Of course they are proposing higher taxes its their firm policy not conspiracy.
You can argue the merits of these proposals and it obviously will allow for more funding of social programs, but they are proposing a higher taxing government.
This link is pretty detailed policy document on their proposal for housing.
https://www.alp.org.au/negativegearing
Remember when it was important for the government to collect more money than it spent?
Donāt worry, it will trickle down really really soon.
Im sure it will be really, really important again Day 1 after Labor wins.
But that will mean āless money in your pocket!ā
*less money in some billionairās Cayman account.
Come on.
A carbon tax and removal of negative gearing would definitely result in ordinary middle class Australians paying more tax. Millions of average Australians have an investment property. To argue it only impacts the filthy rich is disingenuous.
But by implementing these policies we might get a) a fairer and less risk prone housing market and b) price signalling over carbon to reduce emissions.
The policies can be good and still have a hip pocket effect. Politicians and others just need to get better at arguing the need for reform.
Agreed that itās important for a government to be able to implement policy that will have price impacts, otherwise policymaking is just a neverending spiral of tax cuts into either national bankruptcy or the removal of every public service. Especially when thereās so many egregious loopholes in tax laws etc that really should be closed, even though the closing of them will impact the hip pockets of those whoāve made $ from those loopholes for years.
Iām pretty skeptical of the āinvestment properties are owned by average australiansā line though. Iāve heard it a lot, but I donāt think the numbers really add up. From the 2011 census, 7.9% of Australians own investment property. The average net income (so income after tax, including the tax break for negative gearing) for investment property owners is over $100k/yr. The average pre-tax full-time wage in Australia is around $84k. If you own an investment property, youāre most likely WELL above average, financially.
Just from observation I know tradies, teachers, retirees as well as better off professionals that own investment properties. Yes the average wages would be higher, but this is pretty obvious given the average Australian wage includes people that couldnāt afford their own house, so it has to be higher.
At 8% of Australians your looking at 2 million people out of 25 million. But children and pensioners are unlikely to have an investment property that cuts out a big chunk of the population. Then the 8% is from tax returns, a couple may own the investment property but include the deductions on one persons tax return (thus missing the true number of people who have the property).
Iād like to see the stat on % of working population(including partners). If its 20-30% it starts to look different.
I believe a high proportion of investment property is owned by retirees (which only makes sense, theyāre the ones whoāve had the most time to save up to buy it). But most self-funded retirees have a low taxable income due to the generous tax treatment of income from super etc, which does skew the stats.
You may be right there.
Even though the zero tax from superannuation products after 60 benefits me, I wouldnāt be sorry to see that income become taxable again, but probably with a higher tax-free threshold or rebates.
That would largely eliminate the issue with refund of franked dividends too, because there would now be taxable income to offset them against.
I still think there should be significant tax benefits to superannuation benefits, because they reduce or remove the OAP, but the limits on concessional contributions should control that.
Why should ordinary Australians subsidise the privately-owned investment properties of entrepreneurs ? You want an investment property ? Fine. But pay for it yourself: donāt fund it from my taxes. Negaitve gearing is for greedy leeches bludging on hard-working Australian battlers.
One of my favourite bits from an interview.
Journalist: You have two houses.
John Lydon: Yes?
Journalist: Itās more than most people have.
John Lydon: Itās one more than most people have.
Fair enough, too.
You can have tax breaks for One investment property.
Donāt give me the poor you for any more than that.
You know Labors policy is to Grandfather existing NGād properties, right?
So, there would be no extra Tax paid.
What Carbon Tax?
Which is actually worse for me.
Boomers keep their tax breaks which I want get a chance to enjoy.
From a tax law stance, removing negative gearing poses some interesting issues.
Rental income is assessable income for tax purposes, and a general principal is that expenditure incurred in deriving income is deductible.
So to disallow negative gearing do this mean the rent received remains assessable but expenses not deductible? Or do you disallow just interest paid on borrowing? If so, what about interest on loans where business borrows to acquire assets? Reckon disallowing rental deductions as a whole or a specific type of deduction would lead to that law being challenged through to the High Court.
Or do you make rent income not assessable and hence eliminate deductions? Again hardly a solution.
Good luck to any politician trying to sell and then implement the removal of negative gearing whatever the economic merits of doing so.
I would urge anyone concerned about Neg Gearing to fully investigate and understand what Labor Policy is, and what they are actually proposing.
There will be no extra Tax, and they are not simply āremovingā it.
Wentworth is done and dusted.
Late counted postals breaking in Pheleps favour.
Dr Bonham:
Wednesday 5:30 Provisionals broke 58.4% to Phelps (246-175) so her lead expands slightly again. I donāt expect the margin (currently at 1643) to change by more than a few hundred from here.
Wednesday 2:00 Another batch of just over 500 postals has been counted and Phelps (narrowly) won them, though I donāt have the exact figures. I have mentioned before that late postals tend to split more weakly for conservatives but here we are seeing a rate of change from early to late postals that Iāve never seen before. It is unclear whether Sharma will make further gains from here at all.
At Senate Estimates Wong got it out of Defence Chief that the media were briefed on consideration of the Jerusalem move and withdrawal of support of the Iran deal BEFORE Defence.
I take it from that that our Embassies and Consulates in the Middle East were also informed after the media. He put their lives at risk and their capacity to perform their functions has been irretrievely damaged.
Yeah, but he needed the Jewish vote in Wentworth so its all g
We are being governed by people in big shoes with squirty lapel flowers.