How bout no.

-PB

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.

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

What is the difference?

Anyway, just forget it!

Negative gearing isn't going. Labor MPs have more Negatively Geared property than Liberals!

One didn't declare a 2.3 million dollar property! :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm amazed Shorten hasn't been lynched by his own mob. I predict another challenge as soon as you raises the Bill! :cool:

Hence why its being grandfathered :lol:

the force doesn't work on real people
sorry you have five properties, if you have given up a little to get wealthy ok but you also did that for yourself
and that's fine
but when you call for sympathy and argue to cut your taxes by cutting spending on the poor and elderly you are going to be rightly met with laughter and derision

If I was investor I don't think negative gearing on a new property would be all that attractive. Firstly there will be more competition which will push up prices on new properties relative to the established market. Secondly as soon as its purchased and tenanted it will drop in price in line with the established housing market. Thirdly as the CGT discount is cut to 25% it makes the after tax yield on the capital gain far less interesting and possibly worthless depending on what happens with prices and inflation.

So the scenario will likely be investors will largely drop out of the market altogether, limiting activity in the established market while curtailing growth in the new, which will have a corresponding deflationary effect on the market as a whole.



Perhaps, but to activate that demand prices will have to fall from current levels.



They should be honest about it taking 10-15 years then.:lol: The problem with this logic is wage growth will only catch up if prices fall, as long as prices continue to exceed inflation and wages Labors policy will only slow the rate of housing unaffordability, but actual affordability will continue to get worse compared to current levels.



1. Over time rents must increase as investors "cash out"
3. Labor are proposing over $30 billion in savings over 10 years, which is quite ambitious for a proposal which will you argue will take 10-15 years to see benefits



The problem is investor activity is a major causal factor behind current housing and rental prices, so if you change the rules even just a little it can cause a paradigm shift in attitudes and behaviours towards the industry generally which risks pulling the rug beneath the whole ecosystem. I don't think the changes are conservative at all, Labor are basically kicking investors out of the established property market and that is going to make a huge difference at auctions and real estate offices, and its these places which determine values not just for those on the market but all property.

You had to think pretty hard there to get some sort of rebuttal. Good job I guess.

Edited by mcjules: 18/5/2016 10:57:14 PM

Indeed Labor do make you work hard to expose their filth :cool:

Macroeconomic statistics don't come with a set instructions with how to respond. Where concerns are raised in relation to GPD and employment those policy changes are made and felt at the micro economic level. It would therefore seem prudent to consult the business community , who are the main driver of GDP growth and employment, about what implications the current and prospective tax environment and proposed changes will have on their output, which will in turn reflect on macroeconomic output.

So let me get this straight, prices are going to up on new properties because of huge demand from investors but it's not attractive to those same investors because of the inability to sell to other investors who want to negatively gear and the CGT discount reduction. Makes perfect sense :roll:


Not if there is reduced housing stock on the market.





1. And if they increase too much, more people will buy. If rental demand is low, rents will drop.
2. Benefits will be seen immediately, they're just more modest than what you expect them to be.


Plenty of organisations more credible than me (including banks) disagree.

:lol:

I didnt say there would be huge demand from investors, actually I argued the opposite. There will still be higher demand relative to established housing and that will reflect in a higher cost.



What ? How does that improve affordability? Its not the # of houses on the market its the price that determines affordability.



1. Whether people can buy or not isnt determined by rent prices its determined by affordability and bank lending requirements. If rents go up it will just increase their dependance on paying rent as they will forego more genuine savings which is a major lending requirement.
2. For benefits to be seen immediately there would need to be an immediate drop in house prices. A 2% drop wont do much to improve affordability.



As I said im not necessarily opposed to negative gearing changes, but the peaches and cream line Labor is trotting is false. Their policy , if implemented will probably see prices fall and rents go up, which will be bad for investors and current home owners but good for first home buyers.

The Libs were forecast for an absolute wipeout at the election with Abbott in charge. It was a foregone conclusion.
The key poll for me is Newspoll, which has Labor ahead 51-49; that was a post-budget but pre-election sample.
I am waiting for their post-election sample poll. If it still has Labor ahead 51-49, then Labor are a serious chance, despite the odds of a first term government.
The Libs pick up Palmer's seat (I cringe at the simpletons who gobble up populists), and my understanding is if Xenophon gets a seat, he will align with the Libs.
Will Tony Windsor knock off Barnaby Joyce? That would be hilarious.
Ultimately it comes down to the marginals.

You understand very little! look at Nick Xenophobe's voting record FFS

Yeah you went all over the place. If there's high demand for new housing, that's a much more elastic market than established property. You know what else it stimulates? Jobs and growth! Glad one of the major parties is actually trying to do something about that rather than just a slogan. ;)


You seem to be making the assumption that there are no owner occupiers in the market at the moment. There are, they just often are getting crowded out by investors who can afford to offer more, particularly because they can take a break.


1. Rent prices are the other side of the equation, if rents are too high and mortgage repayments are lower, people will find ways into the market. While I agree if you're paying more rent, you are saving less, it's not as if landlords can set whatever price they like. They have to be inline with what the market can afford.
2. You really don't get the point here so I'll say it one more time. Prices dropping would be a catastrophe, the amount of private debt held up in property is insane and would cause a recession that would put many out of work (including those that want to buy and can't). A sensible policy (like this one) would ease the growth of house prices. The effect of that is immediate because in 2017 instead of having to pay 10% more for your house you might only be paying 5%. There's no quick fix to this, I've never seen the Labor party say that it was. If you can find a quote that saying that then I'll agree with you on that point.


Most credible reports say it won't do either of those things.

Peter Dutton is an idiot but it's annoying how people are focusing on how he contradicted himself rather than the fact that taking in 50k refugees will cost us 7.7 billion.

It's all well and good to spout how many refugees we can take but those numbers (if valid), are quite staggering. I don't know how long that 7.7bil goes for. 4 years?

At least they will generate money back into the economy. What have we paid so far to keep them on those islands? 2 billion? I'd rather have them here working and doing something.

How can such a ludcirous contradiction be annoying? What's annoying is a xenophobic moron that is clearly lying and treating us with contempt by trying to generate fear by using the lowest common denominator. He clearly does not respect us.

An analysis on Sky News (you don't have to tell me about the reliability, make of it what you will) was that almost a third of them don't speak English, have not ever had a job and something like 15% are illiterate. Whether those numbers are close to reality of not, it's clear that a significant portion are not even close to work ready. I'm not sure if that number of 7.7bil takes into account these numbers or not.

I'm against offshore detention. It would be cheaper to house them in Australia and educate/train them to work. Once they're autonomous, they become producers rather than users which is a good thing.

The big issue is the initial cost though. What's it really going to cost to set these people up? Do we get to send them to regional centres with negative population growth? At what point can we cut the cord and make them fend for themselves?

It seems ridiculous to spend money on increasing our refugee intake when the cost for what we already take is astronomical and the program for refuges but all accounts I've seen, it useless.

Funny thing also on Sky news was how Green councillors were demanding that we take more refugees, but refused to have them in their regions, rather sending them to western Sydney away from Green strongholds. Fucking typical :lol: Demand action, providing they don't have to deal with it :lol:

The argument is that they tend to stay on welfare for a long time. However even if that's the case the money they're paid is spent in the local economy.

Agree with you 100%. Prepare yourself for the "you don't care about people dying at sea" false dilemma argument from rusty.

:lol: dammit Jules where's your compassion! :lol:

:lol:

If it wasn't for refugees and people who didn't speak english given a opportunity here, this place would be an even bigger backwater than it already is. I live in a suburb that was built on these people. Last night I had a drink with the business owner next door, he came here 40 odd years ago, he didnt speak a word of english. He owns two shops on the main street and employs a number of local people. He is the community now.

His story is not uncommon.

But I am for them being forced to go to areas where they are needed, I also think to think they are going to sponge off us is ludicrous. Who wants to move somewhere to eat mee goreng noodles for breskfast lunch and dinner/ They come here to make $$$$

Look at the incredible contribution from every non-english speaking refugee group Vietnamese, Italian, Greek, Yugos yada yada, only one the jury is out on is africans, but hey, they're busy trying yo get into Europa

Edited by tsf: 19/5/2016 10:03:30 AM

May I suggest you scroll upwards to inform yourself by academics, rather than Murdoch electronic-rag-media
EDIT - Now the previous page :roll:

Edited by Murdoch Rags Ltd: 19/5/2016 10:06:11 AM

They are both handouts. The difference is that super serves as a social good by reducing the burden of pensions.

One thing I will give the current govt credit for is their sensible changes to super tax benefits for the wealthiest.

They should do the same for negative gearing as they are doing with super.

Thanks for helping me to argue my point!

This. I have met many refugees but have never met a lazy one. In my experience most are driven by a desire to provide a better life for their children - cant do this if you are stuck on Newstart.

Sigh.... macroeconomics as an area of research is predicated on providing policy advice to govts to maintain economic growth.

Have you heard of Keynesian economics? Neo Classical Economics? All macroeconomic theories that provide advice to govts on a policy level.

You are really totally out of your depth here.

I was gonna say, wasn't Nick basically setting up his party to oust LNP seats lol?

-PB

Read the stats from the Govt directly:

https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/01_2014/settlement-outcomes-new-arrival_access.pdf


Seventy-five per cent of humanitarian entrants arrive in Australia with at least high school-level education.

About a quarter of humanitarian entrants obtain a technical or university qualification after arriving in Australia.

Nearly 50% of those who arrive with trade qualifications go on to obtain more technical or university qualifications.

Forty-three per cent of those arriving with a university degree on arrival obtain further university qualifications after arrival.

In total nearly 35% humanitarian entrants have a technical or university qualification either before or after arrival in Australia – compared with 39% of the Australian population 15 years and older.

The most common fields of study for humanitarian entrants are in the humanities and healthcare

Make no mistake - this is clear Liberal Party strategy to get ahead on the polls.

Libs are perceived as stronger on the boats issue. So Turnbull plays good cop, and Dutton bad cop.

The economics of refugees are clear - they are by far a NET POSITIVE to the receiving country.

We should boost the refugee quota to a million per year. Sure there will be an initial upfront cost, to teach them english, to educate them , to train them, but it would repay the economy tenfold in the long run. And just think, the billions we spend on welfare while training them up into good profitable productive citizens will be billions reinvested in the local economy, propping up small business and creating new jobs. Win win. And think about the massive boon it will have on the construction industry, thousands of jobs created. Jobs , jobs, jobs. Growth , growth, growth.

Fuck mining, mentally scarred refugees are the backbone of the new economy.
Anyone who disagrees is cruel and uncaring.

Edited by rusty: 19/5/2016 10:38:48 AM