We must have watched the same program.I make that point above after hearing right wing opinions says the Teals are left of Labor.
Well, the Mirrabella family are all off the gravy train now.Ralph Babet, United Australia Party might be taking the third Coalition senate seat in Victoria.
Greg Mirabella, husband of Sophie is the one who loses out. He was trying to get in for the first time though he hot in a year earlier as the previous senator retired. Clive will be happy if he gets it.
i still reckon it may go Liberal.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2022/results/senate
Click on Victoria
Mirabella only got 0.26 once you take away the first 2.Well, the Mirrabella family are all off the gravy train now.
Ralph Babet of the Australia United Party has taken the sixth senate seat.
It highlights the absurdity of our preferential voting farce that Babet got a gong despite the UAP recording 0.28 of a quota on first preferences. So a tad over 70% of his quota came from the preference flow of people who may have not even considered their vote would end up with UAP.
Mick
Negative gearing is available to anyone that borrows to invest, you can definitely have a negatively geared share portfolio.And franking credits are effectively available to any and everyone with a share trading account. They are reasonably fair.
Negative gearing credits are really only available to people who already own a home (suppose they could be renters themselves) and have enough money to own a second investment home - which is generally the wealthy earners.
What would you use to replace it?Bugger negative gearing. Get rid of it.
My proposal is that for secondary investments you should only be able to claim losses against gains from the investment you made, not other income. Which is I think what you're saying below, but I qualify it further to apply specifically to secondary investments.What would you use to replace it?
I mean what method would you use to allow businesses or investments that generate losses in the early years to claim that loss?
One option would be to capitalise losses from an investment from which you deduct future profits, but if that investment never ends up making a profit you will end up with people that have no way to claim those losses.
I am not sure what you mean by primary and secondary investments.My proposal is that for secondary investments you should only be able to claim losses against gains from the investment you made, not other income. Which is I think what you're saying below, but I qualify it further to apply specifically to secondary investments.
Only primary investment should receive the status quo treatment, to discourage borrowing for secondary investment (which is in aggregate inert/harmful wealth transfer) and encourage primary (real) investment.
Great. Perhaps it will encourage a bit more diligence, caution and risk management from all parties involved in heavily geared secondary markets like the Australian property market.
Why single out the housing market though? At the end of the day investors putting money into the housing market does increase supply of rentals, which currently there is a shortage of.Just remove it from the housing market and stop these taxpayer funded price distortions.
What would you use to replace it?
I mean what method would you use to allow businesses or investments that generate losses in the early years to claim that loss?
—————-
One option would be to capitalise losses from an investment from which you deduct future profits, but if that investment never ends up making a profit you will end up with people that have no way to claim those losses.
In australia we rely on the private sector to provide housing to the rental market, with that supply provided by the private sector there would be less supply to meet the demand and rents would be higher.There is no reason for negative gearing on residential property to exist at all.
As mentioned, it distorts the market.
Housing is for people to live in, not to make a profit from.
Home ownership is about the only way for most taxpayers to have a retirement buffer in their old age. NG tilts the balance in favour of landlords and away from owner occupation and contributes to the high cost of housing we have today.
Small investors can invest in the share market, that's what its for and it doesn't deprive others of the opportunity to own their own homesIn australia we rely on the private sector to provide housing to the rental market, with that supply provided by the private sector there would be less supply to meet the demand and rents would be higher.
All negative gearing does is allow people that use debt to claim any cashflow losses against income from other sources.
With out negative gearing, you would restrict property investment to richer folks, and limit small investors opportunity to participate.
Investing in the housing market only increases supply of rentals if the houses are actually rented out. Many are not. They are simply kept vacant which merely aggravates the shortage.Why single out the housing market though? At the end of the day investors putting money into the housing market does increase supply of rentals, which currently there is a shortage of.
If they want to sign up to lose money by renting out properties for less than their cost of capital and hence subsidising renters let them, if they are claiming 30cents on the $1 they lost it’s a good deal for the government and the rental market.
I doubt a material portion of homes are purposefully kept vacant. But, If It's kept vacant it doesn't qualify for the Negative gearing deductions, Interest on vacant properties that don't produce income is capitalised and deducted from any future capital gain.Investing in the housing market only increases supply of rentals if the houses are actually rented out. Many are not. They are simply kept vacant which merely aggravates the shortage.
It's not a good deal for the taxpayer to sponsor someone else's losses encouraged by a tax system that favours investment with dubious security.
If you want to help renters, dump the NG and use that revenue for income tax relief.
who are we to tell people which sectors they can invest in, thats for the market to decide.Small investors can invest in the share market, that's what its for and it doesn't deprive others of the opportunity to own their own homes
who are we to tell people which sectors they can invest in, thats for the market to decide.
You might like to research that one mate. Last time I checked there were a million homes sitting empty.I doubt a material portion of homes are purposefully kept vacant. But, If It's kept vacant it doesn't qualify for the Negative gearing deductions, Interest on vacant properties that don't produce income is capitalised and deducted from any future capital gain.
Agreed. The current tax system is a burden on renters who are forced to work longer/harder to pay such exorbitant rents and this is the bracket that needs tax relief from winding back pointless welfare such as NG given that it's their high taxes that are paying for it.The taxpayers forgo revenue for negative gearing so they should have a say in where that revenue goes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?