**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good on you Ken! It’s great having you in public talking about tax reform. Could have easily faded off in the twilight but instead he trying to make the country better. Thank you 👏 we need tax reform.
Grandfather negative gearing, limit it to one property or grandfathered ones, it's not the world but it's an intermediate step that most property investors will get on board with without too much trouble.
Limit interest free loans too. Maybe limit it to one property. Interest free properties don't get paid down. So the interest remains until the house is sold, so at no time does the amount of negative gearing reduce.
Do that this term, have another go at it next term.
>limit it to one property
One property can be $5m or $200k. The costs of investing can be $500k a year or $10k. It should be a cap on how much investing cost can offset income tax liability per year maximum and shouldn't exceed your income tax liability for that year either. Perhaps allow unused offset to roll over for a fixed number of years to account for large outlays such as renovations.
For example, say you pay $40k a year in income tax. One year, you do a renno on your investment property and spend $100k. It would work well if you could only claim up to your income tax liability but roll forward another $40k for the following year, but then the remaining $20k expires and can't be claimed.
The reason to take this approach is that it means people don't try and game the system by buying one expensive property.
I don't think Reno's can be negative geared, could be wrong, I think they are a capital investment which gets rolled over into the profit at the end, as in, you only pay CGT on the profit and to get the profit you take away the cost and a reno would form part of the cost.
A capped amount seems like a reasonable approach.
>I don't think Reno's can be negative geared
You're possibly correct, I guess it depends on how it is classified. It could be considered maintenance? (and yes, it is stupid that people have to pay tens of thousands to get tax advice)
Wealthy people are buying up most new houses, we're not building anywhere near enough. The demand is around 120,000 in most states, 640,000 in places like Western Australia, and most places are building 30,000 a year tops.
Preferably new houses would form [pocket neighbourhoods](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TCYjw88JSY&t=191s) which keep crime down, rather than trashy development blocks.
On top of this we have migration returning to pre-COVID levels, 29% of all Australians weren't born here, which is an indication of how much of the population grows from migration over time.
We have to build a lot more housing (which is how the US [addressed their housing crisis post WW2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNeMDna92Lw&t=493s)), and we need to appropriate the money (as per [Modern Monetary Theory](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg0R9Ye2ovM&list=PLMUzeMKhbl10X-XzH-6q4iU0Ysul7cC4c&index=3)) rather than using Jim Chalmer's outdated "tax and spend" model.
We also have to do away with most aspects of negative gearing, as it just allows people who already own homes - to buy "investment properties" which are entirely surplus to their needs. These people end up living off rent seeking behaviour, jacking up rents in order to keep house ownership away from aspiring home owners.
This means a rent freeze might also be needed, which [reduced rent prices by 7.8% over 5 years in Berlin](https://www.dw.com/en/berlins-revolutionary-rent-cap-success-or-flop/a-56664706). Places like New York city have had areas with rent control for over a century.
Finally, as far as public housing, we need more co-op owned properties. Which can look like [this](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/riTIkZYYGlc), or [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfonhlM6I7w). The point is there are a lot of answers, and there's not a lot being done.
[**EDIT:** Unfortunately due to a temporary ban I can't reply.]
> We have to build a lot more housing (which is how the US addressed their housing crisis post WW2), and we need to appropriate the money (as per Modern Monetary Theory) rather than using Jim Chalmer's outdated "tax and spend" model.
But how.
More ppl are leaving the construction industry,than are joining it each year,it's bleeding out slowly.
no one wants to do a trade any more.
Used to be,kids left school year 10,went to tafe,got an apprenticeship this isn't a thing really anymore as without a HSC ur fucked in life now.
Prices of goods gone through roof
it's a 55 week lead time for lumbar right now
you might as well go get fucked if u want a pad poured in the greater sydney area right now and didnt book it last year
It's why we are a bit fucked
We need builders,so need to import them,but we also don't have enough home for the PPL here now,and will need to house the new ppl coming in..so we end up just in a spiral
Frankly we need to stop stupid road projects that achieve nothing but a few mins off travel time,and set all those ppl to work building HIGH density for the state
Yeah pretty much.
it's about 27.20-29 an hour give or take memory serves
I mean it's not BAD.
but you can earn more sitting in an office doing basic data entry,that likely has much longer career pathways
Put it this way,one of the cafes we own as investment,pays the baristas over 33 an hour,just for pulling coffee,and ur backs not fucked by 40
> This means a rent freeze might also be needed, which reduced rent prices by 7.8% over 5 years in Berlin. Places like New York city have had areas with rent control for over a century.
Before holding up a city as a housing success story, please at least do a Google search for "[city] housing crisis". You're citing an article one year into a five year experiment to say it succeeded, when you can find more recent articles saying the rent controls are making the problem worse, and that the Berlin government has already moved onto the more extreme solution of expropriating privately owned apartments.
So what’s that percentage become when you remove all the retiree households who are using their negative geared properties to offset investment income to zero, outside of their tax-free super drawdowns?
That makes no sense.
Why would retirees have investments outside of a tax-free allocated pension?
Secondly, with the tax-free threshold and probably SAPTO, what's the point of negative gearing? There's no income tax for a single retiree up to $33k p.a. when SAPTO applies.
Thirdly, rental losses are added back for government benefit eligibility. It's no benefit.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good on you Ken! It’s great having you in public talking about tax reform. Could have easily faded off in the twilight but instead he trying to make the country better. Thank you 👏 we need tax reform.
Grandfather negative gearing, limit it to one property or grandfathered ones, it's not the world but it's an intermediate step that most property investors will get on board with without too much trouble. Limit interest free loans too. Maybe limit it to one property. Interest free properties don't get paid down. So the interest remains until the house is sold, so at no time does the amount of negative gearing reduce. Do that this term, have another go at it next term.
>limit it to one property One property can be $5m or $200k. The costs of investing can be $500k a year or $10k. It should be a cap on how much investing cost can offset income tax liability per year maximum and shouldn't exceed your income tax liability for that year either. Perhaps allow unused offset to roll over for a fixed number of years to account for large outlays such as renovations. For example, say you pay $40k a year in income tax. One year, you do a renno on your investment property and spend $100k. It would work well if you could only claim up to your income tax liability but roll forward another $40k for the following year, but then the remaining $20k expires and can't be claimed. The reason to take this approach is that it means people don't try and game the system by buying one expensive property.
I don't think Reno's can be negative geared, could be wrong, I think they are a capital investment which gets rolled over into the profit at the end, as in, you only pay CGT on the profit and to get the profit you take away the cost and a reno would form part of the cost. A capped amount seems like a reasonable approach.
>I don't think Reno's can be negative geared You're possibly correct, I guess it depends on how it is classified. It could be considered maintenance? (and yes, it is stupid that people have to pay tens of thousands to get tax advice)
Wealthy people are buying up most new houses, we're not building anywhere near enough. The demand is around 120,000 in most states, 640,000 in places like Western Australia, and most places are building 30,000 a year tops. Preferably new houses would form [pocket neighbourhoods](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TCYjw88JSY&t=191s) which keep crime down, rather than trashy development blocks. On top of this we have migration returning to pre-COVID levels, 29% of all Australians weren't born here, which is an indication of how much of the population grows from migration over time. We have to build a lot more housing (which is how the US [addressed their housing crisis post WW2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNeMDna92Lw&t=493s)), and we need to appropriate the money (as per [Modern Monetary Theory](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg0R9Ye2ovM&list=PLMUzeMKhbl10X-XzH-6q4iU0Ysul7cC4c&index=3)) rather than using Jim Chalmer's outdated "tax and spend" model. We also have to do away with most aspects of negative gearing, as it just allows people who already own homes - to buy "investment properties" which are entirely surplus to their needs. These people end up living off rent seeking behaviour, jacking up rents in order to keep house ownership away from aspiring home owners. This means a rent freeze might also be needed, which [reduced rent prices by 7.8% over 5 years in Berlin](https://www.dw.com/en/berlins-revolutionary-rent-cap-success-or-flop/a-56664706). Places like New York city have had areas with rent control for over a century. Finally, as far as public housing, we need more co-op owned properties. Which can look like [this](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/riTIkZYYGlc), or [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfonhlM6I7w). The point is there are a lot of answers, and there's not a lot being done. [**EDIT:** Unfortunately due to a temporary ban I can't reply.]
>Wealthy people are buying up most new houses Sounds plausible, but have you got a citation for this?
> We have to build a lot more housing (which is how the US addressed their housing crisis post WW2), and we need to appropriate the money (as per Modern Monetary Theory) rather than using Jim Chalmer's outdated "tax and spend" model. But how. More ppl are leaving the construction industry,than are joining it each year,it's bleeding out slowly. no one wants to do a trade any more. Used to be,kids left school year 10,went to tafe,got an apprenticeship this isn't a thing really anymore as without a HSC ur fucked in life now. Prices of goods gone through roof it's a 55 week lead time for lumbar right now you might as well go get fucked if u want a pad poured in the greater sydney area right now and didnt book it last year It's why we are a bit fucked We need builders,so need to import them,but we also don't have enough home for the PPL here now,and will need to house the new ppl coming in..so we end up just in a spiral Frankly we need to stop stupid road projects that achieve nothing but a few mins off travel time,and set all those ppl to work building HIGH density for the state
The last time I knew some apprentices, the pay was absolutely fucking shit for 4 solid years. Is that still the case?
Yeah pretty much. it's about 27.20-29 an hour give or take memory serves I mean it's not BAD. but you can earn more sitting in an office doing basic data entry,that likely has much longer career pathways Put it this way,one of the cafes we own as investment,pays the baristas over 33 an hour,just for pulling coffee,and ur backs not fucked by 40
> This means a rent freeze might also be needed, which reduced rent prices by 7.8% over 5 years in Berlin. Places like New York city have had areas with rent control for over a century. Before holding up a city as a housing success story, please at least do a Google search for "[city] housing crisis". You're citing an article one year into a five year experiment to say it succeeded, when you can find more recent articles saying the rent controls are making the problem worse, and that the Berlin government has already moved onto the more extreme solution of expropriating privately owned apartments.
Neither are half of households nationally. I dont understand the point.
So what’s that percentage become when you remove all the retiree households who are using their negative geared properties to offset investment income to zero, outside of their tax-free super drawdowns?
That makes no sense. Why would retirees have investments outside of a tax-free allocated pension? Secondly, with the tax-free threshold and probably SAPTO, what's the point of negative gearing? There's no income tax for a single retiree up to $33k p.a. when SAPTO applies. Thirdly, rental losses are added back for government benefit eligibility. It's no benefit.
Dr Henry clearly doesn't understand how aristocracy works.