Australian Politics Forum - Negative Gearing Never Examined

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Reply #60 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 2:53pm

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

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

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?

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.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 61316
Here
Gender: male

Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Reply #61 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 2:55pm

mariacostel wrote on 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.

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Bam Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21905 Gender:	Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined Reply #62 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 2:58pm Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 3^rd, 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 ...
Back to top	You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument. IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 61316
Here
Gender: male

Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Reply #63 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 3:04pm

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3^rd, 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Reply #64 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 3:14pm

stunspore wrote on 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.

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

Back to top

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Reply #65 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 3:22pm

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

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

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

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?

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.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

Dsmithy70

Gold Member

Offline

ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male

Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Reply #66 - Feb 3^rd, 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.

Back to top

REBELLION is not what most people think it is.
REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself.
Gavin Nascimento

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Reply #67 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 3:36pm

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78311
Gender: male

Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Reply #68 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 3:50pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 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.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Dsmithy70

Gold Member

Offline

ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male

Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Reply #69 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 3:55pm

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

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 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.

Back to top

REBELLION is not what most people think it is.
REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself.
Gavin Nascimento

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78311
Gender: male

Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Reply #70 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 3:57pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 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.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Dnarever Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 61316 Here Gender:	Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined Reply #71 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 5:08pm mariacostel wrote on Feb 3^rd, 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 61316
Here
Gender: male

Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Reply #72 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 5:11pm

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20061 Gender:	Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined Reply #73 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 5:12pm Dnarever wrote on Feb 3^rd, 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?
Back to top	IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78311
Gender: male

Re: Negative Gearing Never Examined
Reply #74 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 5:13pm

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

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3^rd, 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. Cheesy

Back to top

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

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 »