Quote:
Originally Posted by tlgerdes
Love #6 Abolish negative gearing.
Now I have to put up the rent on my investment property to cover the complete costs of the interest payments, strata levies, water rates, council rates, insurance etc, etc.
So who loses out, the low income earner renting my property, do you really think the investor is going to wear the loss?
|
I think the general idea is that a proportion of investors, perhaps including yourself, would be forced to divest themselves of investment property/ies. More properties for sale would cause property prices to fall and invite lower income earners into the market as buyers. There may well be other effects, not all of them positive, but this is the one people are thinking of when they suggest ending negative gearing.
Quote:
|
Can't have one rule some and different rule for others.
|
Well, actually, you can - rules vary across market segments throughout the economy. More to the point, though, is that residential property is a bit unique. Whereas you can choose to have or to go without a great many things, everyone needs
somewhere to live and housing is
enormously expensive. There are already 100,000 homeless people in Australia, and many more that, under current arrangements, will rent for life, so I have little sympathy for those using taxpayer funds to improve their personal wealth portfolio at the expense of low income earners and the homeless. That doesn't mean I don't support your right to own assets and build wealth, but I'd rather you didn't use taxpayer funds in the process.