Australian Broker forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Shorten stands by negative gearing proposal

Notify me of new replies via email
Australian Broker | 04 Mar 2016, 06:46 AM Agree 0
Federal Opposition leader Bill Shorten has stood by the Labor party’s plan to alter negative gearing if they win power at this year’s election
  • Brad | 04 Mar 2016, 11:02 AM Agree 0
    B. Shorten, you are in idiot. How can you say you aren't pitting investors and first home buyers against each other, when they are both incentivised to purchase new property? I used to respect you... You just lost that.
  • Will | 04 Mar 2016, 02:05 PM Agree 0
    Upfront I’ve been labour man but I believe Turnball may be the better person in charge.
    Being in the real estate industry myself, and talking to other business owner in real estate, the general consciences we seem to be talking about is we have seen negative gearing been exploited over the years.

    Negative gearing was basically designed for the investment and delivering housing to the rental market and best for the “mum and dad investors”. It was never really designed for the people buying multimillion dollar investment potential - a 20 or 30 apartment complex - land banking it for ten years or so with a crappy old house on it receiving only $350 p/w. That’s one point were the system has been exploited.

    Personal I agree with some of the ideas of moving negative gearing
    • Making it only available to new housing stock is a good move.
    • As long as the first home owners grants was removed from the construction of new housing and redirected in full back to the existing and completed stock.
    • This is needed to create a balance in the market otherwise the changes will only work to the total benefits of the larger developer.
    • Having first home buyer, buying existing stock will encourage the D.I.Y industry and offset some of the negative impact to the D.I.Y industry that they may experience if negative gearing is removed from existing stock.
    • There should be a structure of price to return, capping benefits or offsets to be receive from tax benefits and or negative gearing.
    • We cannot continue with an housing and apartment been purchased for $1 or2 Mil and only receiving 750 p/w in rent. There needs to be some sort of balance and fairness in the structure.
    • Talking to existing investors and landlords, no one has expressed concern or wanting to dis-invest if all benefits remain for existing negative geared properties.

    As long as all existing investment properties receive all the current benefits until it is sold, (then any benefits cease at the point of the sale) no one would sell.??? Personal I agree with them and see no immediate alarm for them to sell it as the benefits would still follow through as is.
Post a reply