Pos­i­tive about the neg­a­tive

Herald Sun - Property - - OPINION -

NEG­A­TIVE gear­ing is such a po­lit­i­cal hot potato it would seem.

Of­ten it is asked, “what are the fun­da­men­tal dif­fer­ences be­tween the ma­jor po­lit­i­cal par­ties of 2016?”

Well, here it would seem is one of those dif­fer­ences, and those for and against seem to be able to quote a fairly equal amount of data prov­ing their own point of view.

I did ac­tu­ally dare to comment on this topic last year and re­ceived an email, one only, lam­bast­ing me for my ig­no­rance and lack of fi­nan­cial ex­per­tise. I gath­ered they be­lieved ve­he­mently in the abo­li­tion of said tax re­lief.

I agreed with very lit­tle in this re­spon­dent’s rant, but they were cor­rect with one as­pect — I am not a fi­nan­cial, ac­count­ing or any kind of tax ex­pert. So in ex­press­ing my opin­ion, this is ex­actly that: an opin­ion, noth­ing more. My opin­ion, how­ever, is based on com­mon sense and ex­pe­ri­ence.

We all un­der­stand neg­a­tive gear­ing, in its sim­plest form in re­la­tion to res­i­den­tial prop­erty in­vest­ment, is be­ing able to claim the in­ter­est on loans re­lated to that in­vest­ment prop­erty as a le­git­i­mate ex­pense.

For me the logic be­hind this is quite sim­ple: any busi­ness or in­vest­ment will or might have some form of hold­ing costs, surely this is just one of them, if any profit is made then tax is payable on that profit.

In­vestors are not se­cretly pock­et­ing this amount — banks and lenders would no­tice if they were.

If it sud­denly be­came im­pos­si­ble to claim this as an ex­pense, when in re­al­ity it was, then the whole amount of rent less usual ex­penses would be con­sid­ered as tax­able in­come, even though it wasn’t.

For many this would be­come fi­nan­cially un­vi­able.

I have just summed up a very com­plex topic in a few short sen­tences, but for me they are the sim­ple facts. I ap­pre­ci­ate many non-prop­erty own­ers or first-home buy­ers feel no sym­pa­thy for the prop­er­ty­own­ing masses with this form of tax as­sis­tance just to open up their prop­erty port­fo­lio, but is it re­ally ex­tra help?

I would ar­gue it is not and it is a log­i­cal and le­git­i­mate in­vest­ment ex­pense, so how can it be taken away?

Let us imag­ine neg­a­tive gear­ing has gone. The ques­tion has to be asked, how many in­vestors will need to sell their prop­er­ties? How many fu­ture in­vestors will be dis­cour­aged? I would sug­gest it could be in the tens of thou­sands.

Oth­ers will ar­gue, with in­vestor buy­ers out of the way and ad­di­tional hous­ing stock for sale as in­vestors try to es­cape, this could be an ad­van­tage as it will lead to fall­ing house prices re­sult­ing in more af­ford­able hous­ing stock.

Mean­while, the op­pos­ing camp will ar­gue that with­out the in­vestors in the mar­ket­place in the cur­rent vol­ume, who ex­actly is go­ing to pro­vide rental hous­ing stock?

I would ar­gue that abol­ish­ing neg­a­tive gear­ing can only be con­sid­ered in tan­dem with a revo­lu­tion­ary new pub­lic hous­ing agenda to address the ab­so­lute as­sur­ance that there will be a fu­ture chronic short­age of rental hous­ing, be­cause with­out pri­vate land­lords there would be a real hous­ing cri­sis.

I can see both sides of the ar­gu­ment, but are our house prices drop­ping re­ally an ideal eco­nomic strat­egy?

Also, don’t for­get ten­ants who may be strug­gling to se­cure a rental home amid a lim­ited sup­ply, which I be­lieve could be the re­sult of neg­a­tive gear­ing be­ing abol­ished.

The irony for me is if we un­der­take a ma­jor pol­icy strat­egy such as this and prices do get hit, that will fuel a boom in buy­ing and, guess what? House prices will re­cover again and those not able to buy will be pay­ing as­ton­ish­ingly high rents due to a lack of sup­ply.

My side says “leave it alone”.

An­drew Win­ter hosts on Life­style

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.