We're being drip fed these articles lately, looks like Labour might be vibe scouting before enacting some change to current policy. Keen to see how this sub feels about negative gearing and CGT reforms.
https://www.thesenior.com.au/story/9187476/proposal-could-limit-negative-gearing-to-two-properties/
30 Comments
Do it!
Go on, be brave. Make the change that all the next generations need you to make.
Good. Negative gearing and the CGT discount is just a way for rich people to avoid paying as much taxes as the rest of us poors. For some owners, it is cheaper for them to own empty homes than it is to rent them out and pay rent on them.
This will bring equality as well as bringing empty homes into the market. Investors and speculators will be less incentivised to buy, lowering housing prices so more Australians have a chance to buy.
Good. Off setting an investments losses/cost against your tax after 1 or 2 investment properties is insane.
You negative gear anything after 2 and you lose the CGT reduction when you dispose of the asset. Being able to negative gear and also claim CGT reduction if the asset is held longer than 12 months seems like double dipping. Pick 1, negative gear or CGT reduction.
It’s a sensible even-handed approach to changes in investment policy to help people get into the housing market while still allowing property investment.
So of course it will be dead in the water after a giant scare campaign in the Newscorp press and Coalition screaming that it’s targeting “MUMS AND DADS” despite evidence that it will have minimal impact on almost everyone who isn’t a property developer scumbag
It will take a long time to fix the problems with the system, but this definitely will go a long way.
People keep going “only 10% of Landlords own more than two properties” but I imagine that 10% own a huge chunk of available housing.
I hope they go for it. I have a negative geared property and im all for it. If they limit it to 2 properties that wont affect me as i have 1. And we did it so my elderly m had a decent place to live in on her pention.
I feel done this way net effect to government costs is positive becuase my mum doesnt need government housing or rent assistance and we are carrying extra costs of rental.property and also benefit from investment property long term.
Two is good, one is better.
No. Brainer. I feel like this is much better than the proposed CGT changes. They feel too much like older, wealthier generations pulling up the ladder behind them (again).
Should limit it to one
As a millenial with stock investments, who stands to gain from CGT discounts when I sell, I say go ahead and wind the CGT back. Just do it.
A roof over the head is a basic need, not an investment vehicle. We shouldn’t incentivise locking people out of housing (a taxpayer’s expense, at that) for highly concentrated private gains.
CGT discount should revert back to an inflation adjustment mechanism, now that calculating the tax burden should be substantially easier with modern software and digital processes.
Back in the old days when houses were cheap and plentiful there was no CGT. Rentals and investment will drop even more. It fixed nothing in New Zealand.
Two thumbs up and a Koala stamp. Do it and while you’re at it ban corporations from owning residential property.
Get rid of it for existing property. Allow it for a defined maximum period for new developments (not KDRs).
Be bolder.
– Limit negative gearing to new builds only
– Cannot offset against personal income, get a tax credit instead (similar to the UK)
– Reduce personal income tax and index with inflation
– Increase resource rent taxes
– Make the CGT discount actually match inflation, the ATO has the data and the ability to calculate it now
– Incentivise R&D and productive capital investment through tax credits and penalise unproductive share buy backs
The winding back of the CGT discount should go much further. But this will be a nice demonstration of the Noalitions’ disdain for genuine reform when it inevitably opposes even this minor change – despite the change still allowing 2 properties to be negatively geared!
I really hope they do make some changes which will reduce the investor demand.
Reducing investor demand will open up home ownership to people who will live in the house/apartment.
Will be disappointed if the government do nothing for millennial and Gen Z voters who are becoming or are now the majority voting block together.
I’m very keen to have the CGT discount removed. It seems crazy to me that we tax wages/salary more than capital gains.
Negative gearing I’m moderately keen on seeing removed or reduced. (There is *some* logic I am *partially* sympathetic to that kinda justifies it, but I’m dubious of it.)
vibe scouting
nice
Bring it on.
No-one needs 3 or more investment properties.
If your income relies on a “property investment portfolio”, you are parasitising society, and should probably get a real job and contribute instead.
Do it! Now is the time. Get it done!
Grandfather 2 properties and faze it out on new purchases…. Hopefully that’s still on the cards.
Ironically very similar to Greens policy on negative gearing before the last election.
Good. All for it. remove property as a major revenue stream.
Thats pretty much what I thought would be good. Neg Gearing stops after the second investment. Still lets some invest but not have a huge portfolio of tax breaks..
I remember writing that as a comment ages ago and was so downvoted on it.
I actually like this proposal. It allows the ‘mum and dad’ investors to still have an investment property, but blocking out bigger investors for hoarding residential properties.
I’m unsure how much this will change anything, the large corporate groups and overseas investors buying residential properties don’t give two shits about negative gearing, it’s normally your slightly higher middle class who have 7 properties and financed up to their eyeballs.
I think it would work, but only if you paired it in tandem with something else that could entice investors to invest elsewhere like moving the current CG discounts to sustainable energy shares.
If they could make something else look more profitable or beneficial by comparison, and explain the change simply and thoroughly so that even a simpleton could get a grasp of it without the press twisting it, it is going to make housing reform much easier to actually implement imo.
I went and visited my mother the other day and my boomer aunt was there railing on about how greedy Labor are for threatening to cut the CGT. Bitch, you own multi-million dollar properties in the city centre, beach houses and a bunch of rentals – yet your grandkids can’t afford rent.
Seriously, fuck this greedy scourge of boomers clinging to all they can get their claws into (I actually own my house btw, but want my kids to have the same opportunity).
How about just one, the place you live in?
Keep some perspective.
This is an article from a magazine for old people.
It’s not based on a government press release, or speech, or statement, or anything.
It’s a journalist writing something because they spoke to someone who used to be a public servant giving their opinion based on….. nothing, because the former public servant won’t even allow themselves to be identified to see if they have any experience with this area of policy.
It is LITERALLY a nothing story.
Having said that, it is well understood that the government is likely to be re-visiting the CGT and negative gearing rules in their second and subsequent terms, so it’s a little bit relevant.
But keep your pants on.
Brilliant idea, let’s go