The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > A boring question of numbers

A boring question of numbers

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Is it possible that the policy abolishing the scheme of negative gearing (1985) failed because those who owned property before this date were able to keep using the perk and reluctant to sell fearing they would lose it, creating a shortage of supply keeping house prices inflated?

Did it cause a flood of buyers before this date thereby collapsed the real estate market creating the recession we had to have?

Any unbiased mathematicians out there?
Posted by phooey, Saturday, 16 April 2016 11:57:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From memory, & it was a while back, I thought it was more simple than that. A growing shortage of rental properties, & and thus an increase in rents caused the about face.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 18 April 2016 10:43:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't imagine that the bong smoking phooey is interested in facts like that, Hasbeen.

As a self-claimed expert on real estate s/he should be capable of a more informed analysis, but obviously not. From a previous thread,

phooey, "I currently own 4 investment properties .. and am retired living abroad to avoid the GST on working and middle class peoples money long enough but the gig is up".

C'mon phooey, the gig is up for you, the self-proclaimed 'Wolf of Real Estate'.

That is false flag bollocks. You wouldn't last five minutes in the tough, unrewarding business of 'investing' long term in rental housing.
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 18 April 2016 1:44:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The failure of the negative gearing restrictions under Keating happened pretty much as Hasbeen said.

The extra wrinkle was that once there was no longer a tax benefit available, the investors sold their properties, meaning there was then a shortage of rental accommodation and prices went up.

But the Sydney market was affected more immediately than most others. And that's where Labor's seats were.

Shot in both feet.
Posted by calwest, Monday, 18 April 2016 2:08:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
phooey,

The question is easily answered without mathematics.

Landlords not selling their houses would keep rental prices down, and given that rentals rose, it would be logical to deduce that more people sold investment properties than bought.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 18 April 2016 2:12:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
phooey,

The RWHTH was caused by high interest rates in the year leading up to it; nothing to do with negative gearing changes a few years before.
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 18 April 2016 3:00:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy