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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"You wouldn't last five minutes in the tough, unrewarding business of 'investing' long term in rental housing"

Unrewarding? It is unrewarding for most who relinquish their family benefits then pay medicare levies and GST (which are not deductible), estate agents, accountants, maintenance etc by being brainwashed into the scheme.

Tough? Not for those who have a wealthy family.

phooey,

If you are saying that those aspirational mums and dads 'investors' in rental property who rely on NG to make a go of it, have a distinct risk of departing the scene demoralised, exhausted and with an overall loss after selling their property at the end of say ten or fifteen years then I would agree with you.

Very, very few are ever likely to benefit from a favourable rezoning and even then it will be the developer who rightly must be paid for his even higher risks of speculation and dealing with government :(

I say that the many thousands of low to medium income 'investors' (sic) in rentals are subsidising tenants and where welfare and low income housing are concerned, being forced into doing the State and federal governments jobs for them.

Labor know all of that and are just indulging in cynical political populism - promising everything to get elected. Well, they couldn't be that stupid to believe their own class war spin, or could they? They are taking their lead from real estate marketers - false comparisons and 'bigger fools'.

Of course any attack on negative gearing will cause a flight of investors from the market and will cause a slump in home sales and prices. That will be a one way trip for that category of investors.

Will the large institutional investors, superannuation and insurance, then step as secretly hoped by Labor and Greens in to replace the lost smaller investors who were previously providing the lion's share of rentals? No, definitely not!

Interesting times ahead!

Sorry onthebeach, but I can't agree with your statement, "I say that the many thousands of low to medium income 'investors' (sic) in rentals are subsidising tenants and where welfare and low income housing are concerned, being forced into doing the State and federal governments jobs for them"

I can't see that it is anyone's job to supply housing for low income, or any income people. Why should everyone, particularly those too slack to supply their own, expect to be supplied with housing. Surely having nice housing should be a reward for effort, not a right simply for being born.

When that low income is actually no income, but a tax payer funded hand out, surely no further assistance should be forthcoming.

Perhaps small area to build a humpy, or pitch a tent could be considered a right, as in the old world, these things were available to all for the expenditure of some effort, but this expectation of getting a nice house they have done nothing to deserve is one of the problems of the modern world.

It will ultimately destroy us.

Rental property and the despised 'landlords' are political obsessions of the 'Progressive' leftists. Tenancy regulations and Tribunal precedents have moved a long way away from the rental contract of the past.

Tenants have few responsibilities and the regulations are aimed at supporting and protecting the interests and rights of the welfare recipient who cannot manage his own life and fouls and trashes the owner's property. Shelter is his right you should be aware and while the damage continues and he refuses to pay rent, the owner must follow the letter of the regulations and the extended procedures to seek eviction, with penalties against the owner for any oversight.

The owner can even be required to pay compensation through greatly reduced rent if a cloudburst should temporarily flood part of the yard - the dog, child, tenant's mates, someone, anyone might not have been able to use it for that time.

The property owner has become accountable, he is his brother's keeper where the tenant is concerned and for instance can be fined for not ensuring that the tenant has a copy of the RTA's own guidelines that are publicly available (Qld example, but other States and Territories have similar)

It is also implied in the Qld regulations that the owner must take account of any disability of the tenant (read broadly) and make changes to ensure that risks to the tenant are treated effectively. Be aware owners that those nice new easy clean tiles could become a goldmine for any professional tenant who wants to get $30k or more from shaking you down. Or that there must be a floor covering somewhere that has some wrinkle or wear that could result in a compo claim.

So yes, it is a sad fact that rental property owners are being treated as extensions of government and must provide the welfare housing that government itself, federal and State, has found too difficult, expensive and exasperating to manage and has been moving out of for years.

The tenancy regulations are written that way and the Tribunals are more than obliging in stretching the envelope to find a way to give tenants more rights. A light bulb is dead? Tenant, "Call a tradesman, now!". Goodness gracious, no tenant should be required to risk a hand cramp changing one of those. Tribunal (wringing hands), "What about electrocution if the tenant does not know to turn off the power?".

See the "consistency is overhyped" discussion