Talking Politics

[martyshire]

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/throwing-bricks-at-auctions-negative-gearing-fight-begins-after-turnbull-rules-out-changes-20160425-goe2ms.html

Well, as a swinging voter, I now know who I'll be putting last on my vote card. This is the country's most important election issue IMO; and one where the 'greater good' decision is undeniably to make changes. Impartial experts pretty much unanimously agree that change is needed (not so much the LNP donor industries that have made massive profits in recent years due to inflated house prices).

I don't believe for a second that Turnbull actually believes nothing needs to be changed. What a sell out!

 

[Baloo]

Both parties, while in power, have avoided touching Negative Gearing. As much as it's the right thing for Australia, it's an election killer. Here's hoping Malcolm in the Middle is pulling a carbon tax move and will push a NG change through after he wins.

 

[martyshire]

As much as it's the right thing for Australia, it's an election killer.

I agree that it has been an election killer in the past, but that was back when it was mainly just the people that used NG that understood it's impact.

There seems to be a growing number of educated and angry young victims of NG; many of whom have sympathetic parents.

 

[Baloo]

I agree that it has been an election killer in the past, but that was back when it was mainly just the people that used NG that understood it's impact.

There seems to be a growing number of educated and angry young victims of NG; many of whom have sympathetic parents.

That much has changed from 3 years ago ?

 

[tigersnake]

That much has changed from 3 years ago ?

Labor are jumping at shadows. Go to water at the mere mention of an LNP scare campaign. Theres votes to be had. Rents will not rise. Its dumb, market failure inducing policy. Apparently some research said the majority of negative gearers earn $80K, its questionable research, but even at face value, the $80K figure is due to legal tax dodging, which is the reason for shutting it down.

Another thing that just amazes me, is not putting a limit on the number of properties. Just say OK, you can negatively gear 1, maybe 2 investment properties and thats it. The very rich would still get around it by buying a huge mansion as an investment property, but the very rich would get around anything. (I'd just can negative gearing if it was up to me, by any measure, its dumb policy).

 

[Baloo]

I've always been in favour of ring fencing NG. You can negative gear against a property, but when it starts turning a profit you pay the taxes. You can't use the NG of another property to offset a property that's no longer negative geared.

Or remove it completely

 

[tigersnake]

I've always been in favour of ring fencing NG. You can negative gear against a property, but when it starts turning a profit you pay the taxes. You can't use the NG of another property to offset a property that's no longer negative geared.

Or remove it completely

Its so easy to manipulate. Such bad dumb policy. The LNP are a disgrace with all their fake 'looking out for the battling renters', such cynical, nest-feathering crap. Just can it. As I said, objectively it is bad policy and should be canned, but politics isn't objective or rational, so being pragmatic and getting some changes through, just say 1 property limit. Who could reasonably argue with that in the context of this bulldust debate? (disclosure, i have 1 investment property, but I'd be more than happy for the policy to be canned, I don't need government help, give the first home buyers some help by taking out a bit of competition for entry-level homes from investors).

 

[Baloo]

Again, why blame the LNP ? The ALP had the same opportunity to kill it but didn't.

Why ? Because most politicians are negative gearing, no matter what side of the fence they sit on. Do you hear the Unions calling for the end of NG ?

 

[martyshire]

Apparently some research said the majority of negative gearers earn $80K, its questionable research, but even at face value, the $80K figure is due to legal tax dodging, which is the reason for shutting it down.

Even though the majority of NGers earn less than 80k, the overwhelming bulk of negative gearing in total $ terms is done by those on much higher income. Many regular people think negative gearing is the cause of wealth, rather than a tax dodge for wealthy. Therefore a major reason most NGers earn under 80k is because many people think they can get rich by trimming a couple of hundred dollars off their tax bill; whereas the real people getting benefit from it are those earning much, much more.

You are also right about this stat highlighting people using NG to lower their 'taxable income'. There are 64,000 negative gearers that apparently have a taxable income of $0 or less...!!

 

[tigersnake]

Again, why blame the LNP ? The ALP had the same opportunity to kill it but didn't.

Why ? Because most politicians are negative gearing, no matter what side of the fence they sit on. Do you hear the Unions calling for the end of NG ?

Its a fair enough point, but the LNP make the running on it, its their baby, even if Labor have consented, and now its on the nose and should go, the ALP should be going much harder against it, but they jump at scare campaign shadows.

 

[Baloo]

Its a fair enough point, but the LNP make the running on it, its their baby, even if Labor have consented, and now its on the nose and should go, the ALP should be going much harder against it, but they jump at scare campaign shadows.

yeah nah. Both sides are too scared to touch NG. This isn't a party thing, it's an Aussie politics thing. When I hear the Unions stand up and demand NG get eliminated then I'll be happy to consider that it's party dependant.

 

[tigersnake]

yeah nah. Both sides are too scared to touch NG. This isn't a party thing, it's an Aussie politics thing. When I hear the Unions stand up and demand NG get eliminated then I'll be happy to consider that it's party dependant.

The ALP are now officially touching it. It quite minimal, but a decent start. Meanwhile research has backed up, yet again, what anyone with a brain and less than 2 houses knows, its an armchair ride for the rich.

But guess what> Mal and Scott don't like the report, full of holes they reckon. (I think Mal might have more than one house BTW). Benefits to the rich are 'a complete and utter myth' says Morrison, and with a straight face, (even though research done by a research institute is, by definition, the opposite to a myth, a myth is something that is unsupported by data or analysis). Now why would they say that I wonder? Oh that's right to make sure the poor battlers won't have their rents hiked. God on you Scott and Mal, standing up for the little guy.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/federal-budget/scott-morrison-says-claims-negative-gearing-benefits-the-rich-are-a-complete-and-utter-myth-20160425-goetex.html

And for Morrison to say x number of negative gearers are 'battling' teachers or nurses is (cynically and willfully) missing the point. I know some very wealthy teacher/ nurse couples, and individuals for that matter. They are old, on good coin and have amped it up to the shissen by buying a couple of houses back when they were $50-100K. That is the point Treasurer, things have changed, young people today, including young teachers and nurses, can no longer do that.

$11 billion in tax benefits handed to wealthy people who don't need the money. And for what?

 

[IanG]

The ALP are now officially touching it. It quite minimal, but a decent start. Meanwhile research has backed up, yet again, what anyone with a brain and less than 2 houses knows, its an armchair ride for the rich.

But guess what> Mal and Scott don't like the report, full of holes they reckon.

But their opinion is based on common sense not any sort of modelling at all according to MITM on 7.30 Report.

 

[martyshire]

Yesterday Scott Morrison said the following in relation to the Grattan Institute report, which showed very high income earners are the ones that get the most benefit from NG, "...no, they're talking about the value of deductions, not the number of people".

This should have been the argument lost right there. In statistical terms the distribution of incomes is positively skewed, meaning the number of people on high incomes is much smaller than the number of middle and lower income earners. You could apply ScoMo's argument to nearly anything. The majority of people who went for a walk yesterday were lower and middle income earners. So were the majority of people who sneezed. So were, probably, the number of people that ate in nice restaurants.

It is the TOTAL VALUE of deductions that shows where the benefit is mostly going, not the number of people taking part. The fact that, despite being a smaller group, the combined deductions made by the rich are so much greater than the rest, this tells us all we need to know. It is the super high income earners that are getting the most benefit from the status quo and would be effected the most by changes, but the LNP are going to try to scare middle income earners, most of whom would only lose a few bob (aside from the fact any changes are to be grandfathered anyway), so that the big end of town get to keep their massive tax savings and developers, banks and the property sector get to keep making massive profits at the expense of the rest of the economy. ya know, like other countries have other parts to their economy...

 

[tigersnake]

Yesterday Scott Morrison said the following in relation to the Grattan Institute report, which showed very high income earners are the ones that get the most benefit from NG, "...no, they're talking about the value of deductions, not the number of people".

This should have been the argument lost right there. In statistical terms the distribution of incomes is positively skewed, meaning the number of people on high incomes is much smaller than the number of middle and lower income earners. You could apply ScoMo's argument to nearly anything. The majority of people who went for a walk yesterday were lower and middle income earners. So were the majority of people who sneezed. So were, probably, the number of people that ate in nice restaurants.

It is the TOTAL VALUE of deductions that shows where the benefit is mostly going, not the number of people taking part. The fact that, despite being a smaller group, the combined deductions made by the rich are so much greater than the rest, this tells us all we need to know. It is the super high income earners that are getting the most benefit from the status quo and would be effected the most by changes, but the LNP are going to try to scare middle income earners, most of whom would only lose a few bob (aside from the fact any changes are to be grandfathered anyway), so that the big end of town get to keep their massive tax savings and developers, banks and the property sector get to keep making massive profits at the expense of the rest of the economy. ya know, like other countries have other parts to their economy...

spot on Martypants. ScoMo ;D

 

[Baloo]

I look forward to bringing up the NG issue when the ALP next hold power. It's not a party thing, it's an Australian politics thing.

 

[tigersnake]

I look forward to bringing up the NG issue when the ALP next hold power. It's not a party thing, it's an Australian politics thing.

But Labor have put it out there, which nobody has done for a long in time from opposition, on any sticky issue let alone NG.

I think its an idea whose time has come myself, its unavoidable. It was always bad policy, but with yet another RE boom putting prices in the stratosphere, the badness becomes more and more stark. The LNP will stonewall for as long as they can, but inequity issues are increasing, and NG is at the pointy end of that. Its low hanging fruit. Everybody knows it, except maybe people with more than one house, and the Real Estate Institute.

 

[Baloo]

Maybe. As I said earlier, I'm not fussed if it's removed. Silly policy. Next, middle class welfare policies, they need to stop as well. Howard's legacy to the Australian population.

 

[tigersnake]

Maybe. As I said earlier, I'm not fussed if it's removed. Silly policy. Next, middle class welfare policies, they need to stop as well. Howard's legacy to the Australian population.

p!ssed the mining boom $billions$ up against the wall while our infrastructure crumbled. Built nothing, zilch. Except maybe Harvey Norman's share price. One in 50-100 year opportunity to turbo charge the economy and forge ahead,, thanks Howard and Costello. Biggest stuff up in Aus political history.

 

[martyshire]

That much has changed from 3 years ago ?

Tonight's Four Corners will be interesting. I don't recall NG ever getting the air time it has got now. The number of disgruntled young people is growing.

You may be right that the groundswell is not yet big enough, but it has certainly grown over the past three years. God help the LNP on this issue in another three years's time if they win the election.