So you are not willing to admit that your obviously incorrect claim that NG costs "$36B" was COMPLETELY WRONG??? And instead just have a big wriggle over whether the some or all of actual figure of $2B-$4B may or may not actually represent "deferred" costs of there was no NG?
Pathetic.
Slow down, it's not a matter of me not admitting anything. I recall reading an article detailing the $36b, it was along the lines of lost PAYG tax as well as eofy deductions.
1.9 mil investors claiming around $11k each in deductions which is roughly 19-20b plus the PAYG tax deductions which totalled $36b plus.
So it wasn't my claim it was the claim of a journalist looking at total cost to the economy including both lost PAYG and deductions and excluding rubbish revenue raised through taxes on the properties as because this assumes these properties would never have been invested in without NG which is WROOOOOONG!!!
NG 'cost' about $4 billion in 2011/2012, and it would be much lower now due to much lower interest rates. LOL, I actually do fix breakfast for a five year old most mornings!
They are figures quoted in that same article you told me to read.
Anyway split your $4b into total deductions per investor and lost PAYG. What's the figures then Shadow, I know you live in the grey but some black and white would be good.
Don't forget you just not use a figure that has been reduced due to factoring in 'revenue' gained through the taxation of the asset, just pure figures based on those two components.
If you come back with $4b then you are aptly named because you and all the other bulls are just grey men.
Not everyone you meet is a mushroom, never lose sight of that it could come back to haunt you.
They are figures quoted in that same article you told me to read.
There is no $11K per investor and no $36 billion figure mentioned anywhere in the article. You made it up. The article says 2 to 4 billion.
Quote:
Anyway split your $4b into total deductions per investor and lost PAYG. What's the figures then Shadow
What for? What's what figures then?
What the hell is 'lost PAYG' and how does it relate to negative gearing?
I have no idea what you're babbling on about. Are you just mashing the keyboard with your elbow to see what comes out?
Quote:
If you come back with $4b...
It was YOU who posted the article with the $4 billion figure. I said 'a few' billion originally - it's basically the tax on the interest less the rental income. The exact figure will depend on the prevailing interest rates during the year in question. Your article said $4 billion in 2011/2012. It would be less now with lower interest rates. It's a few billion, that's all. With current interest rates it could be down to $1.5 million. A far cry from your made up $36 billion nonsense.
Quote:
Shadow, I know you live in the grey... you and all the other bulls are just grey men... Not everyone you meet is a mushroom, never lose sight of that it could come back to haunt you
There is no $11K per investor and no $36 billion figure mentioned anywhere in the article. You made it up. The article says 2 to 4 billion.
What for? What's what figures then?
What the hell is 'lost PAYG' and how does it relate to negative gearing?
I have no idea what you're babbling on about. Are you just mashing the keyboard with your elbow to see what comes out?
It was YOU who posted the article with the $4 billion figure. I said 'a few' billion originally - it's basically the tax on the interest less the rental income. The exact figure will depend on the prevailing interest rates during the year in question. Your article said $4 billion in 2011/2012. It would be less now with lower interest rates. It's a few billion, that's all. With current interest rates it could be down to $1.5 million. A far cry from your made up $36 billion nonsense.
This is gibberish.
"Your article said $4 billion in 2011/2012. It would be less now with lower interest rates."
Oh, less with interest rates?!
Now that's you assuming all investors have refinanced and NONE of them have purchased more properties.
Mmmmmmmm, the grey man is alive and well.
You shit me but your the only man putting up real fight, which is great but you still haven't outlayed the $4b or a 'few billion' you claims are based on. I can be converted shadow, i have significant savings, I just need real facts but it's a shame I'm only getting 50% of the story from you bulls.
Australia’s negative gearing laws, combined with the halving of capital gains tax in 1999, has caused an explosion of property investment, both in absolute number and as a proportion of the population.
Moreover, the overwhelming majority of investors have purchased existing dwellings, and so have crowded-out would-be owner-occupiers rather than add to supply.
Increasing constraints on the supply of new housing have reduced the level of affordable new housing supply, making it harder for families to become home owners.
The rise in the proportion of young families renting wouldn’t be so bad if Australia had sounder tenancy laws, as exists in many European nations. However, rental security in Australia is poor, making renters second class citizens, as noted by the Tenants Union:
Australian renters experience some of the lightest-touch regulations in the western world.
Laws in other western countries offered more secure rental tenure, with longer lease terms, narrower reasons for eviction, and longer notice periods before a landlord could demand a tenant move…
Tenants in other countries also have more rights to keep a pet or make minor alterations such as small holes in the wall without the landlord’s permission, it found.
In Australia, a typical lease lasts from six to 12 months compared to two to three years in France and Hong Kong. Germany and the Netherlands offer indefinite lease terms…
Indeed, one of the great strengths of the German housing market is that it provides strong protections for tenants. Specifically, rents are regulated and prices are prevented from increasing sharply. Tenants also have security of tenure as long as they pay the rent and behave well, except on the rare occassion when a member of the landlord’s family needs the accommodation or when the building is going to be replaced.
Further, because renting is the dominant housing choice in Germany, the political system is highly sensitive to tenants’ rights and perceived threats to the status quo typically receives prominent media attention and political responses.
Finally, because renters enjoy secure tenure (and housing supply is fairly responsive), Germans have little incentive to rush into owner occupation. As such, Germany doesn’t suffer from the ‘panic buying’ and speculation often present in bubble housing markets, like Australia’s.
Obviously, some key reforms that would improve outcomes for younger Australians either locked-out of home ownership or stuck in the rental market would be to:
Quarantine negative gearing losses, so that they cannot be applied against non-related income (i.e. wages and salary), or restrict negative gearing to new builds;
Liberalise planning and remove the first-user pays all approach to infrastructure financing (preferably in favour of broad-based land taxes); and
Strengthen tenancy laws along the lines of many European countries, such as Germany.
Oh, I love it that someone wants to play this game. :-)
So, Is tax withheld reduced or nullified for individuals that negatively gear, yes or no??!
For most individuals, total tax withheld is ultimately unchanged. Instead of deducting the loss from IP income in the future, they deduct the same loss from other income today. So they get a reduction in tax paid now, but an equal sized increase in tax paid later.
But you are trying to pull a Veritas by changing the subject. I asked if you could tell us how you came up with $36 billion, or $11K per investor, or 'lost PAYG' or whatever else you dreamt up.
Oh, I love it that someone wants to play this game. :-)
So, Is tax withheld reduced or nullified for individuals that negatively gear, yes or no??!
The only one playing games here is you. Be a man and admit you $36B figure was complete bullshit. Here's what you originally claimed:
Chris
If you consider recent figures show NG costing the nation around $36b (2011/12) that's lost PAYG and deductions, then it's not costing us $2b pa it's a hell of a lot more
That claim is WRONG. You mis-read, mis-remembered the data. You used a figure which was the total of all property related tax deductions, but forgot all about the rental income side.
The actual amount that NG "costs" was $4B in 2011/2012, (ie the total aggregrate amount the income tax paid by property investors was reduced by due to NG - what you are calling "PAYG" tax in your quote) . It will likely be lower in the following years due to significantly lower interest rates. That's a LOT less than $36B! Yuo were even hoisted on your own pertard trying to defend this stupid claim by posting articles that actually confirmed what Shadow was saying!
So with respect to your question "Is tax withheld reduced or nullified for individuals that negatively gear, yes or no" - the answer ias actually yes and no, based on how you phrased your question. Tax withheld (individually) may not change at all - it would depend if a NG'd investor bothered to apply to the ATO for a PAYG variation to get their weekly/monthly tax withheld amounts reduced or not. But regardless of this it is correct that a NG'd PI will pay less tax than they otherwise would have due to the deduction they get for the amount that their PI costs exceed it's income - I think this is what actually meant to ask, in which case the answer is "yes" - and the total amount of this deduction, by your own article, in 2011/2012 was $4B.
And remember this is all in the context of a thread where we have shown that property owners in aggregarate actually pay $40B/year net in taxes to all levels of governments! And PIs pay at least half this amount. And remember if NG were removed most of that $4B would just be deferred to a later time, but still claimed anyway.
So a question for you - do you still believe that NG "costs" $36B in lost/reduced taxation income for the government??? Yes/No answer please.
For Aussie property bears, "denial", is not just a long river in North Africa.....
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy