This Negative gearing debate often gets brought up, however you cant take the bad and separate the good in an argument.
Total dwellings in Aus 10.3m 3.1m is rental stock - basically 1/3 of all properties are investment stock
1.2% is supplied by the govt. 98.8% is currently supplied by 2.15m investors owning 3.7m dwellings. 90% of these investors only own 1 or 2 properties 0.8% of Australians own 6+ 43% of these investors are on an income of $<50k 78% earn less than $100k 41% of all properties owned by investors are either neutral or positively geared, Generating an annual average profit of $6000, vs an average annual loss on the remaining 59% of $6500
As you can see its not the large burden everyone likes to talk about, its everyday people trying to build some sort of wealth for themselves, whilst also doing the govt a huge favour and supplying 3.7m dwellings for a very small cost difference.
This has been modelled by PICA and found though the initial tax benefit in early stages is around $30k on average, a property investor will end up paying an average of $167k over the life of the owned property, the modelling suggests a NET tax payable by $138k under current tax rules, add stamp duty and land tax to this and its a massive hole in the govts budget. CGT also brings in massive amounts of revenue.
When Labour proposed the NG changes, according to the modelling it would cost the govt 32 billion.
