"Labor's negative gearing ..the vast bulk of revenue coming from just the top 10 per cent of households who negatively gear their properties"

What about the the 90% and what effect does it have on their investment?

What about the effect on investment generally on tenant housing? Because the greatest majority of it is established homes.

How in the world can the report be 'independent' and balanced where it is limited in scope to taxing more? Even then it is only hopeful that Labor's Class War idealism might result in new construction.

Taking the big investors that the academic (he is no longer at the ANU is he) says will deliver the windfall tax that Labor expects, they would also be the very largest investors in shelter and very likely too it would be speculative money and not theirs, why would they continue to invest where their return is going to be substantially reduced?

It would do the academic a world of good to have a sobering learning encounter with the real world by hauling his arse along to some of the meets of property investors that are regularly held in capitals. They are all very, very average Mums&Dads aspirational investors who live from pay to pay and are taking high risks for low returns somewhere in the indefinite future.

Some Class War, its greatest effect will be on the low income investors who are being forced by government to provide for their retirement without the Age Pension and for their eventual aged care.

otb,

"....They are all very, very average Mums&Dads aspirational investors who live from pay to pay and are taking high risks for low returns somewhere in the indefinite future."

Well that's a load of old cobblers...one that is fast being disproved by a bit of cogent analysis.

"The myth of 'mum and dad' property investors"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-24/janda-the-myth-of-mum-and-dad-negative-gearers/5766724

"Property groups want us to believe that average income earners dominate property investment and negative gearing - a closer look at the statistics shows that's a furphy"

"What is surprising is that, according to the Housing Industry Association, nearly three quarters of them earn a taxable income of $80,000 or less."

"Figures compiled by the Reserve Bank from that survey show that investment housing loans are, unsurprisingly, more than twice as common amongst the top fifth of highest-earning households than amongst any other income group."

"Almost 74,000 people who declare rental income or losses have a total income of less than $0 - that's right, they either live on nothing or have other means of paying the bills that don't have to be declared to the ATO."

Shifty as it comes.

All too much to post here...perhaps you'd like to peruse the article and educate yourself, otb.

I have nothing against people of means increasing their property portfolios - they are more than welcome...but they shouldn't be allowed to ride on the backs of the taxpayer to do it.

Labor risks a rapidly gathering one-way flight from investment in rental housing.

For years the industry has been shaky with low returns (Howard's and successive governments keep taking cookie-cutter bites) and severe management problems through the incessant, anti-investor regulatory changes that advantage tenants and resulted in high management overheads, expensive property management by REAs is one example.

Typically too, that report did not consider the flow-on effects of Labor's class war, the unforseen (not even considered) negative consequences, including the disincentive to invest life's savings to provide housing for other people.

Rental housing competes in the market for funds. It is mainly the less financially astute Mums&Dads who buy into the risky, croc-infected swamp that is tenanted property. The Mums&Dads have limited, usually fixed income and small assets (typically their own home with a existing large mortgage).

There are NO major institutional investors in rental housing in Australia. That is for damned solid reasons, high risks and poor returns.

As might be expected of the flakey Shorten, the man who is too gutless to do anything about union bosses controlling Labor, the real, massive contributors to high housing prices are ignored: massive immigration for that idiotic 'Big Australia' and government taxes and charges, from three layers of government.

Lay off on the high immigration and give some breathing time for developers and infrastructure to catch up a mite.

Poirot,

There are existing threads devoted to negative gearing and to immigration. Did you post on either?

Rather than continue a discussion that is hijacking this thread, it would be only fair to the OP and other posters here to conduct further discussion on one or preferably both of those threads,

"An open letter to Mr Bill Shorten on negative gearing proposal"
Thread started by rehctub on 15/2/2016, at 9:13:38 PM.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7194

"Migrants driving population growth to 24 million"
Thread started by NathanJ on 17/2/2016, at 10:32:21 PM.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7199

otb,

Jeepers! - that sounds very formal!

You are a doozy.

As you well know, my brief foray into Labor's negative gearing policy was in response to Suse remarking that she thought Labor had no policies.

Here's what I posted in response to that:

""Independent modelling backs Labor's negative gearing policy"

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/independent-modelling-backs-labors-negative-gearing-policy-20160219-gmyl8o.html

"Independent modelling has dented the Turnbull government's attack on Labor's negative gearing policy, finding it will generate billions for the Commonwealth with the vast bulk of revenue coming from just the top 10 per cent of households who negatively gear their properties.

The report's author says the policy would likely slow the pace of house-price growth and boost new housing construction, making it "potentially the biggest housing affordability policy the country has seen."

It's a brilliant policy...and what's more Labor are actually able to articulate it to the public."

Wow!

In response to my relatively brief mention, you followed it up with not one, but TWO verbose posts on the subject...(obviously to which I responded)

I hadn't intended to post anymore on negative gearing, since my point had been made and I deemed it sufficient....but then in storms otb with his hackneyed "Mums&Dads" spiel.

Why, if you're so concerned that I'm "hijacking the thread", did you yourself "hijack" it far more fulsomely by extending the conversation?

That's a simple question...I'm sure you can answer it?

As it happens Poirot, we have an investment unit we rent out and negative gear, and we don't have any other properties and nor are we 'well off', so naturally I don't like Labor's policy on the matter at all.

I will also wait and see how Turnbull goes, instead of writing him off as suave, but meanwhile I will continue to vote for my local Nationals representative in elections because they do best for our town.
If that means it's a vote for the Liberals, by default, then so be it.