New posts

Reply to thread

Message

Add to that the Sydney/Melbourne ponzi is kicking off again, so have the rise in interest rates changed much? Well probably at the bottom of the pecking order it has made life much more difficult, but where the Govt wanted to dampen demand it has just kept on keeping on.

Meanwhile the RBA soldiers on with trying to keep a lid on inflation, when 50% of the population live in the ponzi scheme area and everyone wants to get on board. Sooner or later the bubble has to be popped, the longer it is left the bigger it gets.

This is the main issue, that no one wants to address and the answer is buried deep in the article, where it is lost:

[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-01/solving-the-housing-affordability-crisis-federal-budget-2023/102278830[/URL]
Treasury tax statements in 2019-2020 found three-quarters of the tax deductions claimed using negative gearing went to the top 10 per cent of earners.
While that may be the case, the PBO warns that changing the status quo could see some property owners "pushed into negative equity, making it detrimental to sell the property and, potentially, creating risks for the banking system, possibly leading to more defaults".

"A sudden decline in house prices, and higher rents, may also trigger a significant economic shock, and resulting negative fiscal consequences, partly or fully offsetting the additional revenue. For example, lower-than-anticipated capital gains and corresponding tax," the PBO says.
"If the price of the investment property has grown more than twice as fast as CPI over the period of ownership, as has likely been the case over the past few years, then the investor would have a high incentive to sell."

However, Max Chandler-Mather says "the government keeps tinkering around the edges" on housing policy and, over time, the budgetary impact will be beneficial.

"If we do not tackle the scourge of massive tax concessions for property investors — negative gearing, capital gains tax — then we are going to see another generation of people locked out of buying their first home," he says.

"I think what the government needs to realise is that they're here to represent every Australian, not just those who currently make billions of dollars off the property system."

<blockquote data-quote="sptrawler" data-source="post: 1225701" data-attributes="member: 28038">Add to that the Sydney/Melbourne ponzi is kicking off again, so have the rise in interest rates changed much? Well probably at the bottom of the pecking order it has made life much more difficult, but where the Govt wanted to dampen demand it has just kept on keeping on.Meanwhile the RBA soldiers on with trying to keep a lid on inflation, when 50% of the population live in the ponzi scheme area and everyone wants to get on board. Sooner or later the bubble has to be popped, the longer it is left the bigger it gets.This is the main issue, that no one wants to address and the answer is buried deep in the article, where it is lost:[URL unfurl=&quot;true&quot;]https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-01/solving-the-housing-affordability-crisis-federal-budget-2023/102278830[/URL]Treasury tax statements in 2019-2020 found three-quarters of the tax deductions claimed using negative gearing went to the top 10 per cent of earners.While that may be the case, the PBO warns that changing the status quo could see some property owners &quot;pushed into negative equity, making it detrimental to sell the property and, potentially, creating risks for the banking system, possibly leading to more defaults&quot;.&quot;A sudden decline in house prices, and higher rents, may also trigger a significant economic shock, and resulting negative fiscal consequences, partly or fully offsetting the additional revenue. For example, lower-than-anticipated capital gains and corresponding tax,&quot; the PBO says.&quot;If the price of the investment property has grown more than twice as fast as CPI over the period of ownership, as has likely been the case over the past few years, then the investor would have a high incentive to sell.&quot;However, Max Chandler-Mather says &quot;the government keeps tinkering around the edges&quot; on housing policy and, over time, the budgetary impact will be beneficial.&quot;If we do not tackle the scourge of massive tax concessions for property investors — negative gearing, capital gains tax — then we are going to see another generation of people locked out of buying their first home,&quot; he says.&quot;I think what the government needs to realise is that they&#039;re here to represent every Australian, not just those who currently make billions of dollars off the property system.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="sptrawler, post: 1225701, member: 28038"] Add to that the Sydney/Melbourne ponzi is kicking off again, so have the rise in interest rates changed much? Well probably at the bottom of the pecking order it has made life much more difficult, but where the Govt wanted to dampen demand it has just kept on keeping on. Meanwhile the RBA soldiers on with trying to keep a lid on inflation, when 50% of the population live in the ponzi scheme area and everyone wants to get on board. Sooner or later the bubble has to be popped, the longer it is left the bigger it gets. This is the main issue, that no one wants to address and the answer is buried deep in the article, where it is lost: [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-01/solving-the-housing-affordability-crisis-federal-budget-2023/102278830[/URL] Treasury tax statements in 2019-2020 found three-quarters of the tax deductions claimed using negative gearing went to the top 10 per cent of earners. While that may be the case, the PBO warns that changing the status quo could see some property owners "pushed into negative equity, making it detrimental to sell the property and, potentially, creating risks for the banking system, possibly leading to more defaults". "A sudden decline in house prices, and higher rents, may also trigger a significant economic shock, and resulting negative fiscal consequences, partly or fully offsetting the additional revenue. For example, lower-than-anticipated capital gains and corresponding tax," the PBO says. "If the price of the investment property has grown more than twice as fast as CPI over the period of ownership, as has likely been the case over the past few years, then the investor would have a high incentive to sell." However, Max Chandler-Mather says "the government keeps tinkering around the edges" on housing policy and, over time, the budgetary impact will be beneficial. "If we do not tackle the scourge of massive tax concessions for property investors — negative gearing, capital gains tax — then we are going to see another generation of people locked out of buying their first home," he says. "I think what the government needs to realise is that they're here to represent every Australian, not just those who currently make billions of dollars off the property system." [/QUOTE]

Verification