negative gearing rorting the guts out of oz, page-122

What tax do the landlords pay that are not negative gearing?

That's a bit of a red hearing statement.
Maybe one should ask how was it financed.




What does it save govt not to have to provide these rentals?

I believe it was posted earlier that of the 35 or 37 billion that the government loses in negative gearing it has a cost benefit for the government of about 7.5 billion saving.



Firstly, negative gearing doesn't provide housing stock - the vast, vast majority (something like 90%) is existing stock,

Ok let's make value for money better in new housing stock only and give ANOTHER 4 % depreciation on the new purchase price and reduce the C.G.


such is the laziness of the average property speculator.
Have no idea what that means,

Secondly, negative gearing doesn't reduce rent - we're not paying 4% of purchase price because of the kindness of landlords, that's the market rate, as much as people will pay.
Not long ago it was 7%.


All NG does is push up the purchase price.
If one believes that remember Keating

NG is providing bugger all new housing stock, so isn't helping the government, but it is costing the government billions is tax deductions, which have no nexus to the income they're used to reduce.

Refer to first comment and why is the ADF trying to get private money to purchase service personal housing and rent back off the investor PLUS are prepared to pay the maintenance up keep for at least for 10 years



In fact, the effect of NG - to push up the purchase price, as loss-making becomes acceptable to people who call themselves investors (really just speculators),

that's drawing a long bow


puts severe stress on owner occupiers, usually young couples who are looking at income multiples twice as high as their parents paid for their first home.

What's changed from then to now




It puts pressure on young people, meaning any tax cut or wage gains made are swallowed up by this bone-headed excuse for an economic sector.

Maybe we should blame NG was responsible for the GFC now

NG is economically preposterous, socially divisive, morally unfair and fiscally destructive.

The short of it is this--- its legal

Not one person has ever given a good defence of NG, and those that try are invariably landlords themselves, simply expressing their sentiments of self-entitlement.

Seriously I understand where you are coming from,but you will find that a lot of people have fled the sharemarket and its collateral damage of Algorithmic trading that is illegal in the states but goes on here in High Frquency trading


Just my opinion and am as cynical as other's are of the economics of this country.

cheers mate and keep grinding at it