Thats a bad idea, accountants would tax plan the crap out of that.
$150,000 and over 30%
This encourages people to declare income in their own name and keep the money out of corporations where tax could be saved and it could be stored for later.
Governments set the rules when it comes to property investment. And they usually set those rules to try to encourage investment to be done in a way that is of most benefit to themselves and others, or they set them to gain voters. And sometimes those things are in conflict with each other.
If they just want votes, or they’re looking for a quick cash grab, they’d be inclined to try to raise taxes or create restrictions on investors in many areas, much as the Victorian government has done recently.
Financially intelligent governments also realise that when it comes to property, the ‘velocity of money’ matters. The more times money changes hands in a given time, the more times it can be taxed. A little tax break that encourages the right type of investment can create a lot more income for them than it costs, as well as provide benefits to many people. Think about real estate investors who are encouraged to renovate or subdivide properties. They employ a lot of people to do a lot of jobs, which are all taxed. The tradies, engineers, accountants, lawyers, architects, estate agents all make money, and pay tax on that money. And in the case of subdividing larger blocks of land with single houses, into smaller blocks with multiple houses, they create more housing, i.e. help solve rental crises, as well as reducing urban sprawl.
From an investor’s point of view, real estate can be a defensive asset class in turbulent times. Properties hold value. They keep up with inflation during inflationary periods, while money in the bank reduces in value. And they stay steady in price during recessions, when stocks are reducing in value.
But property also has many ways to make money, in both the short and long term. It’s one of the few asset classes where an investor can buy equity, by purchasing low, or having the ability to add value. In the longer term, much or sometimes all, of the value of a property is paid with rental income, for those using it as a longer play. And properties can often be geared more easily than other assets.
There are ways to benefit from property in a growing and steady market, and property investors who make more than others make it by understanding the rules and making smart choices, like they do in any asset class.
The main point I wanted to make is, governments often give tax breaks to encourage investors to invest where they want them to. And investors apply their experience to the rules, and what they believe will happen in the market, and take risks they believe will benefit them. People who have acquired more wealth than others are frequently more than just lucky. They take risks that the average person wouldn’t, and believe in what they’re doing, despite many voices around them telling them it can’t be done.
And none of the suggestions I’ve seen in here would stop those who’ve made obscene amounts of money in real estate doing it again. They do that by identifying where the maximum profits are in a given market, under given rules, and throwing all they have where they believe it will benefit them most. It’s more likely these sorts of rule changes will remove the small investor from the market, and reduce the middle class further.
1 Like
I reckon just tax ace and bacchus, that’ll finish the suburban rail loop
5 Likes
I’d suspect that affair whack of pollies own multiple investment/rental properties and as such there would be absolutely no desire to put their investments at risk by changing rules
2 Likes
It’s pretty well established that a lot more pollies own investment properties than don’t. The disclosure statements etc are mandatory, even though there’s always one or two who seem to ‘forget’ a property or two. Oopsie, silly old me, complete accident, innocent oversight, forget my own head next, amirite?
What kinda steams me is the animus and vitriol directed at people who point out the inequities in the taxation of investment properties, if they happen to own investment properties themselves. The Greens were continually sniped at over this last term when they were lobbying for neg gearing and the CGT exemption to be reined in (didja know Bandt owns an investment property, didya???) and plenty of ALP members under Shorten copped it too. It’s ridiculous how the media especially targeted pollies who were actively pushing a policy that would mean they personally would pay more tax while ignoring the ones who were doing very well out of the current arrangements and opposed change.
Absolutely arse backwards. You WANT pollies who’ll make decisions against their own financial interests when necessary, surely?
1 Like
Albos sold most of his afaik
You don’t get change out of 2 million dollars for a house within cooeee of Sydney.
And those “suburbs” mentioned are all 50km away from town out west and over an hour or more into the cbd.
Of course accessed all on toll roads at the highest rate in the world too in price.
Sydney’s kind of ■■■■■■ for anyone whose just working class. I don’t know why people keep moving here. Stupidity?
Of and don’t forget the scorching summers with 50c temps out in whoop whoop thanks to the heat island effect.