I confess to having bugger-all economic knowledge, but if ever there was a time to even modify negative gearing, surely it would be when the housing market is overheating?
I likewise know ■■■■ all about economics but things are done by people and not by times and do you reckon these are the people to do it?
I’m assuming you mean politicians in general?
In which case I think…probably yes?
I think if economic policy were left to economists we’d end up with something that would make DT look like a communist.
I confess to having bugger-all economic knowledge, but if ever there was a time to even modify negative gearing, surely it would be when the housing market is overheating?
Isn't it the other way?
Cutting back negative gearing could result in a bunch of houses suddenly not being as attractive an investment dumped onto the market, triggering a massive loss in value according to supply & demand, leading to a bunch of big loans on houses suddenly worth a lot less...
Ultimately the sooner it’s done, the easier it will be to do. But it still has to be done very, very carefully, and probably phased out over years so there’s not a sudden trigger point.
I confess to having bugger-all economic knowledge, but if ever there was a time to even modify negative gearing, surely it would be when the housing market is overheating?
I likewise know ■■■■ all about economics but things are done by people and not by times and do you reckon these are the people to do it?
I’m assuming you mean politicians in general?
In which case I think…probably yes?
I think if economic policy were left to economists we’d end up with something that would make DT look like a communist.
I think it’s a move you can expect out of these politicians like you can expect pyromaniacs to blow out the candles.
I confess to having bugger-all economic knowledge, but if ever there was a time to even modify negative gearing, surely it would be when the housing market is overheating?
Isn't it the other way?
Cutting back negative gearing could result in a bunch of houses suddenly not being as attractive an investment dumped onto the market, triggering a massive loss in value according to supply & demand, leading to a bunch of big loans on houses suddenly worth a lot less...
Ultimately the sooner it’s done, the easier it will be to do. But it still has to be done very, very carefully, and probably phased out over years so there’s not a sudden trigger point.
I don’t understand how it would be the other way.
Why would the time to do it be when the housing market is stable/depressed, rather than when it’s overheating.
I understand the impact, that’s why you’d do it at a time when it would merely retard rises rather than exacerbate falls.
The government could get rid of negative gearing tomorrow.
people will stop renting their houses due to lower returns and there will be more on the market for first home buyers.
The easiest way of getting rid of negative gearing is to wean people off it.
allow current rental properties to continue interest deductibility.
But not let people with new rental properties ability to deduct post 1/7/15. If they choose a rental property they need to have be able to finance it or take finance cost into calculations.
In 5 years time phase out interest deductions on all rental properties.
Hopefully the result is property prices flatline - ie do not increase anymore.
people negative gearing currently have 5 years to get out or payout mortgage and be positively geared.
Banks will need to evaluate loans and ability of people able to pay mortgages.
Based on what I can remember from economics at Uni (which is very little), when you change any one variable, the result / market reaction is usually the exact opposite to what you’d think it would be.
And that decent parental leave means women are more likely to stay in work which is actually good for the economy and productivity. (Not just saying this because I’m currently benefiting fromthe government scheme after getting 10weeks from my own company - which is actually funded by the government)
The cuts to maternity leave is pretty much the only thing I know about the budget, and it's insane.
Not all of it, the double dipping is a bit over the top and needed to be looked at. But yeah, it is a complete reversal of how Howard saw ML.
One of the ramifications of this will be a decrease in already low breastfeeding in the first 12 months of a childs life because mothers will go back to work sooner.
But they're still going to get maternity leave - just not two lots of it.
The cuts to maternity leave is pretty much the only thing I know about the budget, and it's insane.
Not all of it, the double dipping is a bit over the top and needed to be looked at. But yeah, it is a complete reversal of how Howard saw ML.
One of the ramifications of this will be a decrease in already low breastfeeding in the first 12 months of a childs life because mothers will go back to work sooner.
But they're still going to get maternity leave - just not two lots of it.
Currently employers who offer it offer 6-12 weeks paid leave. The government offers another 18. For a lot of families can’t afford one parent not to be working. This means a parent (usually the mother but not always) to go back to work 18 weeks earlier. 18 weeks is huge in babies life and a really important bonding time.
The cuts to maternity leave is pretty much the only thing I know about the budget, and it's insane.
Not all of it, the double dipping is a bit over the top and needed to be looked at. But yeah, it is a complete reversal of how Howard saw ML.
One of the ramifications of this will be a decrease in already low breastfeeding in the first 12 months of a childs life because mothers will go back to work sooner.
But they're still going to get maternity leave - just not two lots of it.
Currently employers who offer it offer 6-12 weeks paid leave. The government offers another 18. For a lot of families can’t afford one parent not to be working. This means a parent (usually the mother but not always) to go back to work 18 weeks earlier. 18 weeks is huge in babies life and a really important bonding time.
So it’s basically the Liberals former policy, only business was funding part of it.
And DT, please don’t.
You’ll give me a headache criticising the very justifications you were making previously.
The cuts to maternity leave is pretty much the only thing I know about the budget, and it's insane.
Not all of it, the double dipping is a bit over the top and needed to be looked at. But yeah, it is a complete reversal of how Howard saw ML.
One of the ramifications of this will be a decrease in already low breastfeeding in the first 12 months of a childs life because mothers will go back to work sooner.
But they're still going to get maternity leave - just not two lots of it.
Currently employers who offer it offer 6-12 weeks paid leave. The government offers another 18. For a lot of families can’t afford one parent not to be working. This means a parent (usually the mother but not always) to go back to work 18 weeks earlier. 18 weeks is huge in babies life and a really important bonding time.
But those people can still claim the baby bonus which has a reasonably high threshold of 75k over 6 months.
If families on more than 150k a year cannot survive without the $12k paid parental leave then they need to reassess their family budget.
