Other than the absurdity of it, I don’t get the focus on these people with 100 properties.
If you have 100 properties and negatively gearing your insane. That means they are all in your name and you could lose the lot if anything happened.
Further even if they removed negative gearing you won’t be impacted. At that scale you can put them in a company or trust and very much deduct business expenses against revenue.
How on earth do you get 100 properties, structure it for tax purposes but not know the first thing about tax. Bizarre.
Any explanation of the methodology? Any breakdown of the number of properties held?
There are odd categories of Professions. . For instance why is it only School Principals and not the teaching profession?
Most of them could be self employed, with the exception of School Principals, who would probably move around a lot, with accomodation provided, renting out the family home. Some Principals of private schools are on enormous salaries
CIV is $1.5 million. The house isn’t much and upon sale would doubtless suffer the same fate as most of the others in the area - knock down and rebuild.
Land values certainly are becoming ridiculous - my own place is a single-fronted cottage on just over 300 square metres in the inner north and its site value is now over $1.5 million.
Land tax is going through the roof because it isn’t indexed. Apart from an actual increase last year, there has been no change to the various threshold levels for almost twenty years while property values have skyrocketed during that time.
When the Murdochracy refers to Alabanese’s investment properties, nothing about Dutton’s portfolio, directly or indirectly , including those of his wife and trusts.
A lot of politicians have trusts declared on their disclosure files.
In 2023, there was a change in titles of Surgeons, with only Specialist Surgeons permitted to use that title, such as obstetrics, gynaecology and ophthalmology ( weeding out the cosmetic practitioners).
Yet it’s now a criminal offence for other than those Specialist Surgeons on the professional register of Surgeons to label themselves as Surgeons.
Maybe the ATO doesn’t make the distinction.
There’s a big groundswell of anti landlord sentiment nowadays.
I rent. I’m also a landlord. I own a grand total of two properties and I charge about $150 below market level for the one that’s being rented.
I doubt anyone considers me a dirty, grubby sort that’s funding his fourth beachside house with blood money but somewhere between me and a Mr Burns-like mogul is a point where people begin to object.
Not sure there is a line, but your example is totally fine. 30% of people rent so the houses need to be provided and people having an investment property or two is another good way of providing in retirement instead of just super(which we give tax breaks too).
I’m not in favor of totally eliminating negative gearing as providing housing stock and building retirement nest eggs are worthy societal goals.
When it flips into a professional outfit, that’s fine own 100 homes if you want, but that shouldn’t be funded by other taxpayers.
