Is Super a lifestyle choice? The tax exemptions on voluntary payments are far more generous!

What is the difference?

Claiming negative gearing is getting a handout. You are being exempted from paying tax on an asset you otherwise would have to.

The government is, in effect, subsidising your lifestyle choice to buy investment properties.

How bout no.

-PB

ignore

Edited by TheSelectFlaps: 18/5/2016 02:44:44 PM

You got 22% on your Super?

What Super Fund are you with? I want to switch over right now!

I won't have my hand out for the Government later in life, that's why I'm @ 22% for my super.

-PB

That is why you shouldn't be playing with fire.

Shorten's policy doesn't stack to scrutiny.

If Investors are not permitted to Negative Gearing, which only occurs on losses and is rarer than you think, then they will be taken out of the market.

Not everyone wants to build houses in the fringes because the fundamental is to make money and reduce your chances of losing money, not increase them.

Lower demand, results in a fall in prices.

Rusty makes a lot of sense and knows what he is talking about!

If prices plummet everyone is screwed, that's why it needs to be treated with kid gloves. We don't need negative gearing and CGT reductions providing tax breaks to people and superheating an already hot market.

And yes that part of his was perfect satire as I acknowledged.

This is funny but also realistic isnt it.

My generation is screwed. We copped the full force of the housing bubble when we bought our places and if prices plummet we will be the generation left out in the cold.

Negative gearing will still be allowed for new properties, stimulating supply of new housing.

Yes there may be less houses on the market in established areas because investors might not sell until they're ready to "cash out for their retirement".

The policy is designed to ease increases in house prices not lower them. With so many people jacked up to the eyeballs in debt backed by property, it'd would indeed be a disastrous if prices were to fall dramatically.


Perish the thought!


There's plenty of demand there from home buyers, our population is growing.


Housing affordability through the reduction of increases in price. Let's let people's wages catch up over the next 10-15 years. I don't think they're being dishonest at all.


1. Rents stay low because there's already lots of people negative gearing and they won't be selling.
2. They don't change much because of the reasons I already gave
3. They are only proposing modest improvements in the budget bottom line


The shovel is waiting for your job application.

Let's distill this down very simply, the policy is very conservative in its goals. Will it change people's behaviour in the property market? Yes. Will it have a huge impact on property values? Unlikely. Should we have policy that does radically reduce house prices? No.

Ok rusty, just for you because I like you.

I would just like some rational answer to my completely legitimate questions. Obviously for you labors policy is foolproof and will do majestic things for the budget and housing market. On the other hand Im more of a realist and can see the pros and cons of each sides policy.

Ah rusty you sure you don't write for the shovel or the betoota advocate? :lol:

How is Labor’s negative gearing policy going to affect supply? wont investors be more reluctant to sell their negatively geared properties given they will lose their tax advantages and cannot easily transition to another property? Won’t taking negative gearing investors out of the established housing market be offset by a reduction in the amount of listings, which will keep prices nearly the same or higher? No wonder agents are pissed, there will simply be fewer houses to sell and less commissions. Also I cannot buy that grandfathering the legislation with mitigate the impact on house prices. As soon as the policy takes effect and investors are removed from the established market that is going to have a sudden impact on prices (assuming supply doesn’t change much) as less willing buyers means less competition means prices fall across the whole market.

I don’t actually have all the much beef with removing/restricting negative gearing, but just think Shorten ought to be frank with people regarding its impact. If it improves affordability for first home buyers that will correspond with a drop in prices. Likewise removing the tax benefits will force investors to jack up rents, and there will a corresponding increase in rent prices which will impact the cost of living for people in low and moderate incomes. But Shorten is the magic pudding that keeps on giving; rents stay low, property values don’t change, more opportunity for first home buys, budget bottom line improves, everyone gets cake and gets to eat it. Pure smoke and mirrors.

Can you imagine the hysteria from the left if the coalition were proposing the changes? There would be some Duncan Storrur like slob on Q&A asking “if you remove negative gearing my landlord is going to increase rent. I have a disability and a low education, rich people don’t notice increase in their rent, but for me it changes my life. I have two young children and I won’t be able to take them to the pictures. Why do rich people get to collect more rent, why don’t I get keep mine?” followed by a rapturous applause.

Oh You're very lucky to have such a good member as Pyne!

Very upstanding, moral and well grounded individual. I wish my member was as good as him!

Then their shouldn't be any Income Tax on the profits or CGT!

If you can't claim expenses, then you shouldn't have to pay tax either. Simple concept and basic fundamental principle 101!

BTW, he is talking out of his arse! He is talking about something completely different. And investors are not Priests and neither are you or he so stop pretending you are somehow better than me because I am "greedy".

And how do you know property prices won't collapse? how did you calculate that? If demand falls (which it will) then prices drop.

Edited by Aikhme: 18/5/2016 10:23:40 AM

That's completely irrelevent and it is a different type of sacrifice.

Furthermore, I am not a Priest.

But like anyone else, I volunteer for my kids Primary School, Soccer Club and I participate in the City and Bay and raise money for the Arthritis Association. Sure, we are not all Priests, doing this 24/7, but we all contribute in our own ways.

The sacrifice I talk about is not going out, drinking at pubs and pissing it up the wall, eating out, having Foxtel etc etc. Sometimes you can't afford these luxuries. But you have a plan to self improve and you move forward without complaining or asking for a hand out.

Did you know, that it is the Low Socio-economic who are FOXTELs biggest client base? The Rich and well of don't have the time to watch TV because they work too hard.

Why wouldn't I. I have what have generally been appreciating assets. It might change if Labor win the election. But don't be fooled. The Senate will probably be hostile, and all the other Parties including Xenophon won't have a bar of it.

It's called investing in your future. You know! Being self reliant and not having your hand out asking the Government for money later in life.

If anything, you should be pleased!

I didn't think right wingers would be sharp enough to pick up on a 'troll':idea:
That said, I reckon Dutton might suggest next that the people renew their Reclaim Australia membership, pick up their pitchforks and head to the docks (or local Greens office)

Edited by Murdoch Rags Ltd: 18/5/2016 10:11:36 AM

I think there is something known as the softmore effect where a national swing of x% means an average swing in first term ministers seats is less. Between x-0.5% and x-1%. So marginal seats for a first term government tend to be slightly shielded against a national swing and the break even point is somewhere between 49-51 and 49.5-50.5

QLD is always an odd state for these things.

SA will be interesting this election too though will have less impact. I recommend anyone that is in a "safe" Liberal seat but would like to oust their local member to vote Xenophon 1 and then their usual preference second. If NXT can split enough of the usual Liberal vote, there's a chance they can win on preferences provided they can stay in the game long enough.

This is my strategy in Sturt (with Pyne) even though I think the subs deal has saved him. Hoping to at least give him a scare.

Even though NXT's policies don't fit my ideology perfectly they do have some things like supporting Gonski funding which is good. A Liberal minority government with NXT members would help to keep things "centrist"

Dutton is the ultimate troll.

Love it.

As I said before there's a lot of greed and narcissism in people that think this way.

There's nothing wrong with using some/most/all of your disposable to invest in something that you hope will make you more money. There just shouldn't be generous tax breaks for people to invest into an area where there is already high demand and does little to nothing to actually stimulate the economy.

The Labor policy on negative gearing and CGT is very conservative and doesn't affect anyone that is already negative gearing. Pretty much as perfect a policy as you can get to take some heat out of the housing market without causing prices to collapse. There's really nothing else to say about it except it's disgusting that it's taken 17 years for politicians to finally talk seriously about housing affordability.

And the other thing to consider is that our polling misses the regional differences, which I think will be more important than usual this election.

Especially in QLD. I don't have the link, but read an article yesterday that said for ALP to get in they would likely need to be polling almost 52% 2PP.

actually I think the most accurate polls in terms of predicting the final outcome are polls 12 months out from the election. Not sure why but the final 12 months polls go all over the place historically and settle down very close to where they were 12 months before the election
But this election might be different with a new leader

Rofl.

-PB

Labor ahead 51-49 TPP from Essential Research
https://crikey-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs.dir/6/files/2016/05/Essential-Report_160517.pdf

This is in addition to Morgan who has Labor 52.5-47.5 (although Morgan is the least accurate of he pollsters)
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6808-morgan-poll-federal-voting-intention-may-16-2016-201605160748

What is key from these though is that they are post election announcement. An imminent election would probably mean polling is more accurate of voting intention than at any other time, as a voter will be more considered in their response

I've seen so many scientists live like priests for 7 years, move their family every 3 years all around the world constantly trying to adjust to new cultures and battling homesickness working 60-70 hours a weak with no job security turning down jobs of half a million a year (I have) and many sacrificing having kids to end up with an upper middle class job not because it pays well but because the discovery of knowledge and the good it does for society is worth the sacrifice
I have seen people in religious and charitable organizations working two or three jobs to fund a charitable project they are pioneering working voluntarily to late in the evening on missing out on the opportunity for socializing or saving money renting while their friends are buying houses.

I have known people to give up a comfortable western lifestyle to live among the worlds most forgotten to raise awareness for their plight.
the delusion and moral bankruptness it takes to call efforts to make yourself rich a "sacrifice" and then argue for cutting government programs which are mostly aged care with a little given to the poor is amazing

And yet you still chose to pay $1350 a week lol.

-PB