I wonder if the Members of the Labor Party realise that anyone who borrowed money on or against Slater and Gordon Shares is now negatively geared.

Nice one N82.

A company structure allows an operating loss to be written down against a future operating profit. For individuals an operating loss is limited to being offset against income only in the year it is incurred.

Should we say to companies "sorry about your loss this year but we'll tax your profit next year"?

Reading my comment back, what I meant to say more clearly is that companies can write off all their losses, eventually, so why too shouldn't individuals be able to write off all their's, including those who earn no annual income from work?

Perhaps an alternative to NG is for losses on individual investments able only to be written off against future profits (i.e. rather than current income), in the same way a capital loss can be written off against a future capital gain.

How might this re-skew investment in housing Australians? There wouldn't be much change to house prices, IMO, with supply and demand being their primary determinant.

Investment specifically in new housing could be incentivized in other ways.

Just keeping the discussion going, with the likelihood of an LNP victory protecting the status-quo anyway.

Luciferace, pre negative gearing there was no capital gains tax, either that, or the dates were close. I know several people, older than me, who would buy a property for X, sell it a few days, weeks, months, even hours later for a profit and pay no tax. So by all means write a loss off against a gain, but you would first have to remove CCT.

If by chance this were to happen it would still drive many from the market and make rentals less available. They would be driven from the market because they would have to service the debt from after tax dollars, and many current investors could not afford that.

If labor gets their way used house prices will plummet, first home buyers will find it harder and a gross shortage of affordable housing will be the end result, along with higher rents.

Prices will plummet due to lack of buyers, first home buyers will have increased competition from investors, multiple dwelling complexes will decline and rents will increase due to lack of supply.

Butch CGT came in Sept (think) '85, and NG pre-existed this.

Capital gain/loss and operating profit/loss stand separately. People use NG to help in holding costs while awaiting the best opportunity to sell for a CG. That's the punt.

NG itself doesn't contribute to wealth like capital gain. Punt wrong and you get hurt. NG is just a mitigant.

As long as all asset classes on on the same level playing field, whatever the rules, housing values might hold up due to the supply and demand factor. If we want more new housing stock, for public or private tenants, we should make incentives, not create disincentives for buying older stock which Labor promotes.

I don't know who's doing Labor's modelling on this but it seems driven by envious nongs.

Yes Luc you are so right, although NG would have only come in shortly before CCT.

I don't have a problem with CGT provided Ng stays as you take in one hand and give in the other, that's balanced. However, if you want to remove NG from existing homes, then CGT must also be removed, because at least then the used housing market will attract investors who wish to buy a property, renovate then charge a higher rent.

I have used NG over the past twenty years and all properties I own are now self funding, however, I have a carry over debt from a failed business venture that is negatively geared which from what I understand will be fine with labor should the get their way.

If this is the case, then essentially what they (labor) are saying is its fine to take a risk in non housing, but take on in housing (old stock) and you're on your own. That's plain dumb!

Surely it makes more sense to allow right offs for an essential investment like housing, than on a risky venture, apparently not.

The other dumb part about all this is that I, as an investor, can buy speculative shares in a highly volatile business, even a 'thought bubble' knowing that I can right off the losses, yet, if I choose to take a risk buying a used house, PRIVIDING RENTAL ACCOMIDATION, which is in huge demand, I can't right this off in labors plan.

The days of accumulating two or three old houses, side by side, then replacing them with multiple dwellings will also be placed at risk, placing more strain on an already struggling sector, that be availability of affordable housing