Greens leader Adam Bandt has said that if Labor doesn't get enough seats on its own they would team up to form a Labor-Greens coalition who would scrap the capital gains tax discount and scrap negative gearing.
He has said those two things are the reason for housing unaffordiblity and for property prices escalating so rapidly. He didn't even comment on the rate of immigration far exceeding the rate at which we are constructing accommodation.
Discuss.
Conversely, on a first principles basis, there's not really any sensible argument for why negative gearing should be applicable to existing residential housing.
There is, to remain consistent with how positively geared properties are taxed, i.e., at the person's marginal tax rate.
No other business is taxed like this. If i start a small business selling stuff at markets and it loses money one year i cant offset my payg income
@Tleyx: That doesn't mean its logical. Same with indexing brackets, on a first principles basis they should be indexed, but they aren't because why would the government want to give up free money from the wage slaves.
It's all outcome based.
By the way, its funny I received so many down votes but no one has articulated a sensible argument. Freefall did try, which I appreciate.
No other business is taxed like this. If i start a small business selling stuff at markets and it loses money one year i cant offset my payg income
An investment isn’t the same as running a business.
If you earn a profit from an investment, it’s taxed as personal income - so logically, if you incur a loss, it should be deductible as well.
What is the first principle in this case?
Investment property income and losses should be treated in the same way.
Investment property income and losses should be treated in the same way.
But it's not a first principle.
Under Australian tax law losses should only be offset against like income. I cannot offset business losses against my employment income, or even an unrelated business. I can't offset my overseas losses against my Australian income. It should be that losses can only be offset against future revenue from the property.
The reason it's not this way is to spur investment, not to create a fairer tax system or some first principle adherence
@freefall101: Doesn't that make investment less attractive? Tax the gains but can't deduct the losses.
@CaptainJack: I wrote that poorly, the reason that investment income is different to other business income is to spur investment.
Business income can't be deducted against regular income. Investment income can. It's not a first principle of the tax system that all income is merged equally is all I'm saying.
@freefall101: Still not following how it spurs investment?
It would be logical that if the ATO is going combine income from different sources, then tax payers be able to combine losses from different sources.
Still not following how it spurs investment?
The argument that it spurs investment and the creation of rental properties is pulled up every time. Personally, I don't agree with it either. But no politician is willing to stand up and say "it's a really great tax break for us, that's the only reason it's there".
It would be logical that if the ATO is going combine income from different sources, then tax payers be able to combine losses from different sources.
Except we don't do that, because we let people bank up their capital gains and not pay tax on it. It's income, it's just treated differently. I'd be totally for allowing for real losses to be offset against other income, but we're talking about people using the capital gains system to reduce their tax now while growing their wealth. It's much more complicated than just net income and losses.
It's logical that you can only count the cost of something against the revenue of that same thing. That's how business works.
It's too open to abuse to allow any netting off or losses or gains. If business losses could be offset against personal income, there would be a market of buying and selling business debt to shuffle around the tax benefits. It would make it very simple to shuffle who is paying tax between people rather than paying it at the marginal rate. And the point of the marginal rate to ensure that people are contributing based on what they get out of this country, thus the fundamental principle is that all income is taxed at the marginal rate.
@freefall101: Would that really happen?
Say I have an employment income of $500k per year that (for simplicity) I will owe $100k of tax on with a marginal rate of 40%. I want to reduce this so I temporarily purchase a business has debt repayments or otherwise has an operating loss.
For every $1 my business loses, 40 cents is a reduction in my tax bill and 60 cents is a loss that comes from my pocket.
Assuming there's no capital gain from this business (reasonably to assume given its whole reason for existence is to lose money), wouldn't I be a complete idiot to do this?
@freefall101: I invest in property. I claim tax deductions on investment losses as an offset. I gain investment income (either capital gains or rental ), I have to pay tax on it. It's like-income. I don't quite understand.
@Deridas: You can claim those losses against employment income, which isn't like income. That's why negative gearing is so popular.
@tenpercent: You can claim share losses against capital gains in future years, but not against your income in the current year.
With property you can claim the rental loss against your income in the same year. Big difference.
@zoob: With shares you can claim interest (if you are leveraged) and other expenses against your current income (which will include dividends).
With property there's more stuff you can fudge as costs. And banks are also more likely to give you a high LVR.
@zoob: All personal investments allow negative gearing.
Business losses cannot be written off against personal income.
@zoob: I think you are confusing capital gain/loss with deductible expenses. Both are treated the same for property and other investments eg. shares.
You can't use a capital loss from property to reduce your taxable employment income, if that is what you are claiming.
@freefall101: Actually, legitimate business losses, assuming incurred by yourself, are absolutely able to reduce personal income. The only time they aren't is when they are deemed to be non-commercial, or you earn over $250k (primarily due to the government historically not wanting wealthy people with hobby farms who run them at losses offsetting their taxable income).
Whilst there are restrictions for application of capital losses against general income, even revenue losses can be used to offset capital gains. There aren't preferential tax rates for Australia like there are in many other countries, so income is generally treated equally (assuming Australian sourced).
@freefall101: Exactly. It should be made into the first principle and be applied consistently. Income is income and loss is loss. So instead of removing negative gearing for property, it should be allowed for any type of investment and business.
would be great if Greens do not stand in the way of incremental beneficial changes in this area in addition to suggesting the more drastic proposals
That's the big problem, blocking anything less than 100% perfect.
Imagine teaching a baby to walk. "You take one step and walk perfectly, or don't try at all!"
Politicians are desperate to get into power.
Just as dumb as whether people work from the office or work from home. Imagine if everyone is back to office 5 days a week. The nation will be a car park 4 hours a day.
Some people who have jobs they need to attend in person don't like WFH but if you tell them their daily commute will be another 15 minutes each way they'd change their minds pretty quickly.
The nation will be a car park 4 hours a day.
Was the nation a car park 4 hours a day back in January 2020?
That's school holidays. But otherwise in Melbourne, yes that's about right.
Was the nation a car park 4 hours a day back in January 2020?
Well, yes. That was my experience as a worker in Sydney trying to commute anywhere.
If you had a job you'd know the answer.
I've been WFH for almost a decade.
Just as dumb as whether people work from the office or work from home. Imagine if everyone is back to office 5 days a week. The nation will be a car park 4 hours a day.
I reckon this might be a key factor in why we haven't seen as much vocal opposition to immigration levels as I would've expected. The vast increases are hiding behind a lower portion of the population travelling each day.
I reckon this might be a key factor in why we haven't seen as much vocal opposition to immigration levels as I would've expected
I would partially agree.
Some people know they are better off as immigration pumps up company profits, increase rent / property prices (we all aspire to have investment properties until you find out like $5m of the $4m you got for retirement [not a joke] is tied up in the AUD which tanks every decade), cheap labour.
In Melbourne soon as there is an accident on one of the main freeways (West Gate, Ring Road or Monash) traffic jams start forming for a 10km radius.
Like tenpercent above who has WFH for almost a decade, they are just pretending the world outside doesn't exist. I got neighbours who are retire (came out to work part time due to high cost of living I suppose) and they get their groceries delivered they are on a big block (700m2) with 4BR and big al fresco area for 2 people.
People dont want to hear that removing both of those things will not have the desired outcomes.
There are far more important tax reforms required, including a complete overhaul of the ATO, but no major party wants to touch it.
And fundamentally, we cannot improve our housing supply in a traditional manner to meet immigration driven population increases.
So removing the mechanisms mentioned will achieve nothing and be eaten by market forces whilst pushing out local investment and drying up a tax stream…
Correct. It doesn't matter how you rearrange the chairs, if there's 27 million people (and that's growing by 0.75 million per year) who want a seat and you've only got 26.5 million seats (and that's only growing by 0.25 million seats per year), then 0.5 million (and growing) aren't going to get a seat.
That's absolutely shocking that the Greens are supporting known terrorist organizations.
Given that's something that's obviously illegal, you should go into a police station and make a report.
If it's so obvious a crime that you're across it and not just making things up, arrests should flow rapidly and that political organization that's doing all those terrible things you listed will then be in prison and we won't have to hear about it from you again.
Of course, this is only the case if what you are saying is demonstrably true and not made up nonsense.
@Crow K: Without looking up the relevant laws, could it be the case that Mr/Ms ABuck is also committing an offence, by failing to report a known supporter of a known terrorist organisation?
@jackspratt: Yes, I suppose that's a bit of a worrying development - I don't know enough about whether refusing to report on a terrorism related event is a crime in and of itself.
Of course even if it wasn't an actual crime, knowing such acts are being committed and staying quiet is a major moral failing (much like how the Church decided to turn a blind eye to the rampant amount of pedophilia being practiced under its authority and protection)
And the thing is, we have enough space for even 270 million chairs. If there is demand and supporting policy, the free market will sort out the supply. You just have to get the right policy and incentives. For a start, we need to ask the 0.5 million people to bring their own chair..
Why would overhauling the ATO make a difference? They don’t set the rules
They do and they choose which rules to implement and when.
If there's an issue around debt and tax base, then collection and efficiency has to be looked at.
Cant ask governments to sacrifice CGT without explaining how that revenue will be compensated elsewhere.
And before saying Greens only talking about the CGT discount - only individuals pay full CGT. Smarties run through companies and trusts or place in name of partners with low to no income, then compansate with capital losses.
It's a poorly considered brain fart for the masses that the top tax experts laugh about over morning coffee. Not even Henry is talking about abolishing this in his recent comments in Feb 25
Federal tax policy is set by the federal Treasury. The ATO are charged with implementing the legislation and collecting the taxes.
About time. This countries housing crisis is the epitome poor feeding the rich.
The only whingers are the beneficiaries
Also about time the mods stopped allowing the forums to be a safe harbour for political trolling.
Define:
political trolling
LOL
referring to voicing opinions as "political trolling" = political trolling
I for one enjoy seeing what other people think - seeing upvotes/downvotes..
doesn't make them right or wrong but is somewhat of a litmus test on where the budget-savvy joe/jane smith sit on these issues
You haven't quoted the full Green's policy and you assume that Labor would agree to the policy without modification.
I'd suggest you have a listen to the speech he did to the National Press Club today (it should be on iView).
Bandt made some interesting points and if nothing else his career prior to becoming a politician made a welcome change from "I left university, worked for an entity related to the Liberal/Labor Party and then became a politician."
It would be great if they scrapped the 50% CGT discount and went back to indexed capital gains like they were prior to Howard.
What are the points?
I'm not your researcher. Watch the video or, to quote Bandt "Google it Mate"
You haven't quoted the full Green's policy and you assume that Labor would agree to the policy without modification.
Just google them mate.
im not a fan of negative gearing but it shouldnt be scrapped but LIMITED to 1-2 investment properties as for CTG
That is the Green policy. ie - 1 investment property.
this is incorrect they want grandfather it for 1 property for existing investors
'Any properties purchased after the policy commences, or the second and subsequent investment properties already owned, would not be eligible for these concessions'
for the record this would ultimately make things worse for renters as the Greens oppose any cap on migration….
issue with the Greens is almost all their policies contradict one another you can cap rents and get rid of property investment but have more red/1st nations/green tape and unlimited migration
you cant be pro islam and pro-LGBTIQ etc
I wonder how many investment properties Mr Bandt and his colleagues each own?
@tenpercent: Dunno, nope and nope.
Are you holding Bandt to the same standard as , say Dutton, who has a property portfolio?
@tenpercent: I think it's harsh to put albo in that company. Is he the best PM? No, but he's a hell of a lot better than the three stooges you have named.
He has a plan that has been thought out, with actual experts input, that is typically for the greater good.
E.g. nacc. Is it perfect? No. Would we have got under LNP? Hell no.
The green energy investment they want to do will hopefully eliminate the nuclear window dressing Dutton is using to keep coal going.
Even the made in Australia policy whilst not perfect is working to try and prevent profits heading overseas.
I am yet to see any policies from the greens and LNP that is to that standard that Labor roll out
@tenpercent: Nick McKin, the Greens Finance spokesman, has 4 investment properties, and tried to get Labour to pass legislation last year to force the RBA to cut rates.
this is incorrect they want grandfather it for 1 property for existing investors
Ah OK thanks.
However, I think that by removing speculation from housing it would lower demand, and prices would come down. Flipping houses back and forth to each other doesn't increase supply. It just makes middle men like real estate agents and bankers rich.
@RecklessMonkeys: i dont disagree with you but you need to context the Greens with their other policies which make the problem worse you need to look at the whole picture
getting rid of negative gearing reduces the incentive to buy off the plan properties and thus reduces supply
i am not against getting rid of negative gearing the the 'real' solution to the housing crisis is sustainable population growth and the Greens do not support this - the irony is sustainable population growth would make property investing less attractive and have improved housing affordability
@Checkmate3023: I can't find where they say they want infinite migration, rather than 'fair and compassionate' ?
I do know that 15 years ago, Bob Brown wanted lower immigration because it was unsustainable. The major parties were aiming for 36 Million by 2050.
@RecklessMonkeys: Bob Browns Greens is very different to the party they are today ….
Regarding property and housing crisis this is a the leader of the greens reponse
Adam Bandt - “Migrants aren’t the cause of this crisis. The biggest line item in Labor’s budget for housing is tax breaks to the wealthy and property investors”. - to note acknowledge there is problem with migration whilst complaining about a housing crisis is f—ken stupid there are two sides supply and demand
here are a 'few' direct quotes from their own website
'When a non-citizen is imprisoned for a crime, once initial sentences are completed, they should be accommodated in the community unless otherwise ordered by a court.' - essentially they are happy to settle serious criminals into Australia which to me means thet are happy to settle anyone….
'Asylum seeking is a humanitarian issue rather than an issue of border security or defence, and people seeking asylum must be treated with compassion, as our equal in rights and dignity.' - i dont agree with this statement factually speaking their are 7million people around the world that are asylem seekers and around 50million that are displaced peoples based on their interpretation Australia should support all of them….
i will also note on the Greens website under migration it says this
'Australia's cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity should be celebrated for greatly enriching our society and economy, and this diversity is enhanced by the immigration of people to Australia.'
whilst under 1st nations it says this
'The continued legacy of colonialism has not yet fully recognised the sovereignty of our First Nations peoples across the entire continent of Australia. '
you can either be proud of the diveristy that Australia has become or ashamed of its past that resulted in 1st nations being dislogged as land keepers but you cannot support both
i could go on but there are dozens contradictions and that is just on their website…
Bob Brown wanted to keep the two majors honest but the party has become the most deceitful party we have - full of half truths and mis-normers i find it amazing so many of their supports complain [and maybe rightly so] about Murdoch and his 'media' practices but till subscribe to whatever rubbish the hard left agenda is pumping out without any balanced discussion
@Checkmate3023: I don't see that as a contradiction.
For example, I personally didn't murder any indigenous people, but I certainly acknowledge that people were murdered and dispossessed, and that has a devastating effect on the descendants of those people.
At the same time, I can acknowledge any positive contributions from European society. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.
@RecklessMonkeys: ill give you another one
'Laws must address the cultural and social needs of First Nations people and must respect cultural practices.'
'The over-representation of First Nations peoples in the criminal justice system must end.'
on the same page
'Coercion and control in any relationship is unacceptable, especially in the context of domestic violence or abuse.'
now stastically speaking on average 1 in 5 women in Australia experence sexual violence this number of 3 out of 5 in 1st nations communities [this is the some of the highest in any given community in the world and roughly 3 times higher then the national average ] - thus you want a system that protects women from sexual violence but dont want to go after the biggest perpetrators so my question is who do you want to go after you cannot have a foot in the we dont want to prosecute 1st nations because they are over-presented but the areas they are over repersented in we want to fix without fixing the problem
https://www.whatwereyouwearingaus.org/wwyw-news-bulletin/uhm….
https://greens.org.au/policies/justice
for the record i could do at least 50 more contradictions on the Greens but this is what i could find doing 15 seconds of reading and google - you might want to look into the party you support and think critically about everything they are for and against
@Checkmate3023: this is prob my favorite contridiction and why i actually do not like the Greens they are 'meant' to be for the environment and that is 'how they started' - a voice against the needless consumerism and destruction of our natural environment
Now here is a 'fair' statement from their website
“We know that the social licence for coal and gas is rapidly melting as climate change gets worse and the public learn more about who is responsible.
MEANWHILE on the same website that have an entire page dedicated to defending China - https://greens.org.au/wa/news/whats-big-deal-about-china
now personally speaking i have NOTHING against the Chinese but they are the biggest CO2 polluter on the planet, the biggest burners of FF mainly Coal and the 2nd biggest polluter of plastics in our ocean - IF you actually gave a f—k the envrionment you would know we all live on the same planet and them burning coal or Australia burning coal ends up in the same atmosphere - thus your mantra for being pro environment would mean you CANNOT be pro-Chinese you should be condemning there energy consumption and lack of regard for environmental policy but there is NO mention of it you should be demanding the CCP do more as they 'actually' could single handly stop excessive emissions into our atmosphere and plastic into our water but the entire page reads like China are simply mis-understood and should get a free pass…..
As someone 'who' actually supports the environment it sickens me people think these lunatics are for the environment when they are actually just anti Australian economy which benefits no one but allows them to posture for an agenda that 'do not' truely support
personally speaking i have NOTHING against the Chinese
thus your mantra for being pro environment would mean you CANNOT be pro-Chinese
As someone 'who' actually supports the environment it sickens me
@Checkmate3023: I believe that when they say "the over-representation of First Nations peoples in the criminal justice system must end" they are referring to both the higher rates at which indigenous people are prosecuted/incarcerated, and the underlying factors behind why this happens (such as being on the back foot for 100 years leading to a lack of housing for those in their community, substance abuse and mental health issues, etc. etc.)
I don't think they are saying "we won't hold Aboriginal people accountable for sexual abuse of their spouses." This wouldn't make sense unless you're implying the Greens think that is one of their cultural practices that they therefore shouldn't be prosecuted for. The two points are not mutually exclusive
You can bring the standards of living up for indigenous people which I'm sure would lower rates of sexual violence for those in their community
both the higher rates at which indigenous people are prosecuted/incarcerated, therefore shouldn't be prosecuted for.
this is exactly what the Greens mean
I don't think they are saying "we won't hold Aboriginal people accountable for sexual abuse of their spouses." This wouldn't make sense unless you're implying the Greens think that is one of their cultural practices that they therefore shouldn't be prosecuted for. The two points are not mutually exclusive
you can think what you want the lines on their website are contradictory you - it is like saying i want to get fit but i dont want to change my diet or do any exercise
You can bring the standards of living up for indigenous people which I'm sure would lower rates of sexual violence for those in their community
1st nations peoples have gotten more funding then anyone by large margin (currently 2,4bn extra funding)…they have for a long time there is still a gap?
my question to you and anyone who supports the Greens approch at what point do we say throwing money at this issue isnt working and when do we say perhaps their are parts of their culture that are outdated?
If the Greens or anyone else 'really cared' about closing they gap they would admit some 'hard' conversations would need to be had other then the populist but incorrect opinion it is all colloinalism fault (which has been the mantra they have run with for about a decade and seen minimal improvement or closing of the gap)
this is exactly what the Greens mean
Glad we're in agreement. So do you think everyone should be prosecuted at the rates Aboriginal people are for the same crimes? Or should Aboriginal people be prosecuted at the same rate as everyone else is for the same crimes? Or should things stay the same way they are now?
you can think what you want the lines on their website are contradictory you - it is like saying i want to get fit but i dont want to change my diet or do any exercise
They aren't contradictory, you're saying "the only way to reduce coercion/control/sexual violence in relationships is to prosecute the perpetrators." The Greens aren't going to make the policy "don't prosecute indigenous people for sexual violence because they're indigenous," the policy would be something along the lines of "teach teenagers/young adults how to not be abusive in a relationship, increase class participation, encourage victims to come forward, etc." Your approach is similar to saying "I want toasted bread but I don't have a toaster. What am I going to do with this pesky bread, butter, frying pan and heat source."
How long were First Nations people going with less funding, being "dispersed" from the communities they had set up and discriminated against after colonialism changed their whole way of life?
I never said I support the Greens' approach, I think they'd be ineffective in government compared to Labor; maybe more effective than the coalition. My question is, what do you think is a viable strategy for updating their "outdated" culture? How do you think "about a decade" of support is going to undo the large amounts of harm and setbacks generations of individuals in the Aboriginal community experienced prior to that? It's not a change that happens in 3 years of government, or 10 years of funding programs targetted at a group
my question to you and anyone who supports the Greens approch at what point do we say throwing money at this issue isnt working and when do we say perhaps their are parts of their culture that are outdated?
i asked you a question do you intend on answer in it or do you ignore arguements that dont support your agendas
maybe more effective than the coalition.
i irony of this - Tony Abbott withdrew funding to a bunch of childcare centers stopping Aboriginal only childcare centers - at the time the Greens and Alp said this was unfair and 'forced' assimilation. They took a load of outcomes for the kids who were then put in mainstream childcare and despite the uproar the kids improved in every outcome
this might be crazy but 'perhaps' if we stopped the guilt, stopped allowing the 'im a victim' mentality it would actually help 1st nations people because the herd mentality of im a victim does no help anyone - if you continuously tell people something over and over again psychology dictate they are more likely to believe it.
the Coalition actually over their last 9 years saw the gap close in key areas but were opposed in almost every policy which they made with collaboration with 1st nations - they didnt TELL them what they needed they asked them
a prime example was debit cards for welfare payments which stopped the purchasing drugs, achohol and gambling a number of 1st nations elders where consulted and this was 'actually' there idea - the Greens / Alp have removed this measure - you never hear this mentioned ….. my question to you why has this been buried by those who complain about the gap….if you think long and hard you realise they do not want the gap to close
i would argue the ALP and Greens are terrible at managing the situation because you have people like Noel Pearson in their ranks who is 'only' interested in his own 'Mob' [and back pocket] and not the wider 1st nation community needs - dont believe me 40 percent of 1st nations people voted AGAINST the voice even though it could 'only' benefit them - i dare say the 40 percent that voted against it are the ones that probably 'do need' the most support but are sick of being used by the left as politically ammunition instead of actually improving their outcomes - and i would 'guess' more then 40 percent are tired of being painted with the 'we are victims' brush that the left like to put them in [matter of facy my 1st with 1st nations communities has lead me to believe to be true]
Glad we're in agreement. So do you think everyone should be prosecuted at the rates Aboriginal people are for the same crimes? Or should Aboriginal people be prosecuted at the same rate as everyone else is for the same crimes? Or should things stay the same way they are now?
i dont agree with any you have said because you 'dont know what' you are talking about you are do indoctrinated in your opinons you actually refuse to admit the Greens have straight up poor and contradictory policies [ive already pointed out several] - you have provided excuses
you have provided no evidance 'just opinion' you are partly the problem your opinion is we need to do more of the same throw money listen to a select woke group of 1st nations people opposed to the communities themselves because fixing the problem would me defunding supports and those filling their backpockets cant have that
the Greens cant have that
in fairness to the ALP i do believe they want to help 1st nations people but are influenced by a few self intereted members in their own parties and their preference deal with the Greens also points them into the wrong direction - so much so since the Voice embarrassment they have no gave a single mention of closing the gap.
I do not believe for 1 sec that the Greens care about the gap or the environment or even Palistine they just need care about making noise to get simple minded individuals to vote for them - they do not care about positive change the fact they refuse to condem Hamas killing 1200 people and taking hostiages to start a war that has resulted in the deaths of over 50,000 people to me says they are actually an evil party supported by either evil people or mis-informed individuals
The LNP for all its issues 'was' on the right track treat everyone the same and you get a equailisation of outcomes this is scienfic fact that people who assimilate to each other have similar health, education and life expectation outcomes.
fair and compassionate
Assuming that's what they say about immigration, that's pretty vague though, isn't it? Open to interpretation?
In Greens Bandt language that could easily mean:
You live in the 3rd world and some white people from a different country than ours did some bad stuff to your country over a hundred years ago so maybe your great great great grandparents, and I feel guilty because I'm white and I'm old enough that it was still sorta okay to pick on the ethnic kids at school when I was young, so for compassionate reasons please come in and bring 10 million of your mates
Yes, but not wild speculation.
I think you forgot who you were talking to.
Speaking of the intellectually disingenuous, did anyone notice that tenpercent asked about five different variations of "how many investment properties does Adam Bandt have, even if it means partners and kids and so on" but the second someone asked him about how many houses Dutton had the topic changed and suddenly numbers of houses weren't interesting any more?
@Crow K: Ka-kaw!
The topic was changed by whoever asked about Dutton. I'll refer you and other readers to my previous comment about Dutton.
@tenpercent: My name is indeed crow and that was a crow sound. That's excellent "say what you see" practice :) keep up the good work
tenpercent: (incredibly specific attempts at nitpicking Bandt, all failing)
responder: could these same criteria be applied more successfully to Dutton?
tenpercent: oh, all the leaders are duds in general, we don't need to apply the same attempts at gotchas to anyone else
Rightio. I'll let you get back to it, I feel like you could mention immigration a dozen or so more times just to really get your nuanced takes across
@Checkmate3023: You are assuming that property developers will change careers if we have lower investor demand.
Lower investor demand will lower land prices. Someone else will buy off the plan, i.e. people who want to own their own home.
Lower investor demand will lower land prices. Someone else will buy off the plan, i.e. people who want to own their own home.
that is not how it works developments only can start when 80 percent of the off the plan is sold less investors less likely to get a development off the ground
banks wont allow builders to bankroll a development in most cases unless sales KPIs are met thus is why most developments happen in stages
you essentially slow the oncoming supply down - this is not an opinion but exactly how they 'economically' model property you will not just get 1st home buyers in new areas you'd be lucky of 'half' the buyers were owner occupiers early on - as the stage of development go on and infastructure is put in place sure you probably get more but intially speaking this doesnt really happen getting rid of negative gearing completely will reduce supply there is no doubt about it - i think it should be limited but the real issue in Australia is sky rocketing demand from migration and the poor thought out high migration to our capital cities opposed to the regional areas
also thanks to the Greens we have way to much 1st nations and red/green tape now thus despite all the technology adv it takes on average twice as long to build a house now then it did 20 years ago…when you have half a brain and look at the Greens as a party they are the biggest hand break to Australian progress and are an outright disgrace
@Checkmate3023: Again, you are assuming land prices won't fall. There is pent up demand for housing. For every investor that pulls their money out of the housing market and puts it elsewhere, a homeowner will enter the market. If investors leave the market prices must fall, there are no other alternatives.
Japan has had a stagnant housing market for decades, yet it still constructs new housing. It isn't necessary for prices to rise for developers to engage in more building projects, building houses is already profitable.
I don't disagree that excessive migration rates make the situation worse, however it's Australian citizens that are inflating the housing bubble
@RecklessMonkeys: Lots of independent research has been done on this which shows the effect of removing negative gearing and the the CGT discount would lower prices by 2-5%. Look up the Grattan Institute report as an example. Commonwealth and NSW Treasury departments have done similar studies.
These changes are well down the list of measures that would improve housing affordability. If politicians are going to expend political capital on policies to improve affordability, they should start with the ones that make the most impact (e.g. massively increasing housing supply), rather than policies that only make a couple of percent difference.
policies to improve affordability, they should start with the ones that make the most impact (e.g. massively increasing housing supply)
How about massively reducing housing demand (which can be implemented rapidly by slashing the 2000+ per day immigration rate) while waiting for the "massively increasing housing supply" (which will always have a lag of at least several years however you approach it)?
@bawdygeorge: I had a quick look on Grattan. I couldn't find the 2-5% figure, but it did say this -
In concert with negative gearing, the 50% capital gains tax discount encourages investors to seek out investments with high capital growth rather than annual income. It also provides an incentive for them to borrow as much as possible to fund those investments. Over the last 15 years, this has driven a boom in highly leveraged property investment.
So in other words, increasing supply will just be acquired by speculators.
who fail to undestand even the most basic economic principles
I'm not sure, that as you're a trump fan, judging others poorly on understanding basic economic principles is a current valid argument. :)
im going to ask you a simple question have you read any of my recent posts about Trump lol or you just judging this based on my picture - i know your not a paid shill like a few others but at least 'read' my post before you make such accusations
I'm aware you've wound your fan boy level back a notch or two in light of recent events
Still rocking the merch though ;)
@SBOB: ill make this 'clear' never been a fan of Trump the man but i have in recent years preferred Reps over Dems
im am 'above' all Anti war - out of the 'two' very poor candidates he was the only one saying he wanted to end both the conflict in Europe and the middle east [i didnt believe and still dont believe he will but at least he is stepping in the right direction oppose to the endless funding of death]
i do not support sending military aid to nations we are not in a direct alliance with - i only support non-war like aid ie food, medicine etc
so far almost 3 millions lives have been lost of severely injuried in the war in Europe and Middle East the vast majority of these casualties are innocent people or non-military personal [many of them are children] - Anyone who has a semblance of a 'soul' would want these conflicts to end - to me it is even more important then the economy - innocent lives should always come 1st over money
You can hate Trump but Harris had no intention of sitting down and 'trying' to broker a peace deal and for me the choice is always diplomancy - the choice is always peace otherwise humanity will just destory itself
ill make this 'clear' never been a fan of Trump the man
Seriously, how short is your memory?
CaptainJack on 09/04/2025 - 17:40 Comment score below threshold.
