Bill shorten poised to take negative gearing.

http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...d-to-tackle-negative-gearing-with-new-policyN

and its on...

 

Link doesnt work for me

 

But i have been wondering about this. ScoMo is definitely considering something, he said as much yesterday.

 

Not sure if the video or link will work for you. But cut and past below.

Bill Shorten is about to take his biggest risk as Opposition Leader, as he prepares to announce a policy aimed at tackling negative gearing.

Mr Shorten is expected to announce the policy at tomorrow's NSW ALP conference, after Shadow Cabinet approved it yesterday, 9NEWS Political Editor Laurie Oakes reported.

"It will put him right in the middle of the tax reform debate," Oakes said.


"If Labor wins the election later this year, negative gearing will only be allowed on new housing properties, not existing ones, after July 1, 2017.

"Also, the generous capital gains tax discounts on investment properties introduced when Peter Costello was Treasurer will be chopped from 50 percent to 25 percent."

More than 1.2 million investors use negative gearing to minimise their tax on rental housing properties.

The policy is expected to upset many people with vested interests, Oakes said.

"But the reasoning is that the Labor leader needs to show he's got guts and is serious about economic policy and the need to repair the Budget," he said.

"Mr Shorten will argue that 93 percent of negative gearing cases involve investment in existing properties, so it does little to boost the building industry or create jobs.

"It also distorts the housing market by allowing investors subsidised by the taxpayer to compete against first-home buyers and families wanting to upgrade their homes."

The move comes as Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull faces political backlash after his retreat on a GST increase, Oakes said.

© ninemsn 2016

• 6pm NEWS
• Federal
• Canberra
• finance
• Politics

Read more at Bill Shorten poised to tackle negative gearing with new policy

 

Lol who cares, he'll never be pm as long as I have a hole in my arse.

 

Think about it from the investor's perspective. Negative gearing means the investor is losing money. Should the government (effectively) pay an investor to lose money? It doesn't make a lot of sense.

My example is a development site I bought but never got around to developing. I would have to check but from memory, it cost up to about $20,000 a year to hold. That is $20,000 loss in just one year! (lucky it wasn't all mine ). Still, I sold it because you can't just go around losing $20k year after year on one "investment".

Maybe I would do this again if I was serious about developing. If I did, I would not expect teh government to pick up the tab. Abolishing negative gearing can only be a good thing for proeprty investors. We should welcome it.

 

@Barny I wonder if negative gearing will be abolished for shares as well? So the government will pay me to lose money on shares but not on property. That will be good for me because I am good at losing money on shares.

 

Why cut negative gearing on existing but allow it on new? Just cut it on everything.

 

Dude won't ever be PM anyway so this is a non topic lol

 

I'm interested to see what will happen, and it affects the market in general.

 

I'm not sure about that. If they play this right(spin it right), It might work.

 

If they leave negative gearing alone for shares, shares go up and the price of houses falls further?

It's academic though. I doubt shorty will win the election and the LibNats are unlikely to touch NG. It's a pity. I would like to see it gone.

 

Negative gearing at 50%???? Isn't this getting confused with CGT?

 

This is an additional, so not only is he going to remove negative gearing to current stock, he wants to reduce CGT to 25%.
Wonder how investing in property will stack up if it happens.

 

Yeah, the removal of CGT discount for investment properties would be the kicker..

Maybe it's one of those **** sandwiches, so he can say he is "compromising and listening to feedback" to remove that when the outcry gets too much, but keep the other...

 

I can't see it changing much if you're not negative geared and don't want to sell.

 

These are the political changes that can stop your property investing plan in its tracks. Similar changes in the UK are making property investing look a whole lot less lucrative right now, with the potential to impact the general property market as property investors sell up and move to other options. I'm not expecting it to eventuate, and hope it doesn't but even though I "don't know what I don't know" I try not to build my future on negative gearing. To me thats not a foundation that I want a multi million dollar portfolio sitting on.

 

As I have no evidence of how many people have negative geared property. Hypothetically, if heaps of property investors are holding highly negative property(in Sydney), would it be fair to assume they may need to sell? If they need to sell, wouldn't it perhaps drop sale prices?

Obviously it's a hypothetical question only.

 

Having come from UK, I'd copy the UK system where losses on investment properties can be rolled forward against future profits, but not set against other income. But if the government wants to keep NG in some form, allowing it for new-builds only makes some sense in that it then encourages an increase in the housing stock. Much as we allow foreigners to buy new build only (in theory, anyway).