
ABC and Fairfax joint investigation shows how Melbourne mafia boss Frank Madafferi’s family used links with Liberal party donors to stop his deportation

The Calabrian mafia integrated themselves into Australian politics to ensure their underworld operations were able to continue, a joint investigation by the ABC’s Four Corners program and Fairfax Media has revealed.

According to the program, despite a major police operation that had leading mafia figures under surveillance and recorded organising a murder plot, efforts to deport self-professed Melbourne mafia boss Frank Madafferi to Italy failed as his family aligned itself with key political party donors.

In his home town of Calabria, Madafferi was investigated over his suspected involvement in the 1986 kidnapping of Angela Mittica, the daughter of a Calabrian politician, the program alleges.

Unable to find enough evidence to convict him, police instead charged him with other serious crimes, including extortion, mafia conspiracy, stabbings, drug crimes and gun possession, that saw him sentenced to multiple jail terms.

Madafferi fled Calabria and arrived in Melbourne in 1989, the program alleges, lying about his criminal record to get a six-month tourist visa.

He began working in the fruit and vegetable trade and before long was being investigated by police for his alleged involvement in violent crimes, which he denied.

In a statement aired in court, police said, “Frank Madafferi … if allowed to remain in Australia will continue to carry out acts of violence on behalf of a criminal syndicate,” and in 1996, authorities moved to deport him.

By 2000, the then Liberal party immigration minister, Philip Ruddock, ordered Madafferi be deported. The Madafferi family challenged this decision in court but ultimately failed. It was then, the program alleges, that the family began cultivating political links.

By this time, Frank’s brother, Tony Madafferi, was a wealthy and influential businessman with friends who included Liberal party donors. He used these links to gain meetings with senior political figures, including organising a meeting between the Madafferi family lawyer and Ruddock.

Ruddock, upon realising the lawyer’s connection to Frank Madafferi, cut the meeting short, Four Corners stated. But this only prompted the family to turn to other known political donors for assistance, the program alleged.

In the lead-up to the 2004 election, Tony Madafferi organised a fundraiser for the Liberal party in Melbourne where Amanda Vanstone, who by then had replaced Ruddock as immigration minister, was speaking. He donated $15,000 to the Liberal party’s Millennium Forum at that event, Four Corners said.

In November 2005, Vanstone intervened in Frank Madafferi’s deportation case and had it overturned. She and other politicians involved in the decision stated it was prompted by humanitarian concerns for Madafferi’s family should he be deported, not any donations or lobbying efforts. A police report into the case found there was no suggestion that Vanstone had acted corruptly or inappropriately.

Vanstone refused to be interviewed by the program.

“Senior officials who worked on the Madafferi visa case have told Four Corners the decision to overturn Ruddock’s deportation order was appalling as it exposed the community to harm,” Four Corners said.

“Four Corners can reveal that a secret multi-agency police report found the Madafferi visa case highlighted ‘insidious ways’ the mafia ‘enter the social or professional world of public officials and through legitimate processes achieve influence’.”

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 5th, 2016 at 8:45am

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:51pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:48pm:
Raising the GST from 10% to 15% is part of a package which contains these (general) conditions :

1. Tax cuts for all income earners

2. Compensation for low-income earners and welfare recipients



they're not 'conditions', they're options being discussed. They haven't announced anything definite yet.

And you forgot corporate tax cuts.


And all the money collected (every cent) goes to the states for their health budgets as well.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 5th, 2016 at 8:47am

Dnarever wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 8:45am:
And all the money collected (every cent) goes to the states for their health budgets as well.



maybe when pigs fly  :D :D :D :D

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by mariacostel on Feb 5th, 2016 at 3:38pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 9:15pm:
It seems the problems with compensation for a GST hike might put the kybosh on it. then whst will Morriscum do?

Looks like the increase in the GST is off the menu. Now what will Morriscum do?

Just listened to Tony Delroy interview Peter Martin, economics editor for the Age. A couple of points he made, relating to the difficulty of paying compensation:

1. Self funded retirees don’t pay tax—didn’t exist in 2000

2. The tax free threshold is three times what it was in 2000

Lib back benchers are solidly against increasing the GST, fearing the Labor scare campaign.

Looks like more money will be removed from the over generous and rapidly increasing super tax exemptions. Make wealthy retirees pay income tax is also overdue!

Guess Turnbull is lacking a backbone.



It's the Age - hardy a worthwhile non-partisan viewpoint.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 5th, 2016 at 5:54pm

mariacostel wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 3:38pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 9:15pm:
It seems the problems with compensation for a GST hike might put the kybosh on it. then whst will Morriscum do?

Looks like the increase in the GST is off the menu. Now what will Morriscum do?

Just listened to Tony Delroy interview Peter Martin, economics editor for the Age. A couple of points he made, relating to the difficulty of paying compensation:

1. Self funded retirees don’t pay tax—didn’t exist in 2000

2. The tax free threshold is three times what it was in 2000

Lib back benchers are solidly against increasing the GST, fearing the Labor scare campaign.

Looks like more money will be removed from the over generous and rapidly increasing super tax exemptions. Make wealthy retirees pay income tax is also overdue!

Guess Turnbull is lacking a backbone.



It's the Age - hardy a worthwhile non-partisan viewpoint.


Yes they would never print anything critical of the Liberal view point in a quality product like the Telegraph.



Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by stunspore on Feb 5th, 2016 at 5:54pm

mariacostel wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 3:38pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 9:15pm:
It seems the problems with compensation for a GST hike might put the kybosh on it. then whst will Morriscum do?

Looks like the increase in the GST is off the menu. Now what will Morriscum do?

Just listened to Tony Delroy interview Peter Martin, economics editor for the Age. A couple of points he made, relating to the difficulty of paying compensation:

1. Self funded retirees don’t pay tax—didn’t exist in 2000

2. The tax free threshold is three times what it was in 2000

Lib back benchers are solidly against increasing the GST, fearing the Labor scare campaign.

Looks like more money will be removed from the over generous and rapidly increasing super tax exemptions. Make wealthy retirees pay income tax is also overdue!

Guess Turnbull is lacking a backbone.



It's the Age - hardy a worthwhile non-partisan viewpoint.


Shoot the messenger (again).  Standard lib supporter fail tactic. 

How about judging the article by its merits?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 5th, 2016 at 5:56pm

stunspore wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 5:54pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 3:38pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 9:15pm:
It seems the problems with compensation for a GST hike might put the kybosh on it. then whst will Morriscum do?

Looks like the increase in the GST is off the menu. Now what will Morriscum do?

Just listened to Tony Delroy interview Peter Martin, economics editor for the Age. A couple of points he made, relating to the difficulty of paying compensation:

1. Self funded retirees don’t pay tax—didn’t exist in 2000

2. The tax free threshold is three times what it was in 2000

Lib back benchers are solidly against increasing the GST, fearing the Labor scare campaign.

Looks like more money will be removed from the over generous and rapidly increasing super tax exemptions. Make wealthy retirees pay income tax is also overdue!

Guess Turnbull is lacking a backbone.



It's the Age - hardy a worthwhile non-partisan viewpoint.


Shoot the messenger (again).  Standard lib supporter fail tactic. 

How about judging the article by its merits?


Wash your mouth out with soap.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by lee on Feb 5th, 2016 at 6:04pm

Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:10pm:
And I'll post it again for everyone's benefit:

The Liberals took donations from the Calabrian Mafia.

THE LIBERALS ARE CORRUPT!!



'A Victorian Labor Party figure is facing weapon charges and had his local council election partly bankrolled by an alleged Calabrian Mafia boss in a major embarrassment for the ALP in the lead-up to the state election.

A Fairfax Media investigation can reveal that  Moreland City councillor Michael Teti is facing three firearms charges and, according to court records, had a warrant issued for his arrest after failing to appear in court in May.'

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/labor-man-michael-tetis-mafia-links-20140831-10am74.html#ixzz3zHKCZUcc

And then who can forget Al Grassby?

Kettle meet pot.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 5th, 2016 at 7:19pm

lee wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 6:04pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:10pm:
And I'll post it again for everyone's benefit:

The Liberals took donations from the Calabrian Mafia.

THE LIBERALS ARE CORRUPT!!



'A Victorian Labor Party figure is facing weapon charges and had his local council election partly bankrolled by an alleged Calabrian Mafia boss in a major embarrassment for the ALP in the lead-up to the state election.

A Fairfax Media investigation can reveal that  Moreland City councillor Michael Teti is facing three firearms charges and, according to court records, had a warrant issued for his arrest after failing to appear in court in May.'

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/labor-man-michael-tetis-mafia-links-20140831-10am74.html#ixzz3zHKCZUcc

And then who can forget Al Grassby?

Kettle meet pot.


So I take it you'd prefer a federal ICAC to the ABCC too then Lee?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Jovial Monk on Feb 5th, 2016 at 7:36pm

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:31am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06am:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:03am:
It is ridiculous that people get more government assistance to buy investment properties than they get to buy homes to live in.


Is that what you think?


Without the allowable deductions via negative gearing the costs incurred would simply be subtracted from the capital gain when the property is eventually sold. Net change to government revenue is precisely zero. The only thing that alters is the date which it is paid. Policy makers understand something that the Neanderthals around here apparently don't.

See, you are wrong again!

Some who buy EXISTING properties do not rent those properties out EVER! So they not only do not increase the housing stock they actually DECREASE it! Investors buying housing also drives up property prices.

Plenty to consider to arrive at a policy that keeps prices and rents at reasonable levels by encouraging building new housing while discouraging mere speculation.

Those who want to buy properties to offset taxable income will have to look for another rort.



Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Bam on Feb 5th, 2016 at 7:45pm

stunspore wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 5:54pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 3:38pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 9:15pm:
It seems the problems with compensation for a GST hike might put the kybosh on it. then whst will Morriscum do?

Looks like the increase in the GST is off the menu. Now what will Morriscum do?

Just listened to Tony Delroy interview Peter Martin, economics editor for the Age. A couple of points he made, relating to the difficulty of paying compensation:

1. Self funded retirees don’t pay tax—didn’t exist in 2000

2. The tax free threshold is three times what it was in 2000

Lib back benchers are solidly against increasing the GST, fearing the Labor scare campaign.

Looks like more money will be removed from the over generous and rapidly increasing super tax exemptions. Make wealthy retirees pay income tax is also overdue!

Guess Turnbull is lacking a backbone.



It's the Age - hardy a worthwhile non-partisan viewpoint.


Shoot the messenger (again).  Standard lib supporter fail tactic. 

How about judging the article by its merits?

It's beyond his capability, as you well know.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Bam on Feb 5th, 2016 at 7:58pm

lee wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 6:04pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:10pm:
And I'll post it again for everyone's benefit:

The Liberals took donations from the Calabrian Mafia.

THE LIBERALS ARE CORRUPT!!



'A Victorian Labor Party figure is facing weapon charges and had his local council election partly bankrolled by an alleged Calabrian Mafia boss in a major embarrassment for the ALP in the lead-up to the state election.

A Fairfax Media investigation can reveal that  Moreland City councillor Michael Teti is facing three firearms charges and, according to court records, had a warrant issued for his arrest after failing to appear in court in May.'

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/labor-man-michael-tetis-mafia-links-20140831-10am74.html#ixzz3zHKCZUcc

And then who can forget Al Grassby?

Kettle meet pot.

I have not denied the possibility of corruption involving Labor party MPs (WA Inc implicated politicians from both sides of politics, as did ICAC), but you're really opening a can of worms if you want to go back  to the 1970's to cast aspersions on dead people as a form of deflection.

Robert Askin, Joh Bjelke-Petersen ... need I say more?

We also have the modus operandi of the Liberal party - handing out fat government contracts to senior members of the Liberal party without a tender. For example, when Jeff Kennett sold off some Victorian schools in the 1990s, the real estate agent picked to handle all the sales was the firm of Baillieu Knight Frank. One of the partners, Ted Baillieu, was the President of the Victorian branch of the Liberal party at the time, and later became Victorian Premier for 2 years in the first half of the one-term Baillieu-Napthine government.

Probity, corruption ... something the Liberals have a clear problem with.

Why did Abbott tell the Treasurer of the Liberal party, Philip Higginson, not to perform a forensic examination of the accounts of the party after finding "accounting irregularities"? Something to hide, perhaps?

A Federal ICAC is a damn good idea, why won't the major parties support it?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by lee on Feb 5th, 2016 at 8:17pm

Bam wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 7:58pm:
A Federal ICAC is a damn good idea, why won't the major parties support it?



What does it have to do with negative gearing? There is a thread for that.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by John Smith on Feb 5th, 2016 at 8:19pm

lee wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 8:17pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 7:58pm:
A Federal ICAC is a damn good idea, why won't the major parties support it?



What does it have to do with negative gearing? There is a thread for that.


the same thing that



'A Victorian Labor Party figure is facing weapon charges and had his local council election partly bankrolled by an alleged Calabrian Mafia boss in a major embarrassment for the ALP in the lead-up to the state election.

A Fairfax Media investigation can reveal that  Moreland City councillor Michael Teti is facing three firearms charges and, according to court records, had a warrant issued for his arrest after failing to appear in court in May.'

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/labor-man-michael-tetis-mafia-links-20140831-1...

And then who can forget Al Grassby?



does!

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by lee on Feb 5th, 2016 at 8:23pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 8:19pm:

lee wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 8:17pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 7:58pm:
A Federal ICAC is a damn good idea, why won't the major parties support it?



What does it have to do with negative gearing? There is a thread for that.


the same thing that



'A Victorian Labor Party figure is facing weapon charges and had his local council election partly bankrolled by an alleged Calabrian Mafia boss in a major embarrassment for the ALP in the lead-up to the state election.

A Fairfax Media investigation can reveal that  Moreland City councillor Michael Teti is facing three firearms charges and, according to court records, had a warrant issued for his arrest after failing to appear in court in May.'

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/labor-man-michael-tetis-mafia-links-20140831-1...

And then who can forget Al Grassby?



does!



Nothing to do with an ICAC, merely responding to a post about Mafia links.

If you look. it wasn't referenced to an ICAC, merely a general post.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by crocodile on Feb 5th, 2016 at 9:27pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 7:36pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:31am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06am:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:03am:
It is ridiculous that people get more government assistance to buy investment properties than they get to buy homes to live in.


Is that what you think?


Without the allowable deductions via negative gearing the costs incurred would simply be subtracted from the capital gain when the property is eventually sold. Net change to government revenue is precisely zero. The only thing that alters is the date which it is paid. Policy makers understand something that the Neanderthals around here apparently don't.

See, you are wrong again!

Some who buy EXISTING properties do not rent those properties out EVER! So they not only do not increase the housing stock they actually DECREASE it! Investors buying housing also drives up property prices.

Plenty to consider to arrive at a policy that keeps prices and rents at reasonable levels by encouraging building new housing while discouraging mere speculation.

Those who want to buy properties to offset taxable income will have to look for another rort.


WTF are you on about. I have made absolutely no mention of housing stock, new or existing nor the rental decisions made by the owner. I've simply made the point that any associated costs will attract a deduction to taxation. If it is not deducted from current income it will be deducted from the sale price at disposal time and decrease the CGT obligation. There is no great change to the eventual revenue to the government. It is only the timing of the revenue that changes.

Are you in competition with Armie for dumbest post or something.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Jovial Monk on Feb 5th, 2016 at 9:41pm

crocodile wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 9:27pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 7:36pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:31am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06am:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:03am:
It is ridiculous that people get more government assistance to buy investment properties than they get to buy homes to live in.


Is that what you think?


Without the allowable deductions via negative gearing the costs incurred would simply be subtracted from the capital gain when the property is eventually sold. Net change to government revenue is precisely zero. The only thing that alters is the date which it is paid. Policy makers understand something that the Neanderthals around here apparently don't.

See, you are wrong again!

Some who buy EXISTING properties do not rent those properties out EVER! So they not only do not increase the housing stock they actually DECREASE it! Investors buying housing also drives up property prices.

Plenty to consider to arrive at a policy that keeps prices and rents at reasonable levels by encouraging building new housing while discouraging mere speculation.

Those who want to buy properties to offset taxable income will have to look for another rort.


WTF are you on about. I have made absolutely no mention of housing stock, new or existing nor the rental decisions made by the owner. I've simply made the point that any associated costs will attract a deduction to taxation. If it is not deducted from current income it will be deducted from the sale price at disposal time and decrease the CGT obligation. There is no great change to the eventual revenue to the government. It is only the timing of the revenue that changes.

Are you in competition with Armie for dumbest post or something.

Quite an abusive sucker, aren’t you? Trying to take the prize away from Longy, hmm?

You do not understand the problems with negative gearing. Buggering up the housing market and putting housing out the reach of first home buyers are quite major effects.

You can’t see some people might buy an investment property, keep it empty, then sell it after they retire on super, or sell to the kids or give to the kids etc?

Not only that, there is time value of money. MUCH better to get the tax deduction this year than carry it forward ten or twenty years.

Maybe you should read an economics text, croc?


Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by crocodile on Feb 5th, 2016 at 11:11pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 9:41pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 9:27pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 7:36pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:31am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:06am:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 9:03am:
It is ridiculous that people get more government assistance to buy investment properties than they get to buy homes to live in.


Is that what you think?


Without the allowable deductions via negative gearing the costs incurred would simply be subtracted from the capital gain when the property is eventually sold. Net change to government revenue is precisely zero. The only thing that alters is the date which it is paid. Policy makers understand something that the Neanderthals around here apparently don't.

See, you are wrong again!

Some who buy EXISTING properties do not rent those properties out EVER! So they not only do not increase the housing stock they actually DECREASE it! Investors buying housing also drives up property prices.

Plenty to consider to arrive at a policy that keeps prices and rents at reasonable levels by encouraging building new housing while discouraging mere speculation.

Those who want to buy properties to offset taxable income will have to look for another rort.


WTF are you on about. I have made absolutely no mention of housing stock, new or existing nor the rental decisions made by the owner. I've simply made the point that any associated costs will attract a deduction to taxation. If it is not deducted from current income it will be deducted from the sale price at disposal time and decrease the CGT obligation. There is no great change to the eventual revenue to the government. It is only the timing of the revenue that changes.

Are you in competition with Armie for dumbest post or something.

Quite an abusive sucker, aren’t you? Trying to take the prize away from Longy, hmm?

You do not understand the problems with negative gearing. Buggering up the housing market and putting housing out the reach of first home buyers are quite major effects.

You can’t see some people might buy an investment property, keep it empty, then sell it after they retire on super, or sell to the kids or give to the kids etc?

Not only that, there is time value of money. MUCH better to get the tax deduction this year than carry it forward ten or twenty years.

Maybe you should read an economics text, croc?


Sorry, should have realised that a direct comparison to Armie is reprehensible.

I do understand the mechanisms and effects of NG, perhaps better than you think I do. I haven't really made any comment on this only on the revenue angle for the tax obligations and the timing regarding the due date.

NG is not the only driver of house price appreciation and unaffordability. Poor wages growth, declining capital productivity, stamp duty, slow new land release and building activity plus concessions on CGT all add to the mix.

I already have a collection of texts on my shelf. Some new and some old ones dating back to the undergrad days. I don't really need any more.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Jovial Monk on Feb 5th, 2016 at 11:13pm
I didn’t say buy one I said READ one.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 6th, 2016 at 6:32am

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 9:41pm:
You do not understand the problems with negative gearing. Buggering up the housing market and putting housing out the reach of first home buyers are quite major effects.

You can’t see some people might buy an investment property, keep it empty, then sell it after they retire on super, or sell to the kids or give to the kids etc?

Not only that, there is time value of money. MUCH better to get the tax deduction this year than carry it forward ten or twenty years.


keep it empty

It needs to be rental property to claim negative gearing.

Buggering up the housing market and putting housing out the reach of first home buyers are quite major effects.

Yes just as removing negative gearing will reduce rental property and increase rents thus having an impact on the homeless numbers. As Keating found it is a dangerous game.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Jovial Monk on Feb 6th, 2016 at 6:35am

Dnarever wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 6:32am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 9:41pm:
You do not understand the problems with negative gearing. Buggering up the housing market and putting housing out the reach of first home buyers are quite major effects.

You can’t see some people might buy an investment property, keep it empty, then sell it after they retire on super, or sell to the kids or give to the kids etc?

Not only that, there is time value of money. MUCH better to get the tax deduction this year than carry it forward ten or twenty years.


keep it empty

It needs to be rental property to claim negative gearing.

Buggering up the housing market and putting housing out the reach of first home buyers are quite major effects.

Yes just as removing negative gearing will reduce rental property and increase rents thus having an impact on the homeless numbers. As Keating found it is a dangerous game.

No, you just need costs to offset wage income.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by mariacostel on Feb 6th, 2016 at 7:40am

stunspore wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 5:54pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 3:38pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 9:15pm:
It seems the problems with compensation for a GST hike might put the kybosh on it. then whst will Morriscum do?

Looks like the increase in the GST is off the menu. Now what will Morriscum do?

Just listened to Tony Delroy interview Peter Martin, economics editor for the Age. A couple of points he made, relating to the difficulty of paying compensation:

1. Self funded retirees don’t pay tax—didn’t exist in 2000

2. The tax free threshold is three times what it was in 2000

Lib back benchers are solidly against increasing the GST, fearing the Labor scare campaign.

Looks like more money will be removed from the over generous and rapidly increasing super tax exemptions. Make wealthy retirees pay income tax is also overdue!

Guess Turnbull is lacking a backbone.



It's the Age - hardy a worthwhile non-partisan viewpoint.


Shoot the messenger (again).  Standard lib supporter fail tactic. 

How about judging the article by its merits?


You mean like how you reject out-of-hand anything in the DT?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 6th, 2016 at 7:41am

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 7:04pm:
Anyway back to the topic...will negative gearing be examined this time?

Yes...but it will be a slow process which will end with no real changes.


Probably correct.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 6th, 2016 at 8:11am

mariacostel wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 7:40am:

stunspore wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 5:54pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 3:38pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 9:15pm:
It seems the problems with compensation for a GST hike might put the kybosh on it. then whst will Morriscum do?

Looks like the increase in the GST is off the menu. Now what will Morriscum do?

Just listened to Tony Delroy interview Peter Martin, economics editor for the Age. A couple of points he made, relating to the difficulty of paying compensation:

1. Self funded retirees don’t pay tax—didn’t exist in 2000

2. The tax free threshold is three times what it was in 2000

Lib back benchers are solidly against increasing the GST, fearing the Labor scare campaign.

Looks like more money will be removed from the over generous and rapidly increasing super tax exemptions. Make wealthy retirees pay income tax is also overdue!

Guess Turnbull is lacking a backbone.



It's the Age - hardy a worthwhile non-partisan viewpoint.


Shoot the messenger (again).  Standard lib supporter fail tactic. 

How about judging the article by its merits?


You mean like how you reject out-of-hand anything in the DT?


Isn't much in a DT that has any merits ?

Some have said look to the points made by Bolt - there is no point ?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 6th, 2016 at 8:26am

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 6:35am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 6:32am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 9:41pm:
You do not understand the problems with negative gearing. Buggering up the housing market and putting housing out the reach of first home buyers are quite major effects.

You can’t see some people might buy an investment property, keep it empty, then sell it after they retire on super, or sell to the kids or give to the kids etc?

Not only that, there is time value of money. MUCH better to get the tax deduction this year than carry it forward ten or twenty years.


keep it empty

It needs to be rental property to claim negative gearing.

Buggering up the housing market and putting housing out the reach of first home buyers are quite major effects.

Yes just as removing negative gearing will reduce rental property and increase rents thus having an impact on the homeless numbers. As Keating found it is a dangerous game.

No, you just need costs to offset wage income.


Without negative gearing there are much better investment options and people who do invest in property would then be positive gearing their rental property, i.e. making a profit or making the price of the product reflect the cost - put up the rent substantially.

Negative gearing helps to keep the cost of rent down.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by crocodile on Feb 6th, 2016 at 8:37am

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 6:35am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 6:32am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 9:41pm:
You do not understand the problems with negative gearing. Buggering up the housing market and putting housing out the reach of first home buyers are quite major effects.

You can’t see some people might buy an investment property, keep it empty, then sell it after they retire on super, or sell to the kids or give to the kids etc?

Not only that, there is time value of money. MUCH better to get the tax deduction this year than carry it forward ten or twenty years.


keep it empty

It needs to be rental property to claim negative gearing.

Buggering up the housing market and putting housing out the reach of first home buyers are quite major effects.

Yes just as removing negative gearing will reduce rental property and increase rents thus having an impact on the homeless numbers. As Keating found it is a dangerous game.

No, you just need costs to offset wage income.


DNA is correct and you are wrong. The rules regarding this can be found at the ATO.

https://www.ato.gov.au/printfriendly.aspx?url=/general/property/property-used-in-running-a-business/

Specifically, about a quarter of a way down the page:

If you have an investment property that is not rented or available for rent – such as a holiday home, hobby farm, or another dwelling you choose not to rent:

•the property is subject to CGT in the same way as a rental property
•you generally can't claim income tax deductions for the costs of owning the property because it doesn't generate rental income
•you may be able to include your costs of ownership in the property's cost base, which would reduce any capital gains tax liability when you sell it.


For someone that is creating the appearance of the self professed expert you show a remarkable amount of ignorance on the subject.


Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Jovial Monk on Feb 6th, 2016 at 9:07am
Bah! So you show you rent it a few weeks.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by crocodile on Feb 6th, 2016 at 9:11am

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 9:07am:
Bah! So you show you rent it a few weeks.


Read a little deeper. You will find it is pro-rata.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by stunspore on Feb 6th, 2016 at 9:57am
Negative gearing .. as lied by Hockey.
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2015/04/joe-hockey-flat-lies-negative-gearing/


Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 6th, 2016 at 11:40am

stunspore wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 9:57am:
Negative gearing .. as lied by Hockey.
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2015/04/joe-hockey-flat-lies-negative-gearing/


as many people have always believed that Hockeys version was correct I doubt that it is a lie at all, while he may be wrong if the historical re write is correct he almost certainly like most people who seen what happened in the 80's find the new version difficult to accept.

There are people who are certain that the new version is incorrect and that there were rent increases across the board.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Jovial Monk on Feb 6th, 2016 at 11:44am

Dnarever wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 8:26am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 6:35am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 6:32am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 9:41pm:
You do not understand the problems with negative gearing. Buggering up the housing market and putting housing out the reach of first home buyers are quite major effects.

You can’t see some people might buy an investment property, keep it empty, then sell it after they retire on super, or sell to the kids or give to the kids etc?

Not only that, there is time value of money. MUCH better to get the tax deduction this year than carry it forward ten or twenty years.


keep it empty

It needs to be rental property to claim negative gearing.

Buggering up the housing market and putting housing out the reach of first home buyers are quite major effects.

Yes just as removing negative gearing will reduce rental property and increase rents thus having an impact on the homeless numbers. As Keating found it is a dangerous game.

No, you just need costs to offset wage income.


Without negative gearing there are much better investment options and people who do invest in property would then be positive gearing their rental property, i.e. making a profit or making the price of the product reflect the cost - put up the rent substantially.

Negative gearing helps to keep the cost of rent down.


Don’t think so. If investors don’t buy houses home buyers will. If you are really worried then allow NG on new properties. But developers build most housing.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by crocodile on Feb 6th, 2016 at 1:29pm

stunspore wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 9:57am:
Negative gearing .. as lied by Hockey.
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2015/04/joe-hockey-flat-lies-negative-gearing/


Two years is hardly going to be enough time to judge. Especially with a lot other stuff happening at the same time. Nobody really knows for sure.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by stunspore on Feb 6th, 2016 at 4:17pm

crocodile wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 1:29pm:

stunspore wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 9:57am:
Negative gearing .. as lied by Hockey.
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2015/04/joe-hockey-flat-lies-negative-gearing/


Two years is hardly going to be enough time to judge. Especially with a lot other stuff happening at the same time. Nobody really knows for sure.


Exactly the point.  Yet supporters of negative gearing cherry pick data from 2 years to support their arguments.  I would risk it and remove negative gearing for a few years and evaluate rather than do nothing.  We know do nothing actually changes anything - for good or for bad it is doing something.


A proposal to do nothing is a negative option.  Much like watching someone hanging over the cliff and deciding whether to save them.  Inaction is letting them die.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by stunspore on Feb 6th, 2016 at 7:06pm
"Unconvinced on GST rise, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull eyes negative gearing"

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/unconvinced-on-gst-rise-prime-minister-malcolm-turnbull-eyes-negative-gearing/news-story/e446bdac8a3ed3811ff194ecb109366f#load-story-comments

I wonder if Turnbull is simply unconvinced merit-wise, or just scared of backbench revolt/swinging voters.

I am happy though that there is some consideration for other areas of taxation.  More happy if there actually are changes before an election - if after, he could change his mind.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Bam on Feb 6th, 2016 at 11:31pm

Dnarever wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 6:32am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 9:41pm:
You do not understand the problems with negative gearing. Buggering up the housing market and putting housing out the reach of first home buyers are quite major effects.

You can’t see some people might buy an investment property, keep it empty, then sell it after they retire on super, or sell to the kids or give to the kids etc?

Not only that, there is time value of money. MUCH better to get the tax deduction this year than carry it forward ten or twenty years.


keep it empty

It needs to be rental property to claim negative gearing.

Buggering up the housing market and putting housing out the reach of first home buyers are quite major effects.

Yes just as removing negative gearing will reduce rental property and increase rents thus having an impact on the homeless numbers. As Keating found it is a dangerous game.

Reducing rental properties? What's going to happen to them - exporting them to China?  :-?

it is a myth to assert that "removing negative gearing will reduce rental properties". The rental market is zero sum.

If a property is sold by a landlord, someone has to buy it. Who buys it? Another landlord? No change to the rental market. A former tenant? One less property minus one less tenant ... zero sum.

Really, every time I see this stupid argument, I have never seen anyone actually think about it to realise just how silly it is. The rental market is NOT going to crash. Most countries don't have negative gearing at all and their rental markets are fine. There's no reason to suppose we will have particular problems.

The rental market is oversupplied at present. Too many apartments are being built, vacancy rates are rising. I doubt we'll see any sudden crash if NG was to be abolished.

It's also misleading to imply that removing negative gearing is the whole story. It's not likely to be removed without some alternative tax arrangement replacing it.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Bam on Feb 6th, 2016 at 11:37pm

stunspore wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 4:17pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 1:29pm:

stunspore wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 9:57am:
Negative gearing .. as lied by Hockey.
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2015/04/joe-hockey-flat-lies-negative-gearing/


Two years is hardly going to be enough time to judge. Especially with a lot other stuff happening at the same time. Nobody really knows for sure.


Exactly the point.  Yet supporters of negative gearing cherry pick data from 2 years to support their arguments.  I would risk it and remove negative gearing for a few years and evaluate rather than do nothing.  We know do nothing actually changes anything - for good or for bad it is doing something.

A proposal to do nothing is a negative option.  Much like watching someone hanging over the cliff and deciding whether to save them.  Inaction is letting them die.

Removing NG is not going to be the shocking change that so many drama queens are making it out to be. The removal of NG would probably include an alternative tax arrangement. Some people would probably squeal, but so do pigs when forcibly removed from the trough while they are gorging.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 7th, 2016 at 12:42am

Bam wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 11:31pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 6:32am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 9:41pm:
You do not understand the problems with negative gearing. Buggering up the housing market and putting housing out the reach of first home buyers are quite major effects.

You can’t see some people might buy an investment property, keep it empty, then sell it after they retire on super, or sell to the kids or give to the kids etc?

Not only that, there is time value of money. MUCH better to get the tax deduction this year than carry it forward ten or twenty years.


keep it empty

It needs to be rental property to claim negative gearing.

Buggering up the housing market and putting housing out the reach of first home buyers are quite major effects.

Yes just as removing negative gearing will reduce rental property and increase rents thus having an impact on the homeless numbers. As Keating found it is a dangerous game.

Reducing rental properties? What's going to happen to them - exporting them to China?  :-?

it is a myth to assert that "removing negative gearing will reduce rental properties". The rental market is zero sum.

If a property is sold by a landlord, someone has to buy it. Who buys it? Another landlord? No change to the rental market. A former tenant? One less property minus one less tenant ... zero sum.

Really, every time I see this stupid argument, I have never seen anyone actually think about it to realise just how silly it is. The rental market is NOT going to crash. Most countries don't have negative gearing at all and their rental markets are fine. There's no reason to suppose we will have particular problems.

The rental market is oversupplied at present. Too many apartments are being built, vacancy rates are rising. I doubt we'll see any sudden crash if NG was to be abolished.


Pretty much what Keating said. He was wrong too.

Investors moving out of real estate does not mean that more renters can afford a housing loan, the result can be empty houses and increases in rental coast as investors move to positive gearing models.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by stunspore on Feb 7th, 2016 at 12:55am
Empty houses?  Guess see how long those investors want to hold on to capital draining and expense generating assets then.

I hear stories of the chinese buying houses but leaving them empty - they can afford to leave it empty until they are ready to use them.

What's certain is if people can't neg gearing, they have to rethink their business plan and put money into other investments such as businesses/companies. 

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 7th, 2016 at 8:51am

stunspore wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 12:55am:
Empty houses?  Guess see how long those investors want to hold on to capital draining and expense generating assets then.

I hear stories of the chinese buying houses but leaving them empty - they can afford to leave it empty until they are ready to use them.

What's certain is if people can't neg gearing, they have to rethink their business plan and put money into other investments such as businesses/companies. 


In the 80's it didn't happen as a result of desire, it was the result of the bottom falling out of the market with investors trying to get out of property and not being able to sell combined with rental prices increasing leaving rent less affordable.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by stunspore on Feb 7th, 2016 at 9:02am
Not the 80's now.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 7th, 2016 at 9:06am

stunspore wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 9:02am:
Not the 80's now.


Yes I remember way back in the 80's when 2 + 2 was still = to 4.

It is very often folly to suggest that doing the same thing will get a different result.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Bam on Feb 7th, 2016 at 9:37am

Dnarever wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 8:51am:

stunspore wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 12:55am:
Empty houses?  Guess see how long those investors want to hold on to capital draining and expense generating assets then.

I hear stories of the chinese buying houses but leaving them empty - they can afford to leave it empty until they are ready to use them.

What's certain is if people can't neg gearing, they have to rethink their business plan and put money into other investments such as businesses/companies. 


In the 80's it didn't happen as a result of desire, it was the result of the bottom falling out of the market with investors trying to get out of property and not being able to sell combined with rental prices increasing leaving rent less affordable.

This isn't the 1980s. Circumstances have changed. Removing negative gearing was difficult in the 1980s because interest rates were very high and Keating took the wrong approach. The stories that it pushed up rents has been proven to be a myth. The examples cited are always cherrypicked real estate markets where other factors cannot be excluded. Rents increased faster after it was reintroduced.

It is possible that removing negative gearing would cause new investors to be more realistic with their purchase prices on property. They would positively gear because they choose to pay less. Negative gearing is adding tens of thousands of dollars on average to the purchase price of all properties.

Removing negative gearing but grandfathering current arrangements is Labor's idea, and it is sound. It doesn't burst the negative gearing balloon but deflates it more gradually.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Bam on Feb 7th, 2016 at 9:43am
Fact Check addressed this:

Fact check: Did abolishing negative gearing push up rents?

Quote:
The claim: Treasurer Joe Hockey says abolishing negative gearing could push up rents, because that's what happened in the 1980s.
The verdict: During the period negative gearing was abolished rents notably increased only in Sydney and Perth. Other factors, including high interest rates and the share market boom, were also contributors to rent increases at the time. Mr Hockey's claim doesn't stack up.

The analysis is too long to post but includes this chart:


Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by stunspore on Feb 7th, 2016 at 9:52am
Thank you Bam for the response.  I would not deign to answer D's post.  I think the hard-line lib supporters are too irrational that any amount of evidence/reasoning won't change their outlook.

It's part of the psychology of sunken investment i think.  They put too much of their time and energy into believing what they think is true, that they emotionally/mentally can't right themselves.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by mariacostel on Feb 7th, 2016 at 6:29pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 11:44am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 8:26am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 6:35am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 6:32am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 9:41pm:
You do not understand the problems with negative gearing. Buggering up the housing market and putting housing out the reach of first home buyers are quite major effects.

You can’t see some people might buy an investment property, keep it empty, then sell it after they retire on super, or sell to the kids or give to the kids etc?

Not only that, there is time value of money. MUCH better to get the tax deduction this year than carry it forward ten or twenty years.


keep it empty

It needs to be rental property to claim negative gearing.

Buggering up the housing market and putting housing out the reach of first home buyers are quite major effects.

Yes just as removing negative gearing will reduce rental property and increase rents thus having an impact on the homeless numbers. As Keating found it is a dangerous game.

No, you just need costs to offset wage income.


Without negative gearing there are much better investment options and people who do invest in property would then be positive gearing their rental property, i.e. making a profit or making the price of the product reflect the cost - put up the rent substantially.

Negative gearing helps to keep the cost of rent down.


Don’t think so. If investors don’t buy houses home buyers will. If you are really worried then allow NG on new properties. But developers build most housing.


Totally simplistic. Where do you get the idea that prospective home buyers arent buying because investors are? On a particular property that might be the case, but in general, if you want a house and you have the money then you can buy one pretty easily.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 7th, 2016 at 8:14pm

Bam wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 9:43am:
Fact Check addressed this:

Fact check: Did abolishing negative gearing push up rents?

Quote:
The claim: Treasurer Joe Hockey says abolishing negative gearing could push up rents, because that's what happened in the 1980s.
The verdict: During the period negative gearing was abolished rents notably increased only in Sydney and Perth. Other factors, including high interest rates and the share market boom, were also contributors to rent increases at the time. Mr Hockey's claim doesn't stack up.

The analysis is too long to post but includes this chart:


The real rent figures are after CPI is subtracted from the rental rates - this is what the graph shows, in nominal terms or without adjustment there was about a 20% increase in rent across the board in all states.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 7th, 2016 at 8:18pm

stunspore wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 9:52am:
Thank you Bam for the response.  I would not deign to answer D's post.  I think the hard-line lib supporters are too irrational that any amount of evidence/reasoning won't change their outlook.

It's part of the psychology of sunken investment i think.  They put too much of their time and energy into believing what they think is true, that they emotionally/mentally can't right themselves.


If I am D then you would be the first to call me a Liberal supporter, it is just that I remember the difference between what was front page news for months before Keating put NG back in place.

Every indicator published at the time supported the conclusion that removing NG had cause the housing market to crash and burn. Today we see a completely different set of numbers. Somehow or for some reason the history has been completely re written or the numbers either were or are now being misused.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by stunspore on Feb 8th, 2016 at 6:27am
Interesting interpretations of same set of data.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Bam on Feb 8th, 2016 at 8:12am

Dnarever wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 8:14pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 9:43am:
Fact Check addressed this:

Fact check: Did abolishing negative gearing push up rents?

Quote:
The claim: Treasurer Joe Hockey says abolishing negative gearing could push up rents, because that's what happened in the 1980s.
The verdict: During the period negative gearing was abolished rents notably increased only in Sydney and Perth. Other factors, including high interest rates and the share market boom, were also contributors to rent increases at the time. Mr Hockey's claim doesn't stack up.

The analysis is too long to post but includes this chart:


The real rent figures are after CPI is subtracted from the rental rates - this is what the graph shows, in nominal terms or without adjustment there was about a 20% increase in rent across the board in all states.

This was a time when inflation was still in double digits. If you don't adjust for inflation, you're not comparing like with like. Simple comparisons do not work. The economy was so different then - inflation was around 10%, interest rates were around 15%, banks were still tightarses with money. It is simply not possible to compare like with like because the economy has changed so much.

Because inflation was so high, along with interest rates, it was a bad time to remove NG. Removing it now won't have as big an effect, especially if alternative tax arrangements are introduced.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 8th, 2016 at 10:14am

stunspore wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 6:27am:
Interesting interpretations of same set of data.


Keating and Hawke removed Negative gearing (more specifically they quarantined it to only apply to the investment). 2 Years later they restored it.

This happened for a reason, either everyone had lied to the nation at that time or the re write of history is not correct. Which position is correct I don't know.

If what Hawke and Keating believed and what was portrayed in the media supported by the Liberals and the economic indicators being published at the time then doing the same thing again would likely produce the same result.

If the current numbers are correct and it was all a political beat up driven by the Media real estate industry and Liberal party then there is a case to say it may be a good idea.

I suspect that many people have no idea about the level of panic that this issue drove at the time. The result of removing negative gearing in the 80's was a huge media driven panic, probably the most effective scare campaign that I have seen. For decades nobody ever suggested that the story of the time was untrue. The first question marks emerged in 2003, that is between 1987 and 2003 it was universally believed that removing NG had crashed the real estate market and driven a homelessness emergency. We were told that the coming winter was going to see many people die.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 8th, 2016 at 10:25am

Bam wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 8:12am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 8:14pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 9:43am:
Fact Check addressed this:

Fact check: Did abolishing negative gearing push up rents?

Quote:
The claim: Treasurer Joe Hockey says abolishing negative gearing could push up rents, because that's what happened in the 1980s.
The verdict: During the period negative gearing was abolished rents notably increased only in Sydney and Perth. Other factors, including high interest rates and the share market boom, were also contributors to rent increases at the time. Mr Hockey's claim doesn't stack up.

The analysis is too long to post but includes this chart:


The real rent figures are after CPI is subtracted from the rental rates - this is what the graph shows, in nominal terms or without adjustment there was about a 20% increase in rent across the board in all states.


This was a time when inflation was still in double digits. If you don't adjust for inflation, you're not comparing like with like. Simple comparisons do not work. The economy was so different then - inflation was around 10%, interest rates were around 15%, banks were still tightarses with money. It is simply not possible to compare like with like because the economy has changed so much.

Because inflation was so high, along with interest rates, it was a bad time to remove NG. Removing it now won't have as big an effect, especially if alternative tax arrangements are introduced.


This was a time when inflation was still in double digits.

Inflation averaged 7.5% in the 1980's.

you're not comparing like with like.

People set rent prices in advance - rent seldom out performs CPI.

Rent increases of 20% per year when wage increases were being savagely restricted would have been a death blow to affordability.

Normalising the figures makes it look like it didn't happen. It does not really matter if you compare apples to eggplants if the reality is that people can not pay their rent.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Bam on Feb 8th, 2016 at 2:15pm

Dnarever wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 10:25am:
you're not comparing like with like.

People set rent prices in advance - rent seldom out performs CPI.

Rent increases of 20% per year when wage increases were being savagely restricted would have been a death blow to affordability.

Normalising the figures makes it look like it didn't happen. It does not really matter if you compare apples to eggplants if the reality is that people can not pay their rent.

The death blow to the argument that NG pushed up rents is the simple observation that during that time, rents did not increase significantly in real terms in most capital cities. We hear the oft-repeated claim that rents went up in Sydney and Perth, therefore the abolition of NG is to blame. That's cherrypicking. Rents fell in Brisbane and Adelaide in real terms at the same time. Was the abolition of NG responsible for that too?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by lee on Feb 8th, 2016 at 2:41pm

Bam wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 2:15pm:
Rents fell in Brisbane and Adelaide in real terms at the same time.



So people were leaving Brisbane and Adelaide and putting downward pressure on rents?

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by 21st Century Dialup Network on Feb 8th, 2016 at 2:52pm
Limit it to 1 property per tax payer and only for 10 years.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Bam on Feb 8th, 2016 at 2:55pm

lee wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 2:41pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 2:15pm:
Rents fell in Brisbane and Adelaide in real terms at the same time.



So people were leaving Brisbane and Adelaide and putting downward pressure on rents?

I am unaware of the finer details as to what was happening in those cities at the time.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Bam on Feb 8th, 2016 at 3:05pm

21st Century Dialup Network wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 2:52pm:
Limit it to 1 property per tax payer and only for 10 years.

I'm against the idea of limiting it to one or two properties because it adds complexity.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 8th, 2016 at 6:53pm

Bam wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 2:15pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 10:25am:
you're not comparing like with like.

People set rent prices in advance - rent seldom out performs CPI.

Rent increases of 20% per year when wage increases were being savagely restricted would have been a death blow to affordability.

Normalising the figures makes it look like it didn't happen. It does not really matter if you compare apples to eggplants if the reality is that people can not pay their rent.

The death blow to the argument that NG pushed up rents is the simple observation that during that time, rents did not increase significantly in real terms in most capital cities. We hear the oft-repeated claim that rents went up in Sydney and Perth, therefore the abolition of NG is to blame. That's cherrypicking. Rents fell in Brisbane and Adelaide in real terms at the same time. Was the abolition of NG responsible for that too?


At the time it was said that Sydney and Perth were leading the market and the rest were starting to follow.

We hear the oft-repeated claim that rents went up in Sydney and Perth, therefore the abolition of NG is to blame. That's cherrypicking.

In terms of the direct data rates went up dramatically in all states. The normalised figures probably give a false indication in a high inflation low wage increase market.

Rents fell in Brisbane and Adelaide in real terms at the same time.

Not real terms, in normalised term rents fell - in actual terms of the data rents dramatically increase across all states.

Rents appeared to have fallen looking at manipulated data - rents increase dramatically in some states inflation increased by more.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by stunspore on Feb 8th, 2016 at 8:05pm
Just remove negative gearing and see what happens.  Give it say 4 years and see what happens.  Too much "what ifs".  Use the savings to buff up rental assistance for the vulnerable, establish tax exemptions/credits for new residential dwellings.      

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Dnarever on Feb 8th, 2016 at 8:09pm

stunspore wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 8:05pm:
Just remove negative gearing and see what happens.  Give it say 4 years and see what happens.  Too much "what ifs".  Use the savings to buff up rental assistance for the vulnerable, establish tax exemptions/credits for new residential dwellings.      



Keating tried that method - the threat was that homeless people were going to die when it got cold.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Bam on Feb 8th, 2016 at 8:36pm

Dnarever wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 6:53pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 2:15pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 10:25am:
you're not comparing like with like.

People set rent prices in advance - rent seldom out performs CPI.

Rent increases of 20% per year when wage increases were being savagely restricted would have been a death blow to affordability.

Normalising the figures makes it look like it didn't happen. It does not really matter if you compare apples to eggplants if the reality is that people can not pay their rent.

The death blow to the argument that NG pushed up rents is the simple observation that during that time, rents did not increase significantly in real terms in most capital cities. We hear the oft-repeated claim that rents went up in Sydney and Perth, therefore the abolition of NG is to blame. That's cherrypicking. Rents fell in Brisbane and Adelaide in real terms at the same time. Was the abolition of NG responsible for that too?


At the time it was said that Sydney and Perth were leading the market and the rest were starting to follow.

We hear the oft-repeated claim that rents went up in Sydney and Perth, therefore the abolition of NG is to blame. That's cherrypicking.

In terms of the direct data rates went up dramatically in all states. The normalised figures probably give a false indication in a high inflation low wage increase market.

Rents fell in Brisbane and Adelaide in real terms at the same time.

Not real terms, in normalised term rents fell - in actual terms of the data rents dramatically increase across all states.

Rents appeared to have fallen looking at manipulated data - rents increase dramatically in some states inflation increased by more.

You seem quite obsessed with the rental market at the time NG was abolished while completely ignoring how the rental market behaved before and after. When NG was restored, what happened then? Moderation in rental growth? Of course not. Rents just kept on rising.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by Bam on Feb 8th, 2016 at 8:39pm

stunspore wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 8:05pm:
Just remove negative gearing and see what happens.  Give it say 4 years and see what happens.  Too much "what ifs".  Use the savings to buff up rental assistance for the vulnerable, establish tax exemptions/credits for new residential dwellings.      

There's no need to establish tax exemptions and credits for new dwellings. We can do just as well by abolishing the existing tax exemptions and credits except for new dwellings. CGT concessions being a case in point.

I'm not convinced though that the housing market is in need of any stimulus right now.


Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by stunspore on Feb 8th, 2016 at 9:22pm
Yes but extra rental assistance for the vulnerable means they can use it for existing dwellings.  It's the argument that the neg gears say - that rental prices go up - so in that case use the savings for the vulnerable then.

Title: Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Post by stunspore on Feb 8th, 2016 at 9:23pm

Dnarever wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 8:09pm:

stunspore wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 8:05pm:
Just remove negative gearing and see what happens.  Give it say 4 years and see what happens.  Too much "what ifs".  Use the savings to buff up rental assistance for the vulnerable, establish tax exemptions/credits for new residential dwellings.      




Keating tried that method - the threat was that homeless people were going to die when it got cold.



Global warming will take care of the cold.  Lib during a good job here.

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2026. All Rights Reserved.