So we are back to making decisions based on protecting share holders?
Phase out negative gearing.
First property gets 100% negative gearing and 50% discount on CGT.
Second property gets 50% negative gearing and no discount on CGT.
Only personal taxpayers can negative gear. Otherwise shysters would shift everything to family trusts.
Bump up the differential interest rates on owner-occupied and investors to about 2-3%.
And restrict the rights of trusts. Only persons can be members of trusts, not companies, which would stop the rabbit warrens of blind trusts you get.
Restrict the amount of deductions a person can claim to 20-30%.
Obvious allowances for self-employed but encourage all self-employed to set up as companies. Personal deductions canât be claimed by company.
Obviously transfer pricing to be restricted for multi-nationals.
Bit of a grab bag and probably pie in the sky. But I 've always paid all my tax as a PAYE employee.
2 Likes
Yeah but couple that with the building first home owners and a small amount of savings and they are beginning to be able get there within 2years
If they donât remove the excessive neg gearing & do it shortly, the market will correct itself with a bubble burst, and many will lose plenty.
They would have more than $90k. $10k was withdrawn from it. You talk as if owning a home is free of any other associated costs like insurance or council fees etcâŚ
Also average super balance of a 30 year old is $22k for men and $20k for women. So youâre 10% example gives them $4.2k towards a deposit. This whole scheme is going to cost more in red tape then anything else.
Minus 15% of the $54,000 to tax. Minus fees.
1 Like
No, there should just be a better mechanism than you are suggesting.
Even 5k plus the 12k FHG is getting people pretty close to the 5% a lot of lenders would honour. Bacchus marsh would tripple in size over night!
The $17k youâve managed to get together would be used to pay the mortgage insurance on a 95% LVR, you still donât have a deposit.
Sorry
2 Likes
Then Iâm ready to pounce!
1 Like
Letâs go back to calling for the scrapping of negative gearing then. That would fix it
I am too, ⌠but I wonât. I have my share. Iâm neither needy, nor greedy.
My kids are though, & will, and I do hope a lot of other youngâns have kept their powder dry and take the opportunity too.
Unfortunately, there will be many that have come late to the party that will get smashed, as there always is.
Not in the cheaper areas BF was just talking about 8k. Get a guarantor and the lmi is gone.
Itâs very simple to blame negative gearing or foreign investment but itâs also incorrect. Yeah they have a small impact but it is small. Negative gearing also helps support the rental market and there is a requirement for a healthy rental market.
The biggest drivers are low interest rates coupled with dual incomes. If interest rates rise by say 4% many people will struggle to cope, people will lose homes and prices will stabilize.
This is what drives me nuts about Trip.
I donât have a party.
The ALP are, in my opinion, the least worst.
But to assume they represent my views, or even a large portion of them, is just silly.
2 Likes
But they are not, and we are careening towards a homeless elderly problem in 40 years
If you are talking about scrapping negative gearing - then you need to look at re-writing the tax act. Unless you want to scrap negative gearing on all investments.
Regarding the figures above - if someone is struggling to save $5-$20k - do you think it is really responsible to get them into a 30 year loan and use all their savings? What are the contingencies in place if their hot water system goes bust? Where do they find the spare money to fix? or their car they use for work needs a new engine?
Put it on the credit card? take a personal loan? - Only to put you further and further back
I see that as a way of putting people under severe financial strain vs renting, for the sake of home ownership.
The housing affordability is a symptom of the last 10 years. Being a low interest rate environment (meaning for savers, your savings have stalled), stagnate/zero wage growth and increased living costs (look at fuel, insurance premiums and electricity in the last 12-24 months - all resulting in less real savings and savings growth.
Or a future where people donât have enough super to retire on and afford the house they live in. I said it already, itâs simply moving the problem further down the track.
Lets look at the flip side of it as well. If the housing market tanks 20%. The bank will want more assets for security or ask you to pay for mortgage insurance which if you remember they were going to struggle to pay anyway. The owner may have to sell for a loss, possibly declare bankruptcy. The owner now has no property and less superannuation for the future.
Would $5k or $10k make a difference on auction day? We look at the âfinalâ price but it doesnât mean the winner wasnât prepared to bid higher.
Iâm also fairly confident that those who are self employed or contractors when they are under 30 donât even think about putting money in super yet alone have any money there to take out.
The $5k to $10k out of super as well is costing the government money too. Itâs not being taxed anymore. Long term the government may as well give you the $5k now as it would be cheaper.
We already have different rules in place for negative gearing based on the structure.
I agree with the rest of your reply.
I am far leased worried on the economic impact down the line of hundreds of thousands of retired people who donât own their own home than I am of them having 10% less super