Hi Longnow ,
I agree that there probably should be some changes to negative gearing but only as part of a complete tax reform . As has been mentioned , there are many sectors out there that should be changed.
I do however disagree with a few points.
You seem to think that all property investors are speculators . Who do you determine to be a speculator ? Over what period are you talking about ?
If you mean holding property for 20 years hoping that the price will go up , then maybe yes .
If property were never to increase in price ( more like a business ) then the investors would definitely be looking for higher returns than 3 or 4% . We both know what that would mean for rent prices .
NG doesn't provide housing stock . It would be nice if NG was creating new rental stock but unfortunately it would be in the wrong place . People want rentals near work and particularly near schools . Sure a little bit of redevelopment could happen in older areas but that would only up the costs and increase claims . You can build all the new stuff you like out in the sticks but it's not going to serve the vast majority of tenants .
" NG is economically preposterous, socially divisive, morally unfair and fiscally destructive. "
That's a bit excessive isn't it ? Why do you think ng was introduced in the first place ?
Given our rising welfare bill , as is highlighted in the next budget , can you imagine the cost if the govt still provided all the public housing ?
- Forums
- Property
- negative gearing rorting the guts out of oz
negative gearing rorting the guts out of oz, page-40
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 104 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
Featured News
The Watchlist
LPM
LITHIUM PLUS MINERALS LTD.
Simon Kidston, Non Executive Director
Simon Kidston
Non Executive Director
SPONSORED BY The Market Online