We were having a discussion about how to prove someone's motivation using a method other than asking them, and you said... 'There are numerous examples, you can google them if you like... or would you like me to do that for you too ?'.
But now you're saying the last part of your statement was insincere.
1 - Was the first part of your statement also insincere - i.e. do you not really believe there are numerous examples of how to prove someone's motivation? 2 - If you do believe numerous such examples exist, can you please link to a few of them?
My posts contain as much sincerity to you as I can possibly muster. Occasionally all I can muster is an offhand remark... sadly, you misunderstood and hoped that I would do your legwork for you.
If you can not be bothered doing the legwork on your orphaned theory, why should I ?
Wrong. Go back to here where Kenny put you straight.
Correct Strindberg.
In fact there are a number of other countries that allow -ve gearing for IP's...
However, unlike Australia, many have limits which (I assume) are aimed at discouraging speculation (on already constructed dwellings), and, instead, encouraging development of new stock..
America, I believe, tightened it's lax -ve gearing taxation laws around the time of Reagan...
Seriously, Australia's approach is not the same as the other countries cited in Strindberg's RBA document... it is false to assume that just because you can -ve gear in those countries that it is the same as here... they differ greatly.
It is mischievous to imply that just because -ve gearing is allowed in those other countries, that it is the same as in Australia... it is not.
If you want more info... read below.fro Here .. (details might be a bit out of date however)..
A comparison of international quarantining measures
Negative gearing is not permitted in the U.K. and the Netherlands. Interest deductions are restricted in the U.S., Sweden, Germany, France and Canada. There is not a high degree of uniformity or overlap of approach to the quarantining of interest deductions overseas. The overseas measures are compared below. In general, while a fairly broad approach is applied in the U.S. (with passive investment rules) and a somewhat narrower approach applies in the U.K. (where investment income is quarantined under a specific schedule), in most countries rental income is given quite specific tax treatment that differs from other jurisdictions.
Little comment needs to be made in relation to Japan[131] and New Zealand,[132] which like Australia allow negative gearing on investment housing. However, it may be noted that previously in New Zealand the Commissioner for Inland Revenue denied negative gearing on rental properties by administratively quarantining the interest deduction to the amount of net rental income.[133] This administrative quarantine no longer applies.
The U.S. has an extensive system of limitations on deductibility, including ‘passive activity loss’ rules.[134] While interest is generally deductible[135] there are notable limitations.[136]
Rental income is treated as passive income. Unless the individual actively participates in the rental activity, losses from rental property may be limited. Individuals who actively participate in the rental activity may be able to deduct up to $US25,000 of loss against other income. No additional loss is available for individuals whose modified adjusted gross income exceeds $US150,000.[137]
Interest is only deductible on rental properties to the extent it does not exceed the taxpayer’s net investment income,[138] however the excess may be carried forward up to 20 years and offset against future net investment income. Alternatively it can be offset against capital gains realised on the sale of U.S. real estate.[139]
The U.K. adopts a schedular system to quarantine deductions for investments. Losses from one activity source can only be offset against future income from the same source. Rental property losses are quarantined to income from real property under Schedule A.[140]
Whereas each Schedule and Case has its own detailed expense rules, generally expenditure may be deducted if it is incurred wholly and exclusively in gaining income that is prima facie liable to income tax. Losses and outgoings of a capital, private or domestic nature are expressly excluded from deductibility. Each Schedule and Case has its own loss rules. Generally there is no facility to set off a loss under one Schedule against income from another, with a notable exception for losses incurred in a trade, profession or vocation (assessable under Schedule D, Cases I and II). Otherwise, except for losses from employment (for which there is no provision), income losses can generally be carried forward indefinitely but can only be offset against future income from the same source.[141]
In Canada interest is not generally deductible as it is considered a capital expense for income tax purposes.[142] Interest can be deducted in limited instances where income is gained from a business or property. [143]
The prospect of a capital gain alone will not be sufficient to make interest expenditure deductible, however if there is a reasonable possibility that the investment will eventually generate ordinary income in excess of the interest expense, a deduction for the interest will normally be allowed. Specific restrictions apply to certain real estate investments. For example, interest incurred during construction of a building is capitalised and added to the cost of the building, and taken into account when the building begins to generate an income stream or when it is sold, not when the expense is incurred.[144]
There are also rules designed to prevent passive investors from sheltering income from losses. [145]
Under case law in Canada, a rental property is not normally considered a business in the hands of an individual unless extended services, substantially beyond the mere provision of space, are provided. Where the rent constitutes business profit, net income is computed by including the right to deduct interest and depreciation. However, rental income will usually be defined as ‘specified investment business income’ rather than active business income.[146]
In the Netherlands, there are no general restrictions on using losses from one income category to offset against income from any other category.[147] However, for interest to be deductible in computing net rental income, the real estate must be part of a business operation for a private individual.[148] Normally this requirement will not be satisfied for rental properties.
In Sweden a credit is allowed for losses in respect of income from capital at a rate of 30% for losses up to $15,000 which can be offset against income from other categories. For losses in excess of $15,000 the credit rate is 21% and is restricted to current year losses where the gain on the investment is deferred.[149]
In Germany rental income is one of seven income categories.[150] Losses can be carried forward against future income or offset against previous income, but a limit applies to the amount of losses that can be carried back.[151] Losses in particular income categories can generally be applied against income in other categories.[152]
In France there are separate categories of income. Restrictions apply to certain categories of losses. For real estate losses, the first €10,700 can be set off against other income, but to the extent it arises from interest outgoings, it must be amortised over a 10 year period against future rental income. The excess losses over €10,700 not due to interest paid may only be carried forward against future rental income for a maximum period of 5 years.[153]
Rental income in France is not subject to withholding tax and is assessable with other income as declared in the annual tax return, although it must be returned in a special schedule attached to the tax return. A restrictive list of expenses can be deducted against rental income, which includes interest expenses related to acquisition costs and finance expenses.[154]
My posts contain as much sincerity to you as I can possibly muster. Occasionally all I can muster is an offhand remark... sadly, you misunderstood and hoped that I would do your legwork for you.
If you can not be bothered doing the legwork on your orphaned theory, why should I ?
I did the legwork and determined that there is no way to prove someone's motivation other than to ask them, even then you may not get an honest answer.
You said in response... 'There are numerous examples, you can google them if you like... or would you like me to do that for you too ?'
However, the only example you did manage to post was one that backed up my position - i.e. a survey that determined motivation by asking the participants.
Do you still believe there are numerous examples of alternative methods? Can you link to a few of them?
I did the legwork and determined that there is no way to prove someone's motivation other than to ask them, even then you may not get an honest answer.
You said in response... 'There are numerous examples, you can google them if you like... or would you like me to do that for you too ?'
However, the only example you did manage to post was one that backed up my position - i.e. a survey that determined motivation by asking the participants.
Do you still believe there are numerous examples of alternative methods? Can you link to a few of them?
Yawn.. keep passing the work on..
Do you even remember where this 'motivation' angle came from ?? Let me remind you.
your quote: Similarly it is impossible to prove why a particular government supports negative gearing. Motivation can't be proved.
Surely even you can understand this? end of your quote:
The people who's motive you are trying to capture is the governments... it is pointless me running around and finding how to tell what a person's motive is when you are actually talking about government's..
Are you seriously saying that government motive is not well documented ?
If there is any group in Australia that has to document it's reasons for doing anything... it's the government.
eg.. Political History
In July 1985 the Hawke/Keating government quarantined negative gearing interest expenses (on new transactions), so interest could only be claimed against rental income, not other income. (Any excess could be carried forward for use in later years.)
your quote: Similarly it is impossible to prove why a particular government supports negative gearing. Motivation can't be proved.
Surely even you can understand this? end of your quote:
The people who's motive you are trying to capture is the governments... it is pointless me running around and finding how to tell what a person's motive is when you are actually talking about government's..
Are you seriously saying that government motive is not well documented ?
I'm saying what I've said all along... it is impossible to prove why a particular government supports negative gearing. Motivation can't be proved. The best I could do is ask them, but even then I may not get a straight answer. You disagreed with me, and said there were other ways to prove the governments motivation... 'There are numerous examples, you can google them if you like... or would you like me to do that for you too ?'
However, the only example you did manage to post was one that backed up my position - i.e. a survey that determined motivation by asking the participants.
Do you still believe there are numerous examples of alternative methods? Can you link to a few of them?
I'm saying what I've said all along... it is impossible to prove why a particular government supports negative gearing. Motivation can't be proved. The best I could do is ask them, but even then I may not get a straight answer. You disagreed with me, and said there were other ways to prove the governments motivation... 'There are numerous examples, you can google them if you like... or would you like me to do that for you too ?'
However, the only example you did manage to post was one that backed up my position - i.e. a survey that determined motivation by asking the participants.
Do you still believe there are numerous examples of alternative methods? Can you link to a few of them?
it's odd that you don't seem to believe that government policy would be publicly available... do you feel the same way about other government policies ?
However, I think that you are showing your true beliefs when you say 'it's impossible to prove why a particular government supports negative gearing'.. I wonder if it's because you know that there is no substantive reason for them to support it ... Perhaps, deep down, you feel the only real reason it is supported is because of the backlash from investors if IP's are no longer -ve geared in the same way they have been since it was repealed...
Yes I do believe it is possible to dig up government stated reasons for any tax policy that has been under the microscope (eg. Henry Tax Review).. after all, why was it under threat ? why was it then protected ?
I also believe that you need to understand that when you are talking about government motives, that it's not as difficult as you like to make out..
White papers, green papers, etc... DYOR shadow.
If you can not find serious support for your theory from government sources in a democracy such as Australia then there are only 3 obvious possible reasons..
1 - your too lazy,
2 - you know your theory is flawed and want to avoid doing it
or
3 - the theory is flawed, and you can not find public documents to substantiate your claims...
and, one more time as you obviously don't want to hear..
No I don't feel like doing your leg work.. get a paid employee to do it.
I can only show the man how to fish.. I can not spoon feed him also.
One more go
Try the things I already said in google.. add white paper, green paper, final report and Gov.au I'm sure you will hit gold eventually.. or, solid stone as your theory is just made up stuff that could never be substantiated because it's false.
Lastly.. why not try King Henry's Report I'm sure that if there is a good reason for -ve gearing on IP's to exist it would be in there no ?
it's odd that you don't seem to believe that government policy would be publicly available... do you feel the same way about other government policies ?
Policy is available, but the motives for that policy are not always clear. Even when stated they may not be entirely honest. I'm surprised you're so naïve to believe the government always speaks the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is impossible to prove why a particular government supports negative gearing, as true motivation can never be proved. The best I could do is ask them, even then I might not get an honest answer.
You disagreed with that, and said you knew numerous ways to prove government motivation... 'There are numerous examples, you can google them if you like... or would you like me to do that for you too ?' However, apart from one example that actually backed up my position (a survey determining motivation by asking participants) you steadfastly avoid linking to any of these numerous methods that you supposedly know about. Suggesting to me that you just made it up.
Policy is available, but the motives for that policy are not always clear. Even when stated they may not be entirely honest. I'm surprised you're so naïve to believe the government always speaks the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is impossible to prove why a particular government supports negative gearing, as true motivation can never be proved. The best I could do is ask them, even then I might not get an honest answer.
You disagreed with that, and said you knew numerous ways to prove government motivation... 'There are numerous examples, you can google them if you like... or would you like me to do that for you too ?' However, apart from one example that actually backed up my position (a survey determining motivation by asking participants) you steadfastly avoid linking to any of these numerous methods that you supposedly know about. Suggesting to me that you just made it up.
And would you like to spell out clearly just why it is so crucial that you mind read the governments intentions for your theory to be conclusivly proven... For those of us that missed why...
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