ALP v LP/NP

[Sonic]

The third thing is the inter generational theft involved in the outrageous tax treatment of investment in residential properties. No one has the guts to threaten the Great Australian Housing Ponzi Scheme so that obscenity will go untouched forever regardless of who is in government.

Are you talking about 'negative gearing'?

If you are then a few facts are in order.
1. Renters determine the rent they pay - you have to think about that - IF I had a rental property and set the rent too high then it would be sitting empty and I would lose the benefits of having a rental property
2. 80% of rental properties are owned by 'mum and dad' investors, not some big multi-national
3.Why are 'mum and dad' investors buying houses?  That is easy, my generation has been told by consecutive Governments that aged pension is not sustainable - through no fault of their own, they (baby boomers) were born into an era where their parents bred like rabbits. So what was the advice when told there might not be a pension?  Invest in property!!!!! and that is what they did, now they are being criticised for it.

I think negative gearing should stay, but under the model proposed by Shorten's last attempt at Government, it only applies to new builds, not buying existing houses - you have to think about that

and all this should be taken to a different thread

Disagree with point 1 Trev.

Perhaps in a market where there is a ton of housing available that may be the case, but when housing is in short supply it is definitely not correct. In Melb the owners can pretty much name their price and people are so desperate to get the houses that they are paying monstrous amounts. Far more, in my opinion, than what the housing is worth... and some of the houses are in very poor condition, but sometimes you simply have no choice.

[AlbertM]

biggest problem as I see it (my view only) really is who the hell DO you vote for?

both sides aren't worth spitting on... choose which type of cancer you want for the country

I do not see one even half decent option and, regardless of who gets in, we'll just keep on wandering down the same road with little deviations depending on which party is in office screwing over this nation/state/council.

we are screwed.

Simple, vote for change. The party's want to cling to power, that's why they only act at election time. Stop voting in the same rabble. Make them work to stay in government.

We only suffer a low standard of politics because the same bad politics keep getting voted back in.

[stevo qld]

Over time, I have had several properties that I have rented out. A couple were negative geared and I also rented my homes when I was working longer term in country areas or Darwin for extended periods.

A lot is made of the oppression of tenants rights and the oppression by cruel landlords.

From first hand experience, I can tell you that some tenants are just grubs. I have had a tenant's dog chew the furniture. I have had to clean up twenty two ute loads of accumulated rubbish and hoarded building materials and car parts, including engines. In another, there were broom handle sized holes pierced through the ceiling with repairs costing about 15% of the purchase price of the house.  Just try to remove a stay put tenant who ceases to pay rent.

Landlords are hit with higher taxes and government fees and then there is the percentage deducted, from rent received, by the real estate company, allegedly for monitoring the property.

Increasingly, the landlords have government, all three levels, imposing edicts that are designed to protects the rights of the poor tenant.

Like any business, losses are tax deductable, or negative gearing as it is tagged. The real profit, if any, comes from buying at the right price and later making a capital gain on sale, if one is lucky enough to find a rising market.

I think it was Keating, who tried to get rid of negative gearing, but retreated in the face of landlords exiting the business and rentals becoming harder to find.

After all the hassles and often poor returns, or losses, to the "mum and dad" type investors, is it any wonder that they are choosing, in great numbers, to sell when they are being offered a lot of money by people wanting to buy. At the moment sales prices are high. Our own residence doubled in value over the last several years with the influx of Southerners moving North. I want to sell and move to a retirement village, but I only get one vote, a minority government in effect.

In summary, Negative Gearing is just a tax deduction for business losses and selling now eliminates the loss factor, so just get out of the business, get rid of the constant hassles and invest the money and then pay taxes on the 0.9% interest rates paid by the banks.

Then sit back and listen, on TV,  to the plaintive cries that rentals are hard to come by and the government should provide cheap or free housing. The level of cries will escalate over the next few weeks of the election. 

[madbugger]

Over time, I have had several properties that I have rented out. A couple were negative geared and I also rented my homes when I was working longer term in country areas or Darwin for extended periods.

A lot is made of the oppression of tenants rights and the oppression by cruel landlords.

From first hand experience, I can tell you that some tenants are just grubs. I have had a tenant's dog chew the furniture. I have had to clean up twenty two ute loads of accumulated rubbish and hoarded building materials and car parts, including engines. In another, there were broom handle sized holes pierced through the ceiling with repairs costing about 15% of the purchase price of the house.  Just try to remove a stay put tenant who ceases to pay rent.

Landlords are hit with higher taxes and government fees and then there is the percentage deducted, from rent received, by the real estate company, allegedly for monitoring the property.

Increasingly, the landlords have government, all three levels, imposing edicts that are designed to protects the rights of the poor tenant.

Like any business, losses are tax deductable, or negative gearing as it is tagged. The real profit, if any, comes from buying at the right price and later making a capital gain on sale, if one is lucky enough to find a rising market.

I think it was Keating, who tried to get rid of negative gearing, but retreated in the face of landlords exiting the business and rentals becoming harder to find.

After all the hassles and often poor returns, or losses, to the "mum and dad" type investors, is it any wonder that they are choosing, in great numbers, to sell when they are being offered a lot of money by people wanting to buy. At the moment sales prices are high. Our own residence doubled in value over the last several years with the influx of Southerners moving North. I want to sell and move to a retirement village, but I only get one vote, a minority government in effect.

In summary, Negative Gearing is just a tax deduction for business losses and selling now eliminates the loss factor, so just get out of the business, get rid of the constant hassles and invest the money and then pay taxes on the 0.9% interest rates paid by the banks.

Then sit back and listen, on TV,  to the plaintive cries that rentals are hard to come by and the government should provide cheap or free housing. The level of cries will escalate over the next few weeks of the election. 

Hard to argue against any of that, but I'm sure some will

[Trevor]

Also, the haters of negative gearing do not realise that in thiis day, there is nothing for nothing.

The little bit that is gained in negative gearing is given back when the property is sold, this tax payable by the house owner is called Capital Gains Tax, which is about 30% payable on any equity made on the property

[Trevor]

The third thing is the inter generational theft involved in the outrageous tax treatment of investment in residential properties. No one has the guts to threaten the Great Australian Housing Ponzi Scheme so that obscenity will go untouched forever regardless of who is in government.

Are you talking about 'negative gearing'?

If you are then a few facts are in order.
1. Renters determine the rent they pay - you have to think about that - IF I had a rental property and set the rent too high then it would be sitting empty and I would lose the benefits of having a rental property
2. 80% of rental properties are owned by 'mum and dad' investors, not some big multi-national
3.Why are 'mum and dad' investors buying houses?  That is easy, my generation has been told by consecutive Governments that aged pension is not sustainable - through no fault of their own, they (baby boomers) were born into an era where their parents bred like rabbits. So what was the advice when told there might not be a pension?  Invest in property!!!!! and that is what they did, now they are being criticised for it.

I think negative gearing should stay, but under the model proposed by Shorten's last attempt at Government, it only applies to new builds, not buying existing houses - you have to think about that

and all this should be taken to a different thread

Disagree with point 1 Trev.

Perhaps in a market where there is a ton of housing available that may be the case, but when housing is in short supply it is definitely not correct. In Melb the owners can pretty much name their price and people are so desperate to get the houses that they are paying monstrous amounts. Far more, in my opinion, than what the housing is worth... and some of the houses are in very poor condition, but sometimes you simply have no choice.

exactly my point, people are paying

[stevo qld]

The issue of Independent MPs is interesting. Are they really independents?

How some independents voted in the 46th Parliament on Divisions.

Andrew Wilkie, Clark, Tas, held by a former Green Candidate turned Independent anti poker machine activist. 92.6% with Labor.

Helen Haines, Indi, Vic., previously a Liberal seat.   67.9% with Labor.

Zali Steggall, Warringah, NSW, previously a Liberal seat.   66.0% with Labor.

Rebekha Sharkie  Mayo, SA, previously a Liberal seat.   64.6% with Labor.

Source: Parliamentary Library

There are some Independent candidates at this election with heavy financial backing from Climate 200 (Simon Holmes a Court) which has a very green, anti coalition position.

The current independents are keeping stum about backing a minority Labor Government or a minority Lib/Nat/LNP Government or even about forming a blocking group with any new independents and the Greens to thwart either party. (The Greens by the way, have claimed for some time that they will unseat Albanese and win a few other seats from both parties.)

We live in interesting times and for about 80% of the voters, our vote will not change the incumbency of the current seat holders.

The really interesting result will be the Senate where a lot of that impotent (politically) lot can bring up some very odd results. This is probably where the big spenders Holmes a Court and Palmer could get some results with their surplus pocket money. 

A lot of media pundits are tipping a minority government, in both houses.

[stevo qld]

Here is a new development from Clive Palmer's Press Club Chat.

"From my personal perspective I think I'll put the Greens ahead of Liberal and Labor because they haven't been in government and they haven't been responsible for this debt," Mr Palmer said.

"Like the ABC I'd be putting the Greens ahead of Liberal and Labor."

Mr Palmer has so far plunged more than $30 million into the Federal Election as his party nominates candidates for all lower house electorates as well as Senate spots.

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/clive-palmer-says-he-would-preference-greens-over-coalition-and-labor-party-as-he-hits-out-at-abc-campaign-coverage/news-story/94d1fa1228e31ed2d28da8cda1c746d7

[Sonic]

The third thing is the inter generational theft involved in the outrageous tax treatment of investment in residential properties. No one has the guts to threaten the Great Australian Housing Ponzi Scheme so that obscenity will go untouched forever regardless of who is in government.

Are you talking about 'negative gearing'?

If you are then a few facts are in order.
1. Renters determine the rent they pay - you have to think about that - IF I had a rental property and set the rent too high then it would be sitting empty and I would lose the benefits of having a rental property
2. 80% of rental properties are owned by 'mum and dad' investors, not some big multi-national
3.Why are 'mum and dad' investors buying houses?  That is easy, my generation has been told by consecutive Governments that aged pension is not sustainable - through no fault of their own, they (baby boomers) were born into an era where their parents bred like rabbits. So what was the advice when told there might not be a pension?  Invest in property!!!!! and that is what they did, now they are being criticised for it.

I think negative gearing should stay, but under the model proposed by Shorten's last attempt at Government, it only applies to new builds, not buying existing houses - you have to think about that

and all this should be taken to a different thread

Disagree with point 1 Trev.

Perhaps in a market where there is a ton of housing available that may be the case, but when housing is in short supply it is definitely not correct. In Melb the owners can pretty much name their price and people are so desperate to get the houses that they are paying monstrous amounts. Far more, in my opinion, than what the housing is worth... and some of the houses are in very poor condition, but sometimes you simply have no choice.

exactly my point, people are paying

except that it isn't the renter that is determining the rent paid... the renter currently (at least in metro Melb) is held over a barrel squealing as they are having vital organs extracted!

[Ospif1]

Hopefully the incentive of investment properties is reduced in the future to help stabilise the market and give more opportunities for people to own a home.

[stevo qld]

Without a doubt, if I had a rental home in Brisbane, I would sell, take the money and run. A genuine purchaser would then get the home they want and the tenants can go and whinge on the ABC about the dastardly landlords who have the temerity not to buy a home for their use.

Buying a rental home is simply investing in a small business with a view to making a profit, as most investors wish to do. If the business does not make a profit then there is no tax to pay on the profit. Any such losses are set against other income.

This is normal business taxation and some seek to make it a political issue by tagging it Negative Gearing. I would not be surprised to find that a lot of landlords have exited the market and the tenants would be supporting whatever party whinges the loudest about the poor downtroden tenant.

There is a clear difference between the parties related to this string, but it wont change my intention to vote for a woman, a single mum and a professed aboriginal, simply because the incumbent is not really up to scratch IMHO. i don't believe new governments are voted in, rather old governments are voted out when enough people, in the marginals get a stench from the incombents.

The leaders and attention grabbing politicians and journalists are not running in Bonner. They are out of my influence potential.

[Alan59]

The fundamental importance of residential housing is not as an investment opportunity but as a core of social and economic stability.It was Menzie's big pitch when he founded the Liberal Party.Although negative gearing was there things stayed in a sort of balance until Costello halved the capital gains tax.Within a year the share of home loans in Sydney written for investors went from a long term figure of around 14% of loans to over 50%.This heated up the prices and started putting people out of the market.This has continued to get worse.Long term because the entire Australian retirement income system is based on the premise that the vast majority of people own their homes a situation where a big number don't is either socially or economically unsustainable.Do those 40% live on the street or do we build social housing for 40% of the population?Added to that is that residential property investment while lucrative for those lucky investors is a completely economically unproductive investment.
Big issues with massive long term implications that won't hit fully home until most of us are dead and every current politician is long gone from the parliament.

[stevo qld]

The fundamental importance of residential housing is not as an investment opportunity but as a core of social and economic stability....

OK! Why then would investors choose to invest this way if it is not a business opportunity?

PS. I don't think Menzies is running in this election.

[Alan59]

The fundamental importance of residential housing is not as an investment opportunity but as a core of social and economic stability....

OK! Why then would investors choose to invest this way if it is not a business opportunity?

PS. I don't think Menzies is running in this election.

I said it is a business opportunity under the current taxation rules.That should not be the primary or even secondary purpose of residential housing.It is giving people a socially cohesive and economically sustainable way to build their lives.
Australia is moving towards a 2 class society based on residential property ownership.
The Menzies example was just pointing out how far the Liberal Party has moved from the tenants it was founded on to one worshipping laissez faire capitalism to the point of greed is good .

[stevo qld]

Simple answer. Stop buying houses for other people. No profit, why bother.

Rentals are fast becoming a charity and there are better charities than looking after scum and whingers, although they make a small portion of renters they are still out there.

Personally, we have bequeathed our home to the Salvation Army to use for genuine welfare housing for senior women in need.

None of which changes my attitude to the ALP and LNP coalition. IMHO, the Greens are worse.

maybe I should just vote for Craig Lowndes?

a pox on all their houses.