Capital gains are NOT taxed on a concessional basis. The 50% application replaced the previous index linked policy. It is not clear whether the new system collects more or less than the previous system. Any after cost capital gains less than twice CPI are now taxed more heavily than previously. The previous system was never viewed as a concession - why should this one be viewed as a concession? People now have to pay capital gains tax where none was due previously. It appears that the change was made for administrative simplicity reasons rather than to gift tax relief.
My main point in these posts is not to address the desirability or otherwise of quarantining. The issue I am addressing is the false presentation that people are being given a perk. It is rather the other way around, income earning asset holders who borrow are treated like everyone else under the tax system. In practical reality the campaign proponents are not asking for the removal of a perk - none exists. They are asking for the introduction of a penalty - ie the introduction of quarantining. I already recognised the non-commercial loss provisions issue - that was done to address the hobby abuse and is recognised as a penalty. Similar application of quarantining to this issue should also be recognised as the introduction of a penalty rather than getting rid of a perk.
a) A 50% discount is a concession. Even the government in its yearly tax expenditure statements categorizes it as a concession and values it in lost revenue. I get your point about inflation and the old indexation system. If you want to argue that we should go back to indexation for CG I will respond fine - lets only allow a deduction for the *real* interest rate - that is consistent.
If you want to argue for maintaining a 50% discount then I say fine, lets do what Henry suggested and put a 50% discount on net rental losses also (though he might have said 40%).
b) As I said in my other post, a perk does not necessarily come about via a deliberate legislative action.
If you look at the original federal income tax legislation it is quite thin. Yet the current day one is very thick. A major part of this is because the original one was relatively simple, yet because of its often arbitrary rules (eg judges using old trust law to distinguish what is and isn't assessable) there were so many items that benefitted from concessional or no tax and a piecemeal approach was used to fix this.
Your basic argument is that negative gearing is in line with the spirit of the tax laws. I believe that the same thing was said about CG's being 100% tax free when CGT legislation was proposed in the 80's - after all, they were tax free not due to legislative intervention, just because that is the way things had turned out.
My name is based on a Seinfeld character, not on a belief of a housing bubble.
a) A 50% discount is a concession. Even the government in its yearly tax expenditure statements categorizes it as a concession and values it in lost revenue. I get your point about inflation and the old indexation system. If you want to argue that we should go back to indexation for CG I will respond fine - lets only allow a deduction for the *real* interest rate - that is consistent.
If you want to argue for maintaining a 50% discount then I say fine, lets do what Henry suggested and put a 50% discount on net rental losses also (though he might have said 40%).
b) As I said in my other post, a perk does not necessarily come about via a deliberate legislative action.
If you look at the original federal income tax legislation it is quite thin. Yet the current day one is very thick. A major part of this is because the original one was relatively simple, yet because of its often arbitrary rules (eg judges using old trust law to distinguish what is and isn't assessable) there were so many items that benefitted from concessional or no tax and a piecemeal approach was used to fix this.
Your basic argument is that negative gearing is in line with the spirit of the tax laws. I believe that the same thing was said about CG's being 100% tax free when CGT legislation was proposed in the 80's - after all, they were tax free not due to legislative intervention, just because that is the way things had turned out.
Bravo.
I believe this debate will devolve into the "well tough kuck because the government is not going to change its tax laws' situation rather than a good conclusion as to why negative gearing in its current form should continue... More evidence that the practice of neg gearing for IP's is not based on good reasons, but rather, fear campaigns and political lack of backbone to follow through with changes that have been proposed.
my cousin moved to the US, bought a place to live in, bought a place as an investment...
now he wants to come back and live in Melbourne, and he can't for two reasons:
1) all his US property is underwater and he'd loose all his capital (though obviously cutting and running would be the best option... which brings us to...) 2) the Melbourne market has boomed so much there is no way he can get in NOW!
if a buyer's strike had told him not to buy in the US, his financial life there would not have been completely ruined. however if a buyers strike had told him not to buy in Melbourne when he had the chance... well, he'd be in pretty much the situation he is now... priced out.
as I said before, I think the idea of a buyers strike is silly, but I voted for it anyway, because what IS crucial is that everyone gets balanced information about the market... and it's too biased at the moment... negative aspects are pretty much only discuses on PDS fine print... its also important to fix this attitude in aus that "buying a house, and an investment on a 100% loan HAS to be done! and renters are second class citizens!"
my cousin moved to the US, bought a place to live in, bought a place as an investment...
now he wants to come back and live in Melbourne, and he can't for two reasons:
1) all his US property is underwater and he'd loose all his capital (though obviously cutting and running would be the best option... which brings us to...) 2) the Melbourne market has boomed so much there is no way he can get in NOW!
if a buyer's strike had told him not to buy in the US, his financial life there would not have been completely ruined. however if a buyers strike had told him not to buy in Melbourne when he had the chance... well, he'd be in pretty much the situation he is now... priced out.
as I said before, I think the idea of a buyers strike is silly, but I voted for it anyway, because what IS crucial is that everyone gets balanced information about the market... and it's too biased at the moment... negative aspects are pretty much only discuses on PDS fine print... its also important to fix this attitude in aus that "buying a house, and an investment on a 100% loan HAS to be done! and renters are second class citizens!"
Property investors will be happy with a buyer's strike. They'll be able to pick the properties up cheaper for the duration of the strike. New households are forming all the time, many of which would normally move into the houses vacated by those moving from renting to buying. That will put pressure on rental vacancies which will put upward pressure on rents. Big win for the PIs. As soon as the strike ends there'll but a flood of FHBs pushing prices up. A strike can't change long term demand - it'll just create a wiggle in the trend line. The losers will be the renters, some of whom are struggling, who will have to pay increased rent due to the strike. Who is the strike aimed at?
The FHB Strike campaign jumped to 4th position this weekend, get voting folks, get it to no 1, another 200 votes is all it needs !
I assume that you do know that any change to taxation laws won't be retrospective. That means that it will only affect new entrants, it won't make any change to existing tax arrangements on existing IP. I assume that will likely make existing mum and dad investors hang onto what they have, given their (and yours) mistaken belief that NG is important.
That may have consequences that you haven't thought through. For example I would prefer to accumulate any tax losses and claim them against my capital gains when I sell. That helps keep me in a lower tax bracket in the year of sale, and maximises my tax deduction. NG simply brings that tax deduction forward, it doesn't change the end result markedly, although I argue that a serious investor would be better off without NG.
I hope that you get what you want, that way investing in residential property combined with lower prices in Brisbane (but not lower rents) might just become attractive for me again.
Where do I sign up?????
I'm all for private investment in public housing......
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
Wu say why always the attacks? Wu ask do rent go up, puke not happy?
Quote:
Do you care about affordability?
Wu only buy what he can afford Wu can afford 5 bedroom house at sunnybank, affordability for wu ok Dole bludger no afford this, he need rent like always Low income worker no afford this, he also rent like always, that what he can afford.
Wu say why always the attacks? Wu ask do rent go up, puke not happy?
Wu only buy what he can afford Wu can afford 5 bedroom house at sunnybank, affordability for wu ok Dole bludger no afford this, he need rent like always Low income worker no afford this, he also rent like always, that what he can afford.
Yes, I always reply to you with an attack......not, that's you buddy......
So you only care about your affordability.....sad Mr Wu.
Do you care about young couples starting out? I guess not......
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