Australian Politics Forum - Negative Gearing Never Examined

Lisa Jones

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 39047
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Reply #45 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 10:52am

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

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

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

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

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

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3^rd, 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.

Back to top

If I let myself be bought then I am no longer free.

HYPATIA - Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer (370 - 415)

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 61316
Here
Gender: male

Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Reply #46 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 11:41am

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

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

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

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

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

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

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3^rd, 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Reply #47 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 12:35pm

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

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3^rd, 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78311
Gender: male

Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Reply #48 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 12:38pm

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

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

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3^rd, 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.

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

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

double plus good Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 5693 Gender:	Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined Reply #49 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 12:40pm I betcha John Smith is crapping himself on this issue.
Back to top	IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 78311 Gender:	Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined Reply #50 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 12:42pm Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 10:38am: Just how dense is Lisa? she makes bricks look liquid
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78311
Gender: male

Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Reply #51 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 12:45pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 3^rd, 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? Grin

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 78311 Gender:	Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined Reply #52 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 12:46pm double plus good wrote on Feb 3^rd, 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.
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Reply #53 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 12:47pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3^rd, 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

double plus good

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5693
Gender: male

Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Reply #54 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 12:48pm

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

double plus good wrote on Feb 3^rd, 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78311
Gender: male

Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Reply #55 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 12:56pm

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

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

double plus good wrote on Feb 3^rd, 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?

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20061
Gender: male

Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Reply #56 - Feb 3^rd, 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?

Back to top

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Reply #57 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 1:24pm

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

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

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

Bam wrote on Feb 3^rd, 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.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Reply #58 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 1:27pm

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 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.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

stunspore

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5097
Gender: male

Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Reply #59 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 2:07pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3^rd, 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Poll
Question: If NG is to be cut, what would you replace it with?
* This poll has now closed *
NG on new properties only 1 (16.7%) Limit NG for 7 years after purchase 0 (0.0%) Abolish NG, tax offsets against future profits 1 (16.7%) Abolish NG and replace it with nothing 1 (16.7%) Limit it to one or two properties 3 (50.0%) Something else? (Discuss) 0 (0.0%) Total votes: 6 « Last Modified by: Bam on: Feb 4^th, 2016 at 5:08pm »