Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,237
- Reactions
- 8,483
where did you find that figure?
where did you find that figure?You might like to research that one mate. Last time I checked there were a million homes sitting empty.
Why? Because the current distortions driven by NG are causing landlords to enjoy the higher / faster cap gains as opposed to servicing debt by renting out the properties.
where did you find that figure?
Taxpayers aren't forgoing any revenue, the tax office is only entitled to tax based on the investors profits, and the losses the investors are taking are real genuine losses, and the revenue from the interest payments which generate the loss flow through to the banking industry, where they increase banks profits, pay staff wages and fund dividend payments to all of which generate taxes too.The taxpayers forgo revenue for negative gearing so they should have a say in where that revenue goes.
That figure includes houses that are vacant due to being finished but awaiting sale or settlement, renovated, knocked down rebuilt, deceased estates, occupants in hospital or aged care, properties in-between tenants, owned by someone that is working over seas, condemned and many other reasons, it could also include houses where people just didn't fill out the census formA million homes sitting empty, ABS Census reveals - Australian Property Journal
AUSTRALIA is currently facing a housing crisis but there are one million vacant homes across the country, representing just over 10% of the total number of homes, according to the newly released Census figures, while the types of housing being built are not reflective of living habits as...www.australianpropertyjournal.com.au
That figure includes houses that are vacant due to being finished but awaiting sale or settlement, renovated, knocked down rebuilt, deceased estates, occupants in hospital or aged care, properties in-between tenants, owned by someone that is working over seas, condemned and many other reasons, it could also include houses where people just didn't fill out the census form
you can expect up to 3% of properties to be vacant on any given day just due to being in between tenants or owners etc, that doesn't mean they were vacant all year.
One of my own rental properties was vacant on census night due to a large renovation I was doing, the all units are no fully tenanted.
What is important to your argument is not the total that are vacant, but the total that are purposefully left vacant due to negative gearing, which as I said would be small, and if they are purposefully being left vacant they don't qualify for negative gearing anyway.
good thing your taxes don't support it then, because negative gearing only allows people to deduct the loss from their own income sources, not yours.Whether they qualify or not isn't the point. The point is the market distortions driven by NG are giving faster realised gains at the expense of renters and it's not something I want my taxes supporting.
My taxes do support it. If they didn't, there would be no "deductions"good thing your taxes don't support it then, because negative gearing only allows people to deduct the loss from their own income sources.
I have no doubt some silly people leave their apartments empty, but these people are not allowed to claim negative gearing deductions, and as I said they would be a small subset.
Primary investments are new money entering a venture, starting a new business, funding an IPO or capital raise, etc.I am not sure what you mean by primary and secondary investments.
It doesn't have to be that granular, many countries have solved this problem by grouping income, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_gearing#Netherlands or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_gearing#United_Kingdom .But, let’s say I some one has a some CBA, BHP, FMG and WOW shares and they are all paying a decent dividend.
But then that person decides to buy into a 5th company let’s say CSL using some debt. Are you saying if that leveraged CSL investment generates a negative cashflow that the investor shouldn’t be able to deduct this loss from the dividends of the other companies or other investment income?
We are not talking about capital gains we are talking about the tax treatment of geared investments, hopefully through the lens of incentives the Government wishes to encourage.I mean we can claim other losses from other profits all the time, I if he sold the CSL shares for a loss no one would have a problem with him deducting his CSL loss from his BHP capital gain.
From a balance sheet perspective of a single individual or entity it makes sense, if you zoom out economically, hopefully it's obvious that it has negative externalities.It makes perfect sense to me that an investor should only pay tax on his total net profit or loss over all, and any losses should be deducted from any profits to arrive at a net taxable income.
Again, we are not talking about capital gains tax.I mean how far does it go, if I lose money on CSL do I have to actually go and try to make that capital gain back on CSL to be able to claim the loss?
I am talking about cashflow losses.We are not talking about capital gains we are talking about the tax treatment of geared investments, hopefully through the lens of incentives the Government wishes to encourage.
To me it just makes sense to deduct all expenses/losses from all income/profits and pay tax on your net income, regardless of the source of that income.
You were literally quoted just a few seconds ago talking about capital gains.I am talking about cashflow losses.
Let's start with that.eg, Would you be ok with some deducting the negative cashflow from property A, from the positive cashflow they earn on property B.
Because, as I said already, it should be obvious that it has negative externalities for large portions of the economy.If you are ok with negative cashflows from one property, offsetting the positive cashflows from another property, why not also let them offset some of their positive dividend income they get from some BHP shares they own?
if you are ok with property losses offsetting income from dividends etc, why not their income from Uber driving ?
Please take a moment to consider that your views may be influenced by your position in life and that it's possible what makes sense to you the individual may not make sense for the country as a whole.To me it just makes sense to deduct all expenses/losses from all income/profits and pay tax on your net income, regardless of the source of that income.
Its common in business for new ventures to lose money in the early years, and its extremely common for some one just starting out in property that needs a high LVR loan to take a cashflow loss in the early years until they can pay down they loan enough to reduce the interest rate.Not really, it just allows good investments to subsidise bad ones from a tax point of view.
Sorry, but if a persons taxable income is reduced, they pay less tax which is a loss of revenue for the government which other taxpayers have to pay for.As I mentioned above its not tax payers funding the loss, the loss is paid for out of that persons other income, it just reduces that persons taxable in come, just like all business expenses do.
1. I was talking about mainly cashflow, but used an extended example of capital gains.1. You were literally quoted just a few seconds ago talking about capital gains.
2. Because, as I said already, it should be obvious that it has negative externalities for large portions of the economy.
3. Please take a moment to consider that your views may be influenced by your position in life and that it's possible what makes sense to you the individual may not make sense for the country as a whole.
2. I don't think there is obvious negative effects, because the private sector investing in property does help bring new supply to market, and negative gearing does encourage more investment.
If a workman needs to buy a new pair of boots to work in, it reduces her taxable income by the cost of the boots, but it would be stupid to say the tax payers are funding the Workmans boots, the government were never ever entitled to tax on the portion of revenue used to buy the boots in the first place, they government is only entitled to tax on the profits remaining after all business expenses are paid.Sorry, but if a persons taxable income is reduced, they pay less tax which is a loss of revenue for the government which other taxpayers have to pay for.
that doesn't alter the outcome, thats like saying the majority of share purchases are exisiting shares, but we know that a healthy share market encourages more companies and new share issues to be listed.The majority of negative geared property is already existing dwellings.
If a workman needs to buy a new pair of boots to work in, it reduces her taxable income by the cost of the boots, but it would be stupid to say the tax payers are funding the Workmans boots, the government were never ever entitled to tax on the portion of revenue used to buy the boots in the first place, they government is only entitled to tax on the profits remaining after all business expenses are paid.
Businesses generate revenue, from this they deduct their expenses and pay tax on their profit, if one project generates a loss it is deducted from the profit generated from another project, that is not the same as the government paying for it.
Businesses generate revenue, from this they deduct their expenses and pay tax on their profit, if one project generates a loss it is deducted from the profit generated from another project, that is not the same as the government paying for it.
Like I said already, my proposal is specifically to allow negative gearing for primary investment.2. I don't think there is obvious negative effects, because the private sector investing in property does help bring new supply to market, and negative gearing does encourage more investment.
there are some things that tend to produce an emotional reaction in some people because they see them are a root, but they are just common sense things, one of them is negative gearing two others are franking credits and capital gains tax discounts.
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?