NOTE: Video sponsored by the ACTU
Key points
- It would make house prices increase by more than the maximum amount people could withdraw
- It would cost the government $1 trillion in the long run
- It would leave people with $200k less in retirement savings
- It would significantly affect the returns on all superannuation as funds would need to keep more cash reserves uninvested so it is available for withdrawal
You must log in or register to comment.
How about we ban owning multiple properties, remove any incentives for property as an investment, enforce quality building standards, and use government funds to build affordable housing.
I think politicians should be banned from owning multiple properties. It’s a huge conflict of interest.
Absolutely. Great idea.
Having multiple is fine, just remove negative gearing and investment incentives along with actually enforced building standards
People will just go back to what they did before negative gearing: Make businesses and move their properties into that. “Oh, your business made a loss paying more interest than it brought in as rent, I guess you can write that off as a loss and not pay tax on your income”.
The result is the same, but it’s more work for the ATO.
My old boss still had his holiday home under the business, because it’s how he did it before Negative Gearing was a thing.Make it so that interest on money borrowed against residential real estate can’t be declared as a business loss then. That’ll also make speculating housing investment funds a bad idea
If that were the case we wouldn’t have aeen a sharp uptick in investment at the same time NG was introduced.
You’re always gonna have people finding ways around things, the point is to make it hard enough your average schmoe bails on the attempt
Same thing would probably happen with property limits then
You can’t do that with a business though - and that’s why negative gearing on investments is so strange. If you have a day job, and a side business, you can’t claim losses in the side business against your main employment income. But if you have a day job and own an investment property then you can claim the “losses” on the property against your income (and then get a 50% tax reduction on the capital gains when you sell it).
deleted by creator
No,no,no,no! You’ve all got it wrong! You’re all looking at it from entirely the wrong objective!
It’s a GREAT policy for property investors which will boost capital growth and provide excellent short term returns!
Spud’s goal isn’t to make life better for the average Australian. All the listed negatives are positives for the LNP - make the rich richer, and the poor poorer. Luckily, he’s thick as shit and the average Australian can see what a terrible idea it is to spend your future.
I think you’re giving most Australians too much credit. The other thing is that, if you actually want to own a home, in isolation this might be a good thing - as house prices have been rising faster than super for most of the last 20 years. The problem is that, as a whole, this will cause house prices to increase even more - which only helps people with more than just their PPOR.
So people remain excluded from property ownership, but hey, at least the economy will be ok
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t the economy going to even more shit than it is be worse for property ownership?
Sorry, I was being a bit tongue in cheek there. The economy will continue to be shit for people who struggle to afford home ownership whether or not they can use superannuation to help get their foot in the door.
deleted by creator
Sure, but by the time those solutions are in place, another generation of people will have been denied the chance to own property, which has generational consequences on economic and educational outcomes for those families.
The answer is short term relief combined with long term change. Denial of short term relief because of hypothetical long term strategies that aren’t going to be implemented helps no one.
deleted by creator
I’m confused, property investment is our economy, so how can it go to shit if house prices are going up?
That’s just a stupid comment. You could take the 1 trillion dollars it would cost the Australia government and spend it on any number of things to make ownership easier.
You could take the 1 trillion dollars it would cost the Australia government and spend it on any number of things to make ownership easier.
That’s true. The issue is, they’re not going to implement any of those ideas…
So people who can’t enter the housing market remain fucked over, because the imperfect ideas that might actually get off the ground get set aside in favour of better ideas that will never see the light of day.
Oh wow I haven’t seen this dude in a good few years. He made the new south wales song about new south wales
deleted by creator
What
