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 > Article Comments > Kohler's mistakes underline why negative gearing is threatened > Comments

Kohler's mistakes underline why negative gearing is threatened : Comments

By Graham Young, published 5/4/2016

Alan Kohler is a great c.ommentator but his analysis of negative gearing and the ABCC commit fundamental errors

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All
This subject should include not only negative gearing but also reduced capital gains tax as applied to properties, including the principal private dwelling.

It should also include discussion of deemed expenses and depreciation on 2nd homes - why not only allow real expenditure, not 4% (?) of a notional asset value?

Each of these and perhaps other factors as well are at foot. We are well able to consider three or more factors in a single discussion. We should do so.

While we are at it, perhaps a quick discussion about intergenerational transfers is in order as well - family trusts, estate duties and so forth. Should Australia even consider re-adopting estate duties?

Each one of these is, of course, a "sacred cow" topic - one where no politician wants to go, because he, his family, his friends and a fair share of his electors have their fingers in the pie.

To add another, consider living-away-from-home allowances as paid to politicians and others. How can a discussion of penalty rates not be parralelled by a parallel discussion of perks?

I guess that where I am heading is towards a series of discussions about what a fair and adequate remuneration and personal taxation system would look like and how to put it into place.

But the sacred cows are all in the too-hard basket. Pity, that.
Posted by JohnBennetts, Tuesday, 5 April 2016 3:23:30 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
Graham, my concern is, if we remove negative gearing, where will the development land come from, because most developments come from the reconfiguration of existing land parcels, mainly small acreages.

It stands to reason that if a developer can no longer buy a 5ac block and rent it out during the DA and planning process, with the aid of NG, then chances are they wont bother. Nobody wants to pay tax on their income then invest at a loss.

The other problem is commercial, as businesses often outgrow their premises and borrow to buy larger. While they may still claim NG on this, who is going to buy their existing building if they cant claim the interest payments.

This is a dumb policy and how such experts can think its a wise move defies logic. Perhaos we have tolearn the hard way.
Posted by rehctub, Tuesday, 5 April 2016 6:46:12 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

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