Negative gearing is the practice of using losses on property investments to reduce taxable income. In 2013, approximately 1.3 million Australians used the concession. Data shows that high income earners write off much larger percentages of their taxes than those who earn lower wages. In 2012, surgeons wrote off $4,161 of their taxes using negative gearing while teachers wrote off $327. Proponents, including Malcolm Turnbull, argue that the practice has been part of Australian tax law since 1915 and is not a tax break since the real estate investor is taking a loss to their assets. Opponents argue that the policy disproportionately benefits Australians in high-paying occupations, not those of average incomes, since they are much more likely to own investment properties.
@4TC4JQ64yrs4Y
Houses should be communally owned and used for human consumption and not profit
@9G37XJT1yr1Y
The Government should provide compensation for house owners that are struggling to make payments to counter-act negative gearing.
@9K8TZN2New Liberal9mos9MO
No, but implement a rate of diminishing returns to allow new beneficiaries into the market but limit and existing investors and place a hard cap (of 10 for example).
@932V8HS3yrs3Y
Limits should be placed on big business's with smaller businesses allowed to continue as current.
@92VJR5PIndependent3yrs3Y
Yes, rental losses should be quarantined and offset against future rental gains.
@92SZ42J3yrs3Y
People should be encouraged to have investment properties in order to ensure there is sufficient affordable housing.
@92N7QDB3yrs3Y
People have a right to build a property portfolio but with a limit of properties
@Edward9183yrs3Y
Create a complex policy which balances negative gearing with the soaring house prices. Investigate investment from different market players and how different policies would effect their investment
@92H3V2C3yrs3Y
No, limit it to only new builds
@92H3H2N3yrs3Y
yes but grandfather exsisting ones
@929L6KM3yrs3Y
No, but limit it to new builds to ensure negative gearing promotes solutions to housing supply shortages and/or cap value of properties that can be claimed against to limit upward pressure on housing affordability
No, but limit the benefits to new properties so that the supply of housing increases
@922YBW83yrs3Y
No, but add limitations to multiple property owners
I liked the ALP's policy for it to be on new structures only after it is enacted.
@8ZRGZXZ3yrs3Y
No it shouldn’t be banned, but it needs to be regulated
@8ZLMKPH3yrs3Y
Negative gearing a rental house is ok. But if you own 10 rental houses then it is a business. Shoud be some tax imprecations
Have not done enough research
@8ZCPDG4Independent3yrs3Y
No, but only allow it to be used to add to the quantity of available housing (i.e only new builds and not for existing properties)
put a ceiling on how much a any person can claim through negative gearing
@8Z5XDPHUnited Australia3yrs3Y
Yes as long as they don't tax rental income in return.
@8YGVDX3Independent3yrs3Y
Only allow for new builds that add to the total housing pool (I.e. no home has been built on the site previously)
@8Y7CKJBLiberal Democrat3yrs3Y
Yes, but lower top tax rate to adjust.
No, making property investment less attractive to high income earners might make housing more affordable for low income earners.
@8XDTV6N3yrs3Y
Just found out about what negative gearing is so I do not yet have an opinion on this
@8VC6KG4Independent3yrs3Y
No, but limit to interest earned
@8TW6KVYIndependent3yrs3Y
Put a ceiling on how much any person can cumulatively claim through negative gearing eg $50k
@8THSFT73yrs3Y
No but a flat tax rate would even the playing field. This is a misleading topic. Negative gearing a house is the same thing as salary sacrifice to super. Most people using negative gearing are not rich most a blue colar workers like fire fighters and teachers.
@8QV3DRN4yrs4Y
Yes but also abolish capital gains tax
@8PJBX8R4yrs4Y
no but add more restrictions and regulations
@8GQLD6D4yrs4Y
Abolish private property.
Ban negative gearing on existing properties; allow it on new builds and limit to two properties
No, but it should be regulated to reduce the number of tax cheats abusing negative gearing. negative gearing should only be allowed when it is a natural occurance i.e. A landlord providing affordable accomodation thus income may be less than mortgage and expenses.
@984C83N2yrs2Y
Yes, as it disproportionately benefits the rich and removing it will save the government over $4 billion per year in lost taxes. Also, limit houses to one per person
@92CKB9H3yrs3Y
Limit to new premises and half capital gains
@924P84WOne Nation3yrs3Y
Yes but abolish capital gains tax
@9CFCXTW1yr1Y
Not everyone wants to own their own home and need rental properties. Perhaps instead of paying PWC 26 Billion the government should have provided economical and public housing
@9353BBF3yrs3Y
Taxes should be tiered, and equivalent to the amount of income and assets one has, with close monitoring for tax evasion/system loopholes for the wealthy to exploit.
@92ZFQJB3yrs3Y
Yes, but also stop Capital Gains Tax
@92YJFZ43yrs3Y
No, only for non Australian residents. You should only be allowed to do this if you pay taxes in Australia. You should not be allowed to buy property from outside the country and rent it out at jacked up prices and the money go to a foreign economy. So yeah the boomers can keep their investments but not the big corporations and foreign billionaires
@8K32GDB4yrs4Y
No, but limit to a specific dollar amount.
@8GQNTRS4yrs4Y
@8FVYF5C4yrs4Y
No but allow losses to be claimed against capital gains when the property is sold.
@8PD5TBK4yrs4Y
Yes, but you shouldnt have to write your losses of against your income as there should not be an income tax.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
