What Will Happen If Negative Gearing Is Removed? | Property Prices

[@dirtmcgirt168]

If rents going up was likely, landlords would be rejoicing rather than against this. Almost all other countries don’t allow this and they are going fine, so I wouldn’t stress. Lower house rises mean people’s children and grandchildren will be able to buy a property sooner

[@tysonfinn1470]

That's because ng pushes house prices up so much. The higher the house prices go up the more you Need to rely on it.

[@Yolo942]

Hang on why are property investors so worried if rents skyrocketed due to negative gearing removal after all who wins if rents skyrocketed the INVESTORS, , my guess is a scare tactic because prices would fall and they will lose , Especially if They have a high debt gearing.

[@michaelthegreat44]

you are correct, I have 4 investment properties, I don't care either way, if my costs go up so will the rent.

[@caseymilne8223]

Aren’t rents capped per year now?

[@michaelthegreat44]

@@caseymilne8223 nope, and shouldn't be either... might be capped in government owned property but a private owner can charge whatever they want, now whether a tenant wants to pay it and it lies vacant is another matter

[@LaLaLa130878]

Grandfather condition most likely and CGT concession and tax break only applies to new dwellings… this would be a reasonable combo that would make most ppl ok to accept

[@Hunty49]

Why would someone get a new investment property then? You will be competing for renters with properties who can claim a loss while the new one can't. Unfair.

[@tysonfinn1470]

​@@Hunty49because to compete you'd have to get the ip at a cheaper rate so the numbers make sense. This in turn makes property cheaper.

[@petebeaumont253]

​@Hunty49 the fact that you use the word "unfair" in regards to property is hilarious, the whole system is unfair

[@Hunty49]

@@petebeaumont253 If you allowed the market to sort itself out, it would be ok. But there's so much government manipulation it has distorted what should be.

[@TrangLe-ef2tr]

I am investments property and development, if you don’t have much money buy townhouses ,this is number 1 choose , for stay you buy good location some time you have salary , you have money but still hard find right place rent .

[@peternutt5646]

I run a business, and my costs are offset against my business income, that is what should happen with an IP, and you carry forward your losses, not claim against other income streams, it is not a business it is a rort.

[@matthewelliott7333]

1 problem there Peter….Your business unless it’s a charity, only benefits you and doesn’t provide a public housing solution. So no, you are wrong.

[@timapple9157]

Mostly agree, but it's an oversimplification to use the 1980's 1% rental vacancy rate in Perth and Sydney only, increasing rents. In the other cities the negative gearing changes had little effect according to a parliamentary submission from Saul Eslake in 2103. Interest rates were at 15% in 1986/87 also pushing up rents.

[@theodociocozanitis5437]

Removing negative gearing. Will effect those properties that are positive gearing . why u ask . Let’s say if a landlord need to renovate a house just a kitchen these days will cost over $15k that will place it into negative after rent is paid . Only option landlord will have is increase rent or not renovate. This in turn will effect tenants and other industries that rely on renovations. This only one point. Lots others points that will be effected I will not post them .

[@henrynguyen4315]

Well he can still renovate with the long term outlook that the landlord can either as you mentioned increase the rent or increase the value of his/her property for later when they sell.

[@JHam2023]

My understanding is that existing investments will be grandfathered. My gut feel is that many investors will rush through the door and purchase properties before the rules changes so that it inherits the grandfathered rule. This would also be a double whammy for renters - rents would definitely increase as landlords would account for the expenses even though they have grandfathered the rules to align with new investment houses without negative gearing. We have five rental properties (4 houses and one townhouse in Henley Beach) that were all purchased pre covid, all purchased between 220-300k in Adelaide. All are now close or over to 800k, with rent around 500-600. We pay P&I on each loan. But if things change, we may try and accumulate more properties before the rule change to take advantage of the grandfathered rule. The government will no doubt do something without thinking - just like they have done with immigration which has been the main cause of the housing crisis next to allowing international investors buying up houses that sits empty.

[@andrewengland12]

Negative gearing is only applied to new builds and CGT only applys for owner occupied

[@SubwayOM]

your assumptions are wrong. Even in the unlikely event of negative gearing abolishment, negative gearing will be grandfathered for ALL existing investment properties

[@nickGTFX]

Source? Otherwise it’s just conjecture/speculation

[@SubwayOM]

@@nickGTFX grandfathering is not speculation but everything else is

[@TheBillyo13]

He literally says that. Did you actually watch?

[@101spirited]

@@TheBillyo13 I doubt it

[@NekoEspada]

I don't care if negative gearing is removed because I care more about holding property and getting passive rental income and living a simple life, no materialism and hedonism, just able to pay bills and save for travel when I'm older and not working, but I doubt they will remove negative gearing because the vast majority of politicians own multiple properties.

[@sometingwongwai9679]

I can offset way more from my dodgy ebay store than negative gearing. Does it mean i don't pay tax on my positive geared properties??

[@2mallikharjuna]

Can they tax on tax, for example paying taxes on top of land tax?

[@changnomis]

Let’s face it. Abolishing negative gearing will decrease median sale prices especially units and apartments prices. But it will also cause rent to go up.

[@dynamic283]

If there’s people that have property solely to reduce taxes and are required to sell it’d be great. Then more first homebuyers can get in on the market and actually live in them and then you have less renters on the market.

[@caseymilne8223]

They’ll need to cap rent as well! We’ll see!

[@josephj6521]

It ain’t getting cancelled. Relaaaaax. It’s a media beat-up.

[@trevorleggo1777]

I have always believed and actioned my purchasing property that will put me into positive cash flow within 18 months of the purchase. All that you have said, as usual, I agree with. Negative gearing was originally designed by the government with the intent to get private buyers to purchase property to help make properties available for renters. This was to take pressure off public housing. So leave it as it is. it failed 40 years ago and it will create a huge shift causing more imbalance. Bravo Ravi, as usual. I did not originally say you are biased as a particularly nasty vein, it was simply a reflection for consideration for your audience, note, just about all of my comments have applauded the correct insights you bring.

[@Hunty49]

Negative Gearing was introduced in 1936 during a housing shortage. It worked. Now during a housing shortage, Labor wants to get rid of Negative Gearing. That's like during a shoe shortage, removing a shoe discount. NG has never been an issue. And until Labor and Greens created a housing shortage by having mass immigration overpopulating Australia, they are trying to think of ways to make people give up their properties.

[@johncat9261]

Great video , very informative 😊

[@jamesho9500]

Great contenent mate

[@pablollanos7421]

Well if we are to be fair, if you cant offset your loses then the capital gains shouldn’t be attributed either… Still want to remove negative gearing then? Go ahead… Otherwise there seems to be some double standards here

[@srinivasdumpala637]

You keep negative gearing, but take all capital gains, not even tax

[@Jake.steve3658]

Why set the fear. Its just one problem government policy that's gone wrong. So stop negative gearing. Why set fear in the market anything that can help people. Why challenge it .give it a chance.

[@kelvinjames6344]

Public housing tenants retired or unemployed should be relocate to regional or where no jobs because workers need homes

[@anthonycoyle2889]

I live in the regional area, these so much work you trip over it

[@ourfavourite6046]

Removing Negative gearing will destroy borrowing power for investors. Property price will fall

[@angusmace9515]

Ravi what does quandale dingle mean

[@RobertAnthony___zz]

Hallelujah!!! I’m blessed and favored with $60,000 every week! Now I can afford anything and support the work of God and the church. For Your glory, LORD! HALLELUJAH!

[@angelaleahy1478]

It's not a hobby, we are in the "business" of investing in property, and should be able to claim any annual losses. If the government abolishes negative gearing it will have major consequences. The goal is to hold as many for as long as possible and it helps in the early stages particularly to claim what you can. The government needs as many people as possible to self fund their retirement, why would you discourage this.

[@the_astro_garden]

Exactly.

[@shanewatts-wt5bc]

The government is not suggesting you can't claim annual losses. In most countries without so called negative gearing, you can still claim losses but only against the income derived by that asset. Australia is only one of a couple of countries in the world that allows reclaiming losses against personal or other forms of income. If they did abolish, you would likely be able to offset losses for future years.

[@slug.racing]

The fact you wrote that tells me you have no idea how NG works

[@peternutt5646]

I run a business, and my costs are offset against my business income, that is what should happen with an IP, and you carry forward your losses, not claim against other income streams, it is not a business it is a rort.

[@mikaylahillsley4468]

You do pay capital gains on your own property on land over 2ha Careful what you say

[@JHam2023]

We are talking about rental properties, not rental farms 😂😂😂😂 Jokes!

[@nickchandra4890]

Very simple. Rents will go through the roof. It happened before. Also this is why rents are high in UK. No negative gearing. End of story. As investors jump out rents will go up.

[@javierlorenzo7138]

You always talk about the wrong property. Can you give us an example?

[@razz0r1980]

Its a rort! And it needs to be gone and should have never been put in place!

[@kelvinjames6344]

Sell all public housing houses to private market and use the money to build apartments metres in the air like every other country does for public housing

[@emp731]

remove the immigrants

[@qwazxwas]

Removal of asset costs deductions for a single type of asset is market manipulation. Should governments do that? Removal across all assets will destroy the economy.

[@Sr24255]

One property/family but if you have more money then buy as many as you can dont expect any from any one becoz u are already rich

[@matthewelliott7333]

Well said mate 😂😂😂😂

[@peternutt5646]

Rort for the rich, get rid of it FFS

[@matthewelliott7333]

How is it a Rort? It’s a financial loss you tool! If you make money you pay tax, if you make a loss it’s a claim…Plus investors are providing a public service that the government and therefore tax payers are not providing which is…you guessed it, rental properties so tax payers have somewhere to live. Look beyond the obvious, it’s narrow minded tools like you that will ruin a country,you probably vote Labour and have your hand out for the next Gov incentive…

[@gus5966]

Thanks Tard